Modern Art
Zephuros
that the work of modern artists has become cold, souless and lacking
any beauty. In my worst moments, I view the modern art of my
generation (I'm 24) as cheap and tacky. I revile exhibitions such as
the turner prize (the fast food chain of the art world) for appearing
to be nothing but a publicity stunt or putrid reality tv show. In the
run-up to the competition you often have 'artists' explaining their
work using artistic jargon and nonsensical psychobabble that the
general public will never understand. I can't stand these kinds of
artists, I find them to be lazy and self-centred. It seems to me like
they don't care whether the public understand their work so long as
they are recognised by the right people in the art world. FOR MONEY.
Now, I'm not an art expert, or an artist. I studied art in college
about 6 years ago, and even then I felt disillusioned by the current
state of the art world. Though in truth, I hid my disgust of the
Turner Prize from my teachers and fellow students-like it was some kind
of dirty secret!
I felt like the legacy of past masters such as Da Vinci, Michaelangelo,
Rodin, Cezanne, etc was being sullied by modern artists. All the
pioneers of fine drawing, sculpture and painting were being abused!
Worse still, and this is the whole point of my topic. I feel that
artists today, are destroying the bridge between the artist/artwork and
public. A bridge spanning back through time, cemented in the
Renaissance, an understanding and appreciation of the importance of art
in our society. Art as communication, as the ultimate expression of
the human soul, evidence of humanity's ability to appreciate true
beauty and the profoundest of concepts.
Perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way. Maybe artists are just reflecting
our current, bleak times of fear and terrorism. But listen to the
average person on the street label art: "a load of rubbish." They've no
appreciation of the importance of art in human society. Even worse,
they don't differentiate between one piece that they don't like, and
the rest that art has to offer. The legacy of art is tarnished every
time a person says that-and I hear it more and more these days.
Please discuss.
paradox
We're certainly losing the art of storytelling.
You might wish to review "The Time Compression Trade Off" for
intermediate cause.
DrNath...@gmail.com
I am not so sure I totally agree with your assumptions. On one hand,
you make points that are relevant to the discussion. But, let's also
make sure we place in context the art of Cezanne - an impressionist -
whose work was little understood and the larger movement, consisting of
Monet and others - were also considered problematical to non-artists.
If we step back even further to the works, say of Caravaggio, you would
also find scandal and some public disillusionment over his paintings.
It seems that what you are really seeking is a throwback to classicism.
While that is well and good, there are others who would contend that
such art - as beautiful as it was - had/has a sterility to it.
I understand your frustration with what seems to be the self-serving
artist and the insistence by an artist that crucifix immersed in urine
or chicken wire woven through tin cans is 'art'. Yet, that brings up a
whole other discussion on two age-old questions: "what is art" and
"what is the purpose of art"?
You also seem frustrated with an artist's interest in making money.
Why? Michelangelo made vast sums for his Renaissance art. Picasso also
did fairly well. Others, though posthumously recognized, fetched large
sums of cash for seemingly bizarre or even questionable works of art. I
guess I am asking the question: what's wrong with making money on one's
art if there is in fact a market for it? Apparently some one finds
value in it - both aesthetically and monetarily.
Your thoughts?
chazwin
unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."
Al Capp (1909-1979), American cartoonist
paradox
Zephuros might be on to something.
Lee
fact modern art or it's meaning. I do know that art comes from a place
inside differant from our ratinal facilties, I guess though ultimatly,
you like what you like, and you dislike what you do.
Or rendered into London speak for ya, 'Horses for courses mate.'
Mistery
postmodernist times now and modern shouldn't be confused with
contemporary.
I don't share your view on art:
Zephuros wrote:
> What are your opinions of modern art and the artists of today?
Many artists have stated that everybody is an artist, Sol Lewitt,
Duchamp.
We are in a society where, if you want a painting on your wall, you can
find books on arts & crafts and materials to create the painting you
want. It makes things a little harder for the people who decide to earn
their bread by painting.
Can you say a sunday painter is not an artist?
I feel
> that the work of modern artists has become cold, souless and lacking
> any beauty.
There is beauty in everything, Art is like a window on the world, there
are so many things that get created today, It isn't all cold, souless,
and lacking beauty.
I find you comment cold and souless (I find this one too.)
In my worst moments, I view the modern art of my
> generation (I'm 24) as cheap and tacky. I revile exhibitions such as
> the turner prize (the fast food chain of the art world) for appearing
> to be nothing but a publicity stunt or putrid reality tv show.
And in your good moments? look up people like Andy Goldworthy, I love
his land art.
In the
> run-up to the competition you often have 'artists' explaining their
> work using artistic jargon and nonsensical psychobabble that the
> general public will never understand.
It is normal, they where usually educated to use that jargon, like some
scientific terms that the general public doesn't understand...
I can't stand these kinds of
> artists, I find them to be lazy and self-centred.
I am egocentric too and so is most of the world in my eyes. How many of
these artists can you say you know?
It seems to me like
> they don't care whether the public understand their work so long as
> they are recognised by the right people in the art world. FOR MONEY.
It is better for them to go and get the money where they can find it
rather than stealing it from the poor public. Just like you , without
money, no food, no proper shelter...
So the artists you don't like are the successful ones?
> Now, I'm not an art expert, or an artist. I studied art in college
> about 6 years ago, and even then I felt disillusioned by the current
> state of the art world. Though in truth, I hid my disgust of the
> Turner Prize from my teachers and fellow students-like it was some kind
> of dirty secret!
> I felt like the legacy of past masters such as Da Vinci, Michaelangelo,
> Rodin, Cezanne, etc was being sullied by modern artists. All the
> pioneers of fine drawing, sculpture and painting were being abused!
Don't you want art anymore, put an end to it all and just remember the
old guys who have long gone?
> Worse still, and this is the whole point of my topic. I feel that
> artists today, are destroying the bridge between the artist/artwork and
> public.
Yep, Street art and works by characters such as BANKSY and others is
just crap in city?
A bridge spanning back through time, cemented in the
> Renaissance, an understanding and appreciation of the importance of art
> in our society. Art as communication, as the ultimate expression of
> the human soul, evidence of humanity's ability to appreciate true
> beauty and the profoundest of concepts.
>
> Perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way.
You don't choose how you feel! so why would you be wrong to feel that
way?
I feel sad that you feel that way about art today.
Maybe artists are just reflecting
> our current, bleak times of fear and terrorism. But listen to the
> average person on the street label art: "a load of rubbish." They've no
> appreciation of the importance of art in human society.
They don't realise that art is all around them?
Even worse,
> they don't differentiate between one piece that they don't like, and
> the rest that art has to offer.
I feel confused because of what you where saying earlier!
The legacy of art is tarnished every
> time a person says that-and I hear it more and more these days.
>
> Please discuss.
All I can say is:
Read you initial post and think about it.
Zephuros
I would never condemn anybody's personal preferences. I hope I didn't
give that impression.
Lee
Zephuros
venomous snake and though I understand that its purpose can mean death,
there is beauty in its design. But do contemporary artists do this, do
they communicate their intentions well? Do they give they share their
inner vision with you? Thats what I was asking everybody. I wanted to
know how you all FELT about these artists because I don't feel
anything. And that was my PERSONAL problem with many contemporary
art/artists (specifically in the last 50 or so years). I am against
trained artists who cannot or do not communicate their ideas well
outside of the art community.
Art as communication, thats what I said. Oh, you mentionned graphiti.
I don't think its crap at all. I don't condemn peoples desire to
express their art-to communicate how they feel. But I don't know any
graphiti artists. Do any stick around after the job has been done to
explain their work? You tell me.
Finally, I seemed to have created some confusion about artists earning
their 'bread and butter'. Some have assumed that I feel this is
wrong?! NO. I don't. How can they work without money, or live without
money. They have the same needs as all of us. I personally felt that
artists such as those who appear in the Turner Prize, do so for easy
money and recognition. However, I respect that gaining recognition in
the art world can be gruelling and it presents an irresistable
opportunity to gain a foothold. But once out in the open, then what?
Can people please tell me about any artists they know of who are adept
at communicating to a wide audience? I feel art should be
all-inclusive. I don't mean that art should have everybody agreeing
and nodding their heads in approval, but that everybody can get a sense
of that artists motivations.
I expected people to disagree. Even hoped! Thats the whole point of
this group isn't it? To discuss. I work nights, so I have been
starved of rational opinions lately (everybody's asleep, bless em),
which is why I decided to join this group in the first place. In this
group, we communicate our opinions rationally, and attempt to explain
ourselves rationally when confronted.
I wish I knew of any of today's artists who do the same. Maybe you can
help.
paradox
point:
"And nothing in the world has led me closer to profound concepts that
modern art and modern music. They go together, as well - which is
another thing to consider.".
Well...i just don't think so somehow.
The point is well made and taken that all art is subjectively
interpreted; but yet again, i see the spectre of "post modern"
relativism looming very large, and very frightening it is too...
To say that beauty is an amorphous concept is not to say that beauty
has no definition (that's an entirely new and interesting topic of
itself).
I feel inspired to make the trip to the "modern" world now, would
appreciate the list of modern works, please. Trade you for a list of
favourite classical music masterpieces.
A. wrote:
> Zephuros wrote:
> > What are your opinions of modern art and the artists of today?
>
> I love many modern artists. In order to love and comprehend modern
> art, it helps to be truly interested in all art, and to attempt once in
> awhile to pick up a brush or a pencil yourself. So my first question
> to you is: what kind of art do you do? Do you expect all art to be
> merely a spectator sport? If so - have you ever read Christopher
> Lasch's views on that?
>
> Why not have art that inspires us to be artists? Which art is that -
> for you? Which artists do you aspire to paint/draw like? Who inspires
> you? (From any era).
>
> I feel
> > that the work of modern artists has become cold, souless and lacking
> > any beauty.
>
> Ah - that's entirely a projection! First, do you go to museums often
> or is this all art book and web browsing?
>
> I can't imagine how anyone would say that Kandinsky is soulless - or
> even Magritte, although Magritte is witty and likes to play with
> surfaces.
>
> Van Gogh is not soulless.
>
> As to beauty - well, there are many views on that - you seem to be
> using the term in an entirely subjective way. What is not beautiful
> about color in and of itself? What about form? Is geometry also
> totally lacking in beauty to you? (It's not - to me).
>
> I do know what you mean about particular cubists, certain modernist
> portraiture (designed to deconstruct and debeautify individuals).
>
> The most hideous paintings in the entire world are medieval portraits -
> and in fact, all medieval paintings collectively ( but that's just my
> opinion: dour, rich people and clerics in full blown arrogant
> posturing - not my view of "beauty"). Pictures of hunts, hunting dogs,
> dead deer - not pretty. Unhappy looking girl/women sold into marriage
> - their portraits aren't beautiful either, but line the walls of
> hundreds of castles and art museums.
>
> My SO doesn't like still lives, either (they call them "dead pictures"
> where he comes from - but I do. I think fruit can be beautiful, but so
> can the edge of a space or a line, the curve of a cheek by itself -
> floating out into a painting by itself, the mere suggestiong of a
> lover's eye or nose - quite beautiful, to me.
>
> In my worst moments, I view the modern art of my
> > generation (I'm 24) as cheap and tacky. I revile exhibitions such as
> > the turner prize (the fast food chain of the art world) for appearing
> > to be nothing but a publicity stunt or putrid reality tv show.
>
> Yeah - while I'd agree with you there. Not about the Turner prize - I
> generally like much of what they nominate - but about the
> commercialization. Still, since you don't yourself appreciate modern
> art after some familiarity with it - they're having to use the usual
> mass means to get PR for it.
>
> In the
> > run-up to the competition you often have 'artists' explaining their
> > work using artistic jargon and nonsensical psychobabble that the
> > general public will never understand. I can't stand these kinds of
> > artists, I find them to be lazy and self-centred. It seems to me like
> > they don't care whether the public understand their work so long as
> > they are recognised by the right people in the art world. FOR MONEY.
>
> Art shouldn't have to be explained - not in that way. There is a
> system to art, of course - by which thousands of artists and curators
> cooperate in attempting to sift through a gazillion "artistic works"
> per year to find ones that are meaningful. It's no different than any
> other human enterprise.
>
> Sounds like you might like local folk art better - does your city or
> county have an arts museum or program? Is it as distasteful to you?
> Our County Fair has a small but nice art installation once a year, lots
> of local galleries here, too. Personally, I prefer the Met and Moma
> and their modern art collections to the local stuff. I end up agreeing
> with curators all the time - but I'm glad I don't have to follow it.
>
> Artists have a tough time. If they don't explain their work (and most
> aren't well prepared to do so), they get no attention at all. You
> can't expect them to give a few years of art history to the audience
> before they begin. America loves psychobabble - it's used ALL the time
> on this ng, it's just the way Oprah has taught the world to speak.
> >
> > Now, I'm not an art expert, or an artist. I studied art in college
> > about 6 years ago, and even then I felt disillusioned by the current
> > state of the art world. Though in truth, I hid my disgust of the
> > Turner Prize from my teachers and fellow students-like it was some kind
> > of dirty secret!
>
> Well - I'll bet that you'd have a hard time, even now, convincing most
> people you're not a philistine, when it comes to art.
> >
> > I felt like the legacy of past masters such as Da Vinci, Michaelangelo,
> > Rodin, Cezanne, etc was being sullied by modern artists. All the
> > pioneers of fine drawing, sculpture and painting were being abused!
>
> What a grab bag of "fine artists" you threw together there. First of
> all, Cezanne is highly modern and stylized - and his colors are often
> dull and his paintings (to me) devoid of much passion - although some
> of his landscapes are mesmerizing. Rodin sucks, in my opinion -
> completely mass-marked his views, not that great a sculptor and his
> stuff is repeated and stuck everywhere - I don't get him.
>
> DaVinci and Michaelangelo are left. The Renaissance. But this isn't
> the Renaissance. I think Michaelangelo's sculptures are marvelous, the
> religiosity of his stuff gets to me. I like the colors - but I'd
> choose a whole host of others (based on color) to go with DaV and M -
> including Rembrandt and Rubens. And Mondrian appeals more in terms of
> form and shape (to me) and FEELING, than Cezanne.
>
> If you have a chance to actually look at Picasso - who can paint like
> either DaVince or Michaelangelo - to the point that uneducated
> onlookers can't tell that he's not a Renaissance painter - and you
> watch him proceed to deconstruct art back to its primitive components -
> and then reassemble it all, in various ways, over and over again He
> shows the way into valuing modern art.
> >
> > Worse still, and this is the whole point of my topic. I feel that
> > artists today, are destroying the bridge between the artist/artwork and
> > public.
>
> When was this bridge in place? You think DaVinci was popular with the
> masses? Michaelangelo? Just how well received was VanGogh?
>
> A bridge spanning back through time, cemented in the
> > Renaissance,
>
> A bridge between Catholic hierarchy and the artists? What the heck are
> you talking about? What bridge? When were these "museums" built?
> Where exactly was this art?
>
> Or you simply mean: Catholic Church as Museum/Bridge?
>
> an understanding and appreciation of the importance of art
> > in our society. Art as communication, as the ultimate expression of
> > the human soul, evidence of humanity's ability to appreciate true
> > beauty and the profoundest of concepts.
>
> I don't think most of us need a lecture on the importance of art. What
> makes you think that "humanity" would share a joint appreciate of art?
> I just don't get this obsession with "humanity as a whole" in anyone's
> perspective - but surely not in art. Now, you're challenging worldwide
> notions of art: Eastern art, tribal art, etc. etc.
>
> True beauty? It's everywhere you look - including in modern art. That
> you can't see that more systematically isn't the problem of art - or
> humanity.
>
> Beauty is all around us. Art is all around us. Every single modern
> individual is going to respond differently - I don't need no stinking
> bridges.
>
> And nothing in the world has led me closer to profound concepts that
> modern art and modern music. They go together, as well - which is
> another thing to consider.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way. Maybe artists are just reflecting
> > our current, bleak times of fear and terrorism. But listen to the
> > average person on the street label art: "a load of rubbish."
>
> Make up your mind. Is art for the "average person on the street"?
> That person likes DaVinci because of the movies - or they've been told
> to. They can provide no meaningful reasons to explain why they like
> Mona Lisa - can you? Is she pretty? Well painted? Sincere? Is she
> more realistic the other paintings? More personality? Less
> personality? Spartan? What?
>
> They've no
> > appreciation of the importance of art in human society. Even worse,
> > they don't differentiate between one piece that they don't like, and
> > the rest that art has to offer. The legacy of art is tarnished every
> > time a person says that-and I hear it more and more these days.
>
> Indicate a time when the "average" person was into art. Art
> appreciation is achieved, according to Maslow (and many others) when
> other lower needs are met (including INTELLECTUAL understanding of the
> world). Art can be very intellectual - and intellect can be beautiful
> and beauty can profoundly shape intellect - and the world, through
> intellect. The average person doesn't care much about any of that,
> IME.
> >
> > Please discuss.
>
> You are way into generalization - which I find antithetical to the
> personal experience of art. You have to choose your days and ways of
> going to galleries - and your companionship. YOU are the one that has
> to make it art - by feeling it, participating in it, interacting daily
> with it.
>
> Ever seen the Bride Fight? How could you not like that? If you want a
> list of other "modern" paintings that I think people should at least be
> INTERESTED in - let me know.
>
> My email address is valid.
chazwin
If everything is (post) modern art.
How are we to distinguish a valuable work of art from a dog turd in the
road.
THis IS a serious question!
If an artist can place her bed along with the spunk rags in a tent and
call it art, in what way are the woodshavings on my workship floor NOT
art?
Are there to be no standards or yardsticks?
Are we to leave it all to the imbeciles in the Tate modern that buy
"objects" from friends of theirs to promote their own interests?
James Barlow
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
paradox
James Barlow
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
chazwin
James Barlow wrote:
> Modern (post-modern) artistic enterprise requires an analysis in terms of the concepts of decadence and nihilism. jb
But I have analysed Tracy Emin's bad and it is adolescent: neither
decadent nor nilhilist.
Dog shit is very decandent and nihilistic!!!
Can you tell me WHY postmodern art has to submit to these concepts -
where is it written?
WHy is it anything more than "so-called" artists and the fopish critics
taking the fucking piss?
> ---------------------------------
> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
> --0-330115977-1164819248=:81587
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
> X-Google-AttachSize: 12405
>
> Modern (post-modern) artistic enterprise requires an analysis in terms of the concepts of decadence and nihilism. jb<BR><BR><B><I>paradox <eado...@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"><BR>Aaah...it was going so well (in the main)...sublime even...until this<BR>point:<BR><BR>"And nothing in the world has led me closer to profound concepts that<BR>modern art and modern music. They go together, as well - which is<BR>another thing to consider.".<BR><BR>Well...i just don't think so somehow.<BR><BR>The point is well made and taken that all art is subjectively<BR>interpreted; but yet again, i see the spectre of "post modern"<BR>relativism looming very large, and very frightening it is too...<BR><BR>To say that beauty is an amorphous concept is not to say that beauty<BR>has no definition (that's an entirely new and interesting topic of<BR>itself).<BR><BR>I feel inspired to make the
> trip to the "modern" world now, would<BR>appreciate the list of modern works, please. Trade you for a list of<BR>favourite classical music masterpieces.<BR><BR><BR>A. wrote:<BR>> Zephuros wrote:<BR>> > What are your opinions of modern art and the artists of today?<BR>><BR>> I love many modern artists. In order to love and comprehend modern<BR>> art, it helps to be truly interested in all art, and to attempt once in<BR>> awhile to pick up a brush or a pencil yourself. So my first question<BR>> to you is: what kind of art do you do? Do you expect all art to be<BR>> merely a spectator sport? If so - have you ever read Christopher<BR>> Lasch's views on that?<BR>><BR>> Why not have art that inspires us to be artists? Which art is that -<BR>> for you? Which artists do you aspire to paint/draw like? Who inspires<BR>> you? (From any era).<BR>><BR>> I feel<BR>> > that the work of modern artists has become cold, souless and
> lacking<BR>> > any beauty.<BR>><BR>> Ah - that's entirely a projection! First, do you go to museums often<BR>> or is this all art book and web browsing?<BR>><BR>> I can't imagine how anyone would say that Kandinsky is soulless - or<BR>> even Magritte, although Magritte is witty and likes to play with<BR>> surfaces.<BR>><BR>> Van Gogh is not soulless.<BR>><BR>> As to beauty - well, there are many views on that - you seem to be<BR>> using the term in an entirely subjective way. What is not beautiful<BR>> about color in and of itself? What about form? Is geometry also<BR>> totally lacking in beauty to you? (It's not - to me).<BR>><BR>> I do know what you mean about particular cubists, certain modernist<BR>> portraiture (designed to deconstruct and debeautify individuals).<BR>><BR>> The most hideous paintings in the entire world are medieval portraits -<BR>> and in fact, all medieval paintings collectively ( but
> that's just my<BR>> opinion: dour, rich people and clerics in full blown arrogant<BR>> posturing - not my view of "beauty"). Pictures of hunts, hunting dogs,<BR>> dead deer - not pretty. Unhappy looking girl/women sold into marriage<BR>> - their portraits aren't beautiful either, but line the walls of<BR>> hundreds of castles and art museums.<BR>><BR>> My SO doesn't like still lives, either (they call them "dead pictures"<BR>> where he comes from - but I do. I think fruit can be beautiful, but so<BR>> can the edge of a space or a line, the curve of a cheek by itself -<BR>> floating out into a painting by itself, the mere suggestiong of a<BR>> lover's eye or nose - quite beautiful, to me.<BR>><BR>> In my worst moments, I view the modern art of my<BR>> > generation (I'm 24) as cheap and tacky. I revile exhibitions such as<BR>> > the turner prize (the fast food chain of the art world) for appearing<BR>> > to be nothing
> but a publicity stunt or putrid reality tv show.<BR>><BR>> Yeah - while I'd agree with you there. Not about the Turner prize - I<BR>> generally like much of what they nominate - but about the<BR>> commercialization. Still, since you don't yourself appreciate modern<BR>> art after some familiarity with it - they're having to use the usual<BR>> mass means to get PR for it.<BR>><BR>> In the<BR>> > run-up to the competition you often have 'artists' explaining their<BR>> > work using artistic jargon and nonsensical psychobabble that the<BR>> > general public will never understand. I can't stand these kinds of<BR>> > artists, I find them to be lazy and self-centred. It seems to me like<BR>> > they don't care whether the public understand their work so long as<BR>> > they are recognised by the right people in the art world. FOR MONEY.<BR>><BR>> Art shouldn't have to be explained - not in that way. There is
> a<BR>> system to art, of course - by which thousands of artists and curators<BR>> cooperate in attempting to sift through a gazillion "artistic works"<BR>> per year to find ones that are meaningful. It's no different than any<BR>> other human enterprise.<BR>><BR>> Sounds like you might like local folk art better - does your city or<BR>> county have an arts museum or program? Is it as distasteful to you?<BR>> Our County Fair has a small but nice art installation once a year, lots<BR>> of local galleries here, too. Personally, I prefer the Met and Moma<BR>> and their modern art collections to the local stuff. I end up agreeing<BR>> with curators all the time - but I'm glad I don't have to follow it.<BR>><BR>> Artists have a tough time. If they don't explain their work (and most<BR>> aren't well prepared to do so), they get no attention at all. You<BR>> can't expect them to give a few years of art history to the audience<BR>>
> before they begin. America loves psychobabble - it's used ALL the time<BR>> on this ng, it's just the way Oprah has taught the world to speak.<BR>> ><BR>> > Now, I'm not an art expert, or an artist. I studied art in college<BR>> > about 6 years ago, and even then I felt disillusioned by the current<BR>> > state of the art world. Though in truth, I hid my disgust of the<BR>> > Turner Prize from my teachers and fellow students-like it was some kind<BR>> > of dirty secret!<BR>><BR>> Well - I'll bet that you'd have a hard time, even now, convincing most<BR>> people you're not a philistine, when it comes to art.<BR>> ><BR>> > I felt like the legacy of past masters such as Da Vinci, Michaelangelo,<BR>> > Rodin, Cezanne, etc was being sullied by modern artists. All the<BR>> > pioneers of fine drawing, sculpture and painting were being abused!<BR>><BR>> What a grab bag of "fine artists" you threw
> together there. First of<BR>> all, Cezanne is highly modern and stylized - and his colors are often<BR>> dull and his paintings (to me) devoid of much passion - although some<BR>> of his landscapes are mesmerizing. Rodin sucks, in my opinion -<BR>> completely mass-marked his views, not that great a sculptor and his<BR>> stuff is repeated and stuck everywhere - I don't get him.<BR>><BR>> DaVinci and Michaelangelo are left. The Renaissance. But this isn't<BR>> the Renaissance. I think Michaelangelo's sculptures are marvelous, the<BR>> religiosity of his stuff gets to me. I like the colors - but I'd<BR>> choose a whole host of others (based on color) to go with DaV and M -<BR>> including Rembrandt and Rubens. And Mondrian appeals more in terms of<BR>> form and shape (to me) and FEELING, than Cezanne.<BR>><BR>> If you have a chance to actually look at Picasso - who can paint like<BR>> either DaVince or Michaelangelo - to the point
> that uneducated<BR>> onlookers can't tell that he's not a Renaissance painter - and you<BR>> watch him proceed to deconstruct art back to its primitive components -<BR>> and then reassemble it all, in various ways, over and over again He<BR>> shows the way into valuing modern art.<BR>> ><BR>> > Worse still, and this is the whole point of my topic. I feel that<BR>> > artists today, are destroying the bridge between the artist/artwork and<BR>> > public.<BR>><BR>> When was this bridge in place? You think DaVinci was popular with the<BR>> masses? Michaelangelo? Just how well received was VanGogh?<BR>><BR>> A bridge spanning back through time, cemented in the<BR>> > Renaissance,<BR>><BR>> A bridge between Catholic hierarchy and the artists? What the heck are<BR>> you talking about? What bridge? When were these "museums" built?<BR>> Where exactly was this art?<BR>><BR>> Or you simply mean: Catholic Church
> as Museum/Bridge?<BR>><BR>> an understanding and appreciation of the importance of art<BR>> > in our society. Art as communication, as the ultimate expression of<BR>> > the human soul, evidence of humanity's ability to appreciate true<BR>> > beauty and the profoundest of concepts.<BR>><BR>> I don't think most of us need a lecture on the importance of art. What<BR>> makes you think that "humanity" would share a joint appreciate of art?<BR>> I just don't get this obsession with "humanity as a whole" in anyone's<BR>> perspective - but surely not in art. Now, you're challenging worldwide<BR>> notions of art: Eastern art, tribal art, etc. etc.<BR>><BR>> True beauty? It's everywhere you look - including in modern art. That<BR>> you can't see that more systematically isn't the problem of art - or<BR>> humanity.<BR>><BR>> Beauty is all around us. Art is all around us. Every single modern<BR>> individual is going to
> respond differently - I don't need no stinking<BR>> bridges.<BR>><BR>> And nothing in the world has led me closer to profound concepts that<BR>> modern art and modern music. They go together, as well - which is<BR>> another thing to consider.<BR>> ><BR>> > Perhaps I'm wrong to feel this way. Maybe artists are just reflecting<BR>> > our current, bleak times of fear and terrorism. But listen to the<BR>> > average person on the street label art: "a load of rubbish."<BR>><BR>> Make up your mind. Is art for the "average person on the street"?<BR>> That person likes DaVinci because of the movies - or they've been told<BR>> to. They can provide no meaningful reasons to explain why they like<BR>> Mona Lisa - can you? Is she pretty? Well painted? Sincere? Is she<BR>> more realistic the other paintings? More personality? Less<BR>> personality? Spartan? What?<BR>><BR>> They've no<BR>> > appreciation of the
> importance of art in human society. Even worse,<BR>> > they don't differentiate between one piece that they don't like, and<BR>> > the rest that art has to offer. The legacy of art is tarnished every<BR>> > time a person says that-and I hear it more and more these days.<BR>><BR>> Indicate a time when the "average" person was into art. Art<BR>> appreciation is achieved, according to Maslow (and many others) when<BR>> other lower needs are met (including INTELLECTUAL understanding of the<BR>> world). Art can be very intellectual - and intellect can be beautiful<BR>> and beauty can profoundly shape intellect - and the world, through<BR>> intellect. The average person doesn't care much about any of that,<BR>> IME.<BR>> ><BR>> > Please discuss.<BR>><BR>> You are way into generalization - which I find antithetical to the<BR>> personal experience of art. You have to choose your days and ways of<BR>> going to
> galleries - and your companionship. YOU are the one that has<BR>> to make it art - by feeling it, participating in it, interacting daily<BR>> with it.<BR>><BR>> Ever seen the Bride Fight? How could you not like that? If you want a<BR>> list of other "modern" paintings that I think people should at least be<BR>> INTERESTED in - let me know.<BR>> <BR>> My email address is valid.<BR><BR><BR>
> <hr size=1>Access over 1 million songs - <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=36035/*http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/">Yahoo! Music Unlimited.</a>
> --0-330115977-1164819248=:81587--
paradox
You have to admit though, that the artist is trying to communicate
something, and it clearly resonates with some.
