$1.8 million for this `art' ?
Ward Paul
> Personally I'd find a world based solely on utilitarian criteria a
>very sad place to live.
So would I. But that does not mean I believe the gov't should pay for
supporting art, or anything else that would make the world less
utilitarian (eg religion).
--
Paul
Daniel Simon
>Art is highly utilitarian because it is directly enjoyable.
>It is one of the first things humans do not directly connected
>with survival (that we know about) and predates agriculture by
>many millennia. The idea that it is unnecessary fluff seems
>to have arisen with industrialism; possibly working with
>machines, people admired their power and desired to become
>like them. Many have succeeded.
>--
>
> )*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Mr. Fitch actually has it entirely backwards. The idea that art in
general is "unnecessary fluff" is chiefly the province of spiritually-
minded ascetics, a class whose star has waned noticeably since the
advent of industrialism made the pursuit of wealth, comfort and
leisure above all else vastly easier for most citizens. It is the
opponents of modernity and industrialism, most notably religious
fundamentalists, political fringe activists of the far left and right,
and jaded devotees of art's bankrupt avant-garde, who have most
vociferously condemned the decadence of art that is "directly
enjoyable". Millions thrill to the screen adventures of Arnold
Schwarzenegger, rapturously drink in the music of Michael Jackson, and
enthusiastically devour the novels of Stephen King, Danielle Steel,
and Robert Ludlum; and few besides the prim partisans of state-
supported, aesthetically moribund "high art" dare object to all this
enjoyment, let alone subordinate it to a gaggle of obscure, ugly,
annoying pseudo-artworks that leave most audiences utterly cold at
best, and downright insulted at worst.
I suspect that Mr. Fitch has been confused by the recent evolution of
the term "art", which in current usage often applies only to such
"high art". The vast majority do indeed consider such art "unnecessary
fluff"--precisely because it is *not* "directly enjoyable" to them;
in fact its supporters often explicitly assert that its purpose is not
to bring joy, but rather to enlighten, challenge, or even upset its
audience.
Rarely do opponents of obscurantist garbage masquerading as art
begrudge the huge outlay of resources that society allocates to art
that *is* considered "directly enjoyable". It is rather the
supporters of such art as the Rothko that has recently been bought by
the National Gallery for $1.8 million who most frequently take refuge
in the claim that "directly enjoyable" art is nothing more than
"unnecessary fluff". It is they who are most guilty of trying to
suppress the rich, deliciously human outpouring of shared joy that (I
hope Mr. Fitch will agree) art truly ought to be.
"Que dites vous? C'est inutile? Je le sais! Daniel R. Simon
Mais on ne se bat pas dans l'espoir du succe`s!" si...@iro.umontreal.ca
-Rostand
Jim Robinson
>Art is highly utilitarian because it is directly enjoyable.
>It is one of the first things humans do not directly connected
>with survival (that we know about) and predates agriculture by
>many millennia. The idea that it is unnecessary fluff seems
>to have arisen with industrialism; possibly working with
>machines, people admired their power and desired to become
>like them. Many have succeeded.
When your credit card is maxed out (as is Canada's), you must then
prioritize your expenditures. Even "necessities" must sometimes be done
without. So when you ask me whether I want to see Canada's incredible debt
affected by $1.8 million due to the purchase of a piece of art which the
vast majority of Canadians regard in unsympathetic terms, or due to
additional spending on women's shelters, for example, I cannot help but
prefer the latter.
BTW, the last part where you attempt to dehumanize those that disagree
with you seems a bit of a low blow.
--
Jim Robinson
robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Gordon Fitch
| ...
| begrudge the huge outlay of resources that society allocates to art
| that *is* considered "directly enjoyable". It is rather the
| supporters of such art as the Rothko that has recently been bought by
| the National Gallery for $1.8 million who most frequently take refuge
| in the claim that "directly enjoyable" art is nothing more than
| "unnecessary fluff". It is they who are most guilty of trying to
| suppress the rich, deliciously human outpouring of shared joy that (I
| hope Mr. Fitch will agree) art truly ought to be.
I think you missed something I said before. I don't know
what goes on in Canada, but down here in New York, ab-ex
in general and Rothko in particular _are_ popular. Not as
popular as Michael Jackson, but the museums are stuffed,
working-class women paint ab-ex designs on their
fingernails, and K-mart stocks the stuff right next to the
bug-eyed kittens. Now, that doesn't make Rothko really,
really worth $1.8 million -- that's another issue, which
I've attempted to discuss elsewhere -- but his stuff is
definitely a draw, maybe a profitable draw. Here. Maybe
it'll catch on up there in ten or twenty years, eh? You
never know.
I don't know of anyone who claims that "high art" is
important and directly enjoyable art isn't, although in
this world there's usually at least one of everything. It
sounds like a 19th-century thing to me. You have any
names?
Steve Cumming
>In article <23dulv$m...@panix.com> g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
Which Dan uses as a spring board for an attack
---in the spirit of the American Spectator and the New Republic---
on left-wing intellectuals, or someone like that; perhaps
Islamic findamentalists.
Actually, I can't quite make out the target of Dan's ire, although I
guess it is safe to presume that it isn't Chomsky.
>Mr. Fitch actually has it entirely backwards. The idea that art in
>general is "unnecessary fluff" is chiefly the province of spiritually-
>minded ascetics, a class whose star has waned noticeably since the
>advent of industrialism made the pursuit of wealth, comfort and
>leisure above all else vastly easier for most citizens.
I wonder, Dan, could you provide us with some examples of
these convenient bogeymen? As it is, I can't imagine who
you are referring to. Who exactly were these 18th century
masterminds whose heard-headed rock-ribbed spirituality cast
such a pall over the pre-industrial world?
> It is the
>opponents of modernity and industrialism, most notably religious
>fundamentalists, political fringe activists of the far left and right,
>and jaded devotees of art's bankrupt avant-garde, who have most
>vociferously condemned the decadence of art that is "directly
>enjoyable".
Nice little slide attempted here. You introduce
'Art(1) == "unnecessary fluff"' and then
'Art(2) == "directly enjoyable"' from which we are supposed to
swallow that 'Art(1) == Art(2)'. Come on.
