NEVER BE INTIMIDATED BY ART CRITICS AGAIN
Slappy White
I have come to realize something....
There are three major groups into which art can be classified:
Popular Art: talent emphasized over intellect - the right brain
working alone. Norman Rockwell, Nagel, and Sargent would be examples.
It may well have aesthetic impact, but no depth...superficial.
Critic's Art: intellect emphasized over talent - the LEFT brain working
alone. Rothko, Klee, and Jasper Johns are examples. The majority of
Critic's Art has no emotional impact, and is supported by inorganic
intellectual arguments.
Artist's Art (also: ART) Talent and intellect working together to
produce works that have depth and which induce euphoria. The top of the
parabola (see below). Leonardo? Sure! Also: The Goldsmith (of the Book of
Kells), Kadjisu-axtc (a 19th cent.Tlingit carver), and others who have
control over and use BOTH hemispheres of the brain.
ARTIST'S ART
both hemispheres of brain
Leonardo da Vinci, et al
^
/ \
/ \
/ \
/ \
critic's / \ popular
art / \ art
Rothko--->/ \<---Nagel
left brain right brain
Critics are very fond of using an Emperor's New Clothes argument to
support the work of, for example, abstract expressionists. ("You don't get
((see)) it? Why, you're simply not intellegent enough!") In reality, a
painter such as Mark Rothko is ABSOLUTELY as deficient as Norman Rockwell,
Nagel, Leyendecker, and the rest, albeit in a contrary manner.
So, kids, the next time you are confronted by an advocate of
art divorced from instinct, feel free to laugh at them. You'll feel better
than you have since the Armory Show.
Jeff Holder, Univ. Of Washington, Seattle
dog...@u.washington.edu
sh...@monitor.com
>
> I have come to realize something....
>
"Stop bendin' da shafts!"
i assume that that post was not intended to be taken seriously. if it was,
then just consider yourself flamed and i won't waste more bandwidth than
necessary.
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Broderick
Monitor Company / Information Engineering
sh...@monitor.com
Andy Pearlman
> I have come to realize something....
> There are three major groups into which art can be classified:
>
> Popular Art: talent emphasized over intellect - the right brain
>working alone. Norman Rockwell, Nagel, and Sargent would be examples.
> It may well have aesthetic impact, but no depth...superficial.
> Critic's Art: intellect emphasized over talent - the LEFT brain working
>alone. Rothko, Klee, and Jasper Johns are examples. The majority of
>Critic's Art has no emotional impact, and is supported by inorganic
>intellectual arguments.
> Artist's Art (also: ART) Talent and intellect working together to
>produce works that have depth and which induce euphoria. The top of the
>parabola (see below). Leonardo? Sure! Also: The Goldsmith (of the Book of
>Kells), Kadjisu-axtc (a 19th cent.Tlingit carver), and others who have
>control over and use BOTH hemispheres of the brain.
Let's see. First off, I happen to like Nagel, Sargent, Rothko, Jasper Johns,
Leonardo, etc... All of them have some emotional impact for me. This grouping
ignores a fundemental fact about most artists of today - the average artist
is not significantly smarter than the average member of the populace, yet
most artists I know are trying to produce artwork that has depth and emotional
impact.
Finally, I'm in the top 1% of the population and a reasonably talented artist.
By this logic, every single work I make should be a masterpiece. It just
doesn't work that way.
Andy Pearlman
SubGenius
: Critic's Art: intellect emphasized over talent - the LEFT brain working
: alone. Rothko, Klee, and Jasper Johns are examples. The majority of
: Critic's Art has no emotional impact, and is supported by inorganic
: intellectual arguments.
+------------------------------------------SubG----------------------------+
I find it very hard to believe anyone's taxonomising Rothko as having
`no emotional impact' and as being purely `intellectual.'
I think precisely the opposite is true---standing in front of a Rothko
is pure impact and zero intellectualisation.
I will agree, however, that Rothko's skill (such as it is) and the skill
of others of the genre lies entirely in conceptualisation rather than
execution and therefore, in that sense, the art is more intellectual
than emotional. But that's at the creation end, not at the perception.
+-------------------------------------------SubG---------------------------+
: Artist's Art (also: ART) Talent and intellect working together to
: produce works that have depth and which induce euphoria. The top of the
: parabola (see below). Leonardo? Sure! Also: The Goldsmith (of the Book of
: Kells), Kadjisu-axtc (a 19th cent.Tlingit carver), and others who have
: control over and use BOTH hemispheres of the brain.
+-----------------------------------------SubG------------------------------+
Here we come to the crux of your argument: There are two kinds of
art, you say, good art and bad art.
I would be interested to hear your opinion of, say, Rene Magritte,
whose paintings are fully appreciated on an intellectual level but
nevertheless contain a great deal of skill of execution. Or, for that
matter, Picasso's work some of which is certainly as abstract
as de Kooning's (for example), but is by no stretch of the imagination
the result of any paucity of skill.
Yours etc.,
SubGenius
Gordon Fitch
complex forms of human experience and behavior to nifty
little diagrams. For instance, there used to be a magazine
called _Psychology_Today_ which would portray "The Human
Mind" as a stack of three little boxes, a red one called
"CONSCIOUS", a green one called "SUBCONSCIOUS", and a purple
one called "UNCONSCIOUS", and connect them with yellow bars.
Sometimes they got really sophisticated and they would hang
a little blue box on the red box and call it "FORECONSCIOUS"
(that was, like, the multiplication table and stuff). And
sometimes they got cute and they'd put a little devil or a
dog or something sniffing around the purple box. But in
general the principle was
LA SIMPLICITE', LA SIMPLICITE', TOUJOURS DE LA SIMPLICITE'
to quote a famous French general whose name I forget. The
libertarians saw this and saw that it was good, and how,
and concocted the "Nolan Diagram" which puts libertarians
at the apex of a diamond, playing second base. Okay, but
that's what they like.
So now we have the latest addition to this fast-growing
form of art which we can call the LAMBDA OF LEONARDO
since he seems to have made it to the top first.
I think I'll go for a high-level black-box simulation of
the universe, myself. Let's see, zero inputs... zero
outputs... Hey! I'm done!
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Dale Schouten
>Finally, I'm in the top 1% of the population and a reasonably talented artist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In what, modesty? You mean you make over $200k a year? Or you're over 6'6"?
Or you happened to score well on some Mensa test or something?
Dale Schouten
> I have come to realize something....
>[Goes on to explain that quality `ART' is acheived by an appropriate
>mixture of emotional and intellectual appeal]
I think I've seen something like this before.
Check out `Dead Poets Society', they discuss the same thing w.r.t. poetry.
Just at the beginning and very end of the film. You can skip the rest.
You'll love it.
Dale Schouten
scho...@uiuc.edu
Andy Pearlman
Let's see. I said I'm in the top 1%/reasonably talented artist, and by the
given definition, I should only make masterpieces. I don't, was my reply.
That's to say, the definition that talent + intellect = good art doesn't work.
i.e. I was giving myself a backhanded compliment.
Because you ask, I invented derivation/integration in the 9th grade, based on
the surface area/volume of a sphere. I attended several classes 4 times out
of 50 in college and uniformly got Bs in them after reading the text once or
twice. I read 100 pages/hour and really have gone all the way through
Gravity's Rainbow by Pynchon. I have sold a few paintings and have only been
making art or something resembling it for 4 years. In terms of intellect, I
think that qualifies me for the top 1%.
Andy Pearlman
Gordon Fitch
| > I have come to realize something....
| >[Goes on to explain that quality `ART' is acheived by an appropriate
| >mixture of emotional and intellectual appeal]
scho...@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
| I think I've seen something like this before.
| Check out `Dead Poets Society', they discuss the same thing w.r.t. poetry.
| Just at the beginning and very end of the film. You can skip the rest.
| You'll love it.
Skipping the rest, yes. But you'd still have to watch the
beginning and the end, and why bother taxing yourself with
_that_ when all you need is a nifty little diagram?
gary l. schroeder
>>Finally, I'm in the top 1% of the population and a reasonably talented artist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>In what, modesty? You mean you make over $200k a year? Or you're over 6'6"?
Nah, this guy's not in the top 1% of the population. I should know
because _I'm_ in the top 1% and it's a pretty small group. I never
forget a name, and "Andy Pearlman" has never been on my "Top 1%"
Christmas card mailing list. Nice try, Andy.
Imagine the nerve. Hmph.
--
--------------
Gary Schroeder
schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Mike Melton
>In article <SCHOUTEN.9...@sp51.csrd.uiuc.edu> scho...@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>>In article <26fm7a$g...@panix.com> apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>>>Finally, I'm in the top 1% of the population and a reasonably talented artist
>>In what, modesty? You mean you make over $200k a year? Or you're over 6'6"?
>>Or you happened to score well on some Mensa test or something?
>
>the surface area/volume of a sphere. I attended several classes 4 times out
..psychology experiment deleted...
>In terms of intellect, I
>think that qualifies me for the top 1%.
Andy, my, you *are* smart. I suppose you already know what a rhetorical
question is. Now, do you know what "objectivity" means?
Mike "I'm Average" Melton
Slappy White
In order for an artist to work at the level of Artist's Art, it is
primarily important that they be extremely talented and reasonably
intelligent. Great left brain development is not necessary (mathematical
ability and artistic ability are often mutually exclusive) but great right
brain development IS.
Creativity and intellegence exist independently of each other, making it
possible for a person to possess talent but to be somewhat dim, and
conversely for a person to be intellectually brilliant, but to have little
or no talent. When a artist's ability is primarily right-brain instinctual
ability, there is a tendency to produce superficial work, with an emphasis
on pure surface (what I called Popular Art).
Left-brain (or Critic's) art tends to be conceptual in nature and is
often described as "difficult" or "challenging". There is typically
little instincual emotional response. Rather, intellectual arguments and
learned knowledge are necessary for its appreciation.
Artist's Art (as I call it) is art displaying great talent either
in the execution or design and tempered by and enhanced by intellegence.
Intellegence here does not mean "acquired knowledge", rather, an innate
intellegence that can be found in people who have not had any significant
education. Art at this level has a euphoric instinctual impact and
_lasts_: it has been given depth by intellegence.
I think of these terms as applying to the art, not the artists. Each
work should be judged on its own merit. I think Picasso, for example,
worked sometimes at the Artist's Art level, but more typically as a
Critic's Artist.It is often necessary for the artist to be known for a
work to be appreciated by critics: anyone could make a Rothko, but only a
"true" Rothko is suitable for praise by art critics. Why?
I should also point out that one may like (as I do) art from any or all
of these categories. I like Sargent, for example, and he had talent and
intelligence, but he worked primarily in the field of society
portraiture, which demands flattery of the client and for the most part
stifled his intellect, and I would consider most of
his work Popular Art.
Also, these categories are not rigid. One may be primarily a Critic's
Artist but closer to the top of the parabola than another Critic's Artist,
etc. You get the idea. These are categories not applicable not only to
visual art, but to all forms of art. Does anyone really listen to academic
music? Very seldom. Overly intellectualized art defeats the purpose of art.
In the end, it is very easy to criticize work because it is not
intelligent enough ("You like Nagel? Ha!"), and this criticism is
deserved, but is it not also fair to criticize work because it is not
instinctual enough, and does not affect the heart (or right brain) and
will not enduce the euphoria that the true artist is capable of? I think
an end to the Emperor's New Clothes is in order.
Andy Pearlman
>In article <SCHOUTEN.9...@sp51.csrd.uiuc.edu> scho...@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>>In article <26fm7a$g...@panix.com> apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>Nah, this guy's not in the top 1% of the population. I should know
>because _I'm_ in the top 1% and it's a pretty small group. I never
>forget a name, and "Andy Pearlman" has never been on my "Top 1%"
>Christmas card mailing list. Nice try, Andy.
Thanks! Damn it, I've been found out...
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman
>In article <26jjb9$1...@panix.com> apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>>In article <SCHOUTEN.9...@sp51.csrd.uiuc.edu> scho...@sp95.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
>..psychology experiment deleted...
>
>Andy, my, you *are* smart. I suppose you already know what a rhetorical
>question is. Now, do you know what "objectivity" means?
>
>Mike "I'm Average" Melton
I'm happy to hear that you've accepted being average. Were any of my
statements requiring an outside objective source, except to verify whether or
not I did what I said or not? No. Perhaps you should look up how to construct
an argument. A proper putdown would have been.
"Andy, my, you *are* smart."
1) Do you think anyone cares?
2) Do you think that would let you win in a fistfight with Einstein?
3) Does your mother know?
4) So why aren't you president yet?
5) Then you should know how many fingers I'm holding up.
6) Too bad you were 400 years too late.
7) I hear they are naming a physical science after you...Andyantics
8) God wouldn't hold a candle to you.
9) Jeez, 9th grade. Everyone I know did that in 5th. What took you so long?
10) Do you go in bars and use that line to impress women?
Hope that helps.
Andy Pearlman
ss...@prodhp.us.oracle.com
>
>
>
> (mathematical
>ability and artistic ability are often mutually exclusive)
"Often" is vague. In fact studies of mathematically gifted
individuals (as in the 60+ year study at Stanford) tend to show that
they are more likely than the average person to be artistically gifted.
(maybe not a famous artist but practicing, and having great sensibility
about art.) Your statement sounded like a cliche.
> Creativity and intellegence exist independently of each other, making it
Are you sure? Certainly debatable.
Land O' Lunch
>Let's see. First off, I happen to like Nagel, Sargent, Rothko, Jasper Johns,
>Leonardo, etc... All of them have some emotional impact for me. This grouping
>ignores a fundemental fact about most artists of today - the average artist
>is not significantly smarter than the average member of the populace, yet
>most artists I know are trying to produce artwork that has depth and emotional
>impact.
I really don't know about Nagel, but the others, maybe even Rothko, have
something to give the viewer. However, the experience of looking at a
Rothko is a much different, and much drier, experience than, for example,
viewing the face of the angel in the London _ Madonna of the Rocks_.
>Finally, I'm in the top 1% of the population and a reasonably talented artist.
>By this logic, every single work I make should be a masterpiece. It just
>doesn't work that way.
"Reasonably" talented isn't talented enough. (Of course, I don't have
familiarity with your work, so don't take that as an insult) I think for
one to work at the highest artistic level he or she must possess
unimpeachable technical ability (no, this doen't mean representational art
only - check out the Book of Kells). Like I said, though, technical ability
without intelligence far too often results in slickness and superficiality.
But talent is of greater necessity in art than left-brain inteligence.
Any way, in this country, there are 2.5 MILLION people in the top 1%.
>jeff holder
dogpest @u.washington.edu
Land O' Lunch
>Slappy White (dog...@mead.u.washington.edu) wrote:
>: Critic's Art: intellect emphasized over talent - the LEFT brain working
>: alone. Rothko, Klee, and Jasper Johns are examples. The majority of
>: Critic's Art has no emotional impact, and is supported by inorganic
>: intellectual arguments.
>+------------------------------------------SubG----------------------------+
>I find it very hard to believe anyone's taxonomising Rothko as having
>`no emotional impact' and as being purely `intellectual.'
>I think precisely the opposite is true---standing in front of a Rothko
>is pure impact and zero intellectualisation.
>I will agree, however, that Rothko's skill (such as it is) and the skill
>of others of the genre lies entirely in conceptualisation rather than
>execution and therefore, in that sense, the art is more intellectual
>than emotional. But that's at the creation end, not at the perception.
I have no doubt that the audience who like Rothko get something from
his paintings, but it is a different emotion than the truly
euphoric instinctual response generated by more traditional art (when such
art is the work of a true artist). Even works of depair - The Dying Gaul ,
for example, generate, in me, what I could only call euphoria- a
substantial feeling of appreciation of the ability of the artist.
I believe, further, that intellectualization DOES occur at the
perception end. Without knowledge that a Rothko is BY Rothko, who he was,
how much he suffered, the history of art leading up to abstract
expressionism, etc., one does not know that it is suitable for praise.
Only with the possession of this acquired knowledge can one feel
emotionally moved by it - intellectualizaton.
>+-------------------------------------------SubG---------------------------+
>: Artist's Art (also: ART) Talent and intellect working together to
>: produce works that have depth and which induce euphoria. The top of the
>: parabola (see below). Leonardo? Sure! Also: The Goldsmith (of the Book of
>: Kells), Kadjisu-axtc (a 19th cent.Tlingit carver), and others who have
>: control over and use BOTH hemispheres of the brain.