chazwin wrote:
> But I have analysed Tracy Emin's bad and it is adolescent: neither
> decadent nor nilhilist.
> Can you tell me WHY postmodern art has to submit to these concepts -
> where is it written?
> WHy is it anything more than "so-called" artists and the fopish critics
> taking the ......... piss?
> >
paradox
decadent and nihilistic than the great Roman empire 100BC - 100AD
(approx)? That period produced great imaginative works.
chazwin
The finest and most excellent art was produced from the 5thcentury BC.
It has been widely copied and emulated from that time to the modern
day. Figures of living and breathing life were painstakingly knocked
out of solid marble with the blood and sweat visionary craftsmen. How
dare Tracy Emin compare herself with these unknown masters of the
ancient world?
A.
paradox wrote:
> Aaah...it was going so well (in the main)...sublime even...until this
> point:
>
> "And nothing in the world has led me closer to profound concepts that
> modern art and modern music. They go together, as well - which is
> another thing to consider.".
>
> Well...i just don't think so somehow.
You don't have to think so.
This isn't math and there are no equations. Let's establish that
first. We're talking about art and music - or at least, I am.
Someone said modern art was "Z" and I say I have a different view. You
are plainly entitled to think differently.
>
> The point is well made and taken that all art is subjectively
> interpreted; but yet again, i see the spectre of "post modern"
> relativism looming very large, and very frightening it is too...
Why does relativism scare you so badly? Why does post-modernism scare
you so badly? There are about a zillion different flavors of it - and
they ALL scare you? How odd.
Does art scare you too? Most of what people are calling "modern art"
here (apparently - I don't see many examples given - and I'm not going
to classify my own examples right now, since I already know what
categories I have things in - for the moment) - is post-modern.
So you are afraid of post-modernism - and that would include modern
art? Am I getting it?
Why?
What's your own personal state of the art definition of post-modern?
Why would you think any of us would share that definition? If we don't
know your definition, what did you intend to communicate by using the
phrase?
>
> To say that beauty is an amorphous concept is not to say that beauty
> has no definition (that's an entirely new and interesting topic of
> itself).
Correct. Did I use the word amorphous? I hope not - it must have been
a TIA.
>
> I feel inspired to make the trip to the "modern" world now, would
> appreciate the list of modern works, please. Trade you for a list of
> favourite classical music masterpieces.
Why? In the first place, whatever my list might be - it's my list, and
I'm not feeling personally appreciated here. That's the kind of thing
that would inspire someone to share their list, you know?
Also - I mentioned modern music. Why are you mentioning classical
music? The words "classical" and "modern" are quite different.
I'm not interested at all in your list of favorite classical music
masterpieces, not only do I have my own large list, my taste in music
is much narrower than my taste in art. And, I have plenty of access to
music lists from people who share my musical AND artistic tastes, which
works for me. I don't spend much time randomly listening to music
suggested by strangers.
On the other hand, I'm not complaining that I dislike EITHER modern art
OR classical music OR modern music.
Au contraire - I'm the one with a real and abiding appreciation, love
and lust for all three - and many, many, many ways of flirting with
art, with music, interacting with it, tasting it, appreciating it,
nurturing it, using it, fighting with it, ignoring it - and so on.
What makes you think I'd like any of your music?
I offered a list of modern art pieces merely to indicate what I thought
was art - and to be able to ask specific questions, because, just as I
can't imagine anyone hating Mozart, I can't imagine someone totally
Starry Night. I don't want to imagine it, either.
Can you?
Is it going better now?
chazwin
paradox wrote:
> Some pretty strong views, eh?
>
> You have to admit though, that the artist is trying to communicate
> something, and it clearly resonates with some.
It certainly resonants with her bank manager, and the crowd of "art
critics" who are raking in the dosh by promoting her and then selling
off her "works".
My point is that it cannot be talked about in the same breath as the
Parthenon marbles. There has to be more to it. Anyone can reassumble
their sleeping arrangements; people who work in the slaughter house
remove the heads of cattle with deft skill; what special talent does it
take to assemble a few tires in the form of a submarine, we are being
duped.
None of the is is the same as art. It might resonate, it might be
interesting but there is nothing to it.
paradox
> Is it going better now?
Errr, yes; absolutely. It had better be, i think.
> Someone said modern art was "Z" and I say I have a different view. You
> are plainly entitled to think differently.
Yes, quite. Glad for the diversity of opinions too.
> Why does relativism scare you so badly? How odd.
It is terrifying. Actually it's not in the least bit odd (there's
another healthy diversity of opinions). The phenomenal quality of the
colour "red" may be subjective, but imagine it corresponded to any
spectrum of reflectance that we felt like assigning on any given day.
Further, and worse still, imagine that we were all "right", when we
felt like it? Thankfully, we have intermediate concepts that serve as
"attractors" to keep our egos and insecurities in check. They may be
(usefully) ambiguous, but they are not meaningless.
> So you are afraid of post-modernism - and that would include modern
> art? Am I getting it?
The fear is of post modern relativism, not of modern art (of which i
know very little, about which i was willing to learn, and for which you
turned down my request for guidance). The little i have experienced of
modern art was succinctly expressed by the author of this discussion
topic (in the main); in one word, unimaginative. I am keen to be
re-educated.
> Did I use the word amorphous? I hope not - it must have been
> a TIA.
What on earth is a "TIA"?
> In the first place, whatever my list might be - it's my list, and
> I'm not feeling personally appreciated here. That's the kind of thing
> that would inspire someone to share their list, you know?
If i contributed to this feeling, i apologise unreservedly. It was not
my intention. I thought your contribution was meaningful and informed;
i just thought to introduce a lighter moment.
> I'm not interested at all in your list of favorite classical music
> masterpieces, not only do I have my own large list, my taste in music
> is much narrower than my taste in art. And, I have plenty of access to
> music lists from people who share my musical AND artistic tastes, which
> works for me. I don't spend much time randomly listening to music
> suggested by strangers.
Ok
> I'm the one with a real and abiding appreciation, love
> and lust for all three - and many, many, many ways of flirting with
> art, with music, interacting with it, tasting it, appreciating it,
> nurturing it, using it, fighting with it, ignoring it - and so on.
> What makes you think I'd like any of your music?
Ok
> I offered a list of modern art pieces merely to indicate what I thought
> was art - and to be able to ask specific questions, because, just as I
> can't imagine anyone hating Mozart, I can't imagine someone totally
> Starry Night. I don't want to imagine it, either.
>
> Can you?
I dont think so....is "Starry Night" a work of modern art?
Lee
that could possibly be, what people are prepard to go and see, or pay
to go and see must have merit?
paradox
merit? That's the question Zephuros raises, i think.
Lee
> Quite right; commercial merit. Is that the same thing as artistic
> merit? That's the question Zephuros raises, i think.
Umm good question that one. On the surface it would appear to be so, I
mean who would pay much for a piece of art that had no artistic merit,
subjectivity notwithstanding?
DubiousChrisJ
Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
Lee
> Velvet Elvis?
>
> Commercial viability has never been intrinsically linked to artistic merit,
> although great pieces often have both. Bad art sells all the time. Good art
> languishes all the time. It takes a special collaboration of talent, timing,
> fortune and friends to guarantee good art being commercially viable.
Again you may well be right DC, heh what do I know about art?
Admitedly not a lot. I would after all probably pay a fair few pounds
for a Velvet Elvis, cor imagine that! I own only one painting and that
is an impresionist piece of my local area(it's really quite good it
makes, Brockley look like Paris) for which I paid £50 almost 17 years
ago, to gift my wife with on the first anaversary of our wedding.
I can't help but wonder also if timing has more to do with it than the
other thinks you mention?
chazwin
Sadly true. And if so we can reassure oursleves that as we live in a
post-modern world I am free to presonally reject the yardstick of
commercialism, and reject the vast majority of abstract art. Though I
will not be quiet about it has I feel people are being duped.
Taken to its logical end the same yardstick would put Shakespeare on
the same stage as the worst but most popular soap opera. Would anyone
argue for that??
Chazwin
PH
I would have to agree that today's modern art lacks...it lacks
enthusiasm, detail as well as creativity. We live in a hasty world in
which quantity seems to be more important than quality and one must
know what is expected of them in order to deliver... communication is
consequential. Art needs to be well thought out, have special meaning
which flows with the artist's creativity. Most artists use their
senses as they literally pour their soul into their work. The correct
materials and timing of their application is so very important.
Now take the Great Masters of yester-year they were about quality,
about precise placement of color, light and imagery. The greats never
finished their work in a day or week even; they took their time
evaluating each and every move and I guarantee you it involved accurate
mathematical calculations. Have you ever noticed how detailed they
were with each piece of work? Each masterpiece has some form of
symbolism in it...the symbols, tell a story and/or suggest the meaning
of the work.
Art has also teaches us that there is only so much you can do with a
box of rocks, unless of course you are creative!! (5 Stones)
PH
--
Why strive to fit in when you were born to stand out.
-Unknown
Mistery
It is always a constant debate into what is the difference between an
artistic and a documentary photo for instance.
For me, in my mind, art plays with our senses.
Manzoni sold cans of his shit (Or when desecrated found to be...).
I think that Chazwin is right talking about the Dog Shit, and you will
probably find that some gallery has already exhibited dog shit.
Art, Postmodernism is a very interesting topic, I consider it to be the
world.
Well Manzoni did too, he did a "Socle" for it. (Socle is the french
word for the english word I forgot, it is a stand on wich you find
sculptures)
It is only when you have a closer look at art, that you can understand
why so many people say we live in a mad world.
A lot of thinkers, most philosophers have had deep thoughts about art,
artist dive into thoughts about art.
Art, Science, Philosophy are directly dependant on each other.
Science gave art: photography, materials...
Philosophy gave art, thoughts, theories...
My point of view is that art is everything.
Cave men did pictures those pictures evolved towards cuneiform writing.
writing is an art.
All traces from the past come frome writing, paintings, photography,
potery...
I feel that all traces from our past come from art.
Look around you, Architecture is Art, furniture are done by designers
and is art.
can you see anything at all around you that isn't linked to art or an
artist?
All the "ugly" things in museums today is probably things our kids will
love tomorrow.
(O.K. so what about Tracey Emins Bed? I think it is a window of our
time today, you do have mess at times, and on a personal level, it is
also a window on her in our time.)
If you don't understand a piece of art, maybe it is because you are not
interested in it and don't look any further. It can also be that the
work is not aimed at you, like in advertisement, The old cigarette
adverts aimed at kids and so on. (cf Ron English "Popaganda".)
There are many things I don't want to understand and know, but I don't
go raving on about.
So pieces of work that I do are personal, done for me so nobody can
understand.
Should I decypher my personal messages so that anyone can look into my
deepest feelings, I say a lot about myself as it is, somethings are
like a diary, you keep track of bad times to have more enjoyment in
good times, and keep track of good times to help you go through bad
times.
We talk about freedom, and then some people want to dictate what an
artist should or should not do?
Yep, we are in a mad world!
paradox
A. wrote:
> BTW, Paradox, you're smart and sophisticated and I hope you don't find
> my tone condescending or snippy (I'm opinionated, that's all).
A, you're generous to a fault. I'm blushing, really.
> I don't have a heckuva lot of time right this minute to delve into these two
> terms, but I want you to think about the incredibly wide range (and
> structural variation) in the term "subjective," which in my view you
> simply glossed over.
I didn't mean to gloss over them, i'm just better at listening than i
am at talking.
> First of all, subjective doesn't have clear content (it obviously
> varies from person to person). But the subjective experience of
> personhood is the very thing at stake here.
Or is it? Remember that what intermediate concepts do is to try to
establish "shared meaning", not abstracts devoid of meaning.
> Let's discuss red a bit (and you correctly deduced that my initial
> approach to most things or events - including posts by fellow humans -
> is phenomenological in essence). That is to say, I don't believe there
> is a single thing a human can see, speak or do in which they are not
> *themselves* part of the phenomenon.
Bravo
> Now, it's true that you could makeyourself into the kind of human that has a minimum > amount of personal experience. You could only read "objective science," train yourself > to only think "objective science," and then, I suppose, you could behave
> and act in terms of whatever you then (subjectively) thought "objective
> science" might be. I know lots of people who try it - I find them
> alternately hilarious and repellant.
I think you are suggesting that technically rigorous thinking may be
cold, and may contrast (or even conflict) with an emotional engagement
with the subject of thought (though a school of eminent neuroscientists
would advise this is a false dichotomy). My view on this is that each
has it's proper context and function, a contingent approach.
> A real person is an individual - and the discovery of their own individuality and subjective > viewpoint (within a vast world that contains intersubjective and objective phenomenon -
> again, in my view) is essential (to me) in constructing them *as a person.*
Thats both safe and sensible.
> So here are my first thoughts on red. I happened to wear a red suede
> jacket today - I haven't worn it in more than year - and then, there
> was your post about red. Coincidence? Perhaps.
Perhaps? I'm curious; could it be something else?
> my SO waxed eloquent about my beauty, he spent a couple of minutes showering me with
> caresses and kisses, telling me what a lucky man he was, how he can't believe his
> incredible luck to be living in a house with such a beautiful woman, blah blah.
> Personally, I think the red jacket had a lot to do with it.
I am assuming your "SO" is your partner? For a moment i thought you
might have been in the army. You sound like a lucky lady.
> Now - why does my SO have that reaction to me in red? I know for a
> fact that if I don black lingerie, it has a specific effect, as does
> white, as does blue - but red is quite special in our sexual lexicon.
At the risk of sounding "scientific" and incurring your wrath thereby,
there are some interesting ideas in evolutionary psychology that might
offer an explanation.
> Do you see what I"m saying? Art is not meant to be glanced at.
Yes, i do see what you're saying. Engagement with art is an act of
emotion, of passion.
> Frankly, when I see those classical statues, these days, I pretty much
> glance at them (although, seriously, nude males from Greek times are
> quite hot). I've seen so many repetitive, non-individualized,
> idealized males from Greek and Roman times (in statues), that I'm
> rather tired of them. They aren't any particular person - they all
> have the same bone structure, the same curly hair (they're beautiful -
> but a real man who resembles them is far more attractive and I'd never
> spend time in the statue section of a museum unless an existing, human,
> handsome male was with me).
Have you ever wondered how your handsome male companion might be
feeling? You might be concerned either way.
> Dig? I have more to say - I think it's a fascinating topic - but I'm
> not going to budge, in a discussion of aesthetics, to a point past
> "subjectivity" until we have some shared content regarding that term.
>
> Do we?
I hear you, A.
A.
> I am always running around in circles, a perpetual loop.
> It is always a constant debate into what is the difference between an
> artistic and a documentary photo for instance.
> For me, in my mind, art plays with our senses.
> Manzoni sold cans of his shit (Or when desecrated found to be...).
But not to me. Of course, I'd be happy right now with such a can - it
would be worth something and I'd sell it for sure.
> I think that Chazwin is right talking about the Dog Shit, and you will
> probably find that some gallery has already exhibited dog shit.
Meaning what? Chazwin is right about what? That dog shit is dog shit?
Yes, Chazwin is correct that dog shit is dog shit - and he's probably
right that more than one offbeat, corroded and publicity hungry artist
or art gallery has exhibited it - I'm sure that's happened throughout
time. Indeed, some art in some cultures. I'd prefer that we not
exclude non-Western art from discussion of art and eternal aesthetics
either.
Millions of people visit Rome to oooh and aaah over palladia, the
Colliseum, and the catacombs - all of these places are sites of some of
the dirtiest and most heinous events in history - and part of their
"charm." Much of the art in cathedrals and museums was commissioned by
Wealthy Bastards who literally worked people to death to get the bread
together to get their stupid portraits made and their lands painted on
canvas - if I were an artist, and I was watching your typical museum
goer tromp through "The Art Museum" oohing and aahing over the Nice
Renaissance Ladies, I'd want to install dog poop in front of their
faces too. Those works of art aren't meant to sit there in galleries
merely to be treated as poster girls.
> Art, Postmodernism is a very interesting topic, I consider it to be the
> world.
ME TOO.
> Well Manzoni did too, he did a "Socle" for it. (Socle is the french
> word for the english word I forgot, it is a stand on wich you find
> sculptures)
> It is only when you have a closer look at art, that you can understand
> why so many people say we live in a mad world.
No, friend. It's only when YOU have a closer look at art that YOU can
understand why so many people (that you know) say "we live in a mad
world." I don't say that - and that's not what I see.
But then, as an archaeology type - I am viewing this in the long run.
Try looking at how "mad" things were at - say - 12000BP or even 500BP.
Not so great, IMO. This is the best of all possible worlds - and the
task of art (I say) is to make it even better.
Now, if I used pronouns in the way that you just did (and I admire your
thought a great deal - it's your pronouns I'm objecting to), I'd say:
It's only when you take a closer look at what has really happened in
the world - throughout its history (I didn't say "our history" because
I mean the history of the whole planet, not just humans) that you can
understand why so many people say we live in a perfectly acceptable
world, that needs a bit of tweaking.
> A lot of thinkers, most philosophers have had deep thoughts about art,
> artist dive into thoughts about art.
> Art, Science, Philosophy are directly dependant on each other.
Yes - and should be. Science is trying to pull away from the fabric,
though. Very much. Major league, big time.
> Science gave art: photography, materials...
> Philosophy gave art, thoughts, theories...
> My point of view is that art is everything.
> Cave men did pictures those pictures evolved towards cuneiform writing.
> writing is an art.
Absolutely. And what you and are doing is a form of writing.
> All traces from the past come frome writing, paintings, photography,
> potery...
> I feel that all traces from our past come from art.
> Look around you, Architecture is Art, furniture are done by designers
> and is art.
> can you see anything at all around you that isn't linked to art or an
> artist?
> All the "ugly" things in museums today is probably things our kids will
> love tomorrow.
I'm definitely starting to love *you* - and my kids would love you
right now - exactly the attitude they have.
> (O.K. so what about Tracey Emins Bed? I think it is a window of our
> time today, you do have mess at times, and on a personal level, it is
> also a window on her in our time.)
Yes, no artist can be one without a personal level - and if the
audience doesn't permit that, so be it.
> If you don't understand a piece of art, maybe it is because you are not
> interested in it and don't look any further. It can also be that the
> work is not aimed at you, like in advertisement, The old cigarette
> adverts aimed at kids and so on. (cf Ron English "Popaganda".)
> There are many things I don't want to understand and know, but I don't
> go raving on about.
> So pieces of work that I do are personal, done for me so nobody can
> understand.
