Popularizer-Historian Paul Johnson Disses 20th Century's Art
Robert Cohen
http://nypost.com/postopinion/books/12736.htm
ART: A NEW HISTORY
G*rd*n
> This book review by the NY POST's art critic will raise some blood pressures
>
> http://nypost.com/postopinion/books/12736.htm
>
> ART: A NEW HISTORY
I don't know why. It doesn't say much of anything. Maybe the book itself
does, but that doesn't come across in the review.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Lippy Zaner
robt...@aol.com.spam.no says...
>
>This book review by the NY POST's art critic will raise some blood pressures
Whose blood pressure? And why?
I got this far and quit reading. Why waste the time?
"Consider that it is nearly 800 large pages consecrated to a subject about
which, by his own admission, the author is little informed, for which he
exhibits no conspicuous sympathy and on which he writes with little evident
relish."
Sounds like the reviewer is addressing
Mani's rants, doesn't it...
Thur
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:br4g3s$cq1$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> robt...@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen):
> > This book review by the NY POST's art critic will raise some blood
pressures
> >
> > http://nypost.com/postopinion/books/12736.htm
> >
> > ART: A NEW HISTORY
>
>
> I don't know why. It doesn't say much of anything. Maybe the book itself
> does, but that doesn't come across in the review.
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
I agree. Whatever his viewpoint, he does it no justice.
He complains about the book yet his analysis is paper thin.
Thur
Robert Cohen
silly comment:
Johnson is a best-seller writer.
Readers who probably aren't as knowledgable as most of ye of the fine art n.g.
will thus be influenced by the highly regarded conservative writer's takes
about realities.
Therefore, my perception of reality is that the short & negative book review in
the NY City tabloid will catalyze or agitate an art-interested reader's red
body fluid, whether the professional/amateur/buff is pro-twentieth century or
anti-twentieth century.
I am admittedly projecting my own sense or feeling upon others; and ain't that
what artists do (?).
I actually usually like Miro, Piccaso, Vander Rohe, Warhol, Bauhaus--well not
bauhaus, Lloyd Wright, The Empire State Bldg, The Chrysler Bldg, dadaism, art
deco, and others.
I don't reall all that much enjoy Caravaggio, Michelangelo, daVinci as much as
I like twentieth century folk and pop "art."
I also like Rembrandt, Brugel,.Matisse, Chagall, Gaugan, LauTrec, etal
It was an interesting (to moi) Rembrandt exhibition-discussion on the last CBS
Sunday Morning, but that's ok if ya doesn't agree with the observation.
Johnson's ideas of what is art and what is fart is fun to think about, and thus
it perhaps raises my blood pressure; and the negative review effectively
sparked my interest in the book.
Erik A. Mattila
> re: Why I think the book review is interesting enough to post it and make a
> silly comment:
>
> Johnson is a best-seller writer.
Are you being coy? That doesn't strike me as a silly statement. Why do
you think it is silly?
> Readers who probably aren't as knowledgable as most of ye of the fine art n.g.
> will thus be influenced by the highly regarded conservative writer's takes
> about realities.
But isn't it true that Johnson is actually writing about "conservatism"
rather than art? It reminds me of a statment written by the art critic
Arthur Danto about art and philosophy: "Don't look to philosophy to
learn about art, for philosophers take from art only that which is of
interest to philosophy."
> Therefore, my perception of reality is that the short & negative book review in
> the NY City tabloid will catalyze or agitate an art-interested reader's red
> body fluid, whether the professional/amateur/buff is pro-twentieth century or
> anti-twentieth century.
You may be correct in some cases. There are art crusaders all over the
place. My suspicion is, however, that anyone half-way cognizant of art
and art history would dismiss Johnson's work out of hand. Johnson may
be preaching to the choir: his readers will learn a lot about being a
conservative, and erroneously confuse this new knowledge with art history.
> I am admittedly projecting my own sense or feeling upon others; and ain't that
> what artists do (?).
Not necessarily. Ambiguity is a favorite device of artists, at least
just as much as overt preachiness. But your point is well taken. I
think it has merit. One thing to consider about artist's intentions is
that they don't really amount to a hill of beans once the work is
liberated from the tyranny of the artist's possessions. After
liberation, it is a matter of how other's regard the work.
> I actually usually like Miro, Piccaso, Vander Rohe, Warhol, Bauhaus--well not
> bauhaus, Lloyd Wright, The Empire State Bldg, The Chrysler Bldg, dadaism, art
> deco, and others.
>
> I don't reall all that much enjoy Caravaggio, Michelangelo, daVinci as much as
> I like twentieth century folk and pop "art."
>
> I also like Rembrandt, Brugel,.Matisse, Chagall, Gaugan, LauTrec, etal
>
> It was an interesting (to moi) Rembrandt exhibition-discussion on the last CBS
> Sunday Morning, but that's ok if ya doesn't agree with the observation.
>
> Johnson's ideas of what is art and what is fart is fun to think about, and thus
> it perhaps raises my blood pressure; and the negative review effectively
> sparked my interest in the book.
It wouldn't hurt to read it. Of course you run the risk of being
infected by weird ideas. Better yet, read it simultaneously with
Gombrich or Jansons. That might be quite illuminating.
Erik
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Flobby Bischer
of the most conservative, pro bush, right wing newspapers.
The people who read this paper hate art anyway.
>
>
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>Readers who probably aren't as knowledgable as most of ye of the fine art n.g.
>will thus be influenced by the highly regarded conservative writer's takes
>about realities.
Worrying about what the masses think about art and what influences
their thoughts seems like a lost cause, though it gets a good bit of
discussion here anyway.
Next thing, someone will re-start the proposal that art should be
voted on.
Big-eyed puppies in Kinkade cottages, anyone?
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Leo Papandreou
"Neil Maxwell" <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
news:efletvg7ee8nj1uer...@4ax.com...
> On 10 Dec 2003 01:55:22 GMT, robt...@aol.com.spam.no (Robert Cohen)
> wrote:
>
> >Readers who probably aren't as knowledgable as most of ye of the fine art
n.g.
> >will thus be influenced by the highly regarded conservative writer's
takes
> >about realities.
>
> Worrying about what the masses think about art and what influences
> their thoughts seems like a lost cause, though it gets a good bit of
> discussion here anyway.
>
> Next thing, someone will re-start the proposal that art should be
> voted on.
Check it out, polled by country: <http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html>
(Oh, and play with the URL, diacenter.org has some interesting things on
it.)
>
> Big-eyed puppies in Kinkade cottages, anyone?
>
How about something a little edgier: <http://tinyurl.com/yn75>
Mani Deli
<neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote:
>, anyone?
>
>
I always preferred Big-eyed puppies in Kinkade cottages to the
schmiered in goo-goo eyes on the cat vomit background in de Kooning.
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are
conservative." -John Stuart Mill
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Lippy Zaner
koan...@earthling.net says...
>Check it out, polled by country: <http://www.diacenter.org/km/index.html>
>
>(Oh, and play with the URL, diacenter.org has some interesting things on
>it.)
Oh JOY! Something else to spend my limited
time doing!
I was amused to see that even Nordic countries
consider the color blue to be the overall favorite color!
I'd have guessed red, in their case - or at least one
of the warm hues!