>+-----------------------------------------SubG------------------------------+
>Here we come to the crux of your argument: There are two kinds of
>art, you say, good art and bad art.
>I would be interested to hear your opinion of, say, Rene Magritte,
>whose paintings are fully appreciated on an intellectual level but
>nevertheless contain a great deal of skill of execution. Or, for that
>matter, Picasso's work some of which is certainly as abstract
>as de Kooning's (for example), but is by no stretch of the imagination
>the result of any paucity of skill.
I think Magritte displayed strong technical ability, but not great
technical ability. Most of his paintings are quite accessible to a
popular audience, can be understood without a course in Modern Art, etc. -
it is not neccessary to LEARN to like his work. I would place him high
on the popular art side of my "nifty little diagram". I would place the
best works of Dali, however, on the near pinnacle of artistic achievement.
Dali had GREAT technical ability, was intelligent (this intelligence is
apparent in his work - in the choices he made, etc - it is not neccessary
to know anything about an artist, I believe, and is probably better not to
know anything - but where would Rothko be then?).
>Yours etc.,
>SubGenius
Land O' Lunch
>There's a _fourth_ form of art, which consists of reducing
>complex forms of human experience and behavior to nifty
>little diagrams.
Hmmm. Instead, you say, we should allow the Intellectual Art
establishment to insist that what they have produced has somehow risen above
the art of LIFE and PASSSION and EUPHORIA, that what they produce
is, as they will claim, superior to traditional art which requires
the use of talent, when in reality they have simply divorced
themselves from instinct? There's something - whether it is an art, I
cannot say - called _insight_. Look into it.
Jeff Holder, U of W
aka "Slappy White", "Brian Boru",
and "Land O' Lunch"
Vance Maverick
I really don't know about Nagel, but the others, maybe even Rothko, have
something to give the viewer. However, the experience of looking at a
Rothko is a much different, and much drier, experience than, for example,
viewing the face of the angel in the London _ Madonna of the Rocks_.
Drier for whom? Not for me, that's for sure. This is the basic
problem with arguments like the ones we've been having here -- we get
these bald statements of aesthetic "fact", utterly ungrounded but
issued as evidence. In any case, I get lots more out of a good Rothko
than out of any Leonardo -- despite years and years of effort on the
part of teachers and peers to convince me that, e.g. the
_Annunciation_ is the greatest painting ever. Leaves me utterly
inert.
Vance
Land O' Lunch
>Drier for whom?
Anyone capable of feeling joy- maybe not intellectual COMMUNISTS from
Berkeley, but everyone else.
Not for me, that's for sure. This is the basic
>problem with arguments like the ones we've been having here -- we get
>these bald statements of aesthetic "fact", utterly ungrounded but
>issued as evidence. In any case, I get lots more out of a good Rothko
>than out of any Leonardo -- despite years and years of effort on the
>part of teachers and peers to convince me that, e.g. the
>_Annunciation_ is the greatest painting ever.
Leaves me utterly
>inert.
>
If Leonardo does indeed leave you "inert", as I have no doubt he does,
then the problem is YOURS. Fine. Any attempts to convince a person that a
particular form of art is GOOD if they don't feel anything is misguided.
Just as it is stupid to drag, say, the average truck driver into an art
museum and then berate him for his lack of intellectual prowess because
he does not think that the Rothko is art, it would be stupid for me to
berate you for your lack of INSTINCTUAL prowess or inability to appreciate
beauty. Just as our good friend the average truck driver might be able to
appreciate only the visual side of art, and maight well like Nagel the
same or more than Leonardo, many people enjoy primarily the
intellectual in art, and would like Rothko more than or better than
Leonardo. I see no great difference between the two groups: both are
lacking universality.
p.s. - What kind of MUSIC do you listen to?
jeffrey
Vance Maverick
>[I had written, of the claim that Rothkos
> are necessarily drier than Leonardos]
>Drier for whom?
Anyone capable of feeling joy- maybe not intellectual COMMUNISTS from
Berkeley, but everyone else.
Wow, I haven't heard "communist" used as a dirty word in ages! Not
that it applies to me, but I'm flattered. (And I'm from Los Angeles.)
For what it's worth (this is hardly offered in the expectation of
convincing you) I am entirely capable of joy.
If Leonardo does indeed leave you "inert", as I have no doubt he does,
then the problem is YOURS.
If Rothko strikes you as "dry", as I have no doubt he does, then the
problem is yours.
[...] it would be stupid for me to
berate you for your lack of INSTINCTUAL prowess or inability to appreciate
beauty.
It sure would -- especially since your only evidence is that I don't
find it where you do.
many people enjoy primarily the
intellectual in art, and would like Rothko more than or better than
Leonardo.
Is this really your diagnosis in my case? To me, Leonardo is much
more intellectual than Rothko -- whatever is going on in a Leonardo,
it's mediated by representation, which is a pretty hairy intellectual
deal. Rothko *FOR ME* has immediate visual appeal: he puts the paint
down on the canvas in an interesting way. How much more immediate can
one get?
p.s. - What kind of MUSIC do you listen to?
Quite a lot. Give me a thesis you'd like to support by my answer, and
I'll give you a subset.
Vance
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
at what is certainly a useful abstraction on the grounds that is is an
oversimplification.
I certainly agree that successful art is usually a fusion of the
intellectual and the emotional, and that most unsuccessful art
fails on one or the other criterion. Of course, this is not a complete
classification of art - if it were, there would be an ideal art strategy
(like an ideal chess strategy) to which all works strive. But the fact that
this abstraction doesn't explain everything in no way implies that it
doesn't explain anything!
Artistic presentation of ideas without any particular skills used to be
at least refreshing and revolutionary. Nowadays it is merely trite, nihilistic
and boring. Demonstration of skills without any real ideas is just craft.
As far as I'm concerned you can keep your Mondrians and your John Cages.
My intellect gets enough of a stretch doing geophysical fluid dynamics.
(I am in the bottom 1% of GFD specialists...) I expect more from art than
silly little mind games, thanks.
"Slappy's parabola" is a nice succinct way of expressing this way of
thinking. Even if you don't agree (I do) you can appreciate it as a useful
model. Calling it an oversimplification is ludicrous, since it doesn't
claim to explain everything. It just explains *something*. What it explains
is a part of the way that "Slappy", I, and many other people, see art, and why
we often find art critics worthless. This is the last place I'd expect to
see people arguing against abstraction!
mt
Vance Maverick
It is amusing to see people who celebrate abstraction in art sneering
at what is certainly a useful abstraction on the grounds that is is an
oversimplification.
If "abstraction" in art had anything to do with "abstraction" in
discourse, then every allegorical painting would be an abstract.
[of the model of art as combining intrinsic
intellectual and emotional qualities]
Calling it an oversimplification is ludicrous, since it doesn't
claim to explain everything. It just explains *something*.
It doesn't help us deal with any individual painting -- after all, how
do we determine the intellectual and emotional qualities of a
painting? By looking at it and seeing how we react -- exactly the
procedure we would follow if we didn't subscribe to the model.
Vance
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> In article <1993Sep14....@cs.wisc.edu> to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) writes:
|> It is amusing to see people who celebrate abstraction in art sneering
|> at what is certainly a useful abstraction on the grounds that is is an
|> oversimplification.
|>
|> If "abstraction" in art had anything to do with "abstraction" in
|> discourse, then every allegorical painting would be an abstract.
I don't see this. The model, like an abstract painting, sacrifices detail for
clarification of some important aspect. Allegory in discourse is not at all
the same as abstraction in discourse.
|> [of the model of art as combining intrinsic
|> intellectual and emotional qualities]
|> Calling it an oversimplification is ludicrous, since it doesn't
|> claim to explain everything. It just explains *something*.
|>
|> It doesn't help us deal with any individual painting -- after all, how
|> do we determine the intellectual and emotional qualities of a
|> painting? By looking at it and seeing how we react -- exactly the
|> procedure we would follow if we didn't subscribe to the model.
This is interesting. Is it the function of theory to help us "deal with" any
particular work? I would contend that art that cannot be "dealt with" in the
absence of theory is precisely the problem the original poster was
addressing. It is one thing to produce something that functions as a clever
witticism for the wry amusement of cognoscenti. Producing high art is
another thing entirely.
The "parabola" (it would have been better as a quarter-plane with two axes,
I suppose) is no help in "dealing with" a particular work of art, but it
doesn't claim to be. It helps in understanding why credentialed art
professionals tend to be fascinated with works that most people find utterly
pointless, though, which is precisely what it claimed to be for.
I don't need a great deal of theory to help me "deal with" Monet or Matisse,
thanks, though some understanding of the context in which they worked adds a
bit to the pleasure of experiencing them. When I reach the Pollocks and the
Mondrians, though, I haven't the least interest in what motivated them to
waste all that paint and canvas. If I don't bother to read volumes of
convoluted nonsense which are necessary for me to "get" whatever little
joke they spent most of their careers repeating, it is because I don't
think that clever little in-jokes constitute art. The only thing that
interests me about this stuff is why people take it seriously. I've come
to conclusions very similar to Slappy's on this question, to wit: too
much precious theory interferes with, rather than enhances, ability to
appreciate art.
mt
Vance Maverick
[A whole bunch of stuff. But we get to the core of the
argument towards the end.]
When I reach the Pollocks and the
Mondrians, though, I haven't the least interest in what motivated them to
waste all that paint and canvas. If I don't bother to read volumes of
convoluted nonsense which are necessary for me to "get" whatever little
joke they spent most of their careers repeating, it is because I don't
think that clever little in-jokes constitute art.
Hey, it's NOT NECESSARY to read to appreciate them. I went
for Pollock the first time I saw one of his paintings, and
my reading on him since has not influenced my seeing at all.
So any argument of yours which is based on the notion that
Pollock's painting makes sense only given certain
intellectual preparation is false. All we need to falsify
the argument is one counterexample, one person who enjoyed
the paintings without "getting in-jokes": here I am.
(I'm no fan of Mondrian, but I don't go around inventing
theories of why bad people like him.)
The basic problem with the intellect/emotional analysis of
the audience of specific artworks is the impossibility of
determining the intellectual/emotional content of the work:
viz., Slappy thought Rothko was an "intellectual" painter,
but my response demonstrates adequately that this is not
universally true.
Vance
Vance Maverick
|> In article <1993Sep14....@cs.wisc.edu> to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) writes:
|> It is amusing to see people who celebrate abstraction in art sneering
|> at what is certainly a useful abstraction on the grounds that is is an
|> oversimplification.
|>
|> If "abstraction" in art had anything to do with "abstraction" in
|> discourse, then every allegorical painting would be an abstract.
I don't see this. The model, like an abstract painting, sacrifices
detail for clarification of some important aspect.
Abstract painting "sacrifices" detail? Take a Kandinsky
"Improvisation". You're saying Kandinsky *removed* some detail from
the "original" image in order to clarify something? My idea of
abstract painting is much simpler than this -- I think he decided what
paint to put down, and then did it.
Your description fits another category of painting much better -- line
drawing, certain illustration, the Lascaux cave paintings, cartoons:
simplified representation, in short. This, indeed, has something in
common with abstraction in discourse.
Allegory in
discourse is not at all the same as abstraction in discourse.
Oh? Mars has nothing to do with the notion of martiality?
Vance
Andy Pearlman
>I don't see this. The model, like an abstract painting, sacrifices detail for
>clarification of some important aspect. Allegory in discourse is not at all
>the same as abstraction in discourse.
Um, this is a bad analogy. Abstract paintings have quite a bit of detail, just
not usually realistic detail. One of my abstract realistic paintings has
unbelievable number of hours invested in making tiny little brush strokes in
the more abstract areas.
Andy Pearlman
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> Abstract painting "sacrifices" detail? Take a Kandinsky
|> "Improvisation". You're saying Kandinsky *removed* some detail from
|> the "original" image in order to clarify something? My idea of
|> abstract painting is much simpler than this -- I think he decided what
|> paint to put down, and then did it.
Such a painting may be abstract, but it is not an example of *abstraction*
if there is no intended visible subject, I think.
|> Your description fits another category of painting much better -- line
|> drawing, certain illustration, the Lascaux cave paintings, cartoons:
|> simplified representation, in short. This, indeed, has something in
|> common with abstraction in discourse.
As does cubism, for instance, or related movements to which the word
"abstract" was originally applied, I suspect. (Does anyone have the facts
on this?)
|> Allegory in
|> discourse is not at all the same as abstraction in discourse.
|>
|> Oh? Mars has nothing to do with the notion of martiality?
Certainly he does. How is that relevant? It merely demonstrates the
existence of allegory. I fail to see the relevance to abstraction.
In any case, this is all beside the point. The point is that a statement is
not useless simply because it fails to explain *everything*! But the bulk of
the complaints about the original "parabola" posting attacked it on those
grounds, which I found silly.
A failure to explain everything is not identical to a failure to explain
anything!
mt
Vance Maverick
[of the Kandinsky Improvisations]
Such a painting may be abstract, but it is not an example of *abstraction*
if there is no intended visible subject, I think.
OK, we're working under different definitions. I was thinking
"abstract = not representational."
|> Allegory in
|> discourse is not at all the same as abstraction in discourse.
|>
|> Oh? Mars has nothing to do with the notion of martiality?
Certainly he does. How is that relevant? It merely demonstrates the
existence of allegory. I fail to see the relevance to abstraction.
Here's the relevance: personifing some essence of martial behavior in
Mars is a conceptual act akin to abstracting that essence into
"martiality". Both acts create an entity out of a perception of
sharedness. One is allegory, the other abstraction.
In any case, this is all beside the point. The point is that a statement is
not useless simply because it fails to explain *everything*!
Right. My claim is that the parabola explains *nothing*, because to
use it, we need to be able to decide whether a work is intellectual --
and none of us can do that for the others.
Vance
Land O' Lunch
>In article <273dat$k...@news.u.washington.edu> dog...@mead.u.washington.edu (Land O' Lunch) writes:
> >[I had written, of the claim that Rothkos
> > are necessarily drier than Leonardos]
> >Drier for whom?
> Anyone capable of feeling joy- maybe not intellectual COMMUNISTS from
> Berkeley, but everyone else.
>Wow, I haven't heard "communist" used as a dirty word in ages! Not
>that it applies to me, but I'm flattered. (And I'm from Los Angeles.)
Oh well. one of the disadvantages of cyberspace is that it's hard to be
silly- I really meant the Communist reference as sort of a humorous
joke thing.
>For what it's worth (this is hardly offered in the expectation of
>convincing you) I am entirely capable of joy.
> If Leonardo does indeed leave you "inert", as I have no doubt he does,
> then the problem is YOURS.
>If Rothko strikes you as "dry", as I have no doubt he does, then the
>problem is yours.
Fair enough! But ain't no one gonna Emperor's New Clothes ME!
> [...] it would be stupid for me to
> berate you for your lack of INSTINCTUAL prowess or inability to appreciate
> beauty.
>It sure would -- especially since your only evidence is that I don't
>find it where you do.
I used Leonardo as the standard for beauty in art because he is one of a
small number of artists who are basically unassailable - he is rubber,
you are glue - whatever you say bounces off of him and sticks to you.
> many people enjoy primarily the
> intellectual in art, and would like Rothko more than or better than
> Leonardo.
Did I really write "more than or better than"? Oops. That should be "as
well as or better than." Boy, was I wasted!
>Is this really your diagnosis in my case? To me, Leonardo is much
>more intellectual than Rothko -- whatever is going on in a Leonardo,
>it's mediated by representation, which is a pretty hairy intellectual
>deal. Rothko *FOR ME* has immediate visual appeal: he puts the paint
>down on the canvas in an interesting way. How much more immediate can
>one get?
> p.s. - What kind of MUSIC do you listen to?
>Quite a lot. Give me a thesis you'd like to support by my answer, and
>I'll give you a subset.
Well, Vance, the reason _I_ listen to music is the euphoric feeling it
generates. this may be Anger Euphoria - as I call it, as in "When the
Levee Breaks" or Nice Euphoria, like the Third Movement of Bach's third
Brandenburg concerto. The point is that true musical ability -
songwriting, melody, harmony- is very equivalent to the visual ability of
artists like Leonardo-the traditional idea of TALENT. There is a great
deal of music that is the aural equivalent to Abstract Expressionism -
chance music , etc., just take a university course in Contemporary "Art"
Music. It is based upon intellectual ideas and ignores the pursuit of joy
- there are few people who actually LISTEN to it for the reason a person
listens to music. Maybe they put the notes down "in an interesting
way", but...er...YAWN?