> Should I decypher my personal messages so that anyone can look into my
> deepest feelings, I say a lot about myself as it is, somethings are
> like a diary, you keep track of bad times to have more enjoyment in
> good times, and keep track of good times to help you go through bad
> times.
> We talk about freedom, and then some people want to dictate what an
> artist should or should not do?
> Yep, we are in a mad world!
I agree with you now - it's mad and beautiful and crazy and wonderful
and nothing could be any better!
A.
- open to email from Mistery, btw. Love your thinking!
Jugglyhead
I would say that art is thriving at the moment. Not everything's to
everyone's liking, but there's nothing to say that you have to like
everything, or even anything. It's all in the eye of the beholder in
terms of what you like. But if you think that art sucks, you should
check out amazing artists like Alex Grey and websites like Zoetic Art.
I think if you don't like art, you just haven't seen the right art.
facilitator
.com"
I have maintained a small portfolio of my work there as well, It's a
pretty good place with immense talent.
If you search under the category scratch board you will see some of my
2d sculpture.
A.
chazwin wrote:
> If everything is (post) modern art.
Big If. The modern period is held to have ended in the 1970's, btw, so
I'll accept that your definition of post-modern means 1980 and onward.
> How are we to distinguish a valuable work of art from a dog turd in the
> road.
> THis IS a serious question!
Yes - so let's get serious. First, let's examine your pronouns.
Who is this "we" in your sentence? You and the other members of the
anti-post-modern art people on this thread?
Or does it include me?
I can answer that question - your "we" does NOT include me - because I
won't be in the business, as a hobby or otherwise, of joining with
*you* in determining "what is art." How would you go about making me
(or anyone else who didn't want to be part of your art-determining
group) be part of that group?
Once you solve the pronoun problem, the answer is easy.
"We" have no way of determining the value of dogshit-art or anything
else. I do, though. And I have. It's already been done - by me, for
myself.
Why do "we" need to do it? That groupthink mentality is that important
to you?
Decide for yourself, dood.
Your appeals to the "we" are disingenuous - btw, and in my opinion,
there's a highly embedded politico-religious viewpoint in your
particular use of "we" in that sentence.
> If an artist can place her bed along with the spunk rags in a tent and
> call it art, in what way are the woodshavings on my workship floor NOT
> art?
They can be art - to you. And to whomever else finds them art. At
this point, I'm quite happy to have the bed AND the dogshit be art - at
least, art that YOU are presented with. But not your woodshavings.
Again - if you need a group vote on art, feel free to try and find it.
Democracy and voting doesn't establish a single universal value - or
dis-establish it, either, in my view.
> Are there to be no standards or yardsticks?
Standards and yardsticks are entirely different - and you hilariously
combine them.
A yardstick is objective and no - there are no "yardsticks" for
measuring art, although Pythagorus and others proposed very definite
ways of determining aesthetic proportions for art that calls upon such
proportions in its construction. You might wish to apply those - and
then, you could take a narrow stance and avoid both the woodshaving art
and the dogshit art. Pythagorus is very cool. You would, however,
using *his* yardstick - have to give up on various pieces of art as art
- like LaGiocanda, one of its aspects is that it defies classical
means.
Standards are entirely different than yardsticks. You could invent
your own (have subjective ones) or be intersubjective. Since you are
posting here, you seem to be requesting intersubjective standards - and
I'm sure that you'll find people (here or elsewhere) who will appear to
share your views. Voilá! Standards! There *is* a "we" in standards
- but it's not a universal "we." For instance, I'm not in that "we" -
and no thinking person I know who has ever been an art museum for more
than five minutes is in your "we" either - nor, apparently, do you want
me in it. If you did, you wouldn't take the attitude you take.
So, we have our standards, in my world - and we go to museums and have
no trouble with feeling frightened, unhappy, disgusted, unstimulated -
or prissy. You and your camp can do what you like.
You will forever be incapable of creating a "we" that includes everyone
- and you are forever incapable of creating a "we" that includes the
people in my "we," as we already have standards and are actively
revising them according to our standards - and you aren't there yet -
you'd have to learn *a lot more* (from someone who is part of the "we"
that I'm part of).
So yeah - have standards. Get back to us on that - obviously, you
don't want any art that challenges your Philistine mentality - or
anything else about you. You don't want art that doesn't meet your
prissy standards - I'm sure you can find lots of folks who agree.
Again, voilá! Standards! Standards of decency or standards of art -
I'm not sure - but you can label your standards of decency AS standards
of art and proceed directly to museums (or not, as you wish).
"We" won't be going anywhere together, however.
> Are we to leave it all to the imbeciles in the Tate modern that buy
> "objects" from friends of theirs to promote their own interests?
I suppose I should have used the term "imbecile" instead of
"Philistine," in the above writing, as you seem to think its use has
clear meaning. I don't know anything about the friends of the people
in the Tate modern - but I would say that if you don't like the
nepotism of a particular gallery, avoid it. I certainly don't think
anyone would start with the Tate in and of itself as the sole standard
by which "modern art" is to be measured.
However, if I were a curator, I might buy a piece of art that included
spunk rags just to irritate people like you. Can you see why? Or does
that also need to be spelled out to you?
Hint: check where you used the word "imbecile."
Clue: check how you know whether it's only nepotism?
Ad hominems and rational arguments don't mix well. But since we're
discussing art - and there is an objective "we" in that sentence (we
are the ones posting on this thread - there are posts that prove we
posted - I don't know how many of us there are, though, but I do know
that I am not you, so there are at least two of us) - we need not be
entirely rational (thankfully).
A.
A.
of art. You could use money as a market for absolutely everything - in
which case, as I am paying nothing for Chaz's opinion, it's worthless.
A.
Who would pay anything at all for a Big Mac Supersize meal, nutrition
notwithstanding?
Is that a good question to ask? Are you really interested the answer?
If you had a complete list of who these people are, would that help you
in deciding whether a Big Mac was "good" (nutrition notwithstanding)?
Could you really put nutrition aside? If so - proceed directly to the
Golden Arches, especially if in addition you believe that what people
buy (and what lots of people buy) is the key to Value.
A.
A.
showing the works in that category to my husband. I actually picked
your work out - interestingly - and he really liked it. He used the
word "wow" in fact. He relates a great deal, right now, to actual real
artists attempting art - and liked the whole concept of the artwanted
site - which I truly appreciate you directing us to (the two of us!)
At least - I'm assuming I know who you are.
The very first piece - of the 100 or so I browsed before I showed him
one that I thought might be yours - based merely on my psychic
intuitions, I guess, : - ), was "watchful eye."
He said, "That's beautiful."
And looked at it for quite awhile, as did I. We had just been
discussing Asian woodcuttings as an outgrowth of this thread (VanGogh
etc.) and then, there that was - and yes, there's an eternal quality
about it - about your art.
Interestingly, my personal favorite - from the beginning of looking -
was Yosemite, but somehow, I didn't think it was in the same style as
Watchful Eye, and I didn't think it was as likely to be universally
liked - although I know my husband would love it. It caught my eye for
a variety of reasons, not just because I love Yosemite, but because
it's one of the first new views I've seen of Yosemite in years - and,
well, I can't actually list all the reasons I would like that. I keep
going back to look at it and I find more each time.
Now, I'm sure gonna feel like a doofus if I picked the wrong artist
over there.
Warm regards,
Atalanta.
paradox
A. wrote:
> I don't know whether art is "well thought out" all the time - I think
> sometimes it is. But mostly, I believe art is inspired. I talk to
> lots of artists (and musicians) and I never hear them say (when I ask
> where they got the idea) "I thought it out." They usually say, "I
> don't know - it just came to me." And these are artists and musicians
> from many places, geographical regions and styles. I've been asking
> that question of them since I was a small child - it is a question that
> came naturally to me for as long as I could remember, if I was lucky
> enough to meet a musician, composer, stylist or artist - I would ask,
> "Where do you get that idea? How do you do that?" I also ask writers
> that question, if I get the chance - and I do. I write lots and lots
> of emails to people asking those questions - takes only a few minutes
> of my time, and the responses over the years have been enriching.
> Those people are part of my "we."
Well...come on now, Atalanta. Yes, i know (now) the many, many
permutations of subjectivity, the philosophical freedoms of democracy,
even what people may or may not be up to in suburban car parks. There
is a difference between intuition and insight, however. Generally
speaking, when we communicate, we consciously or subconsciously
construct thought / syntax / delivery, do we not? Why would/should
communicating through visual media be any different? Hmm...perhaps
thats one difference between classical art and contemporary art? What
do you think?
A.
Come on, now Paradox. Where is this going? Are you just chatting me
up?
That's very suburban. Let's have a philosophical discussion here,
shall we?
Um- the answer to your question about speech acts vs. art is, on the
face of it, simple.
Broca's brain and Wernicke's area control speech in the brain - and are
the reason why we can "unconsciously" perform speech acts. I'm shocked
that you don't know that - where ever you are that isn't a suburban car
park. Do you actually live in a third floor walk up somewhere, with
cold water, and no access to a library? I know you have internet!
At any rate, there's no analogous structure for "art." And, as posted
very very very carefully by Mistery (with whom I agree completely) art
isn't merely visual. Whatever in the WORLD made you think art is
merely purely or only visual?
Forgive my lack of punctuation - I'm not going to take the time to edit
this.
So - no, it doesn't relate (no matter how hopelessly you tack on the
question at the end) to the difference between "classical art" (which
to me CERTAINLY includes theater, both performed and written (duh)) and
contemporary art.
But this thread wasn't about contemporary art until just now - and you
changed topics again. Modern art, please.
You're posting like a silly schoolgirl. Come on dood.
A.
James Barlow
paradox <eado...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
paradox
years; i must admit, "a silly schoolgirl" has not been one of them.
It's very amusing.
A. wrote:
> Come on, now Paradox. Where is this going? Are you just chatting me
> up?
> That's very suburban. Let's have a philosophical discussion here,
> shall we?
Do i give you the impression that i'm being amorous? Other than
attempting to "picture" the fine image your SO paints of you, i am
being on my best behaviour (i think so anyway; you'll forgive me if my
subconscious appears to you to have it's own agenda, won't you?). I'm
keen to have a philosophical discussion which does not disintegrate
into assertions of subjective experience, A.
> Broca's brain and Wernicke's area control speech in the brain - and are
> the reason why we can "unconsciously" perform speech acts. I'm shocked
> that you don't know that - where ever you are that isn't a suburban car
> park. Do you actually live in a third floor walk up somewhere, with
> cold water, and no access to a library? I know you have internet!
Thought one modulated speech acts, the other auditory loops? James
makes the point pretty well, i'm sure you'd agree; the functional
architecture of the brain is anything but modular. Think about it, how
do you "unconsciously perform speech acts?". Oh, by the way, i like
your wit, though i think you're "baiting" me here.
> At any rate, there's no analogous structure for "art." And, as posted
> very very very carefully by Mistery (with whom I agree completely) art
> isn't merely visual. Whatever in the WORLD made you think art is
> merely purely or only visual?
Err...i know that great art "speaks" to one, but however keenly i have
listened on occasions when i've visited exhibitions of Great Masters,
not once have i heard the voice of the artist, much to my great
disappointment too. It is reasonable to deduce from this that art
"speaks" metaphorically?
> So - no, it doesn't relate (no matter how hopelessly you tack on the
> question at the end) to the difference between "classical art" (which
> to me CERTAINLY includes theater, both performed and written (duh)) and
> contemporary art.
I thought we were discussing the visual arts?
Perhaps i wasn't making the point well enough, A. I'll give it another
shot. I am walking along the banks of a gently undulating river (far
away from that 3rd floor flat with internet access you described
earlier). Suddenly, i have a "vision" of an aurora. I pull out my
sketchpad, and quickly sketch an outline. I get back to my cottage and
work on this "vision" until it faithfully represents my original
vision. I have reproduced my intuition. The following day, i am walking
in nearby woodland, with towering trees and rich fauna. I'm thinking
about mortality, and love that transcends time. I reflect that none
loves so unconditionally than the love of a happy child. Having walked
for a considerable time, i approach my cottage, and i understand that
our most valuable legacy are the days we bring happiness into the lives
of others. I want to capture this insight in my own way, for time and
posterity. I paint a beautiful portrait of a child and express freedom
in her smile, hope in her eyes. I have reproduced my insight.
Which of these two works has a story to tell, i ask you? (oh, by the
way, i don't paint; you can probably tell).
chazwin
A. wrote:
> chazwin wrote:
> > If everything is (post) modern art.
>
> Big If. The modern period is held to have ended in the 1970's, btw, so
> I'll accept that your definition of post-modern means 1980 and onward.
ALL historical periods are arbitary. As a postmodern archaeologist I
can assure you of that. As a postmodern artist you can disagree. Isn't
relativism great?
>
> > How are we to distinguish a valuable work of art from a dog turd in the
> > road.
> > THis IS a serious question!
>
> Yes - so let's get serious. First, let's examine your pronouns.
>
> Who is this "we" in your sentence? You and the other members of the
> anti-post-modern art people on this thread?
We - as in anyone who might ask a similar question.
> Or does it include me?
Well we will have to see - but you probably wont answer the question so
you might as wel stop now!
>
> I can answer that question - your "we" does NOT include me - because I
> won't be in the business, as a hobby or otherwise, of joining with
> *you* in determining "what is art." How would you go about making me
> (or anyone else who didn't want to be part of your art-determining
> group) be part of that group?
Anyone who cannot distinguish a dog turd from art.
I was right to say that you were not going to answer the question.
Clearly you don't know the difference!
>
> Once you solve the pronoun problem, the answer is easy.
>
> "We" have no way of determining the value of dogshit-art or anything
> else. I do, though. And I have. It's already been done - by me, for
> myself.
And how is that. Saying that you can is not the same as saying HOW you
can.
When are you going to begin to start to answer the question???
>
> Why do "we" need to do it? That groupthink mentality is that important
> to you?
No man is an island. "We" have no trouble deciding how to evaluate
other things, why should art be any different?
>
> Decide for yourself, dood.
I think you mean dude. BUt as you have not the slightest idea of the
meaning of the word I would advise you not to use it. It does not make
you sound cool (or would you prefer kewl?), it makes you sound like a
wet-behind-the-ears child.
>
> Your appeals to the "we" are disingenuous - btw, and in my opinion,
> there's a highly embedded politico-religious viewpoint in your
> particular use of "we" in that sentence.
Are you going to bleat on about "we" for ever or are you going to get
to the point?
>
> > If an artist can place her bed along with the spunk rags in a tent and
> > call it art, in what way are the woodshavings on my workship floor NOT
> > art?
>
> They can be art - to you. And to whomever else finds them art. At
> this point, I'm quite happy to have the bed AND the dogshit be art - at
> least, art that YOU are presented with. But not your woodshavings.
But my woodshavings look great. They are an ephemeral record of my
labours within the socially constructed millieu of my male dominated
work space, they are a reflection and provide a clear introspection of
man's need to control his environment but in doing so creates a discord
of chaos, a disjuncture between intention and consequence.
>
> Again - if you need a group vote on art, feel free to try and find it.
>
> Democracy and voting doesn't establish a single universal value - or
> dis-establish it, either, in my view.
>
> > Are there to be no standards or yardsticks?
>
> Standards and yardsticks are entirely different - and you hilariously
> combine them.
DUH - a standard is a standard and a yardstick is a yardstick. Wow -
fucking hilarious!!
They are synonyms.
If you were to look up "yardstick" I think you will find it described
as a metaphor for a standard.
You can have subjective standards and subjective yardsticks.
You can have objective standards and objective yardsticks.
Though I personally beleive that objectivity is a complete fallacy and
is nothing more than "collective subjectivity" of a particular
paradigmatic group.
I am shocked to see you employ such idiotic un-postmodern terminology.
Shame on you!!!
>
> A yardstick is objective and no - there are no "yardsticks" for
> measuring art, although Pythagorus and others proposed very definite
> ways of determining aesthetic proportions for art that calls upon such
> proportions in its construction. You might wish to apply those - and
> then, you could take a narrow stance and avoid both the woodshaving art
> and the dogshit art. Pythagorus is very cool.
Considering he lived in a hot country being cool must have been very
difficult for him.
Where do you get your philospohy from the back of a cornflakes packet?
You would, however,
> using *his* yardstick - have to give up on various pieces of art as art
> - like LaGiocanda, one of its aspects is that it defies classical
> means.
>
> Standards are entirely different than yardsticks. You could invent
> your own (have subjective ones) or be intersubjective. Since you are
> posting here, you seem to be requesting intersubjective standards - and
> I'm sure that you'll find people (here or elsewhere) who will appear to
> share your views. Voilá! Standards! There *is* a "we" in standards
> - but it's not a universal "we." For instance, I'm not in that "we" -
> and no thinking person I know who has ever been an art museum for more
> than five minutes is in your "we" either - nor, apparently, do you want
> me in it. If you did, you wouldn't take the attitude you take.
I think you have confused Objective and subjective. I think the "we"
would have to go with objective, whereas the "I" would have to go with
subjective.
You need a little help here.
Subjective = influenced by personal opinion.taking place within the
mind and modified by individual bias
Objective = emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without
distortion of personal feelings, independent of the perceiving
individual
>
> So, we have our standards, in my world - and we go to museums and have
> no trouble with feeling frightened, unhappy, disgusted, unstimulated -
> or prissy. You and your camp can do what you like.
>
> You will forever be incapable of creating a "we" that includes everyone
> - and you are forever incapable of creating a "we" that includes the
> people in my "we," as we already have standards and are actively
> revising them according to our standards - and you aren't there yet -
> you'd have to learn *a lot more* (from someone who is part of the "we"
> that I'm part of).
>
> So yeah - have standards. Get back to us on that - obviously, you
> don't want any art that challenges your Philistine mentality
Another word for which you have not the slightest idea of the origin
nor the meaning.
It is idiots like you and tracy Emin that are the Philistine as you
have no appreciation of the craftsmanhip of art, the skill and the
blood sweat and tears of art, you are indifferent to culture and the
pursuit of the intellect, uncultured and ignorant of the purity and
beauty of real art. For you anything goes. Solipsitic and self
invovling, duped by the money grabbing philistines that produce the
mindless meaningless crap.
- or
> anything else about you. You don't want art that doesn't meet your
> prissy standards - I'm sure you can find lots of folks who agree.
> Again, voilá! Standards! Standards of decency or standards of art -
> I'm not sure - but you can label your standards of decency AS standards
> of art and proceed directly to museums (or not, as you wish).
>
> "We" won't be going anywhere together, however.
>
> > Are we to leave it all to the imbeciles in the Tate modern that buy
> > "objects" from friends of theirs to promote their own interests?
>
> I suppose I should have used the term "imbecile" instead of
> "Philistine," in the above writing, as you seem to think its use has
> clear meaning.
Don't confuse yourslef further. You do not have the intellect to
distinguish the two words.
I don't know anything about the friends of the people
> in the Tate modern - but I would say that if you don't like the
> nepotism of a particular gallery, avoid it. I certainly don't think
> anyone would start with the Tate in and of itself as the sole standard
> by which "modern art" is to be measured.
These places are publicly funded. There is much in them that is good
but much of the stuff is beyond the pail, overpriced and unworthy. It
is every tax payers duty to state his or her opinion.
>
> However, if I were a curator, I might buy a piece of art that included
> spunk rags just to irritate people like you. Can you see why? Or does
> that also need to be spelled out to you?
No the reason why is becasue you are a fuckwit with not the slightest
chance in life to do anything worthy let alone be curator of the Tate.
>
> Hint: check where you used the word "imbecile."
> Clue: check how you know whether it's only nepotism?
>
> Ad hominems and rational arguments don't mix well.
But you had to try didn't you? Hey, you failed!
facilitator
> Now, I'm sure gonna feel like a doofus if I picked the wrong artist
> over there.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Atalanta.
No! you found it! and thanks for the response.
DubiousChrisJ
But my woodshavings look great. They are an ephemeral record of my
labours within the socially constructed millieu of my male dominated
work space, they are a reflection and provide a clear introspection of
man's need to control his environment but in doing so creates a discord
of chaos, a disjuncture between intention and consequence.
--
http://dubiousprofundity.com
A.
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> While I do find some value in some modern art, I absolutely agree with Chaz
> here in that there has to be some level of quality and craftsmanship by
> which it is judged.
Why'd you switch to the passive construction (there has to be some...)
Are you saying that it's not enough for each thinking patron of the
arts to establish their own standards? In what way do you think that
it's not enough for individuals to merely construct standards as they
proceed through the domain we call "art"? Who gets to establish these
standards?
Apparently, you and Chaz want to form a little group or committee and
insist on "some level of quality" and "craftmanship" as part of a
rubric we're all to regard as important in some way? That's nonsense.
In some art, craftsmanship is exceedingly important - and we regularly
to go to beaux artes exhibits where craft is definitely an important or
perhaps even overriding concern of the aesthetic - that's fine. Go
join the Beaux Artes movement, guys.
Why act as if such standards are not already broadly in place? Various
schools of art have set forth standards, more or less. Why should
people like yourselves (Chaz and Chris) who are outside this domain and
apparently mere observers, have any support from anyone else in
establishing your standards - whatever they are?
At any rate, proceed ahead. Chris and Chaz - establish your standards.
Every single time I read about them, I'll remind you that you are
establishing them for YOURSELVES only - and for whatever weakly
constructed group of other people who wish to crowd art museums and
adopt your standards. If you can find enough people like yourselves -
and I'm sure you can - will that then satisfy you that you have
standards?
Great, cool. It won't influence my views - or the direction that art
takes - at all. It's your little exercise in taming your own minds and
your responses to the world - and if that's what you dig, when you
peruse art, so be it.
You won't be able to ban or influence the exhibition of a single work
of art with this "standards," "craft" view - unless the artists in a
particular milieu agree with you. So - go to their exhibits and let
the rest of us continue to experience art in our own ways.
I wouldn't be so presumptive to say any piece is not
> art, because I understand that at its core, art is individual, a material or
> emotive expression of an external observation, or an internal mental or
> emotional process. I would certainly say that some pieces are bad art,
> though...
Me too. And again, Chris, I like the way you write. You used the
first person - which is exactly as it should be. In fact, it would be
quite likely that you and I could go through a museum or an artbook
together and find that we had many common subjective reactions to art
(I love crafted things - we collect 1930's and later California
pottery, Malibu tile pieces, and Catalina objets d'art, all nicely
crafted - and often handcrafted). We also purchase stained glass,
blown glass and furniture by contemporary craftsmen, whom we regard as
artists par excellence. But, that's not coextensive with art. Have
you seen the Woody Allen movie, "Scoop"? Peter's townhouse in that
movie is decorated smashingly, and I love every object in it - even
that apparently dreary painting you can't quite see all of, when it
first appears. If I saw that same piece in a museum (and I've seen
similar) I might pass by - it would depend a lot on how often I was
able to go back to a museum, whether I'd spend time on a particular
piece. But, in the setting it was in, it was so beautiful and telling
and appropriate and, well, I'm going to freeze frame it later to look
at it again - it's shape and color and form that's at work in that
painting.
Not craftsmanship. Don't you also like pure shape? Pure form? Pure
color? And then, every admixture of those? If not - how can you like
art?
>
> But my woodshavings look great. They are an ephemeral record of my
> > labours within the socially constructed millieu of my male dominated
> > work space, they are a reflection and provide a clear introspection of
> > man's need to control his environment but in doing so creates a discord
> > of chaos, a disjuncture between intention and consequence.
>
>
> In this paragraph, Chaz succinctly satirizes everything that is wrong with
> post modern art.
> You shouldn't have to explain it to me. I should see it, feel it.
Fine - I won't do any more explaining. Go experience and go feel. Do
not impose your experiences and your feelings on the rest of us then.
If you have to explain your standards (as Chaz and now you are trying
to do) - then you've violated this other principle - the one you just
stated.