>Millions thrill to the screen adventures of Arnold
>Schwarzenegger, rapturously drink in the music of Michael Jackson, and
^^^^^^^^^^^
>enthusiastically devour the novels of Stephen King, Danielle Steel,
>and Robert Ludlum; and few besides the prim partisans of state-
>supported, aesthetically moribund "high art" dare object to all this
>enjoyment, let alone subordinate it to a gaggle of obscure, ugly,
>annoying pseudo-artworks that leave most audiences utterly cold at
>best, and downright insulted at worst.
Dan, me foin boy, I suspect your ardent populism as demonstrated
here is a tad insincere. If the best "Art" is the stuff that sells
the most, why isn't the best science the stuff that sells the most?
>I suspect that Mr. Fitch has been confused by the recent evolution of
>the term "art", which in current usage often applies only to such
>"high art". The vast majority do indeed consider such art "unnecessary
>fluff"--precisely because it is *not* "directly enjoyable" to them;
>in fact its supporters often explicitly assert that its purpose is not
>to bring joy, but rather to enlighten, challenge, or even upset its
>audience.
That's correct Dan. That is the difference between entertainment and
art, between King and Proust, or Playboy and Picasso.
You on the other hand have spent the entire article in a sleasy
attempt to define art in terms of entertainment, without actually
stating your case.
>supporters of such art as the Rothko that has recently been bought by
>the National Gallery for $1.8 million who most frequently take refuge
>in the claim that "directly enjoyable" art is nothing more than
>"unnecessary fluff".
Well, that's total bullshit Dan. What most such people say is that
"directly enjoyable" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition
for "art".
> It is they who are most guilty of trying to
>suppress the rich, deliciously human outpouring of shared joy that (I
>hope Mr. Fitch will agree) art truly ought to be.
From which we are to infer that Robert Ludlum novels represent
a "rich, deliciously human outpouring of shared joy"?
You should chose your examples to better fit your agenda.
Whatever your agenda is in this case.
--
Steve Cumming "Those of us interested in preserving the
ste...@geog.ubc.ca natural are not going to like what we
are going to have to do" -J. Franklin
Stephen Samuel
>si...@olivier.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:
>| ...
>| Rarely do opponents of obscurantist garbage masquerading as art
>| begrudge the huge outlay of resources that society allocates to art
>| that *is* considered "directly enjoyable". It is rather the
>| supporters of such art as the Rothko that has recently been bought by
>I think you missed something I said before. I don't know
>what goes on in Canada, but down here in New York, ab-ex
>in general and Rothko in particular _are_ popular. Not as
....
>bug-eyed kittens. Now, that doesn't make Rothko really,
>really worth $1.8 million -- that's another issue, which
>I've attempted to discuss elsewhere -- but his stuff is
>definitely a draw, maybe a profitable draw. Here. Maybe
If the stuff attracts enough EXTRA people to pay for itself,
then I'm willing to accept it on THAT ground. On the grounds
of considering it as art, my question is, what would happen
to it if 20-60 years down the road, some curator (who never
[for some strange reason] saw the painting in his studies,
and so didn't know who it was by) found it in the dark recesses
of the art gallery archives.
What would he say?
If the answer is that he'd chuck it, then it's a bad buy.
Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's a good buy.
Consider the difference between Saltieri(sp?) and Mozart.
Most people know who Mozart is, but his (then) more famous
contemporary is little more than a footnote to Mozart's life.
--
--
Stephen Samuel (604)822-9248 sam...@cs.ubc.ca
In Biblical times, Lebanon was known for its great cedars.
What Rome did to Lebanon, we are now doing to BC.
Gordon Fitch
| >| ...
| >| Rarely do opponents of obscurantist garbage masquerading as art
| >| begrudge the huge outlay of resources that society allocates to art
| >| that *is* considered "directly enjoyable". It is rather the
| >| supporters of such art as the Rothko that has recently been bought by
g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch): [ lots of folks love ab-ex ]
sam...@cs.ubc.ca (Stephen Samuel) writes:
| If the stuff attracts enough EXTRA people to pay for itself,
| then I'm willing to accept it on THAT ground.
| [ evaluator looking at it 50 years from now ]
| What would he say?
| If the answer is that he'd chuck it, then it's a bad buy.
| Just because something is popular, doesn't mean it's a good buy.
| ...
Correct. But as I said before, historically art has been
valued because of texts which certify it as part of a canon
of "high art." That art which has been so certified almost
never loses its value; it's a solid investment. Rothko has
made it into this class of art, in spite of the fact that
a lot of people thought their six-year-old could do better.
So after drawing in a lot of trade, the trustees or
governors or panjandrums of the Canadian art museum system
could sell it off and realize a solid profit. Unless
everything falls apart, of course.
So Rothko is a winner on both sides of the street: he's
popular, and his stuff has been canonized. Too bad he's
dead.
What I find funny in all of this is that the Rothko-haters
are about a generation out of synch. The present contested
territory runs from about Warhol to Basquiat. _These_ are
the people those who huff up about bad art getting a lot of
money now generally slag. Rothko is, well, he's just _up_
_there_ -- shining forth from museum walls, bus ads, and
those fingernails I told you about. One might as well get
exercised about Giotto, Duerer, or Bosch.
Daniel Simon
>I don't know of anyone who claims that "high art" is
>important and directly enjoyable art isn't, although in
>this world there's usually at least one of everything. It
>sounds like a 19th-century thing to me. You have any
>names?
A more interesting question is whether anyone has figured out a way to
claim that "high art" is important *without* at least implying that
being "directly enjoyable" isn't. How does one impute great value to
"high art", despite the public's obvious preference for more "directly
enjoyable" popular art, without attributing a value to "high art" that
somehow supersedes mere enjoyment?
"The writer's responsibility, it seems to me, consists in writing well
and truly, to use a Hemingwayesque locution. The writer who betrays
his calling is that writer who either for commercial or political
reasons vulgarizes his own perception and his rendering of it.
Meretricious writing tries to conventionalize what it describes in
order to make itself safer and easier to take. It may do this to
conform to a political agenda, which is seen as somehow overriding
mere literary considerations, or under commercial pressures to appeal
to what are seen as the limitations of a mass audience."