Almost everyone after a certain age knows exactly what kind of music
they like - but when it comes to visual art, people will be pushed around
like sheep by critics who insist that their lack of appreciation for de
Koonig or Rothko constitutes an intellectual deficiency. Why? Do you see
what I'm saying, man?
jeff "supergenius" holder, who is in the top 100% of the population
Vance Maverick
> > If Rothko strikes you as "dry", as I have no doubt he does, then the
> > problem is yours.
>
> Fair enough! But ain't no one gonna Emperor's New Clothes ME!
Fair enough. My aim is not to convince you that you should like
Rothko, but to convince you that your good opinion of Leonardo and my
good opinion of Rothko are equally well founded.
> I used Leonardo as the standard for beauty in art because he is one of a
> small number of artists who are basically unassailable - he is rubber,
> you are glue - whatever you say bounces off of him and sticks to you.
Do you know how long he has been unassailable? He was always
appreciated by fans of Italian Renaissance art, of course, but his
stature as household word dates from the 19th century, and, in the
English-speaking world, from the famous passage on the Mona Lisa
written by Walter Pater, who was, in the terms of his age, (dare I say
it?) an ART CRITIC.
My real point here is that his unassailability is contingent.
> There is a great
> deal of music that is the aural equivalent to Abstract Expressionism -
> chance music , etc., just take a university course in Contemporary "Art"
> Music. It is based upon intellectual ideas and ignores the pursuit of joy
Before you do this any longer, could I see a demonstration that ab-ex
painting lacks joy and talent? Here's some evidence to work with: I
take great joy in certain works of Rothko, Pollock, Still, and Kline.
There are many other paintings in similar styles which do nothing for me.
> - there are few people who actually LISTEN to it for the reason a person
> listens to music. Maybe they put the notes down "in an interesting
> way", but...er...YAWN?
Let me suggest that you've been listening to the wrong music. Try
Xenakis' _Eonta_ or _Akrata_ -- talk about "anger euphoria"!
> Almost everyone after a certain age knows exactly what kind of music
> they like - but when it comes to visual art, people will be pushed around
> like sheep by critics who insist that their lack of appreciation for de
> Koonig or Rothko constitutes an intellectual deficiency. Why? Do you see
> what I'm saying, man?
Alas, the phenomenon of the bullying critical consensus is well known
in the musical world. Unfortunately, there is little connection
between the mode of critical argument used in favor of a work and
the way its fans receive it. That Clement Greenberg was hard to take
simply does not imply that Mark Rothko was a bad painter. Sorry.
Vance
Jeff Winslow
for verbiage about emotional/intellectual dichotomy. If it's there, relax;
the writer is full of shit.
Jeff Winslow
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|>
|> use it, we need to be able to decide whether a work is intellectual --
|> and none of us can do that for the others.
Your use of the word "use" is telling (though I disagree that deciding
whether a work appeals to intellect, aesthetic, or both is an insurmountable
problem.) You seem to want to "use" the theory to generate more criticism!
The "use" of this model is to point out how critical theory tends to miss
the point, as far as those of us who aren't committed to it perceive it.
It is easier to generate pages of impenetrable guff in discussing theory
in works that are rooted in the sterile and bizarre realms of theory
than in discussing the actual experience of successful art as the rest
of us perceive it. To paraphrase Einstein, this is driving nails where the
wood is softest rather than where they are needed. As long as the critical
community rewards verbiage rather than insight, their attention will be
skewed toward works that the rest of us find worthless.
This is fine and dandy. It's a free country and you can blather about these
pieces of nihilistic dreck till the cows come home. Just don't sneer at the
rest of us when we don't support "the arts".
The parabola isn't for critics to "use" to analyze art. It is for the rest
of us to use to help us understand why people who have been tutored in art
theory seem fascinated by things that most people find worthless.
There are two art museums in town and a dozen private galleries. On most
days, the only art to be seen is in one of the private galleries. The
civic museum recently had a show of large sculpture made up of mattress
springs and surgical tape. The Fanny Garver Gallery has works which are
definitely representational, colorful, and evocative to someone not steeped
in theory. (The coffee houses have huge gloomy canvases obviously made by
someone in a bad mood who can't draw to save their life.) The artists at
the Garver gallery make money, while the mattress spring types try to get
grants. The "experts" claim that they deserve it, because they are the real
artists. Perhaps it is not merely Phillistine that the public is starting
to resist subsidizing "art" that is deliberately demoralizing and ugly.
Such art may be clever, of course. The point is that cleverness, while it
may be useful in art, doesn't itself constitute art. An untutored population
will go for Norman Rockwell drivel, of course, but if presented with the
type of alternative that the soi-disant experts come up with, so do I.
Fortunately there is a third way, represented by the pinnacle of the
parabola, but you wouldn't know it listening to people who think de Kooning,
Miro, Mondrian, Pollock, etc. were great geniuses at something other than
self-promotion.
By the way, I react emotionally to this stuff, too. (The emotion is called
"outrage".) That doesn't make it art.
mt
Vance Maverick
In article <MAVERICK.93...@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU>, mave...@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
|>
|> Right. My claim is that the parabola explains *nothing*, because to
|> use it, we need to be able to decide whether a work is intellectual --
|> and none of us can do that for the others.
Your use of the word "use" is telling (though I disagree that deciding
whether a work appeals to intellect, aesthetic, or both is an insurmountable
problem.) You seem to want to "use" the theory to generate more criticism!
The "use" of this model is to point out how critical theory tends to miss
the point, as far as those of us who aren't committed to it perceive it.
Ah well. Malgosia is right. The point of the parabola is to give you
the feeling that your likes and dislikes are lined up with universal
truth. If you aren't willing to submit it to the test of whether
specific assignments of paintings to spots on the curve can be made,
you obviously don't intend it to do anything but reinforce your own
prejudices.
Vance
Malgosia Askanas
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:
> It is easier to generate pages of impenetrable guff in discussing theory
> in works that are rooted in the sterile and bizarre realms of theory
> than in discussing the actual experience of successful art as the rest
> of us perceive it. To paraphrase Einstein, this is driving nails where the
> wood is softest rather than where they are needed. As long as the critical
> community rewards verbiage rather than insight, their attention will be
> skewed toward works that the rest of us find worthless.
> This is fine and dandy. It's a free country and you can blather about these
> pieces of nihilistic dreck till the cows come home. Just don't sneer at the
> rest of us when we don't support "the arts".
Your are getting a lot of rhetorical mileage out of using the
phrase "the rest of us". Could you clarify who you mean by "us" and
who you mean by "the rest of us"? Unless the phrase "the rest of us"
simply means "to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu and those who agree with him",
in which case I would implore you, in your future posts, to sacrifice
some of your rhetorical flair and, for the sake of intellectual
honesty, to use that latter phrase instead.
> An untutored population
> will go for Norman Rockwell drivel, of course, but if presented with the
> type of alternative that the soi-disant experts come up with, so do I.
> Fortunately there is a third way, represented by the pinnacle of the
> parabola, but you wouldn't know it listening to people who think de Kooning,
> Miro, Mondrian, Pollock, etc. were great geniuses at something other than
> self-promotion.
> By the way, I react emotionally to this stuff, too. (The emotion is called
> "outrage".) That doesn't make it art.
I am curious to know just how much outrage this art generates in you.
It is obvious from your language that it is a powerful and noble
indignation, but just how powerful and how noble? Is it comparable
to the outrage you feel about the existence of poverty? Of injustice?
The outrage you feel when you see a person being beaten up? When
someone treats you with cruelty? When your favorite sports team
loses a championship? When you splatter spaghetti sauce on your
white shirt?
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
I am willing to subject it to such a test. I would distinguish between
testing the hypothesis and using it. The use of the hypothesis is to
explain why there is so little overlap in the tastes of three groups:
the untutored, people with a strong interest in the arts, and people
indoctrinated into modern art theory.
Look at the home design choices made by, say, a typical curator of a modern
art museum, a typical wealthy suburbanite living in one of those ridiculous
barns that pass for luxury houses, and a good interior designer with an
educated urban clientele. The overlap will be almost precisely zero.
Why? Because they value different things. The first values cleverness,
the second values sentimentality, and the third values both.
Those of us in the third group find each of the other groups ludicrous.
The parabola summarizes this analysis nicely.
As for placing works on the parabola, I'd prefer a grid:
|x curator's x successful art
| art
cleverness |
|
|
|x trash x Phillistine's art
+--------------
sentimentality
The parabola would have to be a projection onto a (y - x) axis, so it
wouldn't really separate high art from complete trash. It wasn't my
model, but I didn't think it was worthless.
If you'd like me to place an individual work on this grid, I'll try, but
then I WOULD only be expressing my own preferences. I'd argue that if you
went to the three types of collection and asked a lot of people about each
object, you would find the collections clustered in different places.
I think a truly successful piece generally (not invariably) functions
on both dimensions. I'd prefer to find things that appeal both to the
suburbanite and the curator.
I'll take Frank Lloyd Wright over Mies or suburban subdivisions, thanks,
and Monet over Mondrian or Norman Rockwell any day of the week. I am trying
to make myself clear. Do you really see no meaning in what I am saying, or
do you just disagree?
mt
Vance Maverick
If you'd like me to place an individual work on this grid, I'll try,
but then I WOULD only be expressing my own preferences.
This is exactly my point. This means the diagram can't give us a
definitive list of curators' art -- and that the hypothesis (that it
explains something about taste) can't be tested.
Look at the home design choices made by, say, a typical curator of a modern
art museum, a typical wealthy suburbanite living in one of those ridiculous
barns that pass for luxury houses, and a good interior designer with an
educated urban clientele. The overlap will be almost precisely zero.
Why? Because they value different things. The first values cleverness,
the second values sentimentality, and the third values both.
Now THIS is absurd. I suppose you've done surveys? Since we're
making generalizations, why don't you take on the sexual preferences
of these groups too? What baseball teams do they root for?
I'll take Frank Lloyd Wright over Mies or suburban subdivisions, thanks,
and Monet over Mondrian or Norman Rockwell any day of the week. I am trying
to make myself clear. Do you really see no meaning in what I am saying, or
do you just disagree?
I agree with you in these specific choices. I think your analysis is
barking up a tree so wrong it's nonexistent.
Vance
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|>
|> to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:
|>
|> > It is easier to generate pages of impenetrable guff in discussing theory
|> > in works that are rooted in the sterile and bizarre realms of theory
|> > than in discussing the actual experience of successful art as the rest
|> > of us perceive it. To paraphrase Einstein, this is driving nails where the
|> > wood is softest rather than where they are needed. As long as the critical
|> > community rewards verbiage rather than insight, their attention will be
|> > skewed toward works that the rest of us find worthless.
|>
|> > This is fine and dandy. It's a free country and you can blather about these
|> > pieces of nihilistic dreck till the cows come home. Just don't sneer at the
|> > rest of us when we don't support "the arts".
|>
|> Your are getting a lot of rhetorical mileage out of using the
|> phrase "the rest of us". Could you clarify who you mean by "us" and
|> who you mean by "the rest of us"? Unless the phrase "the rest of us"
|> simply means "to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu and those who agree with him",
|> in which case I would implore you, in your future posts, to sacrifice
|> some of your rhetorical flair and, for the sake of intellectual
|> honesty, to use that latter phrase instead.
Fair enough. I'll try to be more precise. I certainly don't speak for
everyone who thinks most of the art critics' choices in art are foolish.
Indeed, the majority of such people are in the kitsch camp.
However, in the above, I would suspect that the kitsch people as well as
most of the folks who are interested in the arts but not indoctrinated into
the theory would agree. The public reaction to most public art (architecture
and sculpture) chosen by the so-called experts is one of hostility for a
reason.
The current way of thinking is as ossified and pretentious as the
neoclassicism that the early impressionists had to deal with, but it even
lacks aesthetic and ethic (albeit narrow and formal) of the critical
community of that time. The contemporary celebration of nihilism and
pessimism no longer even has the virtue of originality. It is, in short,
boring and offensive. The point isn't that such should be illegal, only that
it shouldn't take public support as a moral imperative, especially if
insulting the public is its principal goal.
|> I am curious to know just how much outrage this art generates in you.
|> It is obvious from your language that it is a powerful and noble
|> indignation, but just how powerful and how noble? Is it comparable
|> to the outrage you feel about the existence of poverty? Of injustice?
It's close. I feel art could be an expression of possibility and hope. I
think the appropriation of the optimistic forms of the 20s and the 30s by
totalitarian movements was a tragedy of high order. The modern "avant-garde"
thinks pessimism is hip, and optimism and energy is relegated to boorish
reactionaries. Art could indicate to us that a better world is possible,
and not merely rub our noses in our problems or ignore them in some sterile
mildly amusing but overblown sophistry.
As it stands, the elite that controls museums, public architecture and
public sculpture doesn't see things that way. They seem to think that
studied ugliness is somehow a contribution to society. And then they wonder
that public support for the arts is fading.
Yeah, it bother me a lot.
mt
Michael Tobis
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Tobis writes:
> Fair enough. I'll try to be more precise. I certainly don't speak for
> everyone who thinks most of the art critics' choices in art are foolish.
> Indeed, the majority of such people are in the kitsch camp.
> However, in the above, I would suspect that the kitsch people as well as
> most of the folks who are interested in the arts but not indoctrinated into
> the theory would agree. The public reaction to most public art (architecture
> and sculpture) chosen by the so-called experts is one of hostility for a
> reason.
> The current way of thinking is as ossified and pretentious as the
> neoclassicism that the early impressionists had to deal with, but it even
> lacks aesthetic and ethic (albeit narrow and formal) of the critical
> community of that time. The contemporary celebration of nihilism and
> pessimism no longer even has the virtue of originality. It is, in short,
> boring and offensive. The point isn't that such should be illegal, only that
> it shouldn't take public support as a moral imperative, especially if
> insulting the public is its principal goal.
> [...] I feel art could be an expression of possibility and hope. I
> think the appropriation of the optimistic forms of the 20s and the 30s by
> totalitarian movements was a tragedy of high order. The modern "avant-garde"
> thinks pessimism is hip, and optimism and energy is relegated to boorish
> reactionaries. Art could indicate to us that a better world is possible,
> and not merely rub our noses in our problems or ignore them in some sterile
> mildly amusing but overblown sophistry.
> As it stands, the elite that controls museums, public architecture and
> public sculpture doesn't see things that way. They seem to think that
> studied ugliness is somehow a contribution to society. And then they wonder
> that public support for the arts is fading.
OK. There seem to be a lot of issues tangled up in this text, and it
seems to me that, in order to have any kind of discussion on these
issues, one must try to keep them, as best one can, separate.
But the first question that arises is whether a discussion is what is
intended. If you just mean to unburden yourself in a public forum
and have no use for opinions that differ from your own,
then there isn't much to discuss: the proper response is an ACK.
On the other hand if your purpose is to present ideas for people's
consideration, and you are willing to let your thinking be
influenced by the ideas of others, then a discussion is appropriate.
What exactly is there to discuss? Obviously, the issue is not whether
or not you "should" like contemporary art; I certainly have no stake
in this matter. But your posts are formulated in a way which seems
designed to de-legitimize, so to speak, the tastes and opinions of
those who are willing to engage with contemporary art in any way
other than your own blanket rejection. The effect your posts produce
is this: you feel that your own tastes are somehow being declared
illegitimate, and you have a need to legitimize them at the cost
of the tastes of those who, you feel, are doing this to you.
For example, you present as an axiom that contemporary art is
nihilistic and pessimistic. Consequently, everybody who is positively
involved with this art is automatically branded by your axiom as being
in favor of nihilism and pessimism. This seems to me more like random
railings than any kind of serious analysis. Contemporary art is
incredibly diverse, and this diversity is very well reflected in
mainstream critical literature -- look at any issue of "Art in
America", for instance. To say that all this art has a single
underlying posture towards the world is, plain and simple, ludicrous.
It is hard to believe that you don't know this, so I conclude that
you have not formulated your posts with any intention of presenting
ideas for discussion.
You tend to fan your flames by throwing in hints about public
support for the arts. Most stuff that we deal with in public
places is, of course, not funded directly by public money:
for example, there are not that many civic
buildings, and most art institutions receive much more funding
from private sources than from public ones. The visual landscape
in which we live is NOT a result of an inappropriate spending of
public money in the area of the arts: it is a result of other social
forces -- and I believe you know this too. If one wanted to change
that, one would REALLY have to spend public money. One would actually
have to have a consistent policy for shaping the visual environment.