How about I get to just feel it and experience it, myself, then? Why
keep chattering about standards, in that instance?
I do believe it was myself who has been most righteously supporting the
role of the subjective experience in constructing art throughout this
thread. But you can't have it both ways.
You can't impose ANY standards on me - or the artist - or the gallery -
if your goal is to simply go, see and experience.
BTW, if you don't understand a thing and no one tells you about it -
that's cool. You could still work to understand it. Some of the most
important events in my life have involved working to gather knowledge,
I have nothing against it. I love figuring things out. If you look at
enough well-curated art, you can get quite a good perspective without
listening to anyone else's viewpoints.
However, I like those little plaques they put up in galleries and read
*every single one* of them when I'm viewing a painting. I research
many aspects of the paintings when I get home - it's tremendous fun.
Surely, if I have that knowledge - and someone (say the guy sitting
next to me on the couch) wants to bat those facts around - we can do
that, right?
You won't be, you'll be sitting by yourself looking at the same
painting - for us, it will be an enriched dialogue that goes on over
years, and yes, we'll understand that same painting quite differently
from you (or Chaz).
But proceed - your viewpoint is fine, you'll end up in craft-oriented
galleries, and you'll do whatever with your responses to art. I see
absolutely no way you can impose any of your views on anyone else,
however - especially now that you have wisely stated this principle
that each person should respond on their own.
Just don't forget that for SOME of us, reading about art, the artists,
their times and motivations, is PART of the art - and you can't take
that away from us even if you don't want to do it. It's simply
reflexive for me, whether it's a movie or a piece of music.
Art is
> expression, and although sometimes the message may change in the
> translation, it should be the communication, not something which needs
> another voice to convey its message.
Those are *your* shoulds - and I find it really annoying that you keep
writing these types of things (and Chaz too) as if they are universals.
It sounds very childish, actually.
>
> 'Lights turning off and on? Crap.
> Banksy's whimsical grafitti pieces? Genius.
Fine. Let's each list the things we want for Christmas, too. I'd like
to have a new dressing table of a particular style, what would you
like?
That's not a discussion of art - but hey, since you are INSISTING that
no such discussion is needed - why in the world are you POSTING about
it?
Don't tell me your likes and dislikes - let me discover my own - why is
YOUR voice needed to communicate ANYTHING about art? You and Chaz
insert YOUR voices and then try and say that art critics, curators, me,
artists, people who like art - should NOT do the same?
Then, you get upset, apparently, if a group of people (including the
artist and the curators) emerge as having similar opinions.
Interesting. You might want to go back, step by step, and look at
exactly what the two of you (and Paradox) are actually saying about art
- either you believe that "extra voices" should be heard (standards
established) or not.
Which is it? If people are to respond individually and YOU don't want
"extra voices" in your response - but that very same action (hearing
certain people - like the guy sittting next to me on the couch - give
views on art) is the very essence of heaven, the aesthetic experience,
of art - to me, how you going to keep me from having MY experience -
which naturally and spontaneously includes dialogue with CERTAIN people
(who are knowledgeable, philosophically, highly intellectual, keenly
aesthetic, etc.)
The friends I seek out and attempt to keep are ALL people whose
aesthetic opinions I value right up there with life itself. How's
that? How you going to keep that dialogue - among aesthetes - from
happening (with or without you)? If there are enough of us to keep
museums and galleries open, what are you going to do about that?
How much art do you own? How much is in your home? I'm glad you use
your subjective experience to construct your own reality (with art, I
hope), but ultimately - your view is that it's just You and the Art
(Chaz isn't going to be there to share your enthusiasm or lack of
enthusiasm about any particular piece). You sit silent with your art,
in that event. Seems sterile and cold, to me.
Atalanta
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > http://dubiousprofundity.com
> > Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_14699_33396514.1165077556015
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 1737
>
> While I do find some value in some modern art, I absolutely agree with Chaz here in that there has to be some level of quality and craftsmanship by which it is judged. I wouldn't be so presumptive to say any piece is not art, because I understand that at its core, art is individual, a material or emotive expression of an external observation, or an internal mental or emotional process. I would certainly say that some pieces are bad art, though...
> <br><br>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">But my woodshavings look great. They are an ephemeral record of my<br>labours within the socially constructed millieu of my male dominated
> <br>work space, they are a reflection and provide a clear introspection of<br>man's need to control his environment but in doing so creates a discord<br>of chaos, a disjuncture between intention and consequence.</blockquote>
>
> <div> </div>
> <div>In this paragraph, Chaz succinctly satirizes everything that is wrong with post modern art. </div>
> <div>You shouldn't have to explain it to me. I should see it, feel it. Art is expression, and although sometimes the message may change in the translation, it should be the communication, not something which needs another voice to convey its message.
> </div>
> <div> </div>
> <div>'Lights turning off and on? Crap. </div>
> <div>Banksy's whimsical grafitti pieces? Genius. </div>
> <p> </p>
> <div><br> </div>
> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">-- <br><a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a><br>Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
> </blockquote>
>
> ------=_Part_14699_33396514.1165077556015--
A.
paradox wrote:
> Well...i've been described in many, many ways in my not inconsiderable
> years; i must admit, "a silly schoolgirl" has not been one of them.
> It's very amusing.
Yeah - it was amusing to me to have you assume I hated science and had
some association with a suburban carpark. I'm still not sure why you
did that.
>
> A. wrote:
>
> > Come on, now Paradox. Where is this going? Are you just chatting me
> > up?
> > That's very suburban. Let's have a philosophical discussion here,
> > shall we?
>
>
> Do i give you the impression that i'm being amorous?
You're getting there (to giving me the impression not that you're
amorous, but that the sexual and soapy details of an account are more
interesting to you than, for example, the actual nature of the color
red in even one person's subjective view). - Let me tell you that I
don't generally engage in digressive casual conversations with people
about art. Why would I? I would - if you were in a group of people I
was trying to know better, haven't decided about you yet. If you veer
back from the edge of using digression rather regularly as a tactic in
your posts, then I'll think it's a philosophic discussion in the
making.
Other than
> attempting to "picture" the fine image your SO paints of you, i am
> being on my best behaviour (i think so anyway; you'll forgive me if my
> subconscious appears to you to have it's own agenda, won't you?). I'm
> keen to have a philosophical discussion which does not disintegrate
> into assertions of subjective experience, A.
I love that your subconscious has its own experience - and that was of
course what I was trying to invoke. But, personally, I don't use the
term "subconscious" because I have no location for such an entity,
don't know what "consciousness" means in this context (and find darting
over into a discussion about consciousness to be again, off to the
side).
One's subjective experience may or may not include relegating things to
the subconscious or having things well up from it. I don't know. I
don't think about my subconscious at every second, but new and strange
ideas do come to me - from somewhere. I don't know where. I don't
want to discuss where yours come from (apparently your subconscious is
one source).
But I did want to point out that at any moment, your own subjective
experience can change - if you allow any other human to interact with
you, as I am doing. So, when I tell you more about red (and there's
vast amounts more - red has now become really highlighted in our lives,
since you brought it up - but we also watched a documentary on Ballet
Russe (RED was important there), and then, Scoop (the first film, I
think, where Woody drifted a way from his red-as-beautiful aesthetic
and used some other colors - even pale blue - very effectively).
So, the same piece of art that I saw last week (that had red in it)
will forever be different today - and in part, because I discussed it
with you. I think that's the really grand part about art and meaning -
you can actually become part of Art, yourself, Paradox, because your
responses led to mine and so and so forth - and no, we don't have to
view it as "amorous," people can relate AESTHETICALLY (and should -
much more than they do).
>
>
> > Broca's brain and Wernicke's area control speech in the brain - and are
> > the reason why we can "unconsciously" perform speech acts. I'm shocked
> > that you don't know that - where ever you are that isn't a suburban car
> > park. Do you actually live in a third floor walk up somewhere, with
> > cold water, and no access to a library? I know you have internet!
>
>
> Thought one modulated speech acts, the other auditory loops?
Sort of. They are both involved in constructing speech. "modulated"
speech acts is an exceptionally vague way to describe it. Both are
close to your motor cortex, both help the lungs, nerves in the thoracic
vertebrae, voice box, cords, tongue, lips, chin, palette, teeth and so
forth do their chain-gang work so we can speak - and Wernicke's does a
bunch of magic to incoming sound so that we can hear word boundaries
and understand syntax (and it is wired to do that pretty much by the
time you're 12 months old - with a good deal of it done before that).
"Modulation" isn't quite strong enough to indicate the fact that if you
get a stroke in either of these areas, you'll have a real interesting
time with language after that. (Kirk Douglas's stroke was in Broca's,
not Wernicke's, but Oliver Sacks has a set of good articles on
Wernicke's damage - in some ways more devastating).
James
> makes the point pretty well, i'm sure you'd agree; the functional
> architecture of the brain is anything but modular. Think about it, how
> do you "unconsciously perform speech acts?". Oh, by the way, i like
> your wit, though i think you're "baiting" me here.
Sort of. I disagree about the lack of modularity though - and so does
Francis Crick, Patricia Churchland, D'Amasio, the folks at UCSB and any
number of others. There ARE modules in the brain - who would say
otherwise? You think you don't have a hand motor cortex? You think
you could type your sentences without using it? I don't think so.
>
>
> > At any rate, there's no analogous structure for "art." And, as posted
> > very very very carefully by Mistery (with whom I agree completely) art
> > isn't merely visual. Whatever in the WORLD made you think art is
> > merely purely or only visual?
>
>
> Err...i know that great art "speaks" to one, but however keenly i have
> listened on occasions when i've visited exhibitions of Great Masters,
> not once have i heard the voice of the artist, much to my great
> disappointment too. It is reasonable to deduce from this that art
> "speaks" metaphorically?
Or metaphysically, dear Paradox. Consider that. I'm surprised - you
really didn't hear the voice of the artist, not ever? How odd. Well,
most people I know DO hear something like the voice of the artist -
and, what's interesting, is that when it happens to someone like me
(who knows nothing about official art history), and I go and learn that
thousands of others (blogging, writing theses and dissertations,
writing homages, writing art criticism) have heard the artist say the
same thing - it gives me pause.
Too bad you haven't had that happen. You have to be open to it
happening, of course, and perhaps there's some learning involved (it's
a metaphysical kind of listening).
Kandinsky wrote a couple of books about it. Michael Murphy
(contemporary with us and not an artist) has written a very large book
with one good chapter on this topic, in it.
>
>
> > So - no, it doesn't relate (no matter how hopelessly you tack on the
> > question at the end) to the difference between "classical art" (which
> > to me CERTAINLY includes theater, both performed and written (duh)) and
> > contemporary art.
>
>
> I thought we were discussing the visual arts?
Well - I thought we were discussing "modern art," but you actually
asked me "What is Starry Night" and then, implicitly included
"contemporary art." I don't see the word "visual" in the thread title,
do you? Why would you want to categorize and parse off the visual arts
in a discussion like this? To get your way? To make it more
manageable? Read Mistery's post, anyway. Are you saying that all the
modern art that contains letters in it (using writing inside the
painting is a HUGE modern motif - surely you must know that) is not art
because there are entire paragraphs of text (sometimes) inside them?
Nope - there's no clear division between performance art, Warhol, music
(and sometimes music is an integral part of an artistic installation -
and we could include the music of the cathedrals and at the Sistine
Chapel, could we not?)
Anyway - I don't regard any of us as expert enough to break apart
"modern art" (OR classical art) into various components based on the
human sensory system - but if you did, you'd be using the modular
theory of the brain, in my view. Our visual cortex is the largest
subsystem of the brain, but it does so many other things as well
(locates memories, for example), that it would be silly to say that
there's a "purely visual" module there - but yeah, it's a module. I
didn't realize you wanted to use the human brain as the marker for art
- I wouldn't.
>
>
> Perhaps i wasn't making the point well enough, A. I'll give it another
> shot. I am walking along the banks of a gently undulating river (far
> away from that 3rd floor flat with internet access you described
> earlier). Suddenly, i have a "vision" of an aurora. I pull out my
> sketchpad, and quickly sketch an outline. I get back to my cottage and
> work on this "vision" until it faithfully represents my original
> vision. I have reproduced my intuition. The following day, i am walking
> in nearby woodland, with towering trees and rich fauna. I'm thinking
> about mortality, and love that transcends time. I reflect that none
> loves so unconditionally than the love of a happy child. Having walked
> for a considerable time, i approach my cottage, and i understand that
> our most valuable legacy are the days we bring happiness into the lives
> of others. I want to capture this insight in my own way, for time and
> posterity. I paint a beautiful portrait of a child and express freedom
> in her smile, hope in her eyes. I have reproduced my insight.
>
> Which of these two works has a story to tell, i ask you? (oh, by the
> way, i don't paint; you can probably tell).
Both of them! I wouldn't want the girl picture in my house, I'd take
your aura-drawing, if I had to choose. I don't visualize that kind of
"unconditional love" as in the countenance of a girl child, it is too
foreign to my experience. I was a happy child - and a girl, and I had
pure spontaneous love for many people, animals, plants, places, rocks,
beaches, and so forth. I would be horrified to find any association of
these feelings with my girliness or my childlhood - I still have those
components in me, more than ever - and I am not a girl child. In fact,
I am freer to love spontaneously, joyously and purely now - than then.
Because I was a child. Children are limited in what they can do in
ways that grown-ups are not. I'd choose a non-human representation of
that same feeling.
Both are art. The first - the aura - would transcend your subjective
view (with me - and perhaps with others), and the second - the child -
would transcend your subjective view (not with me, but perhaps with
others).
What's the difference? You're not going to get every single person on
board in admiring either of your works - or seeing the meaning. For
all you know, your girl painting will be purchased by some pedophile
who keeps girls in cages, while envisioning that the expression you
painted is on their face - who knows? You don't. You have no control
over how "posterity" will see the painting. I find it fascinating that
you chose a girl for the image though - why not a boy. Are you male?
I was assuming for some reason that you are - so the choosing of the
Anima image (rather than your own internalized self) simply puts
distance between your self-borne realization and the painting - which
is fine, if that's where you need "pure happiness" and "unconditional
love" to reside - in a girl, outside your realm. Good luck in finding
actual females who represent that any more than males do. I'd prefer a
piece of art that links the artist (if he's working on his own
psychological stances) to himself - but that's just me.
There are reasons, btw, why real artists in the real world do not
usually practice by simply painting sudden intuitive auras - or
choosing worn-out symbols (no matter how well painted) to represent a
feeling. Many start with still life, portraiture and - the
self-portrait. The bed that's been spoken of on this thread and has
agitated several viewers - is a SELF-portrait.
Your portrait of the child - is that a self-portrait or not? I'd need
to know that. It seems to be, to me. But - why did you choose a small
girl? Was it unconscious? Would you be capable of envisioning a girl
- not yourself - but not any particular girl? That would be amazing,
too - and if you could do that, I'd be more interested in it. Painting
a vague idealized girl that resembles many small girls would simply be
trite, to me (I'd rather see pure color on a canvas, for sure).
Anyway - good artists start with self-portraits for a reason. If I
were to try and interact with the two pieces of art you just mentioned
- and you were there at the time, that would make a difference too.
But on the face of it, I'd choose the aura painting. I think I am
beginning to get your point - but perhaps we are actually on different
sides of this question (wouldn't surprise me - and I'm used to being
left out in group discussions, I seem to have peculiar ideas - but
within the world of Art, I find many kindred spirits - always something
that has interested me).
Have you considered, Paradox - actually attempting a watercolor or
other painting of some colorful field you've seen? Just curious. I
think you could do it. I was lucky to have grown up around a few
artists who are known more broadly than just my hometown - I don't
think I realized at the time that they were involved in these larger
issues. One was a hyper-realistic portrait painter who did near
photographic level portraiture - but is regarded as adding humor,
kindliness and compassion to all her subjects - sort of like Norman
Rockwell, I guess. But everyone else had a different kind of style - I
don't know if you've heard of Botke, there's an exhibition of his work
up right now, but he owned a paint store in the town I grew up in and I
hung out there quite a bit, as I've always like paint and color. He
painted still life, I guess you could call it, and they're seen all
over the place in reproductions - the originals are quite valuable,
actually. They are mostly of tropical type foliage and cockatiels.
It's hard to say how they became "important" in art - but the colors
and the mood have long been mentioned as key factors. They "say
something" about the California of the time he lived in - the
California of the mind of the 1940's and 1950's - and people from all
over the world seek to buy them in order to acquire a particular
nuanced feel for their own homes or exhibits. Mood and feeling are
often time-limited, in some artists, they remain for decades -
centuries, etc.
I'd say that's a far more important achievement that being a human
camera and being hyper-realistic, and says far more about the nature of
some humans - and of art than mere recording can do. Anyway, it's
still the case in Russia that the old Soviet view on art "realism,
realism, always realism - and it must be egalitarian, socialist
realism" is the only view. Those people would certainly choose the
child's face as an enduring symbol of the "reality" of a happy child's
mind and love. They would not be the least bit interested in whether
real children were happy, whether any such child actually existed or
could exist, whether children are in fact a source of unconditional
love for others - a terribly important question, in my view - I do NOT
think that children are born radiating unconditional love - and that it
constructs a prison for them if you expect, and curiously, people
rarely expect that glorious innocent happy-eyed "love" from boys - boys
are mischievous and rowdy by nature, it is said. They would not feel
that any of these questions about so-called "reality" need to be
answered before offering forth such a symbol as "real" and "natural,"
either - nor has any culture that regards and uses such symbols *ever*
committed to truly finding out how many happy little girls or boys
there are - or why little girls are used in this symbolic manner more
often that little boys...(and there are cultures, during the
Renaissance and later, where near balance was achieved between boy and
girl representations on this theme - and some where boys are used more
often - I am talking about our own contemporary culture, yours and
mine).
Anyway, I am now as I was then, as a girl. I love and trust many
people readily, but I live within the protected circle of a larger clan
and culture that allows me to do that. I don't encounter ruffians or
fnools or others of ill-intention very frequently, my family and local
culture (which is not suburban, it's semi-rural, I'd say) set that up
for me. None of my childhood portraits, however, show a happy radiant
love flowing out of me in general - nor is the way in which I love
people necessarily all filled with joy at every moment - then as now.
I've always studied people, asked questions, wondered about them, and
then decided who I liked. I spontaneously loved and adored many - and
those I was usually too shy to show it to, unless someone encouraged me
to. So - the vision you would have, as a symbol, is alien to me - and
the only girl I know who does exude that kind of innocent love-everyone
unconditional kind of love is my cousin, S., and she's still like that
- at 59. She has to be protected at every turn, like I was as a kid,
and sometimes she encounters reality and crashes badly for awhile - but
she always bounces back (by whatever means) and exudes that glorious
unconditional love again - if you can handle being within her radius of
exudation, which I cannot.
So, for many reasons, you could keep your second painting and show me
the first. We are unable, you see, to eliminate the subjective from
art. You will have to proceed as if the subjective is *always* there
in any discussion with me re: art. I will be doing the same, btw, with
all the people I speak to about art (assuming the subjectivity of it as
its principle quality - and delving into the meaning of the term
subjectivity, in hopes of learning more about intersubjectivity and,
also, about the metaphysical contents of painting and other art, visual
or not).
Atalanta
P.S. It's fine if we restrict our comments to painting - but to use
classical sculpture against modern painting and then say we're just
doing "visual" stuff is a mismatch of examples. Sculptures are never
just visual - they are touchable, nearly everywhere they are exhibited,
they can be lurking outdoors - paintings don't do well out there. So
let's do painting by itself, as you've started to do and we'll get much
further. Notice that I just introduced the first objective criteria
I've used in this discussion, really - which is that "painting" can be
defined in an operationable, imperfect but still objective and
empirical manner, which is to say the redistribution of pigment by a
human onto a surface. People can paint words or pictures, though - and
combinations that are symbolic, as well - they can and do both words
and pictures from the moment pigment is discovered. That's my view. A
picture of the sun invoked both the image of the sun - and the word
"sun" in the minds of the viewers (and probably also notions of warmth,
seasonality, heat, day, year, annual, as well as probably "east").
There is no seperate "visual" reality - but there is painting. Would
you agree?
A.
James Barlow wrote:
> I think it is pretty clear that art is the result of alot of unconscious forces and factors, at least that has been my experience when writing poetry and even fiction. There is alot going on simultaneously that cannot be reduced to this or that brain function or functional area of the brain. JB
Oh - and on that I totally agree. The terms "unconscious" or
"subconscious" - which today are used interchangeably in this topic, it
seems - make no reference to the brain AT ALL, in fact they are
mind-terms. No one can locate "the unconscious" in the brain -
although if you read Julian Jaynes's excellent first chapter on
consciousness and unconsciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral
Mind (flawed in its overall concept, but an excellent first outing on
the topic of the unconscious seen from the point of view of brain
science) you'll see that you and I are constantly doing "unconscious"
things (I do not think at all about which fingers type the letters, and
the ideas I type are put into words as I type - by a completely
unconscious and inaccessible part of my brain that is either working or
not, and sometimes does and sometimes doesn't - I can try and control
the words by criticizing and analyzing how the sentences are going,
that's it).
So, since we do not know where the unconscious OR the consciousness is
located - we're up the creek without a paddle, in any kind of objective
viewpoint on the subject. This is yet another argument for beginning
and ending with subjectivity in the domain of art.
I'd say that if you want to see the unconscious at work, it's not
unreasonable to look into art, and it seems that some people get really
worked up if other people's unconscious processes are revealed to them
- especially without warning. Interesting, isn't it?
And then, there are always people who recognize something in those
unconscious processes of another - whether foreign or familiar - and
want to see them, anyway.
And none of that can be reproduce to brain science - and brain science,
divisions of things according to "vision" vs. "aural" etc. are all
equally reductionistic.
A.
paradox
and masterful with it.
> Yeah - it was amusing to me to have you assume I hated science and had
> some association with a suburban carpark. I'm still not sure why you
> did that.
Had no idea i made this assumption.
> I love that your subconscious has its own experience - and that was of
> course what I was trying to invoke. But, personally, I don't use the
> term "subconscious" because I have no location for such an entity,
> don't know what "consciousness" means in this context (and find darting
> over into a discussion about consciousness to be again, off to the
> side).
>Broca's brain and Wernicke's area
> Sort of. They are both involved in constructing speech. "modulated"
> speech acts is an exceptionally vague way to describe it. Both are
> close to your motor cortex, both help the lungs, nerves in the thoracic
> vertebrae, voice box, cords, tongue, lips, chin, palette, teeth and so
> forth do their chain-gang work so we can speak - and Wernicke's does a
> bunch of magic to incoming sound so that we can hear word boundaries
> and understand syntax (and it is wired to do that pretty much by the
> time you're 12 months old - with a good deal of it done before that).
> "Modulation" isn't quite strong enough to indicate the fact that if you
> get a stroke in either of these areas, you'll have a real interesting
> time with language after that. (Kirk Douglas's stroke was in Broca's,
> not Wernicke's, but Oliver Sacks has a set of good articles on
> Wernicke's damage - in some ways more devastating).
>
>
> Sort of. I disagree about the lack of modularity though - and so does
> Francis Crick, Patricia Churchland, D'Amasio, the folks at UCSB and any
> number of others. There ARE modules in the brain - who would say
> otherwise? You think you don't have a hand motor cortex? You think
> you could type your sentences without using it? I don't think so.
You clearly have a good working knowledge of neural architecture,
though some uncertainty about cognitive functioning. Think you might be
"liberal" in grouping Crick, Churchland and D'Amasio in support of
"modularism". There are quite significant differences in approach. I
think you may be conflating "localisation" and "modularity". As you
keep reminding me though, this is not the point of this thread. Happy
to discuss on a new topic, if you wish to.