--Robert Stone, "The Reason for Stories",
Harper's, June 1988
"If there is anything on which both right and left agree, it is the
need for `populist' sovereignty of the majority over the arts. But
popular taste has always been perfectly well represented by the
market--by Broadway shows, best-selling books, platinum records, rock
concerts, Hollywood movies. The National Endowment, by contrast, was
designed as a countermarket strategy, not only to 'create the material
conditions facilitating the release of creative talent', but in the
hope that by subsidizing cultural offerings at affordable prices, 'the
people', in Chekhov's words, 'could be brought up to the level of
Gogol, rather than bringing Gogol down to the level of the people.'"
--Robert Brustein, "The First Amendment and
the NEA", The New Republic, Sept. 11, 1989
"By the novel, I am speaking of serious fiction. By serious fiction
(which of course includes the comic), I am not speaking of
entertainments cranked out as commodities for the marketplace, some
very skillfully, but all as standardized as soap operas."
--Walker Percy, "The Diagnostic Novel",
Harper's, June 1986
"The role of the theatre throughout time has been to prod, provoke,
and invite debate, and artists serve as our guides through the
wilderness. Art challenges and celebrates a society; it does not
strive to reach either balance or consensus. When art is determined
by consensus, it stops being art -- the expression of the artist's
ideas and dreams -- and becomes propaganda. That is precisely what
happened to art in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia."
--Peter Zeisler, quoted in a program for an
"Equity Showcase" theatre presentation,
Toronto, January 1990
"Well, that's total bullshit Dan. What most such people say is that
'directly enjoyable' is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition
for 'art'."
--Steve Cumming, in article
<23ruqm$9...@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
Malgosia Askanas
Dan Simon says:
> How does one impute great value to
> "high art", despite the public's obvious preference for more "directly
> enjoyable" popular art, without attributing a value to "high art" that
> somehow supersedes mere enjoyment?
I would say that one needs to start by abandoning the idea that enjoyment
can be either "mere" or "non mere". One needs to reject all
attempts at pitching enjoyment against enlightment, challenge,
provocation, intellectual disturbance, and so on. When art
contributes to some form of enlightment, this enlightment is part
of the enjoyment. When art challenges, this challenge is part of the
enjoyment. As soon as these are regarded as being at odds with each other,
art is in grave trouble (as are mathematics, science, philospophy,
and numerous other human activities).
The endeavor of imputing great value to "high art" is doomed. The endeavor
or creating an environment in which the kind of art referred to as "high"
is no longer regarded as "high" and is simply enjoyed -- well, that
endeavor is probably doomed too, but I am more partial to it.
Andy Pearlman
>A more interesting question is whether anyone has figured out a way to
>claim that "high art" is important *without* at least implying that
>being "directly enjoyable" isn't. How does one impute great value to
>"high art", despite the public's obvious preference for more "directly
>enjoyable" popular art, without attributing a value to "high art" that
>somehow supersedes mere enjoyment?
Seems like the difference between Coke and Pepsi. Pepsi is slightly sweeter
and less fizzy. When you compare the two quickly, you notice that sweet/less
harsh taste, and judge Pepsi better. If you have to drink a can in one
sitting, Coke is generally better.(This is how Pepsi wins taste tests, and
why Coke is still more popular)
i.e. "high art" generally has a series of layers that get more interesting as
you spend more time looking at a piece. Superficial glances pick "directly
enjoyable"
If you can't tell, I hate Pepsi.
Andy Pearlman
Malgosia Askanas
After watching some street artists in Harvard Square last night,
I would like to try out the following claim: that the distinction
between "high" and "low" art
has little to do with the intrinsic properties of the art itself,
and the most to do with the context in which one usually sees
similarly-looking completed artworks. Imagine that it were
possible, for example, for Jackson Pollock to set up a drip-painting
enterprise in the street, and, by some sped-up process,
create paintings out of nothing in front of a crowd of passers-by.
This would be accompanied by a properly masterful rap. I bet
that this would be a highly appreciated act, that the public
would be greatly entertained and would reward him in the same manner
as they do jugglers, magicians, street musicians and dancers,
storytellers, marionette artists, etc. These are unequivocal,
unblemished examples of directly enjoyable art (fireworks is
another). In the street, people react directly to beauty,
mastery, illusionism, suspense, lucidity, structure, humor,
subtlety, whimsy, depth of insight, slight of hand, courage;
they permit themselves to be entertained, fooled, enlightened,
disturbed, without the slightest taxonomic anxiety.
One of the things I admire about Boggs (the artist, mentioned
earlier on r.a.f, who produces his own paper money and then talks people
into accepting it in exchange for goods) is that his enterprise totally
escapes the "high/low" classification. Neither his product nor his
method let themselves be compared to any of the accustomed
"high" or "low" art forms. When people agree to the barter, they
tend to do so not in the hope that Boggs' "currency"
will one day attain a high resale value, but because they are
attracted to the whimsicality, unexpectedness, gratuitousness
of the proposed transaction. Many of them say "Well, I am sort of
an artist too" (or "I am a fan of art"), "so I will go for it".
Gordon Fitch
| After watching some street artists in Harvard Square last night,
| I would like to try out the following claim: that the distinction
| between "high" and "low" art
| has little to do with the intrinsic properties of the art itself,
| and the most to do with the context in which one usually sees
| similarly-looking completed artworks. Imagine that it were
| possible, for example, for Jackson Pollock to set up a drip-painting
| enterprise in the street, and, by some sped-up process,
| create paintings out of nothing in front of a crowd of passers-by.
I have two stories in regard to this which will perhaps be
parenthetical, perhaps not. In 1967, as I was traveling by
car through Nevada, I happened to stop at a motel where, in
the morning, there appeared a wonderful car, a Cadillac
which had been drip-painted with varying gold, bronze, and
silver metallic paints, with small glass jewels, mostly red,
sprinkled tastefully throughout. There was no question but
that the paint was applied by someone who had looked at
Pollock's work and discovered methods of painting a car in a
similar fashion. When you contemplate drip-painting the
vertical parts of the car in the same manner as the hood,
you can see that some ingenious (or at least heavy-duty)
techniques are required. The owner of the car did not
appear, so I do not know if the car had a good rap to go
with it, but it was radiantly beautiful and I hope it has
come to rest in a museum somewhere. Or perhaps a quiet barn
in Wyoming, where the sun filters lovingly past from day to
day, and the car awaits discovery like King Tutankhamen's
treasures....