It would involve massive amounts of control to change the way
our cities look, to remove the miles of emptiness which people
have to drive through every day on their way to work, to
create an attitude other than neglect and indifference
towards the visual landscape in which we live. I am not advocating
such control: its dangers are well known. But to imply that
these things could be changed by an effort from artists or
art critics or by a proper reallocation of the miniscule amount of
public money which this country allocates to the arts is ridiculous.
Yet you seem to imply this. Why?
Dale Schouten
>
> |x curator's x successful art
> | art
> cleverness |
> |
> |
> |x trash x Phillistine's art
> +--------------
>
> sentimentality
So is everyone on this group an engineer?
Brian K. Yoder
So, what exactly do you "get out of Rothko"? If it like seeing someone get
away with a fraud and having it make you feel good about yourself as a result?
As for your inability to see the value in Leonardo, I won't dispute your
claim of an inability to interpret art. I just wonder why you bother wasting
your time at something which you are incapable of doing? Someone who can't
walk can hardly be expected to be a good marathon runner.
-- Brian
--
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Wise men are instructed by reason; men of less |
| byo...@netcom.com | understanding, by experience; the most ignorant by |
| US Networx, Inc. | necessity; and beasts by nature," --Cicero |
+-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------+
Vance Maverick
So, what exactly do you "get out of Rothko"?
Joy. Pleasure. Satisfaction. An interesting experience, always new.
If it like seeing someone get
away with a fraud and having it make you feel good about yourself
as a result?
Did you mean "Is it like...?" If so, no. Why? I know *you* think
Rothko's a fraud, but I don't. So why should the notion of fraud
enter into my appreciation of Rothko?
I just wonder why you bother wasting
your time at something which you are incapable of doing?
I don't. I really don't spend much time looking at Leonardos.
Someone who can't
walk can hardly be expected to be a good marathon runner.
A better analogy might be someone who can't cook, but can play
checkers. Not much relation, or ranking, between the tasks.
Vance
Brian K. Yoder
> So, what exactly do you "get out of Rothko"?
>Joy. Pleasure. Satisfaction. An interesting experience, always new.
That's not what I meant. What in the paintings makes you feel like that?
Sex can give you joy, pleasure, and satisfaction but it isn't art. Since
there is nothing there to like (other than the kind of demonstration of
the power of fraud or the emperor's new clothes thing).
> Is it like seeing someone get
> away with a fraud and having it make you feel good about yourself
> as a result?
>[No.] Why? I know *you* think
>Rothko's a fraud, but I don't. So why should the notion of fraud
>enter into my appreciation of Rothko?
Well, it could enter into it if you go for that sort of thing. I didn't
know whether that was true in your case, so I asked. In absence of that
kind of cause, we can see alother possibility: the emperor's new clothes
effect. Is that it? (Be honest now!) What else could it be? There's no
subject matter in there, so it couldn't be that. Perhaps it is the
"fluffy clouds look like horses and trees" effect by which you can see
whatever you want, which I maintain could be interesting and pleasurable
but isn't art anymore than a sunset is. Along these lines, what is it that
you think makes Rothko so terribly appealing? Why is it that you think
so many others are so offended by him? Do you understand why see him as
a fraud and an insult to intelligence? (And to our pocketbooks when his
garbage is purchased at public expense?)
> I just wonder why you bother wasting
> your time at something which you are incapable of doing?
>I don't. I really don't spend much time looking at Leonardos.
Perhaps that's your problem.
> Someone who can't
> walk can hardly be expected to be a good marathon runner.
>A better analogy might be someone who can't cook, but can play
>checkers. Not much relation, or ranking, between the tasks.
Really? What do you see as the difference? I have been saying that Rothko
and real art have nothing in common and the defenders of Rothko have
generally said that they are all equally artistic and equally good. Is that
not your position?
--Brian
Land O' Lunch
>In article <2762se$c...@news.u.washington.edu> dog...@mead.u.washington.edu (Land O' Lunch) writes:
>> I used Leonardo as the standard for beauty in art because he is one of a
>> small number of artists who are basically unassailable - he is rubber,
>> you are glue - whatever you say bounces off of him and sticks to you.
>Do you know how long he has been unassailable? He was always
>appreciated by fans of Italian Renaissance art, of course, but his
>stature as household word dates from the 19th century, and, in the
>English-speaking world, from the famous passage on the Mona Lisa
>written by Walter Pater, who was, in the terms of his age, (dare I say
>it?) an ART CRITIC.
>My real point here is that his unassailability is contingent.
No, his unassailablilty is his own making - a self apotheosis. The
strength of one who can work on the level of Artist's Art - who possesses
that universality - is that THEIR WORK WILL STAND on its OWN MERIT. To
look at a book of Leonardo's drawings and paintings is to see work whose
execution is possible ONLY by someone with both great talent and intellect
- it is not important what any critic says about it, or to know who
created it- his best work rises above the level of intellectual critical
praise or detraction. When Leonardo's preparatory drawing for the Virgin
and Child with St. Anne and St. John was put on display in the 16th
century, peasants offered blessings to it. The reason Leonardo was not a
household word until the 19th century is that there was no way to view his
work except in person. His present position as art demi-god is no one's
work but his own.
If there were a general collapse of civiliztion, a Rothko discovered in
a well or basement five hundred years from now would be removed from the
intellectual arguments that support it today, and would probably be
ignored - it has no intrinsic value.
jeff
Vance Maverick
In article <MAVERICK.93...@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU> mave...@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
>In article <byoderCD...@netcom.com> byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> So, what exactly do you "get out of Rothko"?
>Joy. Pleasure. Satisfaction. An interesting experience, always new.
That's not what I meant. What in the paintings makes you feel like that?
Why is it incumbent on me to know? As an aside, some people have
claimed that it is of the essence in art (or "poetry") that one not
know. I don't believe this, but I am not uncomfortable with not
knowing.
[T]here is nothing there to like
I find this hard to agree to, since I like some of his paintings.
In [the] absence of that kind of cause [enjoyment of fraud], we can
see another possibility: the emperor's new clothes effect. Is that
it? (Be honest now!)
No. Among other things, many of these paintings were done before I
was born. I grew up into a world containing Rothko, and liked him
early on.
What else could it be?
Perhaps my taste is different from yours.
There's no
subject matter in there, so it couldn't be that. Perhaps it is the
"fluffy clouds look like horses and trees" effect by which you can see
whatever you want, which I maintain could be interesting and pleasurable
but isn't art anymore than a sunset is.
Why drag in subject matter at all? For what it's worth, I think the
design of the typical Rothko painting is derived from windows -- in
fact, a particular Matisse painting of a window -- but I don't think
they're "paintings of windows".
Along these lines, what is it that
you think makes Rothko so terribly appealing?
I'm afraid I don't have much to offer here but tautologies, and the
serious evidence that I enjoy the paintings.
Why is it that you think so many others are so offended by him?
I think they expect something from him which he was not interested in
providing -- indeed, which he did not promise to provide. I have a
friend who likes baguettes, and is offended by bread called "baguette"
which is not properly long, crusty and thin -- even when it's good
bread. I think the people who are "offended" by Rothko suffer from
the mistaken impression that his paintings are offered as substitutes
for Leonardos.
>I don't. I really don't spend much time looking at Leonardos.
Perhaps that's your problem.
No, it's my freedom. I'm not constrained -- as I think you are -- to
see every painting in terms of one paradigm. Result: I enjoy more.
I have been saying that Rothko
and real art have nothing in common and the defenders of Rothko have
generally said that they are all equally artistic and equally good. Is that
not your position?
My position is that Rothkos and Leonardos have little in common, and
that a definition of "real art" is a red herring.
Vance
Vance Maverick
>[I had written:]
>My real point here is that his unassailability is contingent.
[H]is best work rises above the level of intellectual critical
praise or detraction.
Need I point out that this very sentence is "intellectual critical
praise"? I really don't think you can give your claim any greater
weight than that you, and others, like his paintings a lot.
If there were a general collapse of civiliztion, a Rothko discovered in
a well or basement five hundred years from now would be removed from the
intellectual arguments that support it today, and would probably be
ignored - it has no intrinsic value.
My claim is that it is not argument which gives a Rothko (or a
Leonardo) its value: it is culture and individual sensibility,
self-evidently intertwined. Of Leonardo we know that he was
well-received in his own time, and has been enjoyed and endured as a
part of the official art of the West since (perhaps?) Burckhardt. Of
Rothko we know that he was both well- and ill-received in his own
time, and has been enjoyed, endured, and reviled as a part of the
official art of the West since some time in the 1950's. (Was there a
watershed year, perhaps a Biennale?) Neither of these accounts gives
us ground for speculation on 500 years from now.
As for your claim that Rothko requires critical defense in a way in
which Leonardo does not, I'm still waiting for your account of the
simple facts of my experience. For every word I've read on Rothko,
Lord knows I've read five on Leonardo -- and look where it got me.
Vance
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> OK. There seem to be a lot of issues tangled up in this text, and it
|> seems to me that, in order to have any kind of discussion on these
|> issues, one must try to keep them, as best one can, separate.
Granted.
|> But the first question that arises is whether a discussion is what is
|> intended. If you just mean to unburden yourself in a public forum
|> and have no use for opinions that differ from your own,
|> then there isn't much to discuss: the proper response is an ACK.
I'm still awaiting indication that anyone here understands what I am saying.
|> On the other hand if your purpose is to present ideas for people's
|> consideration, and you are willing to let your thinking be
|> influenced by the ideas of others, then a discussion is appropriate.
I am willing to listen and learn, but I admit that I'd like to see an ACK
first...
|> What exactly is there to discuss? Obviously, the issue is not whether
|> or not you "should" like contemporary art; I certainly have no stake
|> in this matter. But your posts are formulated in a way which seems
|> designed to de-legitimize, so to speak, the tastes and opinions of
|> those who are willing to engage with contemporary art in any way
|> other than your own blanket rejection.
I disagree with "delegitimize". Certainly we each have our own tastes.
But I (and "Slappy-Lunch") go against the zeitgeist in believing that
not everything in art is social construction - that there is an aspect
in art that is timeless and referent to universal aspects of the human
condition. I have no objection to anyone engaging in whatever arcane
pursuit tickles their fancy - as a fluid dynamicist it would be ludicrous
for me to do so.
My problem is that people engaged in a pursuit that most others find
problematic at best are pretty much the arbiters of what is considered fine
art. And it's here that I agree with "Slappy", and this was my original
motivation in entering this discussion. I found that a perfectly sensible,
indeed widely held, model of art and its relation to art criticism was being
treated dismissively and disrespectfully. Since I have a similar view of the
subject, I found this response unreasonable. I decided to defend it to see
where the discussion might lead. I have thus far seen no evidence that
anyone who dislikes this analysis has made any effort to understand it.
|> The effect your posts produce
|> is this: you feel that your own tastes are somehow being declared
|> illegitimate, and you have a need to legitimize them at the cost
|> of the tastes of those who, you feel, are doing this to you.
Perhaps you have a point. I feel that, as with French neoclassicism of the
19th century, what is most generally being declared as legitimate by
authorities with power in the art world is pompous nonsense. I eagerly await
the new Impressionist Salon, which rediscovers beauty as the impressionists
rediscovered creativity.
That curators and critics seem to find beauty perfectly irrelevant to art is
indeed something I find distasteful.
The symmetry you observe in the situation does exist, then. But since I
believe (against the spirit of the times) that value in art is not entirely
subjective, I do not perceive the symmetry as being complete.
|> For example, you present as an axiom that contemporary art is
|> nihilistic and pessimistic. Consequently, everybody who is positively
|> involved with this art is automatically branded by your axiom as being
|> in favor of nihilism and pessimism. This seems to me more like random
|> railings than any kind of serious analysis.
Of course sweeping generalizations always have some counterexamples,
and of course they are always dangerous if taken as immutable laws rather
than tendencies. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify tendencies.
The question at issue is why panels of accredited artists are so fascinated
with works which most other people would consider ugly and depressing.
I grant that there are occasional exceptions, but do not agree that this
makes the generalization worthless.
|> You tend to fan your flames by throwing in hints about public
|> support for the arts.
I grant that this is somewhat changing the subject. On the other hand this
does relate to why I find the subject important.
|> Most stuff that we deal with in public
|> places is, of course, not funded directly by public money:
|> for example, there are not that many civic
|> buildings, and most art institutions receive much more funding
|> from private sources than from public ones. The visual landscape
|> in which we live is NOT a result of an inappropriate spending of
|> public money in the area of the arts: it is a result of other social
|> forces -- and I believe you know this too. If one wanted to change
|> that, one would REALLY have to spend public money. One would actually
|> have to have a consistent policy for shaping the visual environment.
|> It would involve massive amounts of control to change the way
|> our cities look, to remove the miles of emptiness which people
|> have to drive through every day on their way to work, to
|> create an attitude other than neglect and indifference
|> towards the visual landscape in which we live. I am not advocating
|> such control: its dangers are well known.
Have you ever been to Ottawa, Ontario? "Massive amounts of control" just
amount to reasonable amounts of zoning and public planning, at a level that
most advanced countries take entirely for granted. Of course, the recent
choices of public sculpture and architecture in Ottawa (where they have an
enormous impact, by the way) have frequently been ill-advised. There was
even a case of a construction clean-up crew hauling off a sculpture in the
belief that it was construction debris! (Unfortunately, it was recovered
and reinstalled.)
Nevertheless, the overall impression is far more congenial than the typical
American city can muster. The amount of "dangerous control" involved is
no more than the typical European or Canadian deals with. These countries
are not enslaved because they enact a few restrictions to preserve a
pleasant landscape.
|> But to imply that
|> these things could be changed by an effort from artists or
|> art critics or by a proper reallocation of the miniscule amount of
|> public money which this country allocates to the arts is ridiculous.
|> Yet you seem to imply this. Why?
Why do you think the amount of public money directed to the arts is so
miniscule? Why do you think the impact of the fine arts on the public
consciousness is at such a low level? I imply, indeed I state, that it
could be otherwise, but that a prerequisite is that "art theory" have
some point of contact with the traditional function of what people
through the ages have called "art".
The possibility of beauty in America seems to be relegated to the purely
natural. Anything artificial is ugly by presumption. This disgust for the
artificial is paradoxically a significant cause for the decay of the
landscape to suburban sprawl as cities are abandoned as hopeless, and as
people demand larger swatches of ground so as to avoid one another's ugly
artifacts. That the artistic community seems to swallow this delusion that
nothing artificial can have beauty does indeed have a big impact on this
mess.
In Wisconsin, now that our native son Frank Lloyd Wright is safely dead, we
venerate him, and advertise his works as tourist attractions. Unfortunately,
any effort to put his better ideas into practice is ridiculed as impractical.
I see that your response is in the same category.
So let me turn it around and ask you what *your* motivation is. If you think
the arts are impotent and efforts to repair the environment futile, why do
you care enough about my rantings to respond to them?
Why not treat this as yet another piece of
S I L L Y
P
O
S
T
m O D E R N
s t r u c t u r a l
n g
a d n
e e i
m r
?
mt
Dogmeat ina bowl
>In article <MAVERICK.93...@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU> mave...@cork.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Vance Maverick) writes:
>>In article <byoderCD...@netcom.com> byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
So, what exactly do you "get out of Rothko"?
Joy. Pleasure. Satisfaction. An interesting experience, always new.
That's not what I meant. What in the paintings makes you feel like that?
Sex can give you joy, pleasure, and satisfaction but it isn't art. Since
there is nothing there to like (other than the kind of demonstration of
the power of fraud or the emperor's new clothes thing).
All right Brian, what *did* you mean?
What do you "get out of art"?
Dumb analogy as well: Playing with a puppy can give me joy, pleasure, and
satisfaction but it isn't sex. Since there is nothing there that is
helping the human racce to involve.
The question was, "what do you "get out of Rothko"?"
He answered your question.
Is it like seeing someone get
away with a fraud and having it make you feel good about yourself
as a result?
[No.] Why? I know *you* think
Rothko's a fraud, but I don't. So why should the notion of fraud
enter into my appreciation of Rothko?
Well, it could enter into it if you go for that sort of thing. I didn't
know whether that was true in your case, so I asked. In absence of that
kind of cause, we can see alother possibility: the emperor's new clothes
effect. Is that it? (Be honest now!)