> > Err...i know that great art "speaks" to one, but however keenly i have
> > listened on occasions when i've visited exhibitions of Great Masters,
> > not once have i heard the voice of the artist, much to my great
> > disappointment too. It is reasonable to deduce from this that art
> > "speaks" metaphorically?
>
> Or metaphysically, dear Paradox. Consider that. I'm surprised - you
> really didn't hear the voice of the artist, not ever? How odd. Well,
> most people I know DO hear something like the voice of the artist -
> and, what's interesting, is that when it happens to someone like me
> (who knows nothing about official art history), and I go and learn that
> thousands of others (blogging, writing theses and dissertations,
> writing homages, writing art criticism) have heard the artist say the
> same thing - it gives me pause.
I'm quite concerned now.
> > Which of these two works has a story to tell, i ask you? (oh, by the
> > way, i don't paint; you can probably tell).
>
> Both are art. The first - the aura - would transcend your subjective
> view (with me - and perhaps with others), and the second - the child -
> would transcend your subjective view (not with me, but perhaps with
> others).
Ok, now i understand.
> Your portrait of the child - is that a self-portrait or not?
Errmm...i don't think so. Curious this, it's the second time in
subsequent postings that you have suggested that i might be a young
girl. Do you think it is?
> So, for many reasons, you could keep your second painting and show me
> the first. We are unable, you see, to eliminate the subjective from
> art.
Now i understand, Atalanta.
A.
paradox wrote:
> Wow, i'm literally stumped for words, A. You clearly are knowledgeable,
> and masterful with it.
Gee, thanks, Paradox (::blushing::). I do have to say that I didn't
know a thing about art for a long time - and I feel as if God or
someone came down into my life and changed that through miracles -
because I'm not an "artsy" person. Indeed, I'm sure that my earliest
art craving was indeed for - a velvet Elvis painting.
>
>
> > Yeah - it was amusing to me to have you assume I hated science and had
> > some association with a suburban carpark. I'm still not sure why you
> > did that.
>
>
> Had no idea i made this assumption.
Your first post to me, I believe (I'm pretty sure). You said something
about, if I preferred subjectivity, would I then get offended by
science. Nope. Although, since then, I've been thinking a lot about
what happens to our subjectivity when we "do science." I think all the
philosophers (and including the early scientists like Descartes and
Bacon) say that objectivity is embedded within overall subjectivity -
but is a *special kind* of stance toward the world (intersubjective at
the very least, and holding the strongest claim to be allied with
"reality" - objectivity is supposed to join us with material, objective
reality, right?)
Unless that reality includes art, we do pretty well with something like
science in our minds.
You're right - I was indeed being liberal and Crick actually seems to
want to battle those UCSB people (the Twobins? Can't remember how to
spell it) and the UCSB folk are very D'Amasio in nature. I'd also lump
Chomsky in that same group (I tend to be a lumper, not a splitter) -
even though he's clearly not a neuroscientist (neither are those people
from UCSB - nor is Churchland, IMO).
Have you looked at Churchland's latest article? It goes beyond any
sort of "modular" theory (although modularity is implicit in it, in my
view) down into potassium and calcium currents at the level of
neurotransmitters, where there are particular chemical bonds that are
universal in humans that make some modules "work," - but really, all
she seems to be doing (to me) is showing that she has really, really
learned her neurophysiology and wants to show that off. I don't see
the philosophy in it, at all. It's just a bunch of chain reactions.
"Brain as chain reaction" is not, I think, what Crick was trying to
propose - but he is taken that way, by Churchland.
>
>
> > > Err...i know that great art "speaks" to one, but however keenly i have
> > > listened on occasions when i've visited exhibitions of Great Masters,
> > > not once have i heard the voice of the artist, much to my great
> > > disappointment too. It is reasonable to deduce from this that art
> > > "speaks" metaphorically?
> >
> > Or metaphysically, dear Paradox. Consider that. I'm surprised - you
> > really didn't hear the voice of the artist, not ever? How odd. Well,
> > most people I know DO hear something like the voice of the artist -
> > and, what's interesting, is that when it happens to someone like me
> > (who knows nothing about official art history), and I go and learn that
> > thousands of others (blogging, writing theses and dissertations,
> > writing homages, writing art criticism) have heard the artist say the
> > same thing - it gives me pause.
>
>
> I'm quite concerned now.
::smiling: Just go back and listen again!
>
>
> > > Which of these two works has a story to tell, i ask you? (oh, by the
> > > way, i don't paint; you can probably tell).
> >
> > Both are art. The first - the aura - would transcend your subjective
> > view (with me - and perhaps with others), and the second - the child -
> > would transcend your subjective view (not with me, but perhaps with
> > others).
>
>
> Ok, now i understand.
Your example, as it turned out, was a turning point in this convo - I
began to understand your point of view - even though you are not a
painter. Still, you realize that you "painted" well enough - in words.
I have clear pictures in my mind of your two "artworks," which do not
exist - except, for me, they do now exist, because I have specific
images in my mind of your non-paintings! Isn't this fun?? I like it.
>
>
> > Your portrait of the child - is that a self-portrait or not?
>
>
> Errmm...i don't think so. Curious this, it's the second time in
> subsequent postings that you have suggested that i might be a young
> girl. Do you think it is?
LOL. See - the fact that you chose a "young girl" (you yourself
brought it up the second time!) made me wonder if unconsciously, I had
influenced you with my "young girl" statement (that seemed unlikely to
me, actually - can't say why). I thought perhaps, instead that maybe
you enjoyed the "young girl" part of yourself - as your "painting"
showed. And why not? I take it that you are possibly a young man,
actually. Young men should be interested in young women/girls - and in
children and in nature, and all that. They should "see themselves" in
all those things - and they should be able to "think like" any of them
too, right? By "should" I don't mean "morally required or encouraged
to do so," I just mean "able to in the future."
But it is curious that the young girl thing came up. What do you make
of it? I am myself rather differently gendered (often mistaken for a
male in writing - if I don't use the feminine names, but frankly, I
experience myself as feminine and female, so when I say "like a young
girl," that's not an insult!!!!!! It's a high compliment - as I've
raised two of them, and, well, they sometimes think that boys are
stupid - which is NOT true. It's just that boys are not girls!
>
>
> > So, for many reasons, you could keep your second painting and show me
> > the first. We are unable, you see, to eliminate the subjective from
> > art.
>
>
> Now i understand, Atalanta.
And I think I understand more about you, too. BTW, you're ignoring
some parts of yourself that are highly involved (already) in a
creative, artistic process. And - listen to this - you do realize that
the first painting (the aura painting) had me really interested - even
before I went on to your point. You should paint both paintings! They
are both art. I would love to see the first - perhaps because it would
be less personal, and I am not one to want to intrude into an artist's
mind unless he wishes it - and when you think about it, modern art is
highly informed by that same lack of intrusiveness, on the part of the
audience, anyway. Artists get to intrude whereever, I guess. (That's
an interesting sidebar topic - and it may be the source of some
people's disgruntlement with modern and contemporary art).
Anyway, I think you need watercolors and paper for Xmas.
Warm regards,
A.
paradox
Thanks also for the lead to the recent Churchland article; i'll make
sure i catch up.
Not sure why anyone would imagine you were anything but a fine and
cultured young lady.
Lee
It wasn't an question, well not the bit you are talking about. I
merely asked, who would pay much for a bit of shit art.
Notwithstanding a persons subjective understanding on what constitutes
good art.
So I was ineffect saying that DC had a valid point, notwithstanding the
idiots like me, who know nowt of art, and probably would pay for a shit
peice if we liked it enough. Hah the old standard comes to mind here
'I may not know art, but I know what I like'
DubiousChrisJ
Are you saying that it's not enough for each thinking patron of the
arts to establish their own standards? In what way do you think that
it's not enough for individuals to merely construct standards as they
proceed through the domain we call "art"? Who gets to establish these
standards?
Apparently, you and Chaz want to form a little group or committee and
insist on "some level of quality" and "craftmanship" as part of a
rubric we're all to regard as important in some way? That's nonsense.
In some art, craftsmanship is exceedingly important - and we regularly
to go to beaux artes exhibits where craft is definitely an important or
perhaps even overriding concern of the aesthetic - that's fine. Go
join the Beaux Artes movement, guys.
Why act as if such standards are not already broadly in place? Various
schools of art have set forth standards, more or less. Why should
people like yourselves (Chaz and Chris) who are outside this domain and
apparently mere observers, have any support from anyone else in
establishing your standards - whatever they are?
At any rate, proceed ahead. Chris and Chaz - establish your standards.
Every single time I read about them, I'll remind you that you are
establishing them for YOURSELVES only - and for whatever weakly
constructed group of other people who wish to crowd art museums and
adopt your standards. If you can find enough people like yourselves -
and I'm sure you can - will that then satisfy you that you have
standards?
Great, cool. It won't influence my views - or the direction that art
takes - at all. It's your little exercise in taming your own minds and
your responses to the world - and if that's what you dig, when you
peruse art, so be it.
You won't be able to ban or influence the exhibition of a single work
of art with this "standards," "craft" view - unless the artists in a
particular milieu agree with you. So - go to their exhibits and let
the rest of us continue to experience art in our own ways.
Not craftsmanship. Don't you also like pure shape? Pure form? Pure
color? And then, every admixture of those? If not - how can you like
art?
How about I get to just feel it and experience it, myself, then? Why
keep chattering about standards, in that instance?
I do believe it was myself who has been most righteously supporting the
role of the subjective experience in constructing art throughout this
thread. But you can't have it both ways.
You can't impose ANY standards on me - or the artist - or the gallery -
if your goal is to simply go, see and experience. BTW, if you don't understand a thing and no one tells you about it -
that's cool. You could still work to understand it. Some of the most
important events in my life have involved working to gather knowledge,
I have nothing against it. I love figuring things out. If you look at
enough well-curated art, you can get quite a good perspective without
listening to anyone else's viewpoints.
However, I like those little plaques they put up in galleries and read
*every single one* of them when I'm viewing a painting. I research
many aspects of the paintings when I get home - it's tremendous fun.
Surely, if I have that knowledge - and someone (say the guy sitting
next to me on the couch) wants to bat those facts around - we can do
that, right?
You won't be, you'll be sitting by yourself looking at the same
painting - for us, it will be an enriched dialogue that goes on over
years, and yes, we'll understand that same painting quite differently
from you (or Chaz).
Just don't forget that for SOME of us, reading about art, the artists,
their times and motivations, is PART of the art - and you can't take
that away from us even if you don't want to do it. It's simply
reflexive for me, whether it's a movie or a piece of music.
Art is
> expression, and although sometimes the message may change in the
> translation, it should be the communication, not something which needs
> another voice to convey its message.
Those are *your* shoulds - and I find it really annoying that you keep
writing these types of things (and Chaz too) as if they are universals.
It sounds very childish, actually.
>
> 'Lights turning off and on? Crap.
> Banksy's whimsical grafitti pieces? Genius.
Fine. Let's each list the things we want for Christmas, too. I'd like
to have a new dressing table of a particular style, what would you
like?
That's not a discussion of art - but hey, since you are INSISTING that
no such discussion is needed - why in the world are you POSTING about
it?
Don't tell me your likes and dislikes - let me discover my own - why is
YOUR voice needed to communicate ANYTHING about art? You and Chaz
insert YOUR voices and then try and say that art critics, curators, me,
artists, people who like art - should NOT do the same?
Then, you get upset, apparently, if a group of people (including the
artist and the curators) emerge as having similar opinions.
Interesting. You might want to go back, step by step, and look at
exactly what the two of you (and Paradox) are actually saying about art
- either you believe that "extra voices" should be heard (standards
established) or not.
Which is it? If people are to respond individually and YOU don't want
"extra voices" in your response - but that very same action (hearing
certain people - like the guy sittting next to me on the couch - give
views on art) is the very essence of heaven, the aesthetic experience,
of art - to me, how you going to keep me from having MY experience -
which naturally and spontaneously includes dialogue with CERTAIN people
(who are knowledgeable, philosophically, highly intellectual, keenly
aesthetic, etc.)
The friends I seek out and attempt to keep are ALL people whose
aesthetic opinions I value right up there with life itself. How's
that? How you going to keep that dialogue - among aesthetes - from
happening (with or without you)? If there are enough of us to keep
museums and galleries open, what are you going to do about that?
How much art do you own? How much is in your home? I'm glad you use
your subjective experience to construct your own reality (with art, I
hope), but ultimately - your view is that it's just You and the Art
(Chaz isn't going to be there to share your enthusiasm or lack of
enthusiasm about any particular piece). You sit silent with your art,
in that event. Seems sterile and cold, to me.
chazwin
I've been lumped in with another person!!!!
Ohhh Errr!
DubiousChrisJ
Atalanta, you marginalized me by lumping me in with Chaz because although there are similarities in stance, and singular points upon which we agree, the foci of our perspectives are somewhat different, and to simply group us together, marginalizes each of our individual stances in favor of an assumed whole. Simple as that.
chazwin
Boohoo
A.
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> Ha! *giggling*
>
> Atalanta, you marginalized me by lumping me in with Chaz because although
> there are similarities in stance, and singular points upon which we agree,
> the foci of our perspectives are somewhat different, and to simply group us
> together, marginalizes each of our individual stances in favor of an assumed
> whole. Simple as that.
Well, then Chris, if my mere noting that there appear to be
similarities in your points of view creates this terrible erasure both
of you in favor of an assume whole - then, how are you ever to have
standards?
Once again, you seem to be agreeing with me. You wish to have your
aesthetics whole and intact and apart from anyone else's. How are you
to go to standards?
Unless you intend to have one person nominated somehow to impose all
the standards - or you get together with some person, like Chaz, and
have a committee viewpoint - which you now say is "marginalization."
That's not how I'd use the word. So have you now abandoned Chaz to be
the Standard Bearer on this thread?
At any rate, when two people are joined together in a task (even if
they have somewhat different perspectives, they're both on the same
task), that's called building a power base through numbers, not
marginalization. Marginalization is when you first take someone like
me (who has but one point of view that isn't lumped in with others) and
then a group of people (say, for example, a group that wants standards)
who are content with sharing their nodal viewpoints to create standards
- and that group sends the one person over to the corner or won't
listen.
We could get there - but it wouldn't be the *group* that was
marginalized.
Anyway, forgive me, everyone for not getting past the part where
DubiousChris insists on standards, comes up with one called "Quality,"
but can't give me any clue what that means. I've suggested the "main
quality" of art is that it is experienced subjectivity, which means all
the qualities there are (every which way, too) - but you could start
listening "qualities" of art - there are a lot - and I don't know how
you'd make an art recipe out of them.
A.
>
>
>
> On 12/5/06, chazwin <chaz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh I've come over all odd and shaky!!!
> > I've been lumped in with another person!!!!
> > Ohhh Errr!
> >
> >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> http://dubiousprofundity.com
> Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_100518_333727.1165322633283
> Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
> X-Google-AttachSize: 957
>
> Ha! *giggling*<br><br>Atalanta, you marginalized me by lumping me in with Chaz because although there are similarities in stance, and singular points upon which we agree, the foci of our perspectives are somewhat different, and to simply group us together, marginalizes each of our individual stances in favor of an assumed whole. Simple as that.
> <br><br><br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/5/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">chazwin</b> <<a href="mailto:chaz...@yahoo.com">chaz...@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> <br>Oh I've come over all odd and shaky!!!<br>I've been lumped in with another person!!!!<br>Ohhh Errr!<br><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://dubiousprofundity.com">http://dubiousprofundity.com</a><br>Dubious Wisdom for Dubious Times - Check it out!
>
> ------=_Part_100518_333727.1165322633283--
A.
DubiousChrisJ
DubiousChrisJ
Well, I wrote an incredibly lengthy response to your post - which
disappeared into google's cyberspace. I'm going to try (unbelievably)
to reconstruct it - because art matters. My viewpoint is totally
misrepresented throughout your post - to the end, and I don't think
it's that hard to understand.
The point really is that while you argue for pure subjectivity in art, sans standards of any form, you cannot apply that same subjectivity to my experience with the art industry, and the opinions I have formed because of it. I am simply wrong minded in my stance. That's fine, but it does illustrate the point of which I am speaking.
Subjective viewpoints exist. You can't corral them into standards -
try as you might. For me and I speak subjectively, of course -
throughout ALL my posts), the attempt to corral subjectivity stinks and
I will shy away from it.
>
> It would be enough for each thinking patron of the arts to establish their
> own standards. The problem is, that's not what happens.
So, you're into arguing your own sense of personal experience history.
Well, I'm not. I'm simply stating my own views on things. You will
argue against yourself, later, though. You'll end up shouting at me,
"IF YOU KNEW WHO I AM" or some such thing - in an attempt to get me to
listen - just as you argue should not happen, in art. So - why have it
happen elsewhere? You'll also try to figure out if I'm "thinking like
a man" (I think that was vaguely odd to bring up) and if I'm a mean ole
college professor (for being intelligent, firey, showing fortitude -
your words, not mine).
You'll also accuse me of purposefully going out of my way to demean
others, when I haven't said a word about 'others,' - just art, except
for my categorization schema of posts and ideas (in which I lumped you
with Chaz, which apparently got to you - more about that in an
instant).
What happens is some
> elderly patron with no taste in art, but exquisite taste in ass finds
> himself some young impresssionable boy with barely any talent and a very
> pretty face, and gets him major gallery openings in exchange for other
> openings....
Nothing wrong with that - that's how the world works. What about
reality are you trying to change? Do artists still really believe
they're going to change actual reality with their art - into a place
where besotted old coots no longer become "patrons" to sexy young
artists?
I have no problem with oldsters patronizing sexy young artists - I
think it's fun and cute. It's no different from other fields, and I
think we spend FAR too much social resources on prudish patroling.
No one CAN establish standards. The most rigorous attempts have been
and are being made by the Chinese and the Russians - go check it out.
Does it work? I think not. The official stuff stinks, btw, as it
ALWAYS does (my view, my view only - as a person living on this planet,
and I don't think this is a male-only view, at all).
Right now in the industry,
> however, there are standards that have been established for what gets seen
> and what gets sold, and it's based not on the quality of the art, but on the
> connections of the artist.
Passive voice. Please use actual examples. X chose standards whereby
lousy-piece-of-art Y is placed in ________________ (name place).
How else is it to work? Soviet socialist art buying committee? No
thanks. Free market will do, for me.
This is a straw man. There is importance to craftsmanship, composition,
> technique. This is what separates an artisan from an apprentice.
Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. So - you're saying
that even though Michaelangelo was an apprentice when he did Z piece of
art - that...what, exactly? That the other sculpture dude in Florence
or whereever was not an artisan?
You seek to
> marginalize my stance by lumping me in with Chaz, to begin with, and ignore
> the reasoning why I have this position. Cesan and I may have the same
> vision, the same inspiration, the same conceptualization of use of color and
> contrast in a semi-impressionistic style, but his execution of that vision
> is why he is hanging in a museum:
I didn't realize you think Chaz is marginal. How would I know that?
Why would you assume I did?
You say this many times in your post - but I regard no one as marginal.
I may not have much to say to some people - that doesn't make them
marginal. I may disagree, that NEVER makes someone marginal.
What exactly makes Chaz marginal, here? I know him from elsewhere - in
my own mental world, he's got a much clearer persona than you do. How
is he marginal? He seems rather typical to me.
>
> http://gm.iatp.org.ge/gallery/bughadze/pages/Cesan_files/Cesan.jpg
Nothing comes up at that link, for me.
>
> and I am hanging in my garage:
>
> http://dubiousprofundity.com/mediagallery/mediaobjects/disp/d/d_deepbluefunk.jpg
Beautiful painting.>
Because the standards you say are there ignore brilliant artists and
> showcase utter crap without any redeeming value.
Entirely your opinion, and you're entitled to it (my point). Now
you're saying I have standards to impose, and yet every single damn
thing I've posted argues against standards. If that's not clear, I've
stated it again about ten times in this post.
I argue AGAINST standards, not for them. I believe art should take its
path through the helter skelter world of the subjective, making it at
long last in some instances to the marvelous world of the
intersubjective - or whatever. I have no clue. I'm just me, with my
own view of art - and I will fight for my OWN view (NOT yours, no
matter how highstepping your standards are).
Yes, value is subjective,
> but when the "art scene" places more emphasis on the social connections of
> the patron than on the actual quality of the work, there is a serious
> problem.
There is no actual quality. I wrote more on this earlier, but I
realized later you aren't willing to hear it.
> At any rate, proceed ahead. Chris and Chaz - establish your standards.
> Dismissive much?
If you see it that way. If you're that sensitive, good luck with being
involved with art. The painting you have posted (above) would be
"dismissed" by many - but I didn't. I appreciated it. Now, at your
own whimsy, you want to call me dismissive.
You do this a lot - every time I disagree with you. You don't argue
against me - which is fine, as my only point is that each of us has our
own point - regarding art - but you decide to state things ABOUT ME
that (to me) fall outside the domain of art.
Whatever you may be thinking, I am a person - not a work of art, you do
not get to critique or construct or deconstruct me. I do invite
rational dialogue - and I do think there's a profound argument here,
which I wish you could stick to.
I think you have mistaken my use of the word craft to connotate
> that I like "crafts", items of kitschy americana value, hand made bits of
> wire and beads made into cute little puppies.
Later you'll accuse me of either deriding or being patronizing or some
such thing to someone - I want to you to look at what you just posted.
You essentially called me an imbecile.
What, about me, makes you think I'd confuse the word "craft" with cute
little puppies?
What a fucking asshat thing to say, actually. Did I not mention one
small example of craft (which if you're going to take me on, regarding
the word, you might well take into account - as I view the QUALITY of
reading ability to be much more easily ascertained objectively than ANY
quality of art...)? And was that thing anything remotely related to
wire puppies?
Give me a break. And don't complain in the future of ANY attitude of
mine - you're quite uncharitable and rude, yourself.
What I mean is that the artist
> has honed their craft, and taken the time to perfect their method, whatever
> that method may be. Defending a lack of technique or talent in visual art is
> a baseless position given that you would not accept the same lack of
> technique or talent in a singer, musician, actor, dancer...you expect those
> artists to have taken the time to practice their art until they have honed
> it.
Of course I would. You're now telling me (ME - tell this to yourself,
as I have already told you I will NOT be moved by your own subjective
views on art) - that I don't like Little Peggy March? That my high
school band isn't music to me? That I actually think the Mamas and the
Papas "honed their craft" - I don't know, maybe they did - but I merely
liked them.
I merely liked them.
The list of people I like in art, music or WHATEVER, changes DAILY -
sometimes with regard to quality (maybe), often for entirely other
reasons.
Iron Butterfly. Quality? I think not. YMMV.
But, since you harp on it, do us all a favor and list TEN WORKS OF ART
AVAILABLE ONLINE (there are thousands ) that are QUALITLY. Hilarity
will ensue. What percentage of the world population will agree with
you? What percentage of this narrow ng will agree with you?
How will you defend your choices? I already know you won't defend them
(possibly, you can't - I wouldn't be able to), but you must have then,
right?
List 'em. It's time to show your hand. I call.
I love pure shape. I love pure form. I love pure color. I do not consider
> each of them individually to be a finished piece of art. If I paint the
> canvas flat primary red,
which I say you cannot do. But, if you can, please do so and then
post. A small canvas will do. I predict that you will not find
agreement on whether you have chosen primary red, fire engine red,
paprika, scarlet, crimson, blood red, ochre red or some other color.
Which is primary red, to you? What makes you think you know this? Or
that you could distribute your knowledge on a canvas?
Here's a link:
http://www.moma.org/collection/
The banner is color, line and form. It's not one primary color (very
advanced, apparently). Are you saying it's not art?
Here's another, with a field of yellow that is also about line and
form:
http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_126_32.html
Are you saying you could paint that? Please do. You don't think that
field of yellow matters - its flatness? Its mood, its line, its shape?