The other Pollockasm was definitely low art: I knew a
commune of artists in San Francisco in 1960 who painted
their floor in imitation of a Pollock work -- this was
one floor of a whole building they lived in, and was quite
extensive, many hundreds of square feet, and a good
imitation of one of the more well-known Pollock works. It
was famous for a while; many people came to visit it as much
as the inhabitants. As a floor, of course, it was temporary
art; it wore out. The last I saw of it was several years
later, when all the artists had dispersed and the building
was going to be torn down to make way for high-rise condos.
You could still see the pattern in the floor, but you had to
know it was there. The people who let me in shrugged when I
mentioned it; they probably had never heard of Pollock. At
least it didn't make them angry, being so faint and far away
in time.
And now, back to our regular controversies.
Daniel Simon
>In article <1993Aug3.0...@IRO.UMontreal.CA> si...@olivier.iro.umontreal.ca (Daniel Simon) writes:
>>In article <23dulv$m...@panix.com> g...@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>> attack on certain philistine views deleted.
>
>Which Dan uses as a spring board for an attack
>---in the spirit of the American Spectator and the New Republic---
>on left-wing intellectuals, or someone like that; perhaps
>Islamic findamentalists.
Which Steve uses as a springboard for an attack---in the spirit of
left-wing intellectuals, or someone like that; perhaps Islamic
fundamentalists---on me.
Great to hear from you again, Steve!
>>Mr. Fitch actually has it entirely backwards. The idea that art in
>>general is "unnecessary fluff" is chiefly the province of spiritually-
>>minded ascetics, a class whose star has waned noticeably since the
>>advent of industrialism made the pursuit of wealth, comfort and
>>leisure above all else vastly easier for most citizens.
>
>I wonder, Dan, could you provide us with some examples of
>these convenient bogeymen? As it is, I can't imagine who
>you are referring to. Who exactly were these 18th century
>masterminds whose heard-headed rock-ribbed spirituality cast
>such a pall over the pre-industrial world?
Let's see....how about Savanarola? (I never said "18th-century", did
I?) I'm given to understand that he didn't care much for popular art.
>> It is the
>>opponents of modernity and industrialism, most notably religious
>>fundamentalists, political fringe activists of the far left and right,
>>and jaded devotees of art's bankrupt avant-garde, who have most
>>vociferously condemned the decadence of art that is "directly
>>enjoyable".
>
>Nice little slide attempted here. You introduce
>'Art(1) == "unnecessary fluff"' and then
>'Art(2) == "directly enjoyable"' from which we are supposed to
>swallow that 'Art(1) == Art(2)'. Come on.
*I* certainly don't believe that art which is "directly enjoyable" is
"unnecessary fluff"! Where on earth did I suggest any such thing?
>Dan, me foin boy, I suspect your ardent populism as demonstrated
>here is a tad insincere. If the best "Art" is the stuff that sells
>the most, why isn't the best science the stuff that sells the most?
I'll never understand why supporters of "high art" are so fond of the
idea that art and science should be judged by the same criteria.
Should artists really be required to spend many years in school
learning the rigid technical rules that define valid production and
evaluation in their chosen artform, that they may afterwards submit
dense, impenetrable artworks, generated according to those same rigid
rules, to the exacting scrutiny of formal peer review, before ever
daring to expose them to the light of publiic appreciation?
>>I suspect that Mr. Fitch has been confused by the recent evolution of
>>the term "art", which in current usage often applies only to such
>>"high art". The vast majority do indeed consider such art "unnecessary
>>fluff"--precisely because it is *not* "directly enjoyable" to them;
>>in fact its supporters often explicitly assert that its purpose is not
>>to bring joy, but rather to enlighten, challenge, or even upset its
>>audience.
>
>That's correct Dan. That is the difference between entertainment and
>art, between King and Proust, or Playboy and Picasso.
>You on the other hand have spent the entire article in a sleasy
>attempt to define art in terms of entertainment, without actually
>stating your case.
Well, I didn't state my case because my interlocutor, Mr. Fitch,
appeared to agree with me. He wrote:
"Art is highly utilitarian because it is directly enjoyable."
I was simply expressing my agreement with that point of view, and
noting that opponents of the deification of "high art" tend to object
to it precisely because it so often fails (in their eyes) to meet this
very criterion. Of course, Steve considers invocation of this
criterion "sleasy [sic]", and would rather define art in terms of some
other unspecified quality (without actually stating his case).
Frankly, if Steve's notion defines Proust as anything other than
execrable, then I, for one, want no part of it.
>>supporters of such art as the Rothko that has recently been bought by
>>the National Gallery for $1.8 million who most frequently take refuge
>>in the claim that "directly enjoyable" art is nothing more than
>>"unnecessary fluff".
>
>Well, that's total bullshit Dan. What most such people say is that
>"directly enjoyable" is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition
>for "art".
In practice, this position is virtually indistinguishable from the one
I described. It takes effort to make art "directly enjoyable" to
large numbers of people. A direct consequence of the belief among
certain artists that being "directly enjoyable" is irrelevant to the
quality of an artwork is that their art will almost certainly not be
"directly enjoyable" to most people. Conversely, artists who value
their audience's enjoyment will be unlikely to share Steve's aesthetic
values, and unlikelier still to cater to them. Hence the direct
correlation, among holders of Steve's (as yet barely articulated)
ideas about art, between "directly enjoyable" and "unnecessary fluff".
>> It is they who are most guilty of trying to
>>suppress the rich, deliciously human outpouring of shared joy that (I
>>hope Mr. Fitch will agree) art truly ought to be.
>
>From which we are to infer that Robert Ludlum novels represent
>a "rich, deliciously human outpouring of shared joy"?
>You should chose your examples to better fit your agenda.
>Whatever your agenda is in this case.
Personally, I've never read a Robert Ludlum novel, but I'm given to
understand that very large numbers of people have derived great
pleasure from them. The number who have obtained anything but
irritation from a Rothko is, I believe, immeasurably smaller. Of
course, the joy inspired by the Rothko is "richer", as measured by the
socioeconomic class of those experiencing it, but I must say I find
the appreciation of a fast-paced thriller somehow more "deliciously
human" than the contemplation of the alleged beauty of various fuzzy
rectangles. On the other hand, Steve is certainly welcome to make
common cause with his class, if he wishes, by looking down his nose at
the virtually inhuman philistinism of the filthy proles. Heck, I bet
he'll even advocate taxing their productive labour in order to fund
even more purchases of esoteric artworks for the rich to coo
decadently over. I only hope he will forgive me for not joining him
in his eager oppression of the proletariat.