What else could it be?
An appreciation of Rothko that you disagree with.
There's no subject matter in there, so it couldn't be that.
*in the Church Lady voice*
Could the subject matter be emotion? Painting form? etc.?
Do you know for a _fact_ that there is no subject matter in Rothko's
paintings?
Perhaps it is the
"fluffy clouds look like horses and trees" effect by which you can see
whatever you want, which I maintain could be interesting and pleasurable
but isn't art anymore than a sunset is.
So your saying that painting should be representational?
Then, if that's true, all classical painting (before the dark ages) is
not art. (Perspective wasn't inveted yet. Those wacky Greeks and Egyptians
painted everything flat!)
Oriental art before the 16th c. is not art. (Again, those silly people
didn't know what perspective was. tsk.tsk.)
All medieval painting was not art. (Jeez. Didn't those guys ever hear
about proportion?)
Cave art is not art. (My little kids could do that.)
West African (and most African) art is not art. (They can't even get the
shape of a head right!)
All islamic art is not art. (Gal Damn stuff is all abstract; it isn't
representing anything I can see.)
Basically, the only thing that is art is art that was trained or directly
influenced by the Late Medieval to Pre-Impressionist periods.
Sounds to me like the "emperor's new clothes syndrome." :P
Along these lines, what is it that
you think makes Rothko so terribly appealing?
He already told you -- it brings him joy and satisfaction, etc.
Why is it that you think so many others are so offended by him?
Because they think that anyone who likes Rothko is guilty of "emperor's
new clothes syndrome."
Do you understand why see him as a fraud and an insult to intelligence?
Yes. I do. I just don't agree. That doesn't make you wrong; it just means
I don't agree.
(And to our pocketbooks when his garbage is purchased at public expense?)
O.K. NOW we have a valid complaint. You shouldn't have to pay for something
you don't like. (Of corse, I wouldn't pay for roads (no, I don't own a car),
but I still kinda agree.)
<stuff deleated>
--
-----------------------
It took me five months to get off my lazy ass and make this .sig:
"Yes, that's it, that's just it--a sort of nausea in the hands."
Jean-Paul Sarte dion...@helios.nevada.edu
M Lyall
>there is an aspect
>in art that is timeless and referent to universal aspects of the human
>condition. I have no objection to anyone engaging in whatever arcane
>pursuit tickles their fancy - as a fluid dynamicist it would be ludicrous
>for me to do so.
Ask yourself what the majority of people would say about the theoretical
expressions of a group of high-level fluid dynamicists.
>That curators and critics seem to find beauty perfectly irrelevant to art is
>indeed something I find distasteful.
Beauty is a component of art. Beauty in art is the same as Beauty in
science, in the conceptual form. If you see beauty in the product of
art, if you see beauty in the product of science, then you have the
required mindset to see it. It is not in the charter of "ART" that it
be judged on its accessibility any more than it is for theoretical
science.
In order to see the beauty of a mathematical proof that is finally
solved, one needs to have some appreciation for the problem. Same with
art.
Some practitioners pursue art to the extent that they are able to
produce objects that people want to have and enjoy for themselves,
others attempt to pursue "ART" as an ideal and generally consider the
process to be more important than the material product.
For science some practitioners pursue it to the extent that they are
able to produce objects that people want to have and use, others attempt
to pursue "SCIENCE" as an ideal.
Not to say that science and art are completely analogous, they're not.
But for each, it would be wrong to say that the primary value of the
pursuit is contained in the objects that are the result.
Both the scientist and artist pursuing the ideal, have still to deal
with finding a position from which to continue their pursuit. This is
difficult and often compromises have to be made.
>The question at issue is why panels of accredited artists are so fascinated
>with works which most other people would consider ugly and depressing.
Most people would consider human medical pathology ugly and depressing,
yet some highly accredited people are fascinated by it. Failed science
experiments and odd, unworkable inventions may still hold a germ of an
idea for some random practitioner. Remain open to even seemingly
impossible, or impractical ideas to foster creativity.
If the issue is should the public get "satisfaction" from their public art
expenditure?, Maybe we should. Maybe we should also require
satisfaction for our "pure research" expenditure.
>miniscule? Why do you think the impact of the fine arts on the public
>consciousness is at such a low level? I imply, indeed I state, that it
>could be otherwise, but that a prerequisite is that "art theory" have
>some point of contact with the traditional function of what people
>through the ages have called "art".
The low level of impact on public consciousness probably has something
to do with the near absence of fine art education. I would advocate
process over appreciation. As for tradition, as much benefit could be
gained by exposing people to the historical path and functions of art as
by exposing them to the same for science. It would certainly be
valuable, but it would be better to get them involved with the
process.
gary l. schroeder
>In article <byoderCD...@netcom.com> byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
[on Rothko, the whipping boy of ab-ex haters everywhere...]
> Why is it that you think so many others are so offended by him?
>I think they expect something from him which he was not interested in
>providing -- indeed, which he did not promise to provide. I have a
>friend who likes baguettes, and is offended by bread called "baguette"
>which is not properly long, crusty and thin -- even when it's good
>bread. I think the people who are "offended" by Rothko suffer from
>the mistaken impression that his paintings are offered as substitutes
>for Leonardos.
Ah, and here you have gotten to the heart of the matter: people are
dissatisfied with art that does not live up to _their_ expectations.
If I believe that realist painting is the only "worthy" form of
painting, then I've severly limited my world. I'll never wish to look
at (much less enjoy) a Van Gogh or a Monet, for they clearly didn't
depict the world in a realistic manner. I certainly "know" that the
sky dosen't contain clouds painted turquoise that twist like gnarled
trees, and that bridges aren't pink. I guess I'd feel cheated by
most of the impressionists for not being "real" artists.
Many people believe that Rothko is a fraud because he failed to deliver
forms like people and trees that we can recognize. He failed to deliver
something that conforms to our expectations and definitions of art. To
many observers (especially those that don't really know a Picasso from a
Norman Rockwell) art is paintings of men and women dancing or flowers,
or sunsets. Does that mean that paintings they don't like such as later
Picasso works are garbage, "unworthy" art? I say no.
> >I don't. I really don't spend much time looking at Leonardos.
> Perhaps that's your problem.
>No, it's my freedom. I'm not constrained -- as I think you are -- to
>see every painting in terms of one paradigm. Result: I enjoy more.
Bravo. There are many ways to appreciate art. It dosen't always have
to conform to your preconceived notions of what art is to work.
> I have been saying that Rothko
> and real art have nothing in common and the defenders of Rothko have
> generally said that they are all equally artistic and equally good. Is that
> not your position?
And why not? Rothko obviously felt that he was producing something of
value, else why would he have done it? Certainly not for the money. He
knew he wasn't producing the modern equivalent of the Mona Lisa, but
he knew he was doing what was within him. This raises a second issue:
does an artist have some kind of obligation to produce works that will
please others? I don't think so. When I paint in my spare time I
do it for me, to express _my_ feelings, not because I think anyone else
wants to look at it. Remember, a lot of art now hanging in the world's
most prestigious museums was once in someone's closet collecting dust
because it was thought to be of little intrinsic value, i.e. all of
the material hanging on those famous walls wasn't painted with the idea
of having there in the first place. Many artists didn't become famous
until late in their lives, or even posthumously.
>My position is that Rothkos and Leonardos have little in common, and
>that a definition of "real art" is a red herring.
They have nothing in common but one thing: each man painted what they
were driven and inspired to paint. That's what art is. Humans making
paintings or sculptures or buildings, be they made from bronze, steel,
or scraps found on the street. You and I don't have to hold favorable
opinions of such works, but we have to recognize that for the person
that created them, they are "works of art". Given this, it seems to me
that art can very simply be categorized: art that you like, and art
that you don't. It's that simple.
--
--------------
Gary Schroeder
schr...@bnlux1.bnl.gov
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Malgosia Askanas
I wrote to Michael Tobis:
>> But your posts are formulated in a way which seems
>> designed to de-legitimize, so to speak, the tastes and opinions of
>> those who are willing to engage with contemporary art in any way
>> other than your own blanket rejection.
and Michael Tobis replied:
> I disagree with "delegitimize". Certainly we each have our own tastes.
> But I (and "Slappy-Lunch") go against the zeitgeist in believing that
> not everything in art is social construction - that there is an aspect
> in art that is timeless and referent to universal aspects of the human
> condition. I have no objection to anyone engaging in whatever arcane
> pursuit tickles their fancy - as a fluid dynamicist it would be ludicrous
> for me to do so.
> My problem is that people engaged in a pursuit that most others find
> problematic at best are pretty much the arbiters of what is considered fine
> art. And it's here that I agree with "Slappy", and this was my original
> motivation in entering this discussion. I found that a perfectly sensible,
> indeed widely held, model of art and its relation to art criticism was being
> treated dismissively and disrespectfully. Since I have a similar view of the
> subject, I found this response unreasonable. I decided to defend it to see
> where the discussion might lead. I have thus far seen no evidence that
> anyone who dislikes this analysis has made any effort to understand it.
You disagree with "delegitimize", and, in the same breath, imply
that those who like the art which you criticize are engaging in "arcane
pursuits" and that they only like this art because they believe that
"everything in art is social construction". This is exactly what I
mean by "delegitimize". It a priori dismisses all defense of the art
in question as either misguided or dishonest. Similarly, Slappy's
"analysis" by definition reserves attributes such as "talent" for
artists he approves of, which automatically brands
his detractors as defending talentless art. How can one seriously
discuss opinions which are formulated in such terms?
If one wants others to understand one's views, one should formulate
them in a way which invites understanding.
I would agree with you that art is involved with
universal aspects of the human condition -- or perhaps universal
needs of the soul (even though I am not quite sure what that means).
I also believe that much of the contemporary
art which you dismiss shares in these universal aspects just as
profoundly as do, let us say, Mantegna (I share Vance's indifference
to Leonardo) or Cezanne. Moreover, this art, the art of my own time,
partakes of these aspects in a way which nourishes me much more
than it is possible for art of other times. Mantegna's
relationship to these universal aspects
is very different from my own, because this relationship is determined
by the social, historic, cultural, political specifics of the time
and place in which one lives. The aspects themselves may be universal;
but the manner of partaking of them is definitely NOT.
> That curators and critics seem to find beauty perfectly irrelevant to art is
> indeed something I find distasteful.
This is YOUR interpretation. You don't find certain kinds of art
beautiful, and so you claim that those who praise them "find beauty
irrelevant to art". It might even be that some people say these things.
Do you take everything people say seriously?
In comparing a work by Beuys with a work by Cezanne, one obviously
cannot concentrate on 19th century categories of visual beauty
-- or ANY categories of VISUAL beauty. Yet I claim that many
works of Beuys' are radiantly beautiful, and
when I use the word "beautiful" here I am referring, in some deep
sense, to the same quality that I find in Cezanne, not to something
arbitrarily made up just to apply to Beuys. This does not mean
that I think people should put Beuys' works in their living rooms.
It is not living-room art. Yet I carry it within me as a source
of comfort and courage.
> The question at issue is why panels of accredited artists are so fascinated
> with works which most other people would consider ugly and depressing.
One reason is that, like all experts, they are trying to
create their own unassailable turf. Another is that nobody
is particularly interested in creating any kind of communication
between the modern-art professionals and "most people". Whose
initiative and money should go into it?
I am not saying it is an unsolvable problem, but I don't think
there is much public interest in solving it, and I also don't
think that either the opinion of most people or the posturing
of "experts" should be taken as a criterion for the value or
devalue of a piece of art.
> Have you ever been to Ottawa, Ontario? "Massive amounts of control" just
> amount to reasonable amounts of zoning and public planning, at a level that
> most advanced countries take entirely for granted. Of course, the recent
> choices of public sculpture and architecture in Ottawa (where they have an
> enormous impact, by the way) have frequently been ill-advised. There was
> even a case of a construction clean-up crew hauling off a sculpture in the
> belief that it was construction debris! (Unfortunately, it was recovered
> and reinstalled.)
> Nevertheless, the overall impression is far more congenial than the typical
> American city can muster. The amount of "dangerous control" involved is
> no more than the typical European or Canadian deals with. These countries
> are not enslaved because they enact a few restrictions to preserve a
> pleasant landscape.
What you (or I) might regard as "reasonable amounts of public
planning" is regared here as problematic. And, to show you that I,
too, am perfectly capable of unsupported generalizations, I
venture to claim that it would be regarded as problematic by many
of the same "most people" whose opinions you invoke.
> Why do you think the amount of public money directed to the arts is so
> miniscule? Why do you think the impact of the fine arts on the public
> consciousness is at such a low level? I imply, indeed I state, that it
> could be otherwise, but that a prerequisite is that "art theory" have
> some point of contact with the traditional function of what people
> through the ages have called "art".
> The possibility of beauty in America seems to be relegated to the purely
> natural. Anything artificial is ugly by presumption. This disgust for the
> artificial is paradoxically a significant cause for the decay of the
> landscape to suburban sprawl as cities are abandoned as hopeless, and as
> people demand larger swatches of ground so as to avoid one another's ugly
> artifacts. That the artistic community seems to swallow this delusion that
> nothing artificial can have beauty does indeed have a big impact on this
> mess.
First of all, as I have already indicated, I vigorously disagree that the
artistic commmunity "swallows this delusion".
I think you put the cart before the horse. Art does not transform
society; art theory cannot tranform the way people choose to live.
The preoccupations of this society and its attitudes towards beauty
are not caused by this or that "misguided" art movement. Similarly
"misguided" art movements exist in countries which give much greater
support to the arts.
> So let me turn it around and ask you what *your* motivation is. If you think
> the arts are impotent and efforts to repair the environment futile, why do
> you care enough about my rantings to respond to them?
I think neither that the arts are impotent nor that efforts to repair
the environment are futile. What I do think is that the arts by
themselves are impotent to repair the environment: such repair,
if possible, must be initiated by other sources. However, the arts
are immensely potent: they provides me with all kinds of sustenance.
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> > I disagree with "delegitimize". Certainly we each have our own tastes.
|> > But I (and "Slappy-Lunch") go against the zeitgeist in believing that
|> > not everything in art is social construction - that there is an aspect
|> > in art that is timeless and referent to universal aspects of the human
|> > condition. I have no objection to anyone engaging in whatever arcane
|> > pursuit tickles their fancy - as a fluid dynamicist it would be ludicrous
|> > for me to do so.
|>
|> > My problem is that people engaged in a pursuit that most others find
|> > problematic at best are pretty much the arbiters of what is considered fine
|> > art. And it's here that I agree with "Slappy", and this was my original
|> > motivation in entering this discussion. I found that a perfectly sensible,
|> > indeed widely held, model of art and its relation to art criticism was being
|> > treated dismissively and disrespectfully. Since I have a similar view of the
|> > subject, I found this response unreasonable. I decided to defend it to see
|> > where the discussion might lead. I have thus far seen no evidence that
|> > anyone who dislikes this analysis has made any effort to understand it.
|>
|> You disagree with "delegitimize", and, in the same breath, imply
|> that those who like the art which you criticize are engaging in "arcane
|> pursuits" and that they only like this art because they believe that
|> "everything in art is social construction". This is exactly what I
|> mean by "delegitimize". It a priori dismisses all defense of the art
|> in question as either misguided or dishonest.
I think you are slanting my comments in a straw man attack, here. Neither
"misguided" nor "dishonest" are words I have used in this discussion, nor
is "delegitimize". Art works whose value exists entirely in a context of
rarefied theory, each responding to others of the same variety, are not
misguided, dishonest, nor illegitimate. What I claim is that they are not
very interesting except to a narrow range of people who have studied this
context and find it interesting. That is their business. People outside
this narrow range (aka "the rest of us") find these works pointless and
sterile.
Those who find this stuff interesting are welcome to support it. However,
it is time that public art, as well as art supported by grants from various
private institutions, return to the traditional functions of art, which is
to say, ennobling and illuminating our lives, rather than sneering at them
with wry littlke in-jokes writ large on huge canvases and massive hunks of
steel. (The "Tilted Arch" controversy is the paradigm of this sort of
modern art in my view.)
|> Similarly, Slappy's
|> "analysis" by definition reserves attributes such as "talent" for
|> artists he approves of, which automatically brands
|> his detractors as defending talentless art. How can one seriously
|> discuss opinions which are formulated in such terms?
|> If one wants others to understand one's views, one should formulate
|> them in a way which invites understanding.