I think they DO matter - more than anything else about that particular
painting, for me. You can't predict that - you can't know whether
Picasso intended it, it just is - for me, an important piece of yellow.
I'd love to see you paint a canvas with just the hair on it (the yellow
patch). By tomorrow. Does it take any craft to accomplish that
particular quality (of yellow? of shape?) What other qualities are
you going for - then? Please state them.
and come up with a suitable backstory explanation
> of the piece, then according to you I have created a piece of art? B.S.,
> plain and simple. I have perpetuated a scam on the undiscerning.
Of course not. I've told you endless times that I have my own views on
art - and according to me, at this point, you're not much of an artist.
I had a different view when I was halfway through your post, earlier,
but I've changed my mind (it's SUBJECTIVE). Anything at all you say or
do (as a potential artist or an artist) can change my view of you and
your art. Deal with it. It could be just on the canvas - but you're
the one now calling ME out and calling what I say, B.S.
Too bad you see art as scamming, really is. It can be - that's part of
the fun. You're way too serious about it. It's not about money or
galleries - it's about vision, experience, fun - and ART.
>
> How about I get to just feel it and experience it, myself, then? Why
> > keep chattering about standards, in that instance?
> >
> > I do believe it was myself who has been most righteously supporting the
> > role of the subjective experience in constructing art throughout this
> > thread. But you can't have it both ways.
> >
> > You can't impose ANY standards on me - or the artist - or the gallery -
> > if your goal is to simply go, see and experience. BTW, if you don't
> > understand a thing and no one tells you about it -
> > that's cool. You could still work to understand it. Some of the most
> > important events in my life have involved working to gather knowledge,
> > I have nothing against it. I love figuring things out. If you look at
> > enough well-curated art, you can get quite a good perspective without
> > listening to anyone else's viewpoints.
>
>
> You make my point within your rebuttal. "Well curated art...".
No, I made the opposite point but I'll walk you through it again (at
the risk of being called names by you, again, apparently - or ascribed
qualities that I don't subjectively find appealing - as you do below,
but I'm used to it).
Are you seriously going to suggest that if someone - not YOU and not ME
- who goes to see a collection of art put together by a discerning art
collector (which is what is meant by "well cruated, obviously") - is
going to come away with LESS of an experience of art? That they are
going to come away thinking that DubiousChris's qualities are in play?
I think not. NO one can be taken away from art by visiting someone
else's intelligent art choices - in my view. YMMV. I find it
disturbing that you'd claim that someone's subjective view of art could
be damaged by viewing someone else's set of artpieces. Astonishing.
Also telling that you once again tried to deny me my own subjectivity
(you apparently want many restatements of my view):
My view is subjective, it applies to me. "Well-curated" bugs you
because it implies that I agree with some curator somewhere (which I
DO). So there's at least two of us (and the artist him/herself - THREE
- and probably some others. You have led yourself right into the
hornet's nest of intersubjectivity which is MY point (not yours - YOU
arearguing for "standards" - I am merely stating that I could find a
curated group of paintings "well-curated" - and I still claim there
would be nothing but more art-knowledge even if you went and didn't
agree with me or the curator)
The first
> step in curation is selecting the piece.
I disagree - and I think you will too in an instant. How would one
become a curator merely by selecting a painting? I select paintings
all the time (for real, in my imagination, whatever) - I am not on the
path to being a good curator. At all.
There are MANY possible starting points for curation - but my point is
that (once again, you assumed you knew what I meant - and you don't,
because it's SUBJECTIVE). The content of the word "well" (as used by
me or others who go to the same curator) is not known to you
(apparently). It seems you don't even want to deduce the meaning - or
you'd have asked me what kinds of exhibitions I think are well-curated.
But you didn't care to ask - you imposed your own view (which is what
I'm encouraging to you - but then, that's making MY point - not the
other way around).
a more quality oriented criteria used, when it
> comes to making that initial selection. Why is that so complicated for
> someone as self assuredly intelligent as yourself?
Why insult me continually when you can't even define the word "quality"
and have now reiterated it over and over. If it's not merely your
subjective view (the content of the word "quality" - then what it is
it, hmmm?)
I have no view on quality, I have a subjective viewpoint. I claim the
same for you. Prove me wrong - don't start with the fricken ad
hominems.
> Sure thing. People also read all those Director's Diary websites on movies
> they like as well. Personally, when I watch a movie, I don't care what the
> Director had for breakfast, or that he was pissed of that his P.A. didn't
> fellate him at lunch. But, that's me. The information should be available
> for everyone who wants it. However, like the good movie, good art doesn't
> NEED it, and that's the point.
No - that's not THE point. That's YOUR point. Why are you so
continuously universal and imperious in your language? And is that why
you decide to insult me so much? That's NOT the point.
The point is this:
Art need not have plaques (wow we agree).
I like when it does. (Now you want to discount me - I say you can't).
YOU can do whatever you want with the fricken plaques. They are NOT
necessary. No one said they were necessary - there's very likely not
one single NECESSARY quality of art. If there is - please name it.
You can't though, can you?
> I love the way you craft your statements to impugn, disparage, and demean,
Is that what you see, then? Wow - you don't even know me. But, thanks
for the part about "crafting." You have no clue what I mean to say -
or what my tone is, but apparently you are fairly all-seeing.
At any rate, you do a really good job of insulting people - and if you
see me as demeaning, I can't help that - that's your subjective view
(too bad you couldn't stick to art, though).
Well - I can't help that you think there are too many words in my posts
(I was attempting to make a point about the nature of subjectivity,
still am, you missed it, you dismiss it as garrulous - which is your
perogative, and I can tell you this: I wouldn't want your viewpoints
on life in my *art* collection at this point (if I decide to build a
slam wall or something, you can volunteer to participate).
Where do you get the notion that I have self presumed superiority?
Given the context of this discussion, I can only say that's complete
projection on your part. Here's why. It has to do with the topic I'm
on: SUBJECTIVITY.
In the domain of subjectivity, there is no other view to assert BUT
ONE'S OWN. You don't like mine? Get your own. But it's ALL there -
in my subjective view. The color red my guy is wearing as he walks in
the door tonight (I got him the shirt), etc. ALL of it - and there's
no yellow - and if you seriously construe yourself as knowing anything
about art, Mr/Ms Art Critic (as you are about to claim below, in this
post) - then you'd know that my subjective experience of YELLOW -
TODAY, while I'm looking at this particular Picasso - MATTERS to the
art - but you wouldn't know that, so you can be your own art groupie -
is that how you want me to speak? That's demeaning, Chris - and if you
call it up, you might get it - but there's nothing demeaning in my
earlier posts - I simply call it as I see it - for you to declare my
truth about something "garrulous" is way off point. However,
throughout the rest of our time together, I assure you, I'll be much
less personable (garrulous, from your point of view).
If you can't understand that people actually interact with art, in an
ongoing way that encompasses - in potential - all of life, you're
merely regarding art as commerce or decoration - or I don't know what
you're doing. I really don't. I don't care to hear it explained, I
don't think - given your stance toward me (explain it next time to
someone else).
Anyway, you can't speak of art so instead you walk right up to the
actual step of attacking a person you don't know, personally, and
claiming things about them that not only do you not know - but are
merely value perceptions on your part, anyway) - and then having the
gall to claim you want "standards"?
List your 10 quality art works and be done with it.
List your 10 stupid curators, too.
Define quality. Let's have it. I call it, let's put the bluff down
now. Or the bully attitude - haven't decided yet which you're trying.
> Which is fine, there's no law against boorishness, unless what you really
> want is to sway opinion and create understanding by educating and
> enlightening in an open and positive rational discourse.
A boor is someone who you'd prefer listen to you instead of stating
their own views - did you know that?
Yet, I've read and responded to
every line of your post - with true interest and enthusiasm, and I see
no reciprocity.
I have none - as I am arguing a subjective viewpoint, for myself (no
straw men here - I'd burn them down, if they were there right now -
maybe tomorrow). You don't seem to realize you can't argue with
someone else's subjectivity. You also seem to be willing to impose
standards of art that leave out my subjectivity (which is, to you,
overly specific and therefore garrulous).
why is it you think I will not engage in dialogue
> regarding my perceptions of the piece? I recognize that art is subjective,
> have stated so, and am always interested in hearing the perceptions of
> others, and sharing my own. And, sometimes in the course of that dialogue,
> my perception of the piece will change. None of this has any bearing on
> wanting the piece that I am looking at to have been selected for display
> based on its quality.
Missing my point altogether, meandering through the tulips. I didn't
say you wouldn't engage in a dialogue - I said that no one like me will
engage in a thorough dialogue with someone like you - you deny my
subjectivity, worse each time you post. You don't want to put in the
effort - and I don't blame you. Why would you want to? I'm boring to
you.
But I'm still here. And YOUR standards of quality MUST reflect what I
seek in art (which is no standards of quality - unless someone can
define quality, which NO ONE EVER HAS - if you can do that, Chris, have
it).
Define Quality in 500 lines or less right here: I cannot help you at
all with this task, but I've set it up so that it should be crystal
clear to you what standards are - everything that is not purely
subjective, right? So go find it.
>
> Just don't forget that for SOME of us, reading about art, the artists,
> > their times and motivations, is PART of the art - and you can't take
> > that away from us even if you don't want to do it. It's simply
> > reflexive for me, whether it's a movie or a piece of music
>
>
> And as previously stated, I have no desire to do so.
I think this is one of the few times you've really been firm in a
subjective statement. So are you saying that a work of art that comes
with a history - would be excluded from your standard? We would NOT
put up Guernica because it's political? Is this really what you want
to say? We would only exhibit Picasso's early bulls - because later it
got so aboriginal rights oriented? Or merely primitive - or would you
permit all the bulls? On what basis? You think the bulls themselves
should be shown - or not? No art history involved at all?
It varies - you want it not to, but it varies - and it closes you off
to a whole aspect of art that I see as vibrating among various
principles (not standards) - so once again, I say you are merely
subjective (as I am) and have no standards that you can articulate.
Articulate them if you have them.
What - we're to rely on folks like
you wandering about - doing what? Choosing which paintings to show?
If not relying on persons (instead on your stated standards), WHAT
standards? Define Quality!
If you are the speaker and I do not understand your message, perhaps
> I will take steps to gain a greater understanding. If you are the speaker
> and say nothing at all, then someone else's explanation of what your meaning
> was is pointless.
That's ridiculous. Read what you just wrote.
Makes no difference - to you - whether that someone else is, say, my
mother - or my daughter - or even, all my family members together
saying I mean precisely X - or a total strange says I mean Y? No
difference? This is lunacy.
Each of us has a PERSONAL relationship (possibly quite meaningful, and
emotional) to any particular piece of art.
Art is NOT permanent. The same piece can delight me today - and
tomorrow - I can never want to see it again - and the next day, some
other attitude (depends on the art, with many, many pieces, my
relationship never changes, and I have never been wrong - in my own
estimation - of which ones those COULD be - but, of course, you find
this totally digressive, as you are not the least bit interested in
aesthetics or subjectivity or what I'm trying to say - you want
standards).
Onward.
This is what is happening in Post Modern Art. Artists are
> saying nothing, and art critics and scenester pundits are arguing over the
> meaning behind their silence. It's an excercise in mental masturbation that
> accomplishes nothing, and only demeans art as a form of expression. It
> reminds me of first graders playing dress up with exaggerated gestures,
> unintentionally mocking the mannerisms of the people they admire.
I disagree. I think you're dead wrong. There's no one group of
"artists," I don't know who you mean by pundits - I don't read them.
Please list.
The very last "art critic" I read was Kandinsky - how about you?
The very last set of paintings (temporally speaking) I perused was
curated by Peter the Great - what's your problem with that? Before
that, I really loved several modern exhibitionsn of pointillists at
various places - what's wrong with that?
That's it. NOT SHOULD. But even if I did have a should - it wouldn't
be for YOU to hear as "you must do Chris," it would mean, "What
Atalanta would like to have happen" - the word "SHOULD" has that
meaning, as well.
To wit: You're just getting blacker and there's no kettle around yet.
How's that?
New is a quality, is it not?
Is new one of the qualities you speak of or is it not?
You
> completely discount the fact that I am am an artist, an art critic (who has
> reviewed more than 30 artists for two different magazines),
So do you see what you did? You pulled out the nepotism card (look who
I am, look who I know, blah blah).
So?
Why - after all this - would you think I'd be the least impressed by
your position? Or you by mine - whatever mine is? I'm a toaster
restorer. I restore old toasters for a living.
and at the
> basest level, a person who not likes, but LOVES art. Additionally, you
> presume to speak for this group that you attempt to marginalize me from.
> Hilarious.
Huh? Whachoo talkin about? I barely got here and hardly hang out here
- and as I said now several times:
I speak ONLY for myself. I think that's why I'm in this particular
trouble, actually.
>
> Then, you get upset, apparently, if a group of people (including the
> > artist and the curators) emerge as having similar opinions.
>
>
> Is that apparent? Would you care to illustrate what made that apparent?
> Because it is inaccurate.
Cool. That was the impression your "curators are nepotistic" turn of
phrase went - and I paraphrase loosely, as I don't intend to scan back
your posts. But - you seemed to be complaining that art is merely "who
you know"....remember?
> > Which is it? If people are to respond individually and YOU don't want
> > "extra voices" in your response - but that very same action (hearing
> > certain people - like the guy sittting next to me on the couch - give
> > views on art) is the very essence of heaven, the aesthetic experience,
> > of art - to me, how you going to keep me from having MY experience -
> > which naturally and spontaneously includes dialogue with CERTAIN people
> > (who are knowledgeable, philosophically, highly intellectual, keenly
> > aesthetic, etc.)
> > The friends I seek out and attempt to keep are ALL people whose
> > aesthetic opinions I value right up there with life itself. How's
> > that? How you going to keep that dialogue - among aesthetes - from
> > happening (with or without you)? If there are enough of us to keep
> > museums and galleries open, what are you going to do about that?
Those were some of my most heartfelt words, actually - and you are so
far off in your own land that you can't even see it. Reread what I
wrote. You want to deny the influence of life on me - and on art?
Good luck, dood (not a term of disrespect where I come from - don't
assume anything about my tone, either, you are THAT far off.
Let me attempt to translate again. Art exists not in a vacuum. Not
ever - not for me. If you have other views, state them.
Art encompasses the grand moments when we finally "see" it, as well -
where ever it is, which may be bestowed by grace - for all I know. I
don't question it. Question it all you want. I "see" art when I see
it - with particular viewpoints in my mind and alongside me - and so
far, I find it inescapable to at least take myself when I view art -
haven't left my body and floated out to see any paintings recently,
either.
Not a diatribe - I'll let you know when I get to one. Beware, since
you are concerned and apparently rather sensitive, that my diatribes
are a great deal meaner than anything I've said so far - and usually I
include actual invective, so do look out for yourself.
>
> How much art do you own? How much is in your home? I'm glad you use
> > your subjective experience to construct your own reality (with art, I
> > hope), but ultimately - your view is that it's just You and the Art
> > (Chaz isn't going to be there to share your enthusiasm or lack of
> > enthusiasm about any particular piece). You sit silent with your art,
> > in that event. Seems sterile and cold, to me. How much art do I own? I don't really know. Too many to keep a running count
> of them, as if I cared. There are a ton of pieces from excellent local
> artists, a few with great sentimental attachment (like Lynore's portrait of
> T and me), my various paintings and photographs (
> http://myspace-936.vo.llnwd.net/01342/63/96/1342306936_l.jpg ), and T's
> sketches, sculpture, and handpainted furniture. There are also the videos of
> T's performances as principal ballerina in the Joffrey Ballet, and other
> career highlights (since you included performing arts in your previous
> statements)...need I continue?
Well - no. Since I don't care about your job description in this
context.
I could only see one picture at that site - and I tried to
find more. That says something.
Since I'd been looking at Picasso's
woman with yellow hair - well, YOU go look at her (I posted the link
above - and no, I did NOT look at your piece and THEN go look at
Picasso - it was the other way around, if you're curious and are still
into ascribing malicious motives to me - jeez, I actually liked your
picture, it's the same kind of abstract stillness as in Picasso's
painting - except that his painting is supposed to be a woman, now I'm
thinking that's exactly what's wrong with her - she looks a bit too
much like a semi-arid landscape - isn't her hair almost exactly the
same color as in your work? - and the lavender?)
Anyway.
>
> ...which was, of course, pointless posturing, but you seemed to be using
> your question as some sort of qualification, attempting to further
> marginalize my position as unqualified and outside of the actual sphere of
> art and artists. There was even a hint of metaphorical phallus size
> comparison implied in your statement that I find truly fascinating.
Very sorry if you think that's why I did it. Unfortunately, it was
purely out of having linked you and Chaz in my mind (as proponents of
Standards).
>
> It's kind of strange. You have an amazing intellect, wide scope of
> knowledge, excellent articulation, dismissive attitude, presumptive nature,
You're acting as if I know you somehow and am interacting with you on
this level - which is a fantasy you seem to have.
You seem to think my
hypotheticals - designed to get specific info from you - are an
invitation to have you comment upon my personality. Far from it.
But, the fact that you do, of course, now accompanies you about, like a
cloak.
Excellent. I hope it's fur lined. It's getting cold this afternoon.
> and the hard edge of a women who has been forced to be aggressive and "act
> like a man" because they are in a challenging environment which requires
> fortitude and fire along with intelligence and skill to succeed. Are you by
> chance a college professor?
Was this supposed to be the old chestnut about women being aggressive
rather than bitchy - and it's so much better to say aggressive? Just
call me a bitch, if that's what you're thinking- it's ridiculous to
beat around the bush like this.
But was that what you were thinking? I can't tell. Sounded like it,
in my vernacular.
Where was I hard? Do you know what my mood is? I don't think so. You
can't know that about me.
Nope. All I can do is interpret the tone of your email. It's a subjective measure.
Where was I aggressive? Please don't bother
with either explanation, however, until you've clarified "Quality" and
the pertinent to the thread topics, if I may be so bold as to make one
request.
> > > While I do find some value in some modern art, I absolutely agree with
> > Chaz here in that there has to be some level of quality and craftsmanship by
> > which it is judged. I wouldn't be so presumptive to say any piece is not
> > art, because I understand that at its core, art is individual, a material or
> > emotive expression of an external observation, or an internal mental or
> > emotional process. I would certainly say that some pieces are bad art,
> > though...
DubiousChrisJ
And you despised it.
Well, good for you. At least you do recognize that it is repugnant.
Notice, I did take the time to answer all your questions. And for the third post in a row, you discounted my answers, this time going so far as to actually ignore them entirely. To which I say good once again. Because you have clearly illustrated that when I call you on your bullshit by giving you answers to questions you state are unanswerable, you simply go off in a huffy snit.
Hell A, I even gave you the chance to make peace, and admitted fully what I was doing. You didn't want to go there because it involved admitting some fault...and the self professed lover of argument would never consider making abject statements of the wrongness of others demeaning...why, that's just what you do in an argument!
Perhaps, but it's does tend to cause a little heat here in rational exchange. If you recall, I asked Chaz and Lee to tone it down because they were essentially doing just that...profanely calling each other idiots.
I'm an asshole? Fine. I've been called worse. You won't talk to me? Waaah. You can't talk to me, because I call you on your crap. As long as you keep your posts within the terms of service, and within reasonable bounds of civility, neither I nor any of the other moderators, or Craig, would ever kick you off.
You're waiting for an apology from me? Please. I offered one, with the only caveat that I required an equal one from you. You chose not to, so pardon my cockney, but piss off.
I made my point, in a clear and concise way. I responded, point by point to your didactic diatribes, all 4000 words of each one. You chose to snip off the end of my last post, which reposted my initial paragraph in this thread, which was short, concise, to the point, and did not need a senior thesis written on the exegesis of my subconcious intentions. You decided to respond with the ten thousand words you did, and I responded in kind. Then, you have the blind gall to accuse me of being the one who set the tone. Your history is short sighted, your reasoning circular, and your self importance absolutely iron clad. At least I have the intestinal fortitude to call this all what it is...arrogant posturing and poor manners. You persist in acting as though you are justified in it.
Ma'am, it's a shame no one ever taught you to take the time to be polite. I couldn't care less if I've made an enemy of you. Someone as pretentious and self inflated as you can't possible make a good friend. Do what ya got to do. ;)
Anyone else have something to say about modern art, or have A and I beat this subject to death in our lovely exchange of unpleasantries?
DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> Well, I wrote an incredibly lengthy response to your post - which
> > disappeared into google's cyberspace. I'm going to try (unbelievably)
> > to reconstruct it - because art matters. My viewpoint is totally
> > misrepresented throughout your post - to the end, and I don't think
> > it's that hard to understand.
>
>
> Really? So to properly understand the communication you were trying to make,
> I had to move beyond my subjective understanding of what you seemed to be
> saying?
>
> ;^) Yes, I'm just being persnickety.
No, sweetie (I'm starting to like you quite a bit - although you are
not "pleasing to the eye," you have other qualities. (and for you
onlookers: I have no idea what Chris looks like, I'm speaking of his
lines of text - I think he's a he).
There is no proper understanding of my communication. I'm more
interested, at this point, in getting a sense of how you go about
trying to relate to one other subject - and in your own subjective
viewpoint, of course. Which is starting to come across - and I like
it, very much. I understand, now, why you want to assert "qualities"
(so do I, believe me) - and if I could help you do what you want (make
them into standards?) I suppose I wouldn't balk at the idea - but,
frankly, I don't think you can take your own subjective views and
simply turn them into standards (or "true" quality).
>
> The point really is that while you argue for pure subjectivity in art,
No. I argued for pure subjectivity in MY responses to art. Very.
Big. Difference.
I also said that as long as both a subject like myself and art exist -
there will be interplays between/among the subjective and the art. Art
stands out there, I guess, and I am subject to it - and I have a
subjective view upon it. I don't know if an artwork *has* a point of
view (I've always actually thought they didn't, to tell you the truth -
but now that I think about it, I think I"ve been rather dense or wrong
not to consider that the artwork itself can have a p.o.v. - who's to
say it doesn't?)
So I never argued for "pure subjectivity in art." I wasn't really
arguing. I stated that I am a subject, bound in my subjective view and
that I will personally resist you attempting to take that from me - in
any way at all. I'm quite sensitive on this issue, for reasons I think
are self-evident, as the steamrolling of the subjective has its
consequences - I'd like to think we all don't want to go there.
sans
> standards of any form, you cannot apply that same subjectivity to my
> experience with the art industry, and the opinions I have formed because of
> it. I am simply wrong minded in my stance. That's fine, but it does
> illustrate the point of which I am speaking.
No - you're very much right-minded in your own stance. And your
experience of the art world (although, of course, you could change your
experiences and have different ones, as you must surely know). For
example, you could drop the notion of there being an "art world"
altogether and state that you, Chris, have a stronger viewpoint than
all the artworlds stacked on top of each other. I wouldn't mind that
at all - in fact, I'd be more likely to want to see your own
well-curated set of artworks.
But I can see how you think that I think you're wrongminded, as I've
clearly been argumentative. Argumentative, to me, is just what I do
(my dad encouraged it and thought it was adorable - can you tell? he
thought my argument-ability was, in fact, "pleasing to look at.") Many
others, besides my dad, have also encouraged it.
I'm sorry that these lines often begin with No or But - I hate that. I
do sense us moving closer together in understanding, though, Chris - as
compared to say, me and Chaz ( ; -) )
OTOH, I don't feel it's moving quickly or necessarily with proportion.
>
>
>
> > Subjective viewpoints exist. You can't corral them into standards -
> > try as you might. For me and I speak subjectively, of course -
> > throughout ALL my posts), the attempt to corral subjectivity stinks and
> > I will shy away from it.
>
>
> And yet, despite this disclaimer, you are very convicted in your viewpoints.