Gordon Fitch
instrument or intermediary; nor does it require one."
There is another meaning of "directly": "takes no time."
In my own experience, there have been kinds of art which
it took me a long time to get to like -- 20th century
"classical" music, for example. Taking no time would not
prohibit something from being good (for me) but it would not
be a requirement, either. I think I already mentioned not
liking ab-ex 30 years ago, when it seemed ubiquitous and
domineering. Now that it's just one more style, I like it
a lot better.
Gordon Fitch
populist party here are so totalitarian -- they don't like
Rothko, so it's _got_ to be bad, and not just bad -- it's
_evil_, an instrument of snobbery, decadence, oppression,
tax theft, and class war.
You all sound just like the promoters of Socialist Realism.
In fact, you might want to tell us how your differentiate
your aesthetics from theirs. Not your politics, your
aesthetics.
Brian K. Yoder
>I think it's funny that so many of what we might call the
>populist party here are so totalitarian --
Funny? More like ironic.
>they don't like
>Rothko, so it's _got_ to be bad,
Not so. There's plenty of stuff out there I consider to be art which I don't
care for (or even actively dislike). Rothko, Pollack, etc. are in a
completely different category: non-art. Meaningless, empty, nonsensical,
non-art.
>and not just bad -- it's
>_evil_, an instrument of snobbery, decadence, oppression,
>tax theft, and class war.
Certainly! Do you deny that the government robs us to pay for it? Is it
not snobs looking down their noses at the philistines who are saying that
meaninglessness is so sophisticated?
>You all sound just like the promoters of Socialist Realism.
>In fact, you might want to tell us how your differentiate
>your aesthetics from theirs. Not your politics, your
>aesthetics.
I have seen a fair amount of it, although I have not read much about it from
critics friendly to it, and from what I have seen they seem to have gotten a
few things right (as did the Nazis for that matter). Just because you have
a disgusting political philosophy doesn't mean that you must therefore be
blind to the purpose and nature of art.
--Brian
Malgosia Askanas
Brian Yoder says:
> There's plenty of stuff out there I consider to be art which I don't
> care for (or even actively dislike). Rothko, Pollack, etc. are in a
> completely different category: non-art. Meaningless, empty, nonsensical,
> non-art.
You are perhaps familiar with the story (I think it is in Malory's "Morte
d'Arthur) of Parsifal's arrival at the court of King Arthur. I don't remember
it exactly, but will try to recreate the salient points. Earlier
that day (and it was a snowy winter day), Parsifal had received a slight
wound in some battle. As he was riding towards Arthur's castle, the wound
began to bleed and a few drops of blood fell onto the snow. Parsifal
looked at the red drops on the white snow and became completely lost in
the contemplation of this sight, which made him think about the
innocence and the passion of Christ. He was so oblivious to all else that
he had no awareness of the fact that, one after another, several knights from
Arthur's court rode up to speak to him, became angry at his non-response,
attacked him, and were thrown off their horses by his absent-minded resistance.
He regained consciousness of the world only when the blood faded.
Now imagine that I make a painting whose explicit purpose is to re-create
the exact impression of these vivid red drops of blood upon the white snow,
with the idea of inducing a train of thought analogous to Parsifal's.
The resulting painting would be "abstract" in the sense that it would be
a red blot on a white background -- exactly like the sight that so enchanted
Parsifal. Would you call this painting meaningless? Or would you
be willing to call it meaningful, provided that you knew for sure that I had
the above-described "honorable intentions" in painting it?
Brian K. Yoder
>Brian Yoder says:
>> There's plenty of stuff out there I consider to be art which I don't
>> care for (or even actively dislike). Rothko, Pollack, etc. are in a
>> completely different category: non-art. Meaningless, empty, nonsensical,
>> non-art.
>You are perhaps familiar with the story (I think it is in Malory's "Morte
>d'Arthur) of Parsifal's arrival at the court of King Arthur. I don't remember
>it exactly, but will try to recreate the salient points. Earlier
>that day (and it was a snowy winter day), Parsifal had received a slight
>wound in some battle. As he was riding towards Arthur's castle, the wound
>began to bleed and a few drops of blood fell onto the snow. Parsifal
>looked at the red drops on the white snow and became completely lost in
>the contemplation of this sight, which made him think about the
>innocence and the passion of Christ. He was so oblivious to all else that
>he had no awareness of the fact that, one after another, several knights from
>Arthur's court rode up to speak to him, became angry at his non-response,
>attacked him, and were thrown off their horses by his absent-minded resistance.
>He regained consciousness of the world only when the blood faded.
This is interesting coming from you as an example of why abstract paintings
are so great. Here you are using a work of literature (a kind of art) to
illustrate a point. It is exactly this sort of thing that abstract paintings
and other such nonsense can't possibly do. The power of a metaphor like
the blood on the snow is something that a Rothko or a Pollack could never
hope to approach.
>Now imagine that I make a painting whose explicit purpose is to re-create
>the exact impression of these vivid red drops of blood upon the white snow,
>with the idea of inducing a train of thought analogous to Parsifal's.
But would anyone actually ever do that? If they did would it be good?
At best, such a work of art would be parasitic. It would merely rely on
some previous knowledge of that other work and attempt (in a pretty ineffective
way) to add to it. Better than a white canvas with a tiny red dot would be
a painting of a snowy scene, with snow on the ground, on the trees, on
the houses, and on a man's hat to illustrate the redemption of man, man's
works, of the natural world, and the physical universe by an infinitesimal
amount of holy blood. THAT would have some impact and some meaning (although
one I don't agree with since I am an atheist). That would be an example
of a subtle (though fairly obvious if one had even a slight bit of context
such as a title on the painting or the knowledge that the artist was a
Christian) and powerful work of art, although one I wouldn't particularly
like (because I dislike the implied meaning). Your red dot on white canvas
means nothing. Parsifal's blood meant something to him because he KNEW it was
blood, he knew it was snow, the associate blood with Christ and snow with
purity and redemption. Your painting leads to no such conclusions. And
it conveys no meaning exvept perhaps parasitically.