It seems clear enough to me. Art which consists only of ideas (another
paradigm being Cage's "4:33" (I think that was the number...)) which
require no skill to execute may be valid as a joke or a polemic, but it
doesn't constitute art in any sense that any other time or culture would
recognize, and it doesn't fulfill the functions that most peoples and
cultures associate with art. It's not a matter of the amount of time or
effort put in, as someone suggested. It's a matter of whether the noblest
aspects of human possibility have been given flight, or merely referred
to in some oblique way.
|> I would agree with you that art is involved with
|> universal aspects of the human condition -- or perhaps universal
|> needs of the soul (even though I am not quite sure what that means).
|> ... The aspects themselves may be universal;
|> but the manner of partaking of them is definitely NOT.
Certainly. The difference between Cezanne and Mantegna is quite palpable
in manner, but both manage to reach aspects of our existence that seem
to me inaccessible by huge blotchy canvases that explode to the scale
of a masterpiece what should have been a five minutes' study.
|> > That curators and critics seem to find beauty perfectly irrelevant to art is
|> > indeed something I find distasteful.
|>
|> This is YOUR interpretation. You don't find certain kinds of art
|> beautiful, and so you claim that those who praise them "find beauty
|> irrelevant to art". It might even be that some people say these things.
|> Do you take everything people say seriously?
Indeed not. That is precisely the point that started this. Many people,
myself included, do not believe that the community of critics and curators,
and the artists they prefer, are doing very much that should be taken
seriously.
I agree that there is no accounting for taste. (Obviously.) I do not deny
you the right to participate in what I consider a sterile self-referential
intellectual game, nor the right to call it art.
My claim is only that this pursuit, to the *exclusion* of traditional functions
of high art, is disastrous, and tragic in that high art does traditionally
have an inspirational role in society. I grant that nihilism is a central
feature of our time. I think a real avant-garde would have moved beyond it
by now. I think the art of our time that will be remembered has negligible
overlap with what the art academies find interesting. Finding ever newer
and more bombastic ways of saying nothing at all and implying that there
is, after all, nothing to be said is a well that has gone dry by now.
There's plenty of wonderful work being done nowadays. You just won't find
much of it drawing the attention of curators and critics. You may find it
at a good commercial gallery if you are lucky enough to find one.
(I can't speak of Beuys or Rothko - I don't know them. I'll try to look
them up.)
|> > The question at issue is why panels of accredited artists are so fascinated
|> > with works which most other people would consider ugly and depressing.
|> One reason is that, like all experts, they are trying to
|> create their own unassailable turf. Another is that nobody
|> is particularly interested in creating any kind of communication
|> between the modern-art professionals and "most people". Whose
|> initiative and money should go into it?
I am surprised to see this paragraph. I agree completely. I guess the
difference is that I find this state of affairs apalling, while you find
it perfectly reasonable.
Well, maybe I don't agree absolutely. The behavior of "all experts" you
describe seems to me to apply only to those experts with no meaningful
area of expertise...
...
|> What you (or I) might regard as "reasonable amounts of public
|> planning" is regared here as problematic. And, to show you that I,
|> too, am perfectly capable of unsupported generalizations, I
|> venture to claim that it would be regarded as problematic by many
|> of the same "most people" whose opinions you invoke.
Certainly, but this is to some extent a result of the fact that they have
so rarely been exposed to beautiful and inspiring artifacts, and is an
aspect of the abdication of responsibility by the arts to their (paying!)
constituency.
|> > Why do you think the amount of public money directed to the arts is so
|> > miniscule? Why do you think the impact of the fine arts on the public
|> > consciousness is at such a low level? I imply, indeed I state, that it
|> > could be otherwise, but that a prerequisite is that "art theory" have
|> > some point of contact with the traditional function of what people
|> > through the ages have called "art".
|>
|> > The possibility of beauty in America seems to be relegated to the purely
|> > natural. Anything artificial is ugly by presumption. This disgust for the
|> > artificial is paradoxically a significant cause for the decay of the
|> > landscape to suburban sprawl as cities are abandoned as hopeless, and as
|> > people demand larger swatches of ground so as to avoid one another's ugly
|> > artifacts. That the artistic community seems to swallow this delusion that
|> > nothing artificial can have beauty does indeed have a big impact on this
|> > mess.
|> First of all, as I have already indicated, I vigorously disagree that the
|> artistic commmunity "swallows this delusion".
Perhaps you would prefer to call it a rarefied and abstract idea of beauty.
No matter. Most people find the appeal of such beauty perfectly invisible.
That's why they end up with so much kitsch - they have so few examples of
genuine (if you prefer, accessible) beauty to go by.
|> I think you put the cart before the horse. Art does not transform
|> society; art theory cannot tranform the way people choose to live.
I agree with the second part - art *theory* cannot transform the way people
choose to live. *Art* on the other hand, can and does. That is a very nice
way of summarizing the difference. The effect of theory is to try to foist,
with a shrug and a demeaning sneer, clever little jokes writ large on a
public hungry for ideals and inspirations. The public sneers back and buys
cute little lawn ornaments and puts them in front of the huge gilded barns
they call houses and double locks the doors...
Is this really the same species that produced Beethoven, Blake, Louis
Sullivan, Van Gogh, Shakespeare? It's really hard to believe, sometimes.
mt
Vance Maverick
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu (to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu) writes:
[...]
Is this really the same species that produced Beethoven, Blake, Louis
Sullivan, Van Gogh, Shakespeare? It's really hard to believe, sometimes.
Look. I'm sorry you don't enjoy modern art. However, there are other
people who are engaged in modern drama, music, literature,
architecture and visual art, even if you're not. Most of us don't
mind greatly if you prefer to long for a Golden Age. However, many of
us WILL object if you attempt to convince us we're wasting our time.
I happen to think there are lots of prominent people working well and
interestingly in those fields. If you don't, as I say, I'm sorry, but
remember -- nobody has damaged the reputation of the canonical figures
you name, or blocked your access to their works.
It's easy to name names of art figures you dislike, but remember this
is also the species that produced Hummel, Abraham Cowley, the
architect of the Victoria and Albert Memorial, G.H. Watts, and Dion
Boucicault.
Vance
Vance Maverick
Malgosia Askanas (m...@bogart.camb.inmet.com) wrote:
: I would agree with you that art is involved with
: universal aspects of the human condition -- or perhaps universal
: needs of the soul (even though I am not quite sure what that means).
Is this necessarily true, or simply your personal definition of art?
To me, art in our century can mean almost anything to anyone.
For example, art that attempts to question its own meaning at a meta-level
("this is not a pipe") seems to be as concerned with the human
condition as a formal mathematical equation, IMHO.
The real trouble with the "human condition" line is that it's
impossible to say when something *doesn't* deal with the human
condition. For example, what is more human than the enigmas of
signifier, signified, and representation? They're exactly the subject
of Magritte's little equation, or rather, inequality.
Vance
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
analogy which I supplied and extends it to an unreasonable extent:
(I wrote:)
|> >there is an aspect
|> >in art that is timeless and referent to universal aspects of the human
|> >condition. I have no objection to anyone engaging in whatever arcane
|> >pursuit tickles their fancy - as a fluid dynamicist it would be ludicrous
|> >for me to do so.
|> Ask yourself what the majority of people would say about the theoretical
|> expressions of a group of high-level fluid dynamicists.
They would find it incomprehensible, and would find it impossible to
distinguish between talented people and charlatans, of course. Where the
analogy breaks down is that the theoretical expressions are not the end
product we ask the public to support. We deliver - understanding of climate,
or better aerodynamics, or better hydraulics, or whatever.
|> >That curators and critics seem to find beauty perfectly irrelevant to art is
|> >indeed something I find distasteful.
|> Beauty is a component of art. Beauty in art is the same as Beauty in
|> science, in the conceptual form.
Bah! They aren't the same, they are polar opposites. Yin and yang some
might call them.
Seeking intellectual stimulation in art does art a disservice in reducing it
to mere science while it does science a disservice by implying that
application of reason is a matter of taste. Elegance and precision in
thought has entirely separate rewards than sensitivity and perception.
|> If you see beauty in the product of
|> art, if you see beauty in the product of science, then you have the
|> required mindset to see it. It is not in the charter of "ART" that it
|> be judged on its accessibility any more than it is for theoretical
|> science.
Contemporary art such as it tends to appear in museums does not particularly
call me to make the effort to penetrate its inaccessibility.
I grant that universal accessibility is not a necessary part of art. I
do not agree that the art that fascinates the critical community has
"beauty", even once one understands it. Cleverness is not beauty. If
cleverness is what you are after, I suggest math, science, or chess as
a more appropriate pursuit.
Seeming to be clever is much easier than being clever, unfortunately. This
is less true in utterly artificial domains, such as deconstructionist
philosophistry or art criticism, or design books with lots of imaginary
buildings that one devoutly hopes will never be built scatterred among wierd
typography and random bits of graph paper. Damned fifty dollar comic books.
If I want to see Krypton I'll just buy a dollar pulp, thanks.
|> In order to see the beauty of a mathematical proof that is finally
|> solved, one needs to have some appreciation for the problem. Same with
|> art.
I honestly can't imagine what this means. Exactly what "problem" does a Monet
study of the bridge at Giverney "solve"?
|> Some practitioners pursue art to the extent that they are able to
|> produce objects that people want to have and enjoy for themselves,
|> others attempt to pursue "ART" as an ideal and generally consider the
|> process to be more important than the material product.
Fine. I have no objection, until they ask me to support them, because
I tend to disagree with their definition of "art", or until they use
public museums and public squares to display their futile struggles,
or until they try to convince indifferent corporate boards that they
are the arbiters of taste for the public.
|> For science some practitioners pursue it to the extent that they are
|> able to produce objects that people want to have and use, others attempt
|> to pursue "SCIENCE" as an ideal.
|>
|> Not to say that science and art are completely analogous, they're not.
|> But for each, it would be wrong to say that the primary value of the
|> pursuit is contained in the objects that are the result.
The intangible result of science is public, accessible and verifiable
knowledge of objective truth. The intangible result of art as you seem
to understand it is entirely private. That's a pretty big difference.
|> Both the scientist and artist pursuing the ideal, have still to deal
|> with finding a position from which to continue their pursuit. This is
|> difficult and often compromises have to be made.
|>
|> >The question at issue is why panels of accredited artists are so fascinated
|> >with works which most other people would consider ugly and depressing.
|>
|> Most people would consider human medical pathology ugly and depressing,
|> yet some highly accredited people are fascinated by it.
This is the weakest part of your analogy. Pathologists study ugliness
to cure it. It seems that many "artists" study ugliness to produce more
of it. This seems morally dubious to me. It certainly doesn't strengthen
your argument.
|> Failed science
|> experiments and odd, unworkable inventions may still hold a germ of an
|> idea for some random practitioner. Remain open to even seemingly
|> impossible, or impractical ideas to foster creativity.
|> If the issue is should the public get "satisfaction" from their public art
|> expenditure?, Maybe we should. Maybe we should also require
|> satisfaction for our "pure research" expenditure.
Fine. I don't see why not. (I am not a supporter of the Superconducting
Supercollider!)
|> The low level of impact on public consciousness probably has something
|> to do with the near absence of fine art education. ...
The near absence of fine art, you mean!
mt
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Tobis writes:
> (I can't speak of Beuys or Rothko - I don't know them. I'll try to look
> them up.)
After reading your last post, I would say you shouldn't bother. You may
not know them, but your mind is already made up. It will not permit you
to learn anything new from experiencing these people's works, or in
fact to even experience them.
Malgosia Askanas
I said:
: I would agree with you that art is involved with
: universal aspects of the human condition -- or perhaps universal
: needs of the soul (even though I am not quite sure what that means).
To which Brian Ross replied:
; Is this necessarily true, or simply your personal definition of art?
; To me, art in our century can mean almost anything to anyone.
; For example, art that attempts to question it's own meaning at a meta-level
; ("this is not a pipe") seems to be as concerned with the human
; condition as a formal mathematical equation, IMHO.
To which Vance Maverick responded:
; The real trouble with the "human condition" line is that it's
; impossible to say when something *doesn't* deal with the human
; condition. For example, what is more human than the enigmas of
; signifier, signified, and representation? They're exactly the subject
; of Magritte's little equation, or rather, inequality.
Brian's is an excellent question, and Vance's an excellent answer.
Do I have anything more to say than that? One would hope so, wouldn't
one. I will ponder.
Andy Pearlman
>My claim is only that this pursuit, to the *exclusion* of traditional functions
>of high art, is disastrous, and tragic in that high art does traditionally
>have an inspirational role in society. I grant that nihilism is a central
>feature of our time. I think a real avant-garde would have moved beyond it
>by now. I think the art of our time that will be remembered has negligible
>overlap with what the art academies find interesting. Finding ever newer
>and more bombastic ways of saying nothing at all and implying that there
>is, after all, nothing to be said is a well that has gone dry by now.
Actually high art almost never plays a large role in society. Architecture
and to a lesser extent, sculpture, up until the late 19th century were the
only art seen by the general masses.
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
Malgosia Askanas
I said (and Brian Ross would like to know what (if anything) I meant):
: I would agree with you that art is involved with
: universal aspects of the human condition -- or perhaps universal
: needs of the soul (even though I am not quite sure what that means).
I think this statement must be interpreted in the particular context
in which it was made. Michael's argument goes like this: nothing
that does not have a certain feature of "universality" should be called
art. Leonardo has this feature of universality; much of what is
produced now and called "art" does not. People who call this stuff
"art" call it that only because they couldn't care less about
universality. They think that what is or is not "art" is a matter
of subjective taste, whose meanderings may or may not be shaped
by clever hype. Thus they use the word "art" in an entirely
different way than Michael, but without acknowledging that fact;
as a result, the traditional values associated with "universal art"
have become cynically undermined by the inclusion of works which
do not share the pertinent properties.
In making the above statement, I was trying to present myself as
a counterexample to Michael's claims about people who engage with
contemporary art. I do engage with this art, I call it "art",
and yet I would NOT deny the existence of a universal component.
In other words, I believe that I AM using the word "art" in a
manner continuous with the manner in which Michael uses it,
and yet here I am, engaging with contemporary art. I thought that
might induce Michael to reconsider, but no.
Now if I was pressed to describe what this universal component is,
I would probably be unable to do so and would utter nothing but
falsehoods and tautologies. Thus, I am sorry to say that I cannot
impart to the above statement any value beyond that of an
ineffectual testimonial.
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
I sincerely doubt this. Have you ever been to a cathedral?
In any case, it is in architecture and sculpture that my dissatisfaction
is most keenly felt, and where I feel that the deleterious effect of the
fetishes of the contemporary art academies has had the largest impact.
Of course, this does not mean I am satisfied with museums and critics.
mt
Andy Pearlman
>In article <27n77n$i...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>|> In article <1993Sep20....@cs.wisc.edu> to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:
>|> Actually high art almost never plays a large role in society. Architecture
>|> and to a lesser extent, sculpture, up until the late 19th century were the
>|> only art seen by the general masses.
>I sincerely doubt this. Have you ever been to a cathedral?
Yes and think about context. In a cathedral, art that is in that building is
subsidiary to the building. i.e. your general mass person would look inside
a cathedral, see a Michelangelo and would be in awe of the cathedral, not
Michelangelo. A similar problem, to a much lesser extent, exists in the
Guggenheim and the Wexner Center(in Columbus).
>In any case, it is in architecture and sculpture that my dissatisfaction
>is most keenly felt, and where I feel that the deleterious effect of the
>fetishes of the contemporary art academies has had the largest impact.
>Of course, this does not mean I am satisfied with museums and critics.
Let's get something straight about 'art academies'. 95% of what goes on in
them is the student finding his/her own path, with or without the professors'
help. As far as I am concerned, the school that I went to had a bunch of old
failed painters who still felt their views had merit. Every visiting professor
was uniformly better than the tenured professors.
This is not an unique experience to my school.
Andy Pearlman
Michael Tobis
|> I think this statement must be interpreted in the particular context
|> in which it was made. Michael's argument goes like this: nothing
|> that does not have a certain feature of "universality" should be called
|> art. Leonardo has this feature of universality; much of what is
|> produced now and called "art" does not. People who call this stuff
|> "art" call it that only because they couldn't care less about
|> universality. They think that what is or is not "art" is a matter
|> of subjective taste, whose meanderings may or may not be shaped
|> by clever hype. Thus they use the word "art" in an entirely
|> different way than Michael, but without acknowledging that fact;
|> as a result, the traditional values associated with "universal art"
|> have become cynically undermined by the inclusion of works which
|> do not share the pertinent properties.