Are you saying that one can't be convinced or "convicted" (??) in a
subjective viewpoint? I'm saying that this is the one place where
you'd *better* find some conviction! If you don't have your own
viewpoint, what, then, do you have? You haven't got much, in my view.
You seem - over and over and yet again - to be completely convinced
that "subjective viewpoints" (mine or anyone else's) should not be a
source of ultimate conviction.
Which is where we're disagreeing. "True" value lies in my own
convictions - for me - not in yours. You can opine all you want about
your convictions but if I don't believe them, it's all for naught -
they're just yours. Transcending this barrier is quite dicey. Science
often pretends that it does so, automatically, but the recent Dawkins
discussions (and the crap Dawkins feels compelled to utter as his own
conviction) show otherwise.
I, at least, am quite honest. My views are my own. They are my
convictions. What other convictions would you expect anyone to have -
but their own? Do you really want people to create split minds? I see
it like this, at the very minimum:
1. My own actual (true) views on value (however I come by them).
2. A holding space for someone else's values, which I decide to stick
alongside my own actual views, so that I can receive viewpoints from
outside (but what status does this holding tank/space have, really?
not truth, for sure - needs to be examined, I'm not a dope who just
believes everything poured into me from outside).
3. A fake "real me" in which I conjoin my truth with items from #2
that don't make it to #1 and parrot/speak those because...why?
How much of this do I have to do? Why would I do this? I do this kind
of thing when I go to buy a used car (or a new one) or when I try to
"be polite" around my parents. I'm not cut out to do much more of this
triplicitous, quadruplicitous (in my house, we have a joke:
septiciptious, octogenitous - and we laugh, because everyone knows I'm
not capable of holding too many simultaneous and conflicting "true" or
"real" points of view - but, I can usually make a better show of it
than everyone else who lives here - and this is not deemed to my
credit).
> I am as well. We both have subjective viewpoints on the issue, but you are
> convinced yours is right, or else you wouldn't be arguing so vehemently to
> make your point.
It's your subjective view that I'm arguing. not mine.
We both agree that art is a subjective experience. I think
> that you are defending a greater perception about art in general, while I am
> talking about the social expression of art, in its industry, and the
> decidedly non-artistic way in which art is judged to be worthy of viewing.
> In the end, though, you ARE trying to establish a set of standards, albeit a
> set which is so wide as to allow a man pissing on himself to be art. I
> disagree.
No. I'm not trying to "establish" anything. I'm on a usenet board,
having a convo wid ya. If you are in a position, as you seem to say,
to establish "standards" within the "social expression of art" or the
"art world," you have a very different structural position in the world
than I do. I am a mere onlooker - a patron of the arts, a denizen of
the art world - such as mine is - I live in California. But, I do
claim something more than about subjectivity.
I claim that to establish standards, you can't merely have thoughts and
ideas (whether subjective or not). You do need to take account of the
structure of art - and we haven't really had time to discuss that yet
so you don't know my views on that.
I haven't decided, myself, whether I should claim that my own
subjective views are AS IMPORTANT as anyone else's - I just know that I
have them, and I won't and cannot adopt a standard that is opposite or
apposite (whatever that word is) my own TRUE beliefs. I've done a lot
of lying in my time - and still feel forced to (bedside manner issues,
you might say) - but I'm NOT going to lie about art.
What would be the point?
>
SNIP - mostly my own previous musings.
\
>
> You approach your responses in a presumptive, arrogant, and dismissive tone.
> I'll agree that is my subjective experience, but I have seen in response
> from several posters that my subjective experience is not held only by me.
Ah - but did you calculate the responses that DO NOT take that view.
Do you read my email? Could it be that on ngs, people who like to dis
others are more vocal than people who -like me - take an apparently
unpopular stance (that's really all you're saying - my "vociferousness"
or "garrulousness" is merely the fact that you don't like what I'm
saying - or think I'm saying). Your own posts can be pret' darn
ramblingesque. People go ahead and TELL me they don't like me because
they can easily see I invited it (I keep saying I want other people's
truth).
It's entirely possibly - yay, it's very likely - that there are other
posters who are regarded in a similar fashion (by whoever) but not
spoken to about it - because they appear fragile or they won't respond.
At any rate, your invokation of groupthink (a bunch of us think you're
arrogant) is duly noted. I don't believe in voting on people's
personalities. In fact, even more than in art, I think a person's own
perspective on themselves should be sought (and I've tried hard to seek
yours - you simply keep calling me names like garrulous, arrogant,
presumptive, dismissive) - and yet, I don't see how I can be
"dismissive" when I'm still posting to you (and you complain about the
length too! Dismissive? Garrulous? Argumentative? WHICH is it?
Those words are not really very overlapping).
And arrogance is a quality of mind - you aren't a mind reader. But,
apparently, you project onto me that IF you dared (as I do) to speak
your own subjective mind...you'd view yourself (or perhaps be viewed by
others?) as arrogant. That's the only sense I can make of that
statement.
Do you want me to pretend I don't know certain words or facts? Do you
want me to be less passionate about my views? Why? Why would that
make you feel more comfortable?
If YOU want to have a subjective view in which you're generally wrong
or you think your own views are worthless, go ahead. Wait upon others
(and their standards) so you'll know what to think about yourself.
Arrogance, apparently, in this context means that I actually believe
what I'm saying - and in regards to art (which I'll remind you, is the
focus of this discussion) - I do get to say what I like and totally
believe it. That's the whole point of art - not just for me, but for
MILLIONS of people around the world who go to see (or make) art in
whatever context. Like me, they're going to walk right past stuff they
don't like (for whatever reason) and be "dismissive' toward it.
You want to talk about arrogance? Go back through these threads and
find the ones where people say, "My kid could do better with their
kid-paints...I just went to the museum today and it all looks like my
kid could do it."
I think that's arrogant. I don't mind it, though. I don't feel
compelled to post to each person who says it and tell them they're
arrogant. Apparently, you have a different view of arrogance (or don't
care about those other arrogant people as much as about me).
I'm entitled to feel good about my views on art. If you want me to
feel miserable, looking over my shoulder to see whether someone else
agrees with me, whether I need to grovel, whether I need to do more
self-crit, go elsewhere. I don't do art that way. I do my work with
plenty of self-crit - but art, for me, is about enJOYment.
I
> absolutely responded in a similar tone...to which you (in my mind,
> justifiably), respond with anger and offense...which was absolutely my
> intention. Yes, I can be acerbic, sarcastic, arrogant, presumptive, self
> righteous...but I can also be warm, engaging, empathic, and generally
> agreeable.
Me too.
I tend to respond in tone in the way that I am addressed.
And it's totally your right to presume you know my tone - and my mine
to say that you might be mistaken (from my view).
You did
> go out of your way to demean others, by taking a stance in which you presume
> to be correct to the point of telling others they are dead wrong.
Let's get something straight, Chris - and this will be my last
communication with you until I receive a very sincere apology. That's
a shame, because I've been enjoying this convo, but I don't take crap
like this from anyone.
You are not going to tell me that if I speak my own truth that in and
of itself, in text, on usenet, that "demeans" anyone. That's childish.
It's wrong, too. INTENT enters into demeaning tone or behavior - in
my view. Here, let's try it the other way.
I think you're a jerk. You're possibly sexist and racist too. I've
decided this based on your "tone." You're demeaning to me and to
others.
You like that? I bet not. You're going to say, "You have no reason to
say that about me."
And that's my point. You have no reason to say that about me - either.
If I feel and believe passionately and speak my truth (about ART of
all things) - I'm not demeaning you or anyone. I am not speaking to
you, personally - I don't know you that well. You're wanting me to act
as if we're buddies or something, and we're not.
At any rate, you've insulted me continuously and without ceasing in
EVERY post in the past few days - and I've had quite enough.
So, let's get to the bottom of the program.
You have no way of knowing my intent - and you want to claim over and
over that I'm curt, snippy, arrogant, garrulous - whatever. You're
overassuming, self-involved, can't see the forest for the trees, keep
saying things like "You don't know who I am," but you don't know who
others are, dis Chaz as marginal (!) and are entirely as pompous as a
person can get. Further, you're disturbed by me because YOU HAVE NO
VIEWS OF YOUR OWN, you had to invoke Pirsig to get anywhere with me on
quality. Sad, really sad - and if I point that out (and it's the
truth, as I see it, I'm a Big Ole Blue Meanie?)
Get used to it. I'm not your mama. I'm not your girlfriend. I'm a
person on usenet that you've decided to insult. Now - reciprocity.
Let's talk about that after you apologize. Or otherwise convince me
that you are not merely jacking off to your own insults of me.
You did it
> not just in this thread, but in several others. You set the tone by which I
> addressed you. If it sounded rude, judgemental, and "fucking asshat" to you,
> well good, that was the intention. I merely reflected your condescension and
> arrogance back to you. Take the time to make your posts a little warmer, a
> little less self assumptive, and a little more understanding of someone
> else's position, and I will do the same in my interactions with you. Or, we
> can throw intellectual daggers at each other in vaguely polite language and
> didactically dissect each others' posts. I find either option equally
> entertaining and time well spent.
I beg your pardon. You insulted me first - I wouldn't have responded
if not otherwise. Of course, you might not have intended it (or known
you were doing it). But when you post in a public forum, well, it's
public. You then have to deal with the ire of your fellow posters.
You do stir up a fair amount of ire. You continue to.
I don't have to take time to do anything - in fact, I guess that was an
invitation to leave. Interesting. Now, you're ISSUING ORDERS to me.
Take time to make your posts a little warmer. I might - if you'd take
time to make yours a little more to the point and not so terribly
circular.
I don't find either option entertaining - and I find it repugnant that
you insult me and then order me about, like a plaything, as either way
- it amuses you.
It does not amuse me. And having said that - let me make one thing
clear. I am not amused. If you think I'm posting to you in the future
- I won't be. It will be ABOUT you - and you'll have to deal with that
(even if my posts are right beneath yours - that doesn't mean I care
enough to "take time to post warmly" to you.)
And yeah - that's a crock of shit, too. You don't like that I tell you
what I think? Then don't keep posting in a manner that makes people
walk in off usenet and post that way to you. It's a no-brainer that
the rest of the world is GOING TO POST WHAT THEY THINK.
Boohoo, I've been told what someone thinks! Waaah! That's how your
posts come across (to me - and to some others, you might want to keep
track, as your mind likes this mob-mentality - rather than individual
subjectivity model. At least Chaz is a human individual (sorry, Chaz,
for lumping you with Chris, Jeez, I was a moron - but I'm learning).
So, Chris, expect NOT warmth from me (regardless of time of year) until
you manage to quit the constant complaining, criticizing, etc.
And as to whether others hate me as much as you do (and now you'll go
off on a diatribe (your word, you chose it yesterday)) - ask them.
Paradox was annoyed with me. I think he knows, however, that when I
said he should actually execute both paintings (and since he and I had
that convo, it turns out I've thought a great deal about the
impossibility - but the aesthetic pull of that second painting he
mentioned - but I wouldn't waste my breath explaining it to YOU - if HE
asks, I'll explain it to HIM, as he's an intelligent, thoughtful
person).
>
> What happens is some
> > > elderly patron with no taste in art, but exquisite taste in ass finds
> > > himself some young impresssionable boy with barely any talent and a very
> >
> > > pretty face, and gets him major gallery openings in exchange for other
> > > openings....
> >
> > Nothing wrong with that - that's how the world works. What about
> > reality are you trying to change? Do artists still really believe
> > they're going to change actual reality with their art - into a place
> > where besotted old coots no longer become "patrons" to sexy young
> > artists?
>
>
> I think it's reasonable to desire to see works of art in a gallery that are
> there based on their artistic merit as opposed to the willingness of the
> artist to play catamite to a lecher.
Whatever. I'm tired of your swollen self-important mind rolling in the
gutter for examples and then displaying them here.
>
> I have no problem with oldsters patronizing sexy young artists - I
> > think it's fun and cute. It's no different from other fields, and I
> > think we spend FAR too much social resources on prudish patroling.
>
>
> How very liberated of you. Viva la exploitation. Of all the things you've
> said, the fact that you find the predatory manipulations of the powerful
> upon the hopeful and needy to be "fun and cute" says very, very much about
> you.
You're an asshole, I was wrong - not an asshat. So every single old
person who ever got with a younger person is....what? An exploiter?
Give me a fucking break. Since you're obsessed with sexual
exploitation, you decided NOW to inject "predatory" - but I said
nothing about it. People can and do play around in art, find each
other sexy, etc. You got problems with that?
If you've been victimized while trying to sell you art, well, I'm not
going to be cruel and say what I'm thinking at this exact moment - but
I will say to you, not every single cute young thing got with an
oldster merely because the oldster was predatory.
Here's another newsflash. Cute young things can be predatory too.
You're an ass to imply otherwise - and you decided to impugn my very
values (after I personably revealed them to you).
I was "afraid" of that. (Colloquial expression - I'm not afraid).
What you have done, Chris, is made an enemy of me. You like it that
way? Good, because that's how it is now.
I will not be called a support of predatory behavior (you mo-fo- for
saying that).
But I'll get my eye on you, because I see exactly how your mind works.
>
> No one CAN establish standards. The most rigorous attempts have been
> > and are being made by the Chinese and the Russians - go check it out.
> > Does it work? I think not. The official stuff stinks, btw, as it
> > ALWAYS does (my view, my view only - as a person living on this planet,
> > and I don't think this is a male-only view, at all).
>
>
> EVERYONE can establish standards. They are all subjective, but if there is a
> pool of people from ecclectic tastes making some judgements as to what
> should be displayed, then we can have a fairly inclusive set of standards
> which allows a wide venue, but maintains some level of quality.
>
> Are there not judges in art shows? By what do they make their judgements if
> no standards can be established? Your premise is inclusive, politically
> correct, and flawed to the core.
I've had enough of you. You're just stupid and can't follow a point.
>
> Right now in the industry,
> > > however, there are standards that have been established for what gets
> > seen
> > > and what gets sold, and it's based not on the quality of the art, but on
> > the
> > > connections of the artist.
> >
> > Passive voice. Please use actual examples. X chose standards whereby
> > lousy-piece-of-art Y is placed in ________________ (name place).
>
>
> A dozen local artists here in St. Pete actually turn out stunning works of
> art which are largely ignored (John Vitale, Torog Drakeson, many many more),
> while Carl Andre piles bricks outside of the Tate, and Douglas Gordon plays
> the movie Psycho one frame at a time onto a wall at the Royal Scottish
> Academy.
>
> Is that non-passive enough for you?
I don't care - any more - about any of your details, so don't expect me
to.
>
> How else is it to work? Soviet socialist art buying committee? No
> > thanks. Free market will do, for me.
>
>
> Art is anything but free market. It is a closed and controlled market
> manipulated by the wealthy and influential.
>
> This is a straw man. There is importance to craftsmanship, composition,
> > > technique. This is what separates an artisan from an apprentice.
> >
> > Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. So - you're saying
> > that even though Michaelangelo was an apprentice when he did Z piece of
> > art - that...what, exactly? That the other sculpture dude in Florence
> > or whereever was not an artisan?
>
>
> I don't have any idea what allegory you are trying to draw here with this
> example, but Michelangelo is a great example of a talented apprentice
> (Madonna of the Steps) who became a polished artisan creating timeless
> classics of art (David, The Sistine Chapel, etc.). All of his most known
> pieces were from his later years, and he was prolific in his practice,
> honing his craft to the perfection it became. The other sculptor in
> Florence...you mean Leonardo? He's another example of exactly what I am
> talking about.
I don't care to answer your questions - you don't answer mine. You're
endlessly caught up in a loop of your own bizarre personality. Have
fun in there.
>
>
> You seek to
> > > marginalize my stance by lumping me in with Chaz, to begin with, and
> > ignore
> > > the reasoning why I have this position. Cesan and I may have the same
> > > vision, the same inspiration, the same conceptualization of use of color
> > and
> > > contrast in a semi-impressionistic style, but his execution of that
> > vision
> > > is why he is hanging in a museum:
> >
> > I didn't realize you think Chaz is marginal. How would I know that?
> > Why would you assume I did?
> >
> > You say this many times in your post - but I regard no one as marginal.
> > I may not have much to say to some people - that doesn't make them
> > marginal. I may disagree, that NEVER makes someone marginal.
> >
> > What exactly makes Chaz marginal, here? I know him from elsewhere - in
> > my own mental world, he's got a much clearer persona than you do. How
> > is he marginal? He seems rather typical to me.
>
>
> By saying "you and Chaz", you make no distinction between our stances, and
> remove the nuance of my own. This is marginalization.
Sorry - at first, the two of you did look alike. You can't change
that. You can't expect each usenet poster to keep an encyclopedic
account of
"What Chris meant to say."
Because it ain't going to happen. If it quacks like a duck, the
initial impulse (why do I bother explaining to you...you don't even get
the duck quack thing on your own).
I made a judgment on an ability of yours. You haven't the foggiest
clue what a "personality" really is - but it is FAR more than ability.
>
> > At any rate, proceed ahead. Chris and Chaz - establish your standards.
>
>
> This is your whole problem right here. I'm not seeking to establish MY
> standards. I don't think Chaz is either. There are standards at play, by
> which art is judged, and critiqued, and I would like to see more of that
> used in the selection of pieces for display in prominent galleries. Does
> that really seem so incredibly repressive to you?
Yes. And that you're seeking to establish someone else's standards -
is just plain bizarre.
Good luck in deciding (without holding those standards yourself)
whether they are good ones. And you wonder what's wrong with the art
world. Jesus.
>
>
> > > Dismissive much?
> >
> > If you see it that way. If you're that sensitive, good luck with being
> > involved with art. The painting you have posted (above) would be
> > "dismissed" by many - but I didn't. I appreciated it. Now, at your
> > own whimsy, you want to call me dismissive.
>
>
> Complimenting my painting does not preclude you from being dismissive to my
> stance. There is no correlation. Additionally, your compliment could have
> been entirely devoid of sincerity, and used only as an interjection for
> later point making, such as here. You essentially came out with a response
> to my position which said "fine, whatever, do whatever you want....". That's
> dismissive. I may not have your professorial grasp of all things everywhere,
> all the time, but I certainly know textual tone and syntax.
I am dismissive - now. Totally. You have no stance. Now, you claim
not even to have standards - you are merely standing around holding a
bag with someone else's values in it.
Not why I come to usenet.
I can read, Chris. I can read Pirsig or Pythagorus or any number of
others on my own.
>
>
> These combine the elements I was speaking about earlier. Nope, I did not at
> all say it was not art. This kind of confusion on your part is exactly why I
> tried to clarify the other statement. You really don't seem to get what I am
> saying. I would say, if anything, that these are fine examples of quality
> art. Picasso and Van Gogh certainly qualify. What I said in the previous
> post, that you somehow missed, is that I did not consider any one of those
> factors ON ITS OWN to be art. These pieces combine color, shape, form, along
> with polished brush and paint technique, to result in magificent
> masterpieces of art. Consider the following piece instead:
>
> http://myspace-931.vo.llnwd.net/01336/13/91/1336941931_l.jpg
>
> This piece attempts to capture some of the same form and shape of the van
> gogh night pieces. However, the colors, and the poor brush technique, bring
> down its overall quality, *which is perceivable as an aesthetic judgement *.
> point (*implied: *...I'm trying to make)."
>
> Understand now? I'm not writing universally, and the only imperiousness is
> the imperiousness inherent in believing in a subjective viewpoint. The same
> imperiousness you demonstrated in spades, and the reason I took the tone
> I did when I began this little baiting feud. It's also the reason you feel
> so insulted by the observations regarding your attitude and demeanor (oh,
> and don't let me forget the perceived insult of your intelligence by
> thinking you may have misunderstood my usage of the word craft).
>
> The point is this:
>
>
> *Gasp!* You just said "*THE *point.." How imperious and universal of you!
> cannot make Universals. Of course* *I mean "What DubiousChrisJ would like to
Whatever. Believe me, I can be as terse as the next person - and
that's exactly what you've ordered up.
Put a fork in it.
I don't even care if you think I'm wrong ,stupid, arrogant, a jerk, or
whatever. Continue on with your own "Chris's Monologue on Art" and
maybe someone else will play along - nicely. I'm sure it'll be much
more to your taste.
Don't whine later, though, if you see me on this ng - because I'll be
here until the moderators kick me off, responding whenever I like to,
and with my own ideas. Not anyone else's - and if any of you see me
using someone else's viewpoints, please call me on it - I like to give
attributions, very much.
A.
-----------------------
You can all thank A. for SNIPPING the remainder (including someone's
reader's garbage - it wasn't google's garbage, though).
"Art attracts us only by what it reveals of our most secret self."
- Jean-Luc Godard (Filmmaker, artist, critic, 1930-still alive)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SANJAY BUDHIIA
HINDPIRI THIRD STREET
RANCHI-834001
JHARKHAND
INDIA
MOBILE-9334461488
paradox
Shall we kiss and make up now?
A. wrote:
> DubiousChrisJ wrote:
> > Well, I wrote an incredibly lengthy response to your post - which
> > > disappeared into google's cyberspace. I'm going to try (unbelievably)
> > > to reconstruct it - because art matters. My viewpoint is totally
> > > misrepresented throughout your post - to the end, and I don't think
> > > it's that hard to understand.
> >
> >
> > Really? So to properly understand the communication you were trying to make,
> > I had to move beyond my subjective understanding of what you seemed to be
> > saying?
> >
> > ;^) Yes, I'm just being persnickety.
>
> No, sweetie (I'm starting to like you quite a bit - although you are
> not "pleasing to the eye," you have other qualities. (and for you
> onlookers: I have no idea what Chris looks like, I'm speaking of his
> lines of text - I think he's a he).
>
> There is no proper understanding of my communication. I'm more
> interested, at this point, in getting a sense of how you go about
> trying to relate to one other subject - and in your own subjective
> viewpoint, of course. Which is starting to come across - and I like
> it, very much. I understand, now, why you want to assert "qualities"
> (so do I, believe me) - and if I could help you do what you want (make
> them into standards?) I suppose I wouldn't balk at the idea - but,
> frankly, I don't think you can take your own subjective views and
> simply turn them into standards (or "true" quality).
> >
> > The point really is that while you argue for pure subjectivity in art,
>
> No. I argued for pure subjectivity in MY responses to art. Very.
> Big. Difference.
>
> I also said that as long as both a subject like myself and art exist -
> there will be interplays between/among the subjective and the art. Art
> stands out there, I guess, and I am subject to it - and I have a
> subjective view upon it. I don't know if an artwork *has* a point of
> view (I've always actually thought they didn't, to tell you the truth -
> but now that I think about it, I think I"ve been rather dense or wrong
> not to consider that the artwork itself can have a p.o.v. - who's to
> say it doesn't?)
>
> So I never argued for "pure subjectivity in art." I wasn't really
> arguing. I stated that I am a subject, bound in my subjective view and
> that I will personally resist you attempting to take that from me - in
> any way at all. I'm quite sensitive on this issue, for reasons I think
> are self-evident, as the steamrolling of the subjective has its
> consequences - I'd like to think we all don't want to go there.
>
> sans
> > standards of any form, you cannot apply that same subjectivity to my
> > experience with the art industry, and the opinions I have formed because of
> > it. I am simply wrong minded in my stance. That's fine, but it does
> > illustrate the point of which I am speaking.
>
> No - you're very much right-minded in your own stance. And your
> experience of the art world (although, of course, you could change your
> experiences and have different ones, as you must surely know). For
> example, you could drop the notion of there being an "art world"
> altogether and state that you, Chris, have a stronger viewpoint than
> all the artworlds stacked on top of each other. I wouldn't mind that
> at all - in fact, I'd be more likely to want to see your own
> well-curated set of artworks.
>
> But I can see how you think that I think you're wrongminded, as I've
> clearly been argumentative. Argumentative, to me, is just what I do
> (my dad encouraged it and thought it was adorable - can you tell? he
> thought my argument-ability was, in fact, "pleasing to look at.") Many
> others, besides my dad, have also encouraged it.