>The resulting painting would be "abstract" in the sense that it would be
>a red blot on a white background -- exactly like the sight that so enchanted
>Parsifal. Would you call this painting meaningless?
If that were the reason for choosing that particular design, I would call it
opaque and ineffective. It would be like writing a novel in secret code.
Is there any meaning there? I suppose. Is it important, effective, powerful,
or of any value? No.
Think about it, could you imagine using that painting in the same kind of
way you used the Parsifal legend to illustrate some other point or
circumstance? Do you think that anyone would (or should) become transfixed
on such a dot until he is carried out of the museum on a stretcher?
>Or would you
>be willing to call it meaningful, provided that you knew for sure that I had
>the above-described "honorable intentions" in painting it?
Only trivially so. I don't think that you could seriously intend it to mean
that if you painted it the way you described. I could put a white circle
on top of a black triangle to illustrate the superiority of worldly
atheism over the christian trinity rtoo, but it wouldn't be any good for
anything. On the other hand I could paint Nietzsche, Darwin, and Freud
all murdering God with a pen, a probe, and a couch too, and that would
be much more clear at getting the idea across (although probably not the
version of that idea that I would prefer). See the difference? One is
effective at expressing the idea and the other is just a pathetic dodge.
--Brian
Marta Lyall
B. Yoder:
>Rothko, Pollack, etc. are in a
>completely different category: non-art. Meaningless, empty, nonsensical,
>non-art.
Anyone who thinks that Pollack painted just drips and swirls has not
seen enough of them. I remember seeing one that I found really
interesting. It had layer upon layer of brush strokes. Once I became
oriented, human figures became quite distinct. My companions and I
decided that it was a picture of a dance. There was a lot going on in
the painting. It was immense and there was something to ponder on every
part. I found the experience meaningful. Other people might not have
found it either interesting, or meaningful.
When I look at a panoramic sunset over the mountains should I feel that
it is meaningful? If so, how can I articulate that meaning?
When I look at a masterfully crafted painting of the sunset should I
feel that it is meaningful? Is it likely to be art?
>Is it
>not snobs looking down their noses at the philistines who are saying that
>meaninglessness is so sophisticated?
Pomposity is likely found in similar proportions among proponents of
art, science, business and so on . .
I am told that calculus symbols are meaningful and that it is
sophisticated to know their meaning. Currently, they are
meaningless to me, (I may be with the majority on this count). Should I
rail on about this meaninglessness?
Josh West msc...@halcyon.com
Brian K. Yoder
>B. Yoder:
>>Rothko, Pollack, etc. are in a
>>completely different category: non-art. Meaningless, empty, nonsensical,
>>non-art.
>Anyone who thinks that Pollack painted just drips and swirls has not
>seen enough of them.
I don't think so. I have seen more of them than I care to, and Rothko
too (...and deKooning and a host of other similar purveyors of nonsense).
>I remember seeing one that I found really
>interesting. It had layer upon layer of brush strokes.
Oh how interesting! He really used layers of brushstrokes? What a find!
I bet that if I could find a painting (or make one) which had layered
brushstrokes I would be overjoyed. I wish I could have been there to see
it!
Not!
>Once I became
>oriented, human figures became quite distinct. My companions and I
>decided that it was a picture of a dance.
Do you think that Pollack actually planned for the thing to have dancers in
it? Even if you think Pollack had planned for there to be dancers in there,
what do you think he wanted to say using them or about them? I have never
seen any evidence that there is anything more in a Pollack painting
than in a cloud formation. Now, there might be some similarity between
the shape of a cloud and a horse but that doesn't mean it is art.
>There was a lot going on in
>the painting. It was immense and there was something to ponder on every
>part. I found the experience meaningful. Other people might not have
>found it either interesting, or meaningful.
Unless the painting was different than the other pollcaks I have seen, there
was NOTHING meaningful about it. Perhaps you provided some meaning yourself,
but it wasn't in the painting by the choice of the artist.
>When I look at a panoramic sunset over the mountains should I feel that
>it is meaningful? If so, how can I articulate that meaning?
Sunsets are not meaningful (other than in the trivial sense that they "mean"
that "the sun is going down"). They may be beautiful. They may be nice to
watch. They may even look like they have dancers in them, but they aren't
art.
>When I look at a masterfully crafted painting of the sunset should I
>feel that it is meaningful? Is it likely to be art?
It may or may not be. It may or may not be beautiful, and it may or may not
be good art, but at least it has more of a chance to be art than Rothko or
Pollack.
>>Is it
>>not snobs looking down their noses at the philistines who are saying that
>>meaninglessness is so sophisticated?
>Pomposity is likely found in similar proportions among proponents of
>art, science, business and so on . .
Doubtful. At least there are some kind of objective standards in other
fields. Perple might debate about them, but in art we have supposed
artists running around (usually using government funds) proclaiming that
there no standards, that everything is art, and that meaningless "art" is
really great. No other area is that corrupt. Not even close.
>I am told that calculus symbols are meaningful and that it is
>sophisticated to know their meaning. Currently, they are
>meaningless to me, (I may be with the majority on this count). Should I
>rail on about this meaninglessness?
No. There is plenty of evidence available to you that they do indeed
have meaning and you have also seen (assuming you took algebra in high
school) systems of similar symbols which has a meaning you did understand.
Furthermore, I could sit you down in and 15 minutes go over the basics of
calculus and point out what the important symbols mean. Also, if you
ask people what the meanings of the symbols are, they will give you
meaningful and precise answers and they will all say the same thing.
There's not a chance in the world that it is a sham (the same is the
case for foreign languages). Much of the stuff I am complaining about
is nonsensical ACCORDING TO THE ARTISTS. Do you really think there's
something in those paintings? You are just evading the truth here.
--Brian
Gordon Fitch
| >You all sound just like the promoters of Socialist Realism.
| >In fact, you might want to tell us how your differentiate
| >your aesthetics from theirs. Not your politics, your
| >aesthetics.
byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| I have seen a fair amount of it, although I have not read much about it from
| critics friendly to it, and from what I have seen they seem to have gotten a
| few things right (as did the Nazis for that matter). Just because you have
| a disgusting political philosophy doesn't mean that you must therefore be
| blind to the purpose and nature of art.