I appreciate that Malgosia, the most cogent of my interlocutors here,
has summarized my arguments in such a way as to indicate some understanding
of them. I had despaired that anyone disagreeing with me had even a glimmer
of understanding of what I said. This summary is not too far off the mark.
It does, as usual, portray me as actively hostile to the interests
of the critical community as it exists, whereas I am merely indifferent
to their ideas. Nor do I speak for "traditional values" in the usual
hot-button sense, though I do speak for the traditional role of art
as something other than wry amusement for a clique of cognoscenti.
Nor do I care how any word, even "art" *should* be used.
I do not claim that "art" in the sense I use the word has been "undermined"
by "art" as the critical community sees it. Rather than being undermined, it
is ignored. Recent examples of inspiring or otherwise interesting works of
art are not given the exposure they deserve while works of nihilism and
despair are the only encouraged counterpoint in the public environment to
the prevailing shabby utilitarianism.
As a trivial point, I would add that Leonardo was not my choice as the
paradigm of greatness in Renaissance art. Personally I'd pick Durer.
Despite all these quibbles with slant, the central point is captured, which
is that the people who decide what art is valued and displayed are
interested in something entirely different than what is widely and
historically taken to be the function of art. While antique works of
value are indeed accessible, the impression is presented that nothing of
comparable aesthetic and ethical value has been *or can be* produced in this
century.
Now Malgosia disputes this central allegation as follows:
|> In making the above statement, I was trying to present myself as
|> a counterexample to Michael's claims about people who engage with
|> contemporary art. I do engage with this art, I call it "art",
|> and yet I would NOT deny the existence of a universal component.
|> In other words, I believe that I AM using the word "art" in a
|> manner continuous with the manner in which Michael uses it,
|> and yet here I am, engaging with contemporary art. I thought that
|> might induce Michael to reconsider, but no.
Indeed, I am engaging with it too. I now know a great deal more than
I think is necessary about the repulsive Beuys and the pathetic Rothko,
for instance. (I can't dismiss Rothko entirely, by the way.)
Nor do I argue that it is impossible to engage the historical greats in the
same way as one engages Rothko - as a historical figure with an impassioned
quest, illuminating the culture of his times, etc. etc. I do not take this
as evidence that Rothko is a figure of importance *as an artist* comparable
to Durer's, e.g.
Rothko's works as a whole are an interesting sequence,and his life story is
an interesting biography, all this amenable to endless speculation and
disputation. Indeed, a few of his huge blotches are strangely attractive and
show a very nice grasp of color. Durer, on the other hand, produced art in
which *each piece*, in itself and without reference to anything else, is
evocative and compelling.
Had Durer been forgotten, but one of his finer works uncovered, it would be
celebrated as a masterpiece by an unknown Renaissance genius.
Once Rothko is forgotten, when his canvases turn up they will be meaningless
curiosities. His personal pursuits may be interesting, but the artifacts
that they produced are not in themselves particularly interesting. Even the
best of his work is precisely a color study blown up to hundreds of times
the size it needs to be. Alas Durer's color studies are nowhere to be found,
but this is only because he did not consider an interesting color scheme to
constitute a complete work!
|> Now if I was pressed to describe what this universal component is,
|> I would probably be unable to do so and would utter nothing but
|> falsehoods and tautologies. Thus, I am sorry to say that I cannot
|> impart to the above statement any value beyond that of an
|> ineffectual testimonial.
I agree this is difficult, but let's give it a try. If art theory has
nothing to say about this most central of issues then surely its futility is
demonstrated.
I begin with your quotation of Beuys', the vague cogency of which you seem to
feel somehow obviates the transparent foolishness of the blithering of his
that I quoted.
"My art touches people who are in tune with my mode of thinking. But it is
clear that people cannot understand my art by intellectual processes alone,
because no art can be experienced in this way. I say to experience, because
this is not equivalent to thinking: it's a great deal more complex: it
involves being moved subconsciously. Either they say `Yes, I am
interested,' or they react angrily and destroy my work and curse it. In any
event I feel I am successful, because people have been affected by my art."
Clearly, this definition of success in art is inadequate, else we must
define any atrocity, an oil tanker accident, a rape, a genocide, as
successful art.
Now when he says "By doing that people may begin to understand man is not
only a rational being" he comes closer to the mark. Indeed, my original
thesis was that the appeal of such nihilist jokesters was to the rational
rather than the numinous, and I supported Slappy's hypothesis that the
rational and the numinous must both be characteristics of successful art.
I see now that to some extent I overestimated this stuff, since it is
anti-rational rather than rational in point and impact, while whatever
numinous impact it may have is apparently incidental.
In fact, the Stuhl mit Fett is meaningful ONLY in the context of the
venerable museum. Hence it is "performance art" at best. It is a statement
*about* art. I would like to emphasize the distinction between things that
*refer to* art and art itself.
I have already seen you confuse art with art theory. I think the failure to
make this distinction may be a part of what allows you to convince yourself
that there is some continuity between this nonsense and Michelangelo.
Of course, a Durer painting is a statement about art, just as the Fat Chair
is, and there is a continuity there. However, the Durer is not only about
art, it actually *is* art, and here the continuity fails utterly.
What the universality of art consists of is certainly hard to define in
theory, but a practical test is easy to come by. A person who was in the
least interested in art, who having never heard of Durer discovered a Durer
in his attic, would certainly keep it. A similar person discovering a Rothko
might contemplate using it as upholstery. A person uninitiated in "fluxus
art" seeing a pile of chicken fat on an old chair would unhesitatingly rush
to dispose of it properly (certainly the fat, and quite possibly the chair
too), or in Beuys' self-important phrasing, to "destroy" it.
mt
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Tobis writes:
> [Your summary] does, as usual, portray me as actively hostile to
> the interests
> of the critical community as it exists, whereas I am merely indifferent
> to their ideas. Nor do I speak for "traditional values" in the usual
> hot-button sense, though I do speak for the traditional role of art
> as something other than wry amusement for a clique of cognoscenti.
You declare yourself, by turns, "outraged" and "indifferent". What do
you propose should be made of that?
By the way: who are the people who claim that art is wry amusement
for a clique of cognoscenti? I have never actually come
across such claims; I only encounter attacks upon them. Who exactly
holds this view? And why, of all the dubious views in the world,
would this one be particularly worthy of our critical consideration,
especially since it seems quite rare?
> I do not claim that "art" in the sense I use the word has been "undermined"
> by "art" as the critical community sees it. Rather than being undermined, it
> is ignored.
You mean Durer and Cezanne are being ignored? (I am very pleased with
your choice of Durer, by the way. Why didn't Slappy pick Durer?
Things would have been so different then.)
> Recent examples of inspiring or otherwise interesting works of
> art are not given the exposure they deserve while works of nihilism and
> despair are the only encouraged counterpoint in the public environment to
> the prevailing shabby utilitarianism.
What are these deserving but unexposed works? Name some. What are
the encouraged works of nihilism and despair? Name some.
> Despite all these quibbles with slant, the central point is captured, which
> is that the people who decide what art is valued and displayed are
> interested in something entirely different than what is widely and
> historically taken to be the function of art. While antique works of
> value are indeed accessible, the impression is presented that nothing of
> comparable aesthetic and ethical value has been *or can be* produced in this
> century.
Where and by whom is this impression presented?
> Indeed, I am engaging with [contemporary art] too.
> I now know a great deal more than
> I think is necessary about the repulsive Beuys and the pathetic Rothko,
> for instance. (I can't dismiss Rothko entirely, by the way.)
No; you are not engaging with it. Your "engagement" consists entirely
of seeking confirmation that this art is not worth engaging with.
Every encounter you have with it will only confirm this further, because
that's the only "engagement" you will permit yourself to have.
You have decided that one day of looking into Rothko or Beuys are
sufficient to judge their art. Of course it is sufficient: you
have made the judgement long before you even started looking.
The purpose of looking was to repeat the same judgement again,
only now supposedly in an "informed" manner.
> Nor do I argue that it is impossible to engage the historical greats in the
> same way as one engages Rothko - as a historical figure with an impassioned
> quest, illuminating the culture of his times, etc. etc. I do not take this
> as evidence that Rothko is a figure of importance *as an artist* comparable
> to Durer's, e.g.
Of importance to whom? To you? To me? To those to whom Durer is of
greater importance?
> Had Durer been forgotten, but one of his finer works uncovered, it would be
> celebrated as a masterpiece by an unknown Renaissance genius.
> Once Rothko is forgotten, when his canvases turn up they will be meaningless
> curiosities. His personal pursuits may be interesting, but the artifacts
> that they produced are not in themselves particularly interesting.
This is one of *your* criteria of "importance", but it is not one of
mine. The pursuit of timelessness, of permanence, is not a
characteristic of our times. Why should it be a criterion whereby
we evaluate our art?
The issues that I perceive as my own have to do with living in
full awareness of ephemerality, of rootlessness, of fragmentation.
You may say that this is a nihilistic position. I don't think so.
It may be nihilistic if you think it precludes living with dignity;
I don't think it does. The artists I value address themselves, in
one way or another, to the possibilities of such dignity. It is
a tricky problem and it does not lend itself to an easy approach.
> I begin with your quotation of Beuys', the vague cogency of which you seem to
> feel somehow obviates the transparent foolishness of the blithering of his
> that I quoted.
No, I don't feel it obviates it. Beuys blithers endlessly and much
of it is foolish. But the blithering I quoted bore a stronger
imprint of his overall perspective than the one you selected.
> "Either they say `Yes, I am
> interested,' or they react angrily and destroy my work and curse it. In any
> event I feel I am successful, because people have been affected by my art."
> Clearly, this definition of success in art is inadequate, else we must
> define any atrocity, an oil tanker accident, a rape, a genocide, as
> successful art.
Clearly, this was not offered either by Beuys or me as a "definition
of success in art". He said *he* felt successful when *his* particular
art (which does not include the atrocities you mention, although it does
frequently generate boredom on the scale of an atrocity) affected people in
the abovementioned ways.
> In fact, the Stuhl mit Fett is meaningful ONLY in the context of the
> venerable museum. Hence it is "performance art" at best. It is a statement
> *about* art. I would like to emphasize the distinction between things that
> *refer to* art and art itself.
Stuhl is of necessity about art, because Beuys regarded art as
all-encompassing, central, and alone capable of redeeming the world.
I am surprised that you would be dismissive of such a view, even though
Beuys did carry it to the limits of absurdity. If one seriously regards art
with such high expectations, then why would one dismiss it as a worthy
concern for art itself?
Beuys saw art as a means for global healing. Many of his objects are
akin to, and purposely evocative of, the tools of a medicine man.
He liked materials that have rich organic and medicinal associations,
or that have specific properties related to energy and creativity.
Fat was one of his favorite substances because of its association with
energy, warmth, protection, but also because of its spectacular
decay. Beuys saw this decay, the changes that went on in the fat,
as a continuation of his work as a "sculptor": the work continues
to shape itself after the artist is done. Thus the very medium
organically articulates the bond between development and journeying
towards death. This kind of "organic articulation", a complete unity
of medium and expression, was at the center of Beuys' quest.
(I gather from your "at best", by the way, that you consider performance
art -- of which I don't think Stuhl is an example -- as an inherently
inferior species. You don't think performance art
*is capable* of being "real art", or just hasn't been, or what?)
> I have already seen you confuse art with art theory. I think the failure to
> make this distinction may be a part of what allows you to convince yourself
> that there is some continuity between this nonsense and Michelangelo.
No. You have not seen me confuse them and it is not part of anything.
*You* insist that this stuff is nonsense. *You* insist that those who see
value in it have arrived at such a vision by "convincing themselves".
And since you won't accept such people's own testimony to the
contrary, you are protected from the danger of changing your mind.
> Of course, a Durer painting is a statement about art, just as the Fat Chair
> is, and there is a continuity there. However, the Durer is not only about
> art, it actually *is* art, and here the continuity fails utterly.
No, it does not fail there, since the Fat Chair is also art. To the
contrary: this is one of the few things they have in common.
> What the universality of art consists of is certainly hard to define in
> theory, but a practical test is easy to come by. A person who was in the
> least interested in art, who having never heard of Durer discovered a Durer
> in his attic, would certainly keep it. A similar person discovering a Rothko
> might contemplate using it as upholstery. A person uninitiated in "fluxus
> art" seeing a pile of chicken fat on an old chair would unhesitatingly rush
> to dispose of it properly (certainly the fat, and quite possibly the chair
> too), or in Beuys' self-important phrasing, to "destroy" it.
This is *your* criterion of "universality". If Beuys shared your
criterion, you would be justified in saying he had has failed miserably.
But he was not *attempting* to make art which would have the property
you describe. His goals were different. Why do you insist on evaluating
his success in terms of goals he had no desire to pursue?
Andy Pearlman
>I appreciate that Malgosia, the most cogent of my interlocutors here,
>has summarized my arguments in such a way as to indicate some understanding
>of them. I had despaired that anyone disagreeing with me had even a glimmer
>of understanding of what I said. This summary is not too far off the mark.
I think most artists could have given you that summary. It is one of the
primary 'I know what art is, and style x is not art.' arguments.
>Once Rothko is forgotten, when his canvases turn up they will be meaningless
>curiosities. His personal pursuits may be interesting, but the artifacts
>that they produced are not in themselves particularly interesting. Even the
>best of his work is precisely a color study blown up to hundreds of times
>the size it needs to be. Alas Durer's color studies are nowhere to be found,
>but this is only because he did not consider an interesting color scheme to
>constitute a complete work!
Context. Oil paint was hideously expensive back then. For Durer to consider
an interesting color scheme would be to probably offend the client. "Yes,
I spent your money, see how the orange goes with the blue?" Most artists
today do not paint on a preset contract, rather they make paintings and people
offer to buy them.
>I agree this is difficult, but let's give it a try. If art theory has
>nothing to say about this most central of issues then surely its futility is
>demonstrated.
No, not at all. The futility of demonstrating whether or not there is a
specific universality is shown. Philosophy has no real answer to the God
question, yet very few people would say there is no value in asking the
question.
>Clearly, this definition of success in art is inadequate, else we must
>define any atrocity, an oil tanker accident, a rape, a genocide, as
>successful art.
Beuys is not a good example for defining mainstream art. Here is the
'standard' philosophy of art. It is somewhat circular, but it does seem to
provide a little useful information:
Art must satisfy the conditions -
1) Art must be created by a human being.
2) It must be created with intent for it to be art.
3) It must be shown to the art world
4) The creator must be part of the art world.
Art world is very loosely defined as being 'at least one person'.
>What the universality of art consists of is certainly hard to define in
>theory, but a practical test is easy to come by. A person who was in the
>least interested in art, who having never heard of Durer discovered a Durer
>in his attic, would certainly keep it. A similar person discovering a Rothko
>might contemplate using it as upholstery. A person uninitiated in "fluxus
>art" seeing a pile of chicken fat on an old chair would unhesitatingly rush
>to dispose of it properly (certainly the fat, and quite possibly the chair
>too), or in Beuys' self-important phrasing, to "destroy" it.
You have just created an ideal person for your test. Now the counter-example.
If he found Bosch, he might well destroy it or keep it in the attic. If he
found a badly cracked medieval wall panel, he might dismiss it easily. If
he found a Van Eyck, with its forced perspectives, he might conclude it is
a bad painting. If this person perhaps also disliked nudity, he might well
throw away some Durers anyway.
In addition, this test uses realism as a marker. This means Durer is not the
best painter, merely adequate. Photography becomes the definition of art and
painters who copy photographs the high painters. That definition is badly
flawed.
Andy Pearlman
Malgosia Askanas
I am sorry to say that I want to elaborate a bit on my last post.
Comfort yourselves by the thought that this may perhaps exhaust
what I have to say in this thread. On the other hand, there is
the frightening possibility that this exhaustion may not stop me
from going on.
The way I see it, every work of contemporary art faces these two problems:
1. How to have an impact
2. How to prevent the wrong kind of impact.
Both problems arise out of the position of art in contemporary
society. Unlike in previous centuries, art does not have a well-defined
societal place, well-defined sources of patronage, well-defined
authorities in whose service and in whose interest it functions.
In addition, various forms of art have become ubiquitous, and
we have acquired a considerable immunity to such stimula.
For artists who acquire any kind of prominence, there is the constant
threat of trivialization and misinterpretation by mass media.