>
> I'm sorry that these lines often begin with No or But - I hate that. I
> do sense us moving closer together in understanding, though, Chris - as
> compared to say, me and Chaz ( ; -) )
>
> OTOH, I don't feel it's moving quickly or necessarily with proportion.
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Subjective viewpoints exist. You can't corral them into standards -
> > > try as you might. For me and I speak subjectively, of course -
> > > throughout ALL my posts), the attempt to corral subjectivity stinks and
> > > I will shy away from it.
> >
> >
> > And yet, despite this disclaimer, you are very convicted in your viewpoints.
>
> Are you saying that one can't be convinced or "convicted" (??) in a
> subjective viewpoint? I'm saying that this is the one place where
> you'd *better* find some conviction! If you don't have your own
> viewpoint, what, then, do you have? You haven't got much, in my view.
> You seem - over and over and yet again - to be completely convinced
> that "subjective viewpoints" (mine or anyone else's) should not be a
> > I am as well. We both have subjective viewpoints on the issue, but you are
> > convinced yours is right, or else you wouldn't be arguing so vehemently to
> > make your point.
>
> It's your subjective view that I'm arguing. not mine.
>
> We both agree that art is a subjective experience. I think
> > that you are defending a greater perception about art in general, while I am
> > talking about the social expression of art, in its industry, and the
> > decidedly non-artistic way in which art is judged to be worthy of viewing.
> > In the end, though, you ARE trying to establish a set of standards, albeit a
> > set which is so wide as to allow a man pissing on himself to be art. I
> > disagree.
>
> No. I'm not trying to "establish" anything. I'm on a usenet board,
> having a convo wid ya. If you are in a position, as you seem to say,
> to establish "standards" within the "social expression of art" or the
> "art world," you have a very different structural position in the world
> than I do. I am a mere onlooker - a patron of the arts, a denizen of
> the art world - such as mine is - I live in California. But, I do
> claim something more than about subjectivity.
>
> I claim that to establish standards, you can't merely have thoughts and
> ideas (whether subjective or not). You do need to take account of the
> structure of art - and we haven't really had time to discuss that yet
> so you don't know my views on that.
>
> I haven't decided, myself, whether I should claim that my own
> subjective views are AS IMPORTANT as anyone else's - I just know that I
> have them, and I won't and cannot adopt a standard that is opposite or
> apposite (whatever that word is) my own TRUE beliefs. I've done a lot
> of lying in my time - and still feel forced to (bedside manner issues,
> you might say) - but I'm NOT going to lie about art.
>
> What would be the point?
> >
> SNIP - mostly my own previous musings.
> \
> >
> > You approach your responses in a presumptive, arrogant, and dismissive tone.
> > I'll agree that is my subjective experience, but I have seen in response
> > from several posters that my subjective experience is not held only by me.
>
> Ah - but did you calculate the responses that DO NOT take that view.
> Do you read my email? Could it be that on ngs, people who like to dis
> others are more vocal than people who -like me - take an apparently
> unpopular stance (that's really all you're saying - my "vociferousness"
> or "garrulousness" is merely the fact that you don't like what I'm
> saying - or think I'm saying). Your own posts can be pret' darn
> ramblingesque. People go ahead and TELL me they don't like me because
> they can easily see I invited it (I keep saying I want other people's
> truth).
>
> It's entirely possibly - yay, it's very likely - that there are other
> posters who are regarded in a similar fashion (by whoever) but not
> spoken to about it - because they appear fragile or they won't respond.
>
> At any rate, your invokation of groupthink (a bunch of us think you're
> arrogant) is duly noted. I don't believe in voting on people's
> personalities. In fact, even more than in art, I think a person's own
> perspective on themselves should be sought (and I've tried hard to seek
> yours - you simply keep calling me names like garrulous, arrogant,
> presumptive, dismissive) - and yet, I don't see how I can be
> "dismissive" when I'm still posting to you (and you complain about the
> length too! Dismissive? Garrulous? Argumentative? WHICH is it?
> Those words are not really very overlapping).
>
> And arrogance is a quality of mind - you aren't a mind reader. But,
> apparently, you project onto me that IF you dared (as I do) to speak
> your own subjective mind...you'd view yourself (or perhaps be viewed by
> others?) as arrogant. That's the only sense I can make of that
> I
> > absolutely responded in a similar tone...to which you (in my mind,
> > justifiably), respond with anger and offense...which was absolutely my
> > intention. Yes, I can be acerbic, sarcastic, arrogant, presumptive, self
> > righteous...but I can also be warm, engaging, empathic, and generally
> > agreeable.
>
> Me too.
>
> I tend to respond in tone in the way that I am addressed.
>
> And it's totally your right to presume you know my tone - and my mine
> to say that you might be mistaken (from my view).
>
> You did
> > go out of your way to demean others, by taking a stance in which you presume
> > to be correct to the point of telling others they are dead wrong.
>
> You did it
> > not just in this thread, but in several others. You set the tone by which I
> > addressed you. If it sounded rude, judgemental, and "fucking asshat" to you,
> > well good, that was the intention. I merely reflected your condescension and
> > arrogance back to you. Take the time to make your posts a little warmer, a
> > little less self assumptive, and a little more understanding of someone
> > else's position, and I will do the same in my interactions with you. Or, we
> > can throw intellectual daggers at each other in vaguely polite language and
> > didactically dissect each others' posts. I find either option equally
> > entertaining and time well spent.
>
> > What happens is some
> > > > elderly patron with no taste in art, but exquisite taste in ass finds
> > > > himself some young impresssionable boy with barely any talent and a very
> > >
> > > > pretty face, and gets him major gallery openings in exchange for other
> > > > openings....
> > >
> > > Nothing wrong with that - that's how the world works. What about
> > > reality are you trying to change? Do artists still really believe
> > > they're going to change actual reality with their art - into a place
> > > where besotted old coots no longer become "patrons" to sexy young
> > > artists?
> >
> >
> > I think it's reasonable to desire to see works of art in a gallery that are
> > there based on their artistic merit as opposed to the willingness of the
> > artist to play catamite to a lecher.
>
> Whatever. I'm tired of your swollen self-important mind rolling in the
> gutter for examples and then displaying them here.
> >
> > I have no problem with oldsters patronizing sexy young artists - I
> > > think it's fun and cute. It's no different from other fields, and I
> > > think we spend FAR too much social resources on prudish patroling.
> >
> >
> > How very liberated of you. Viva la exploitation. Of all the things you've
> > said, the fact that you find the predatory manipulations of the powerful
> > upon the hopeful and needy to be "fun and cute" says very, very much about
> > you.
>
> You're an asshole, I was wrong - not an asshat. So every single old
> person who ever got with a younger person is....what? An exploiter?
>
> Give me a fucking break. Since you're obsessed with sexual
> exploitation, you decided NOW to inject "predatory" - but I said
> nothing about it. People can and do play around in art, find each
> other sexy, etc. You got problems with that?
>
> If you've been victimized while trying to sell you art, well, I'm not
> going to be cruel and say what I'm thinking at this exact moment - but
> I will say to you, not every single cute young thing got with an
> oldster merely because the oldster was predatory.
>
> Here's another newsflash. Cute young things can be predatory too.
> You're an ass to imply otherwise - and you decided to impugn my very
> values (after I personably revealed them to you).
>
> I was "afraid" of that. (Colloquial expression - I'm not afraid).
>
> What you have done, Chris, is made an enemy of me. You like it that
> way? Good, because that's how it is now.
>
> I will not be called a support of predatory behavior (you mo-fo- for
> saying that).
>
> But I'll get my eye on you, because I see exactly how your mind works.
>
> >
> > No one CAN establish standards. The most rigorous attempts have been
> > > and are being made by the Chinese and the Russians - go check it out.
> > > Does it work? I think not. The official stuff stinks, btw, as it
> > > ALWAYS does (my view, my view only - as a person living on this planet,
> > > and I don't think this is a male-only view, at all).
> >
> >
> > EVERYONE can establish standards. They are all subjective, but if there is a
> > pool of people from ecclectic tastes making some judgements as to what
> > should be displayed, then we can have a fairly inclusive set of standards
> > which allows a wide venue, but maintains some level of quality.
> >
> > Are there not judges in art shows? By what do they make their judgements if
> > no standards can be established? Your premise is inclusive, politically
> > correct, and flawed to the core.
>
> I've had enough of you. You're just stupid and can't follow a point.
> >
> > Right now in the industry,
> > > > however, there are standards that have been established for what gets
> > > seen
> > > > and what gets sold, and it's based not on the quality of the art, but on
> > > the
> > > > connections of the artist.
> > >
> > > Passive voice. Please use actual examples. X chose standards whereby
> > > lousy-piece-of-art Y is placed in ________________ (name place).
> >
> >
> > A dozen local artists here in St. Pete actually turn out stunning works of
> > art which are largely ignored (John Vitale, Torog Drakeson, many many more),
> > while Carl Andre piles bricks outside of the Tate, and Douglas Gordon plays
> > the movie Psycho one frame at a time onto a wall at the Royal Scottish
> > Academy.
> >
> > Is that non-passive enough for you?
>
> I don't care - any more - about any of your details, so don't expect me
> to.
> >
> > How else is it to work? Soviet socialist art buying committee? No
> > > thanks. Free market will do, for me.
> >
> >
> > Art is anything but free market. It is a closed and controlled market
> > manipulated by the wealthy and influential.
> >
> > This is a straw man. There is importance to craftsmanship, composition,
> > > > technique. This is what separates an artisan from an apprentice.
> > >
> > > Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about. So - you're saying
> > > that even though Michaelangelo was an apprentice when he did Z piece of
> > > art - that...what, exactly? That the other sculpture dude in Florence
> > > or whereever was not an artisan?
> >
> >
> > I don't have any idea what allegory you are trying to draw here with this
> > example, but Michelangelo is a great example of a talented apprentice
> > (Madonna of the Steps) who became a polished artisan creating timeless
> > classics of art (David, The Sistine Chapel, etc.). All of his most known
> > pieces were from his later years, and he was prolific in his practice,
> > honing his craft to the perfection it became. The other sculptor in
> > Florence...you mean Leonardo? He's another example of exactly what I am
> > talking about.
>
> I don't care to answer your questions - you don't answer mine. You're
> endlessly caught up in a loop of your own bizarre personality. Have
> fun in there.
> >
> >
> > You seek to
> > > > marginalize my stance by lumping me in with Chaz, to begin with, and
> > > ignore
> > > > the reasoning why I have this position. Cesan and I may have the same
> > > > vision, the same inspiration, the same conceptualization of use of color
> > > and
> > > > contrast in a semi-impressionistic style, but his execution of that
> > > vision
> > > > is why he is hanging in a museum:
> > >
> > > I didn't realize you think Chaz is marginal. How would I know that?
> > > Why would you assume I did?
> > >
> > > You say this many times in your post - but I regard no one as marginal.
> > > I may not have much to say to some people - that doesn't make them
> > > marginal. I may disagree, that NEVER makes someone marginal.
> > >
> > > What exactly makes Chaz marginal, here? I know him from elsewhere - in
> > > my own mental world, he's got a much clearer persona than you do. How
> > > is he marginal? He seems rather typical to me.
> >
> >
> > By saying "you and Chaz", you make no distinction between our stances, and
> > remove the nuance of my own. This is marginalization.
>
> Sorry - at first, the two of you did look alike. You can't change
> that. You can't expect each usenet poster to keep an encyclopedic
> account of
>
> "What Chris meant to say."
>
> Because it ain't going to happen. If it quacks like a duck, the
> initial impulse (why do I bother explaining to you...you don't even get
> the duck quack thing on your own).
> >
> > >
> I made a judgment on an ability of yours. You haven't the foggiest
> clue what a "personality" really is - but it is FAR more than ability.
> >
> > > At any rate, proceed ahead. Chris and Chaz - establish your standards.
> >
> >
> > This is your whole problem right here. I'm not seeking to establish MY
> > standards. I don't think Chaz is either. There are standards at play, by
> > which art is judged, and critiqued, and I would like to see more of that
> > used in the selection of pieces for display in prominent galleries. Does
> > that really seem so incredibly repressive to you?
>
> Yes. And that you're seeking to establish someone else's standards -
> is just plain bizarre.
>
> Good luck in deciding (without holding those standards yourself)
> whether they are good ones. And you wonder what's wrong with the art
> world. Jesus.
> >
> >
> > > > Dismissive much?
> > >
> > > If you see it that way. If you're that sensitive, good luck with being
> > > involved with art. The painting you have posted (above) would be
> > > "dismissed" by many - but I didn't. I appreciated it. Now, at your
> > > own whimsy, you want to call me dismissive.
> >
> >
> > Complimenting my painting does not preclude you from being dismissive to my
> > stance. There is no correlation. Additionally, your compliment could have
> > been entirely devoid of sincerity, and used only as an interjection for
> > later point making, such as here. You essentially came out with a response
> > to my position which said "fine, whatever, do whatever you want....". That's
> > dismissive. I may not have your professorial grasp of all things everywhere,
> > all the time, but I certainly know textual tone and syntax.
>
> I am dismissive - now. Totally. You have no stance. Now, you claim
> not even to have standards - you are merely standing around holding a
> bag with someone else's values in it.
>
> Not why I come to usenet.
>
> I can read, Chris. I can read Pirsig or Pythagorus or any number of
> others on my own.
> >
> > > <http://www.guggenheimcollection.org/site/artist_work_md_126_32.html+>
> >
> >
> > These combine the elements I was speaking about earlier. Nope, I did not at
> > all say it was not art. This kind of confusion on your part is exactly why I
> > tried to clarify the other statement. You really don't seem to get what I am
> > saying. I would say, if anything, that these are fine examples of quality
> > art. Picasso and Van Gogh certainly qualify. What I said in the previous
> > post, that you somehow missed, is that I did not consider any one of those
> > factors ON ITS OWN to be art. These pieces combine color, shape, form, along
> > with polished brush and paint technique, to result in magificent
> > masterpieces of art. Consider the following piece instead:
> >
> > http://myspace-931.vo.llnwd.net/01336/13/91/1336941931_l.jpg
> >
> > This piece attempts to capture some of the same form and shape of the van
> > gogh night pieces. However, the colors, and the poor brush technique, bring
> > down its overall quality, *which is perceivable as an aesthetic judgement *.
> > point (*implied: *...I'm trying to make)."
> >
> > Understand now? I'm not writing universally, and the only imperiousness is
> > the imperiousness inherent in believing in a subjective viewpoint. The same
> > imperiousness you demonstrated in spades, and the reason I took the tone
> > I did when I began this little baiting feud. It's also the reason you feel
> > so insulted by the observations regarding your attitude and demeanor (oh,
> > and don't let me forget the perceived insult of your intelligence by
> > thinking you may have misunderstood my usage of the word craft).
> >
> > The point is this:
> >
> >
> > *Gasp!* You just said "*THE *point.." How imperious and universal of you!
> > cannot make Universals. Of course* *I mean "What DubiousChrisJ would like to
chazwin
Jugglyhead wrote:
> I don't think there's a problem with the current state of art. In fact,
> I would say that art is thriving at the moment. Not everything's to
> everyone's liking, but there's nothing to say that you have to like
> everything, or even anything. It's all in the eye of the beholder in
> terms of what you like. But if you think that art sucks, you should
> check out amazing artists like Alex Grey and websites like Zoetic Art.
> I think if you don't like art, you just haven't seen the right art.
Ahhh yes thriving indeed it is yes!!!
When all you have to do to create art is to get out of bed and take a
photo of you dirty knickers - I'll say it is thriving!!!!
A.
that takes on a life of its own - but you did. You might say that was
both artful and seminal, to do that. Of course, I'm pretty sure I had
to allow it - and, while I didn't ask for it, I've enjoyed it.
The second painting (which if you ever paint it - and you really should
try, should be named "the second painting") - turns out to be by far
the more intellectually interesting painting. Since I work from
subjectivity in things relating to art, that particular non-existent
artwork exists as fully as many that others would say *do* exist
objectively - which is interesting. And, of course, my view on the
painting has now shifted - which is a characteristic or trait or
quality of *good* art - in my subjective view. Others actually agree.
So - your second painting, it turns out, transcends my initial limited
view of it (as my initial views of paintings almost always do - I think
I've tried to say that I'm something of a Philistine, myself, and lazy
too - I don't work at art, I work at other things, art is fun).
I've been perusing online galleries and our artbooks - looking for a
similar painting.
Can't find one. You might have to turn to photography, yourself, to
create it - although you could use mixed media.
So please don't hold my spontaneous (girly) nature against me. : - )
At least I'm not a romantic (I don't go only by what my eyes find
pleasing - not in painting, anyway - and not usually, in anything,
although I'd say that if something or someone is handsome or beautiful
or pretty, it's happy times and quite a bonus). If your second
painting turns out to be pleasing to the eye, great - but it could be a
wonderful work, nonetheless.
A.
--------------------------------------The aim of art is to represent
not the outward appearance of things, but their inward significance.
~ Aristotle, Greek, Scientist, Philosopher, (384-322 BCE), one of the
coolest men ever to live - and smarter than most anyone living today.
But not quite the smartest coolest man, ever.
paradox
> You and me? For sure. Very rarely does anyone put an idea in my head
> that takes on a life of its own - but you did. You might say that was
> both artful and seminal, to do that. Of course, I'm pretty sure I had
> to allow it - and, while I didn't ask for it, I've enjoyed it.
A beguiling brook, Ma'am. Yet another talent.
> The second painting (which if you ever paint it - and you really should
> try, should be named "the second painting") - turns out to be by far
> the more intellectually interesting painting.
> I've been perusing online galleries and our artbooks - looking for a
> similar painting.
Rubens - "Head of a girl". The subjective emotional impact of this
piece was so great (i laughed, then wept with joy), i'm pretty certain
it informed my "second painting" muse (a sort of displaced reverse
engineering).
A pleasure to have you back!
hadoz
people. Artists are constantly assaulted with the thought that what
they are creating can be profitable and this one thing can totally
change the outcome of their endevour. They probably won't even
recoginize that this has happened. Creativity has it's uses to the
commercial environment, this should be obvious. But, true art, true
creativity is spawned from a desire to express oneself free of any
other outside influence especially profit. This is the dilema all
artists face, truly be an artist or use your gift of creativity to make
a profit by appealing to the public. By expressing yourself you are
almost automatically going to portray the emotional side of modern day
life. This is one of the more facinating aspects of art. Art reflects
abstractly the current views of the current time from the perspective
of the artist. If what you're seeing in today's art is disturbing then
it could very well be an indication that the way the world is today IS
indeed disturbing, at least to those who have decided to express
themselves through art.
facilitator
hadoz wrote:
> I hear you. Art, in this day and age, means money to way too many
> people. Artists are constantly assaulted with the thought that what
> they are creating can be profitable and this one thing can totally
> change the outcome of their endevour.
Well spoken!
Mistery
Art reflects the society we live in. Artists are forced to go for the
bait when money is offered otherwise they can't create all the things
they would want to.
You need to pay for many exhibitions spaces or materials, you need to
pay for food.
So people should be aloud to live, go out, have fun and artists are
only aloud to be clowns and fools with no money?
An artist will not have regular income, sometimes what may seem like
greed could be precautions because of uncertain future.
Artists are people like anybody, you can't generalize.
"Artists are constantly assaulted with the thought that what
> they are creating can be profitable and this one thing can totally
> change the outcome of their en devour." You sure, or being very narrow minded?
I would say artists are a lot more assaulted by people saying, "you
should do this, you should do that..."
"They probably won't even recoginize that this has happened."
They? All the artists? what about street art, performances...
"But, true art, true creativity is spawned from a desire to express
oneself free of any other outside influence especially profit." So art
doesn't exist? pieces based on feelings of love, hate, fear...(Outside
influences felt inside) Are not art?
"This is the dilemma all artists face, truly be an artist or use your
gift of creativity to make
> a profit by appealing to the public."
I think artists like all people have way more dilemmas to face. Why is
it a Dilemma, are you going to dictate that they can't do both? or
neither?
If you look in history books, art should have showed you that the world
has always been a disturbing place.
Everything depends on what you look at, disturbing works seem to mark
everybody more than ones full of love.
What about Koons for instance.
Stop making generalizations where you can't!
You can't generalize on art, let the artists be the artists. Instead of
dictating what they should do!
facilitator
You missed the point! It's not that artists should not make money or a
profit. It is that It has a sustaining influence on what the work
represents.
A.
It represents many things - like art does. Money is real, and art is
real. They exist in the same domain of the real. Money isn't nothing.
People WITH money who buy art - and who pay enough to support art at
all - form a unit of taste and meaning (whether it is uniform or not -
I say it is not uniform and that almost anyone at all - from Bill Gates
and his massive support of digital/virtual art to me, with the dollars
I toss in the basket of the chalk artist - are part of the "economy" of
art.
To me, Art is way beyond (but related to economy) - and has no choice.
It is a thing to do, it requires "time" which is also subsistence.
Someone has to feed the artist - or the artist gives up the notion of
intense specialization (which is fine, too). Art is an index of
something as real as what money measures - and the two are related.
And neither the "real" or money nor the "real" of art an possibly be
all that there is to reality.
Money in this sense is no more determinative of the meaning of the art
(what it represents) - in a continuing sense than gravity or form or
classical proportion - and I think it plays a lesser role in
determining aesthetics.
There may be, in some people's view, an infinite number of approaches
to art - and I have no idea where that leads them, in terms of how they
spend their art-money. Others may have a narrow view of art, and spend
no money on it - or spend a lot on their narrow view.
That's part of it. It matters not a bit that the rich have money, in
terms of art.
Now - I think that part of my view is intersubjective, but there is no
objective way of determining any of these claims.
A.
I agree with Mistery that there's no way to link money = bad in any
way, permanenty to art - it's all influence, and influence and art go
hand in hand. Maslow would give permanent psychological reasons for
the same - but it doesn't matter whether one has a psychological view
or not.
facilitator
A. wrote:
> I agree with Mistery that there's no way to link money = bad in any
> way, permanenty to art - it's all influence, and influence and art go
> hand in hand. Maslow would give permanent psychological reasons for
> the same - but it doesn't matter whether one has a psychological view
> or not.
If the intent of the artist is to turn a profit and therefore come
under all the specialization that is needed to price and market 'THE
GOODS" , than the art has lost it's meaning in terms of what it
represents. It now is simply a material item and it's value is
determined by market events and whims. It has little intrinsic value,
and no longer is a mirror of the artists soul but it is simply a dollar
"quid pro quo". I'm not sure I would use the term "bad" but it is
definately different in it's inspiration.
paradox
position on art in general, thanks to A's persistence). The ability to
meet the needs of the "consumer" may be no less creative and
disciplined than the ability to (re)produce an intuition/insight,
assuming creativity and discipline to be markers of "intrinsic value".
"Success" must somehow be an optimal balance of both, i guess.
facilitator
paradox wrote:
> Perhaps both are works of art (this is certainly a shift in my "global"
> position on art in general, thanks to A's persistence). The ability to
> meet the needs of the "consumer" may be no less creative and
> disciplined than the ability to (re)produce an intuition/insight,
> assuming creativity and discipline to be markers of "intrinsic value".
> "Success" must somehow be an optimal balance of both, i guess.
Art can certainly be involved in meeting the need of the consumer. (ask
any ad. agency)
And certainly creativity is involved. So why not just make millions
of copies of the most widely sold piece and distribute them on a
Wal-mart type market? Yes people do purchase art and art is sold.
But it is no longer "free love" it is now "prostituion" And the works
you see that are driven by "the bottom dollar' emerge as works of
commerce not works of art.
Does anyone disagree here that art is birthed from the soul?
Even a 'commision" guarantees the buyer of an end result. take a look
at the Icons in the Sistine Chapel.