Well, both the Nazis and the Communists came up with similar
requirements for art -- requirements that excluded
surrealism and abstract expressionism, among other things.
Now, why do you think that happened? What do you think the
connection was between their political and philosophical
views and their aesthetic views, or was it just an
accident?
Gordon Fitch
| >and not just bad -- it's
| >_evil_, an instrument of snobbery, decadence, oppression,
| >tax theft, and class war.
byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| Certainly! Do you deny that the government robs us to pay for it? Is it
| not snobs looking down their noses at the philistines who are saying that
| meaninglessness is so sophisticated? ...
The issues of whether the government should fund art, and
whether and how art is used as an instrument of class war,
have nothing particularly to do with abstract expressionism.
Criticism and analysis of both activities would apply
equally to Giotto as to Rothko. I suggest different
threads.
Malgosia Askanas
Brian Yoder draws the following distinction between mathematics
and abstract art:
> I could sit you down in and 15 minutes go over the basics of
> calculus and point out what the important symbols mean. Also, if
> you ask people what the meanings of the symbols are, they will give you
> meaningful and precise answers and they will all say the same thing.
> There's not a chance in the world that it is a sham (the same is the
> case for foreign languages).
Yes, you could explain the symbolism of calculus in 15 minutes. But
you could NOT explain in 15 minutes (or an hour, or even a
week) what makes certain areas of mathematics, or certain mathematical
results, particularly beautiful; or why a certain direction of
investigation is intuitively felt to be worthwhile while another is
felt to be less so. After perhaps an initial attempt at explaining this,
you would most likely say to the student: "You simply have to do
math for a while, live with it, think about it, and then you will
get a sense of these things. For now, you have to trust my guidance."
Now this would happen not because there are no intersubjective
criteria for mathematical beauty and worthwhileness. Although
individual mathematicians may differ in their opinions, they mostly
have some common set of criteria for such judgements, and the
internalization of these criteria is part of the process of becoming
a professional mathematician. However, these criteria do not easily
lend themselves to explicit articulation. They are best learnt by
showing, not by telling. Yet, these hard-to-articulate notions are
just as essential a component of the mathematical enterprise as math's
demonstrable applicability to engineering and science.
Now take a beautiful undecorated Greek vase. I would definitely say
that it is a carrier of meaning. First, it carries meaning because in
making it the artist has taken a stance towards the question of the
general worthwhileness of human creation. It carries meaning through
its proportions, shape, color, finish, internal harmonies, the way
the materials were made to obey -- or refused to obey -- the artist's
shaping. In addition, it evokes further layers of meaning through
resonances within the inner sound-board of each spectator.
These all exist, and have some more-than-subjective status -- yet
they would be hard if not impossible to articulate.
You have been careful to insist that Parsifal's reverie had to do
with the fact that he knew the red spot was in fact blood. But
to me, this knowledge seems irrelevant. He saw a blood-red spot
on a virgin white background. This kind of delicate, ethereal white and
this particular shade of red carry, in our culture, plenty of meaning
by themselves. Not everybody confronted with such a sight would
have the SAME reverie as Parsifal, but given the richness of
associations it is likely that a thoughtful and willing spectator
would find the sight worthy of contemplation. What makes the sight
rich in associated meanings is not simple: the colors have to be
just right, and so do the textures, shapes, overall proportions,
etc. Not any spot of red on any kind of white would do.
However, given the RIGHT kind of red on white, the spectator begins
to make his own meaning. This process of meaning-making, and the
conditions which bring it on, are very difficult to articulate.
Does that make them non-existent? Does it invalidate the art that
brings them about?
Interestingly, you say in the conclusion of the math paragraph:
> Much of the stuff I am complaining about
> is nonsensical ACCORDING TO THE ARTISTS. Do you really think
> there's something in those paintings? You are just evading the truth here.
One of the great modern mathematicians, David Hilbert, claimed that
mathematics was just a game played with symbols on a piece of paper.
This claim was quite fruitful; it had the effect of making people look at
mathematics in new ways and liberating them from certain ingrained
modes of thought. It means neither that all subsequent mathematics
should be regarded as nothing more than such a game, nor that it was
nothing more to Hilbert himself.
Daniel Simon
>
>What I find funny in all of this is that the Rothko-haters
>are about a generation out of synch. The present contested
>territory runs from about Warhol to Basquiat. _These_ are
>the people those who huff up about bad art getting a lot of
>money now generally slag. Rothko is, well, he's just _up_
>_there_ -- shining forth from museum walls, bus ads, and
>those fingernails I told you about. One might as well get
>exercised about Giotto, Duerer, or Bosch.
In other words, "what's the matter with all those millions of people
who don't like or respect his work? Don't they know it's universally
loved and respected?"
The simple fact is that Rothko is *not* "up there" with Giotto, Durer,
or Bosch, in the minds of the vast majority of people who are familiar
with the latter three (as the widespread outrage that greeted the
National Gallery's recent Rothko purchase amply demonstrates). Only
those who consider the opinions of this vast majority utterly
irrelevant, and the views of the remaining few somehow vastly
superior, would dare to compare the "directly enjoyable" artworks of
those three artists with Rothko's fuzzy rectangles.
Daniel Simon
I apologize for the misunderstanding. Mr. Fitch wrote that "[a]rt is
highly utilitarian because it is directly enjoyable. It is one of the
first things humans do not directly connected with survival (that we
know about) and predates agriculture by many millennia." I therefore
mistakenly assumed that his notion of "directly enjoyable" art was
somehow connected with the immediate enjoyment that early humans
obtained from their art, as opposed to his own long, painful process
of conditioning himself to like whatever the current art fads have
deemed commendable, however repulsive he may have found it at first.
Daniel Simon
>populist party here are so totalitarian -- they don't like
>Rothko, so it's _got_ to be bad, and not just bad -- it's
>_evil_, an instrument of snobbery, decadence, oppression,
>tax theft, and class war.
I don't know if Mr. Fitch is referring to me, but *I* certainly don't
consider Rothko's art "evil"--on the contrary, I find it utterly
innocuous, and therefore quite a welcome relief from the agressively,
deliberately unpleasant artworks that are more in style these days.