Michael has described as a tragedy the appropriation by totalitarian
regimes of the optimistic art forms of the 20s and 30s. This
possibility of appropriation by various ideological bodies --
political, commercial, other -- has become a very serious issue
for art.
But these two problems are not specific to art. They are central to
the life of every individual. Because of that, when works of art
address these problems, they cannot but be relevant to the lives
of the recipients. The way in which each work proposes to approach
these questions becomes a metaphor for living as a whole. To say
dimissively that such works "refer to art" is rather strange.
I would venture to say that almost every contemporary artwork, in one
way or another, takes a position with respect to these two questions.
The work may deal with many other issues, but it will almost always
have to deal with these two and propose for itself some "solution".
Unless one acknowledges the pressing nature of these two questions and
is attentive to those aspects of the work which stem from them, one
will not be able to engage with contemporary art. Making objects
which are ephemeral, shocking, disgusting, ugly, boring, literal,
hermetic, incomprehensible, trite, exhibitionistic, and so on, are
all proposals for solutions. If one cannot see these features as a
kind of protective armor and then go on from them to the object's other
possible meanings (which may or may not exist -- the object may exhaust
itself in taking a position on these particular issues), one is excluding
engagement. This does not mean that one has to *agree* with the
particular solution proposed, that one has to "approve" of the ugliness,
boredom, etc; but one have to be able to see them as serious, often
desperate stances with respect to something very vital.
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> >Once Rothko is forgotten, when his canvases turn up they will be meaningless
|> >curiosities. His personal pursuits may be interesting, but the artifacts
|> >that they produced are not in themselves particularly interesting. Even the
|> >best of his work is precisely a color study blown up to hundreds of times
|> >the size it needs to be. Alas Durer's color studies are nowhere to be found,
|> >but this is only because he did not consider an interesting color scheme to
|> >constitute a complete work!
|> Context. Oil paint was hideously expensive back then. For Durer to consider
|> an interesting color scheme would be to probably offend the client. "Yes,
|> I spent your money, see how the orange goes with the blue?" Most artists
|> today do not paint on a preset contract, rather they make paintings and people
|> offer to buy them.
This is a very clever and amusing response, and one which is impossible to
prove or disprove without contact with Durer's ghost. I find it immensely
implausible, though, that had paint been cheaper, Durer's work would resemble
Rothko's.
|> >I agree this is difficult, but let's give it a try. If art theory has
|> >nothing to say about this most central of issues then surely its futility is
|> >demonstrated.
|> No, not at all. The futility of demonstrating whether or not there is a
|> specific universality is shown. Philosophy has no real answer to the God
|> question, yet very few people would say there is no value in asking the
|> question.
Well, the context of the statement was in response to someone who claimed
that such universality did indeed exist, yet admitted an inability to
define it.
|> Beuys is not a good example for defining mainstream art. Here is the
|> 'standard' philosophy of art. It is somewhat circular, but it does seem to
|> provide a little useful information:
|> Art must satisfy the conditions -
|> 1) Art must be created by a human being.
|> 2) It must be created with intent for it to be art.
|> 3) It must be shown to the art world
|> 4) The creator must be part of the art world.
|> Art world is very loosely defined as being 'at least one person'.
This helps very little in selecting between the scribblings of a
five-year-old and a genuine masterpiece, though, and that is the important
question. Many people agree with me that the criteria being used by many
people whose profession involves making such judgements are deeply flawed,
(not that they are wrong, since such criteria are a matter of taste, but that
they do not serve the broad interests of the public or of the arts) and that
is what I think the discussion is about.
|> >What the universality of art consists of is certainly hard to define in
|> >theory, but a practical test is easy to come by. A person who was in the
|> >least interested in art, who having never heard of Durer discovered a Durer
|> >in his attic, would certainly keep it. A similar person discovering a Rothko
|> >might contemplate using it as upholstery. A person uninitiated in "fluxus
|> >art" seeing a pile of chicken fat on an old chair would unhesitatingly rush
|> >to dispose of it properly (certainly the fat, and quite possibly the chair
|> >too), or in Beuys' self-important phrasing, to "destroy" it.
|> You have just created an ideal person for your test. Now the counter-example.
|> If he found Bosch, he might well destroy it or keep it in the attic. If he
|> found a badly cracked medieval wall panel, he might dismiss it easily. If
|> he found a Van Eyck, with its forced perspectives, he might conclude it is
|> a bad painting. If this person perhaps also disliked nudity, he might well
|> throw away some Durers anyway.
Indeed, I thought about Bosch when proposing this idea, and I agree that such
works present problems for this approach. Nevertheless, what I mean by
universality is that a successful work has some value independent of cultural
context. This idea is considered old-fashioned and suspect by many
intellectuals, but I hold to it, and I feel that my attic parable at least
proves that such a thing is possible. What Malgosia means by universality
escapes me completely at present.
|> In addition, this test uses realism as a marker. This means Durer is not the
|> best painter, merely adequate. Photography becomes the definition of art and
|> painters who copy photographs the high painters. That definition is badly
|> flawed.
I don't think realism has anything to do with it - I think the Matisse or
the Seurat would be kept too.
mt
Dave Poindexter
I!ve had trouble with my news poster/editor before.
In article <1993Sep23.1...@cs.wisc.edu> ,
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:
>In article <27shkb$8...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman)
writes:
>
>|> >Once Rothko is forgotten, when his canvases turn up they will be
meaningless
>|> >curiosities. His personal pursuits may be interesting, but the
artifacts
>|> >that they produced are not in themselves particularly
interesting. Even the
>|> >best of his work is precisely a color study blown up to hundreds
of times
>|> >the size it needs to be. Alas Durer's color studies are nowhere
to be found,
>|> >but this is only because he did not consider an interesting color
scheme to
>|> >constitute a complete work!
>
>|> Context. Oil paint was hideously expensive back then. For Durer
to consider
>|> an interesting color scheme would be to probably offend the
client. "Yes,
>|> I spent your money, see how the orange goes with the blue?" Most
artists
>|> today do not paint on a preset contract, rather they make
paintings and people
>|> offer to buy them.
>
>This is a very clever and amusing response, and one which is
impossible to
>prove or disprove without contact with Durer's ghost. I find it
immensely
>implausible, though, that had paint been cheaper, Durer's work would
resemble
>Rothko's.
>
Of course Durer!s work would not resemble Rothko!s given equal
materials to both artists. Rothko had 450 more years of visual art
tradition, technique development and world history to draw upon.
Compare Durer with the art of 1000 A.D. And as Andy Pearlman stated,
Rothko was painting mostly for himself instead of a client with
specific comission. While talking to Durer!s ghost, one might also ask
if he would have painted differently if did not have to always please
his patrons.
>|> Beuys is not a good example for defining mainstream art. Here is
the
>|> 'standard' philosophy of art. It is somewhat circular, but it
does seem to
>|> provide a little useful information:
>|> Art must satisfy the conditions -
>|> 1) Art must be created by a human being.
>|> 2) It must be created with intent for it to be art.
>|> 3) It must be shown to the art world
>|> 4) The creator must be part of the art world.
>
>|> Art world is very loosely defined as being 'at least one person'.
>
>This helps very little in selecting between the scribblings of a
>five-year-old and a genuine masterpiece, though, and that is the
important
>question. Many people agree with me that the criteria being used by
many
>people whose profession involves making such judgements are deeply
flawed,
>(not that they are wrong, since such criteria are a matter of taste,
but that
>they do not serve the broad interests of the public or of the arts)
and that
>is what I think the discussion is about.
>
First, I have to disagree that there is a !mainstrean! art today. The
!producers! of !art!, the buyers of !art!, the theorists of !art!,
etc. often are in sharp disagreement and this is part of the problem.
Today there is no one universally recognized set of criteria to judge
art in our Western culture, if those who have a deep interest in
art--any so-called art--then its easy to see that the general
population is confused and willing to apply their own uneducated
criteria to art.
In attempting to understand most any human investigation, some
exposure to the concerns, history and theories of that investigation
is a neccessary prerequisite--a basic understanding, let alone
appreciation, of modern physics is hard to come by without some
education. Take an art appreciation course that provides an unbiased
survey of historical, contemporary and non-Western art, and then make
your own, informed, but still subjective judgements.
In these discussions, I don!t know who has a decent background on
these subjects. I try not to make uninformed posts to groups I have
little understanding of. Most people agree that some education in
physics is necessary to comment about it, most however don!t
understand that comment on art requires some education as well. If the
!many people! who are in agreement with Tobias are mimimally educated
in fine art, I, for one, have no problem listening to their opinions.
Actually, I!m in partial agreement with Tobias. I think some art,
buyers, exhibitors, critics, theorists, etc. ill-serve !art! and
society as a whole, but it is very difficult to show what great harm
is done today. These are concerns left more wisely to future
historians after the dust has settled and cause and effect can clearly
be shown. There are just too many diverse and seemingly unrelated
influences to every aspect of our condition to make black and white
statements of fact about anything that cannot undergo scientific
experimentation to test subjective opinion or theory.
>|> >What the universality of art consists of is certainly hard to
define in
>|> >theory, but a practical test is easy to come by. A person who was
in the
>|> >least interested in art, who having never heard of Durer
discovered a Durer
>|> >in his attic, would certainly keep it. A similar person
discovering a Rothko
>|> >might contemplate using it as upholstery. A person uninitiated in
"fluxus
>|> >art" seeing a pile of chicken fat on an old chair would
unhesitatingly rush
>|> >to dispose of it properly (certainly the fat, and quite possibly
the chair
>|> >too), or in Beuys' self-important phrasing, to "destroy" it.
>
>|> You have just created an ideal person for your test. Now the
counter-example.
>|> If he found Bosch, he might well destroy it or keep it in the
attic. If he
>|> found a badly cracked medieval wall panel, he might dismiss it
easily. If
>|> he found a Van Eyck, with its forced perspectives, he might
conclude it is
>|> a bad painting. If this person perhaps also disliked nudity, he
might well
>|> throw away some Durers anyway.
>
>Indeed, I thought about Bosch when proposing this idea, and I agree
that such
>works present problems for this approach. Nevertheless, what I mean by
>universality is that a successful work has some value independent of
cultural
>context. This idea is considered old-fashioned and suspect by many
>intellectuals, but I hold to it, and I feel that my attic parable at
least
>proves that such a thing is possible. What Malgosia means by
universality
>escapes me completely at present.
>
The idea is not only old-fashioned, but wrong. Most of Western art,
even the !old masters! has little meaning to many non-Western
cultures. Tobias! attic parable can only apply to a person raised in
or educated in Western culture, even then I think it is a hit or miss
proposition. I think there are universalities to the human condition,
but I think there are very few if the subject involves in any way
one!s culture.
p.s. My background and training has been in a fairly classical,
academic studio art context to the MFA level, i.e. considerable
exposure to Western art history, contemporary art, the art !business!,
studio art training, etc, as well as a pretty good liberal arts
education.
Dave Poindexter
poind...@scri.fsu.edu
Graphic Artist (for the rent) and Computer Artist (for the soul)
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst. @ Florida State U.
phone: (904) 644-2851; fax: 644-0098
***Are you happy yet!? I don!t think you!re happy enough!!***
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
...
|> Of course Durer!s work would not resemble Rothko!s given equal
|> materials to both artists. Rothko had 450 more years of visual art
|> tradition, technique development and world history to draw upon.
...
and still some people claim there's no such thing as progress!
mt
Malgosia Askanas
Brian Ross wrote:
> I still maintain that art does not necessarily need to have a vital meaning
> in order to be "art". Art, to me, is the use of visual imagery to convey
> ideas. Period. These ideas may be as trite or deep as the observer might
> ascribe to the imagery. The idea conveyed might be as simple as a pleasing
> combination of colours: mauve and gold are attractive together. Or, an
> artist might draw a horse in a field. Is there any deep meaning? Perhaps
> to some observers. On the other hand, the artist's only intension might
> have been to paint a horse in a field, and nothing more.
> Since people can ascribe any symbolic meaning imaginable to any physical or
> abstract entity imaginable, it is easy to see why works of art can be
> interpreted with such a variety of important meanings by some, and yet mean
> literally nothing to others. If one calls a blank canvas a completed work
> of art, what symbolism do you see in it? Some see purity of spirit; others
> see charlatanism. They're both right.
I don't disagree with what you said, but perhaps I want to
distinguish between two kinds of meaning. The meaning that you are
talking about could be called the "interior meaning" of the given
artwork. But I would perhaps claim that every work of art,
simply by virtue of being a public act and
of being announced and presented as a work of art, has an "exterior"
meaning. The act of making-and-displaying the work, because of its
public nature, makes a "statement" (I will gladly eat this
formulation; have eaten it already) whose meaning has to do with
the surrounding cultural and social context, the circumstances
under which the work was made and displayed, and a myriad other
factors. In other words, every work of art is in some sense a
work of environmental art, and (as was Michael's position about
"Stuhl") a piece of performance art. Perhaps it is really in this realm
of "exterior meaning" that the present discussion lies; this realm is
the only meeting ground between ethics and esthetics. I believe that
what Michael perceives as nihilistic is not the white canvas
itself -- as when, for example, it hangs in the artist's studio --
but the act of its public exhibition in a museum. This act is
always an imposition: it forces the viewer to confront the
question of the work's "interior meaning", and to see purity of
spirit, perhaps, or maybe brand the whole endeavor as charlatanism.
Andy Pearlman
>In article <27shkb$8...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>|> Context. Oil paint was hideously expensive back then. For Durer to consider
>|> an interesting color scheme would be to probably offend the client. "Yes,
>|> I spent your money, see how the orange goes with the blue?" Most artists
>|> today do not paint on a preset contract, rather they make paintings and people
>|> offer to buy them.
>This is a very clever and amusing response, and one which is impossible to
>prove or disprove without contact with Durer's ghost. I find it immensely
>implausible, though, that had paint been cheaper, Durer's work would resemble
>Rothko's.
I'm not saying that it would. But, Durer's work almost certainly would have
had a different look. A thing to remember is there are hundreds of times
more artists today than there were back then. Competition would also have
another effect. Producing one painting a year is like choosing the lottery for
a career now. Sure you might win...
>|> No, not at all. The futility of demonstrating whether or not there is a
>|> specific universality is shown. Philosophy has no real answer to the God
>|> question, yet very few people would say there is no value in asking the
>|> question.
>
>Well, the context of the statement was in response to someone who claimed
>that such universality did indeed exist, yet admitted an inability to
>define it.
Quite a few people choose to believe in God, even if they can't define God.
You feel that you have some universality for art, yet you are struggling to
define it in a way that applies to everyone, not some ideal test subject.
>|> Art must satisfy the conditions -
>|> 1) Art must be created by a human being.
>|> 2) It must be created with intent for it to be art.
>|> 3) It must be shown to the art world
>|> 4) The creator must be part of the art world.
>|> Art world is very loosely defined as being 'at least one person'.
>This helps very little in selecting between the scribblings of a
>five-year-old and a genuine masterpiece, though, and that is the important
>question. Many people agree with me that the criteria being used by many
Well, I think most people would say the 5 year old isn't creating it with
intent, to be shown to the art world(except by accident), and that the 5 year
old doesn't consider him/herself to be part of the art world.
This isn't to give a concrete definition of how one piece is more valuable than
the other, it is to give a definition of what makes one thing a painting, and
another just a set of scribbles.
>Indeed, I thought about Bosch when proposing this idea, and I agree that such
>works present problems for this approach. Nevertheless, what I mean by
>universality is that a successful work has some value independent of cultural
>context. This idea is considered old-fashioned and suspect by many
>intellectuals, but I hold to it, and I feel that my attic parable at least
>proves that such a thing is possible. What Malgosia means by universality
>escapes me completely at present.
Cultural context is very different for Hindu, Japanese, Chinese, and African
art(to name a few). African art, which is part of the basis for Cubism, would
surely reject the Durer as art, as would probably Hindu. Beautiful perhaps,
but not art. Japanese and Chinese would accept his line drawings as showing
promise, but not his paintings.
>I don't think realism has anything to do with it - I think the Matisse or
>the Seurat would be kept too.
Being kept is not good enough to make something art. I was thinking about
this and came up with a couple of examples for your ideal test subject(indeed,
some of the answers on the general American public would provide scary insight
I think)
Science:
1) Which do you think provided greater effect on history: The atomic bomb or
the theory of relativity?
Politics:
2) Do you think a simple or complex tax plan is the best kind of plan?