It is certainly not the fault of the late Rothko or his work that it
has become an instrument of snobbery, decadence, oppression, tax
theft, and class war; the blame rightly lies with those who use it as
such.
>You all sound just like the promoters of Socialist Realism.
>In fact, you might want to tell us how your differentiate
>your aesthetics from theirs. Not your politics, your
>aesthetics.
I don't know much about socialist realism, but I am given to
understand that the aesthetic premise of socialist realism is that art
that helps promote socialism among the masses is good, and that art
that does not is bad. Similarly, the writers I quoted in a
previous posting who hope that "'the people', in Chekhov's words,
'could be brought up to the level of Gogol, rather than bringing Gogol
down to the level of the people,'" and spoke of artists as "our guides
through the wilderness", adhere to an aesthetic that considers art's
quality as indistinguishable from its instructive function (although
occasionally the required instruction differs slightly from
socialism). I, on the other hand, think that art has done its job
when it has filled people with joy and wonder, and would leave the
task of education to those more qualified for it.
Brian K. Yoder
>gcf:
>| >You all sound just like the promoters of Socialist Realism.
>| >In fact, you might want to tell us how your differentiate
>| >your aesthetics from theirs. Not your politics, your
>| >aesthetics.
>byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>| I have seen a fair amount of it, although I have not read much about it from
>| critics friendly to it, and from what I have seen they seem to have gotten a
>| few things right (as did the Nazis for that matter). Just because you have
>| a disgusting political philosophy doesn't mean that you must therefore be
>| blind to the purpose and nature of art.
>Well, both the Nazis and the Communists came up with similar
>requirements for art -- requirements that excluded
>surrealism and abstract expressionism, among other things.
Actually, I LIKE surrealism. I think you are trying to build some kind of
strawman that my position advocates crude representationalism (you know,
flowers on a table, etc.). I think that generally photography (or the same
thing via a paintbrush) has a hard time being art or good art.
>Now, why do you think that happened?
Basically I think it was because these folks had ideas they thought were
supremely important and that they wanted to be seen in art. Skeptics/nihilists
of the kind that dominate the modern art world today have nothing to say
(or at least nothing they want to say openly and clearly) and thus they
don't want to create art which clearly delivers messages about their ideas.
For the most part they don't have any.
>What do you think the
>connection was between their political and philosophical
>views and their aesthetic views, or was it just an
>accident?
As I said, the connection was that they had ideas they cared about, and they
wanted everything architecture, language, the economy, the political
system, journalism, and art to express those ideas and not mushy meaningless
nonsense. I know a little more about the Nazi theories about art than
the Soviet ones, and the Nazis were (in addition to be above) reacting to
the ugliness and meaninglessness of the "degenerate art" (as they called it)
by joining it to their grand conspiracy theory. Jews were bad, Bolsheviks
were bad, abstract expressionist art was bad, and they were all lumped
together so that it was assumed that all creators of bad art must be jews
and that all jews were bolsheviks, and therefore were enemies of the
party. I am sure you know that line.
In many ways, the Nazis and Communists did have better taste in art than
other folks have historically, although that really doesn't excuse their
other crimes. Are you trying to somehow associate my dislike for the kind of
art they disliked with their evil political and economic ideas? Not bloody
likely.
--Brian
Marta Lyall
B. Yoder:
>I have never
>seen any evidence that there is anything more in a Pollack painting
>than in a cloud formation. Now, there might be some similarity between
>the shape of a cloud and a horse but that doesn't mean it is art.
figurative references.
--B. Yoder:
>Sunsets are not meaningful (other than in the trivial sense that they "mean"
>that "the sun is going down"). They may be beautiful. They may be nice to
>watch. They may even look like they have dancers in them, but they aren't
>art.
--J. West:
>When I look at a masterfully crafted painting of the sunset should I
>feel that it is meaningful? Is it likely to be art?
--B. Yoder:
>It may or may not be. It may or may not be beautiful, and it may or may not
>be good art, but at least it has more of a chance to be art than Rothko or
>Pollack.
How would I differentiate between a painting of a sunset that is good
art and one that is not art at all?
--J. West:
>I am told that calculus symbols are meaningful and that it is
>sophisticated to know their meaning. Currently, they are
>meaningless to me, (I may be with the majority on this count). Should I
>rail on about this meaninglessness?
--B. Yoder:
>No. There is plenty of evidence available to you that they do indeed
>have meaning and you have also seen (assuming you took algebra in high
>school) systems of similar symbols which has a meaning you did understand.
>Furthermore, I could sit you down in and 15 minutes go over the basics of
>calculus and point out what the important symbols mean.
I believe you, (and as long as I remained open to the possibility, you
would have a chance at making them meaningful to me).
If unfamiliar with the symbol for integration, would anyone be able
to derive the meaning from the symbol alone?
It seems like a significant minority of people have agreed to recognize
meaning in calculus symbols.
>Also, if you
>ask people what the meanings of the symbols are, they will give you
>meaningful and precise answers and they will all say the same thing.
>There's not a chance in the world that it is a sham (the same is the
>case for foreign languages). Much of the stuff I am complaining about
>is nonsensical ACCORDING TO THE ARTISTS. Do you really think there's
>something in those paintings? You are just evading the truth here.
Is reproduceability an essential test for meaning?
B. Yoder:
>Unless the painting was different than the other pollcaks I have seen, there
>was NOTHING meaningful about it. Perhaps you provided some meaning yourself,
>but it wasn't in the painting by the choice of the artist.
Is it essential that meaning flows initially from the symbol to me?
Josh West msc...@halcyon.com
Ted Park
How are museums in the US (Such as the Art Institute of Chicago
or the Metropolitan Museum of Art) funded?
What attributes make paintings more or less valuable? I suspect
that a lot of the price must be related to who painted it rather
than how the painting looks.
Certainly 1.8M is a lot of money to spend on a painting. What
sort of groups/individuals purchase expensive paintings? i.e.
are purchase made by people with a LOT of money who want something
that they like, or are the purchases made as investments.
Does anyone out there know how much it costs every year to run the
National Gallery's big glass building?
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Ted Park - sysadmin and mover of large, heavy objects
Novatel Communications Ltd. t...@novatel.cuc.ab.ca
Phone 403-295-4982 t...@tbgcal.cuc.ab.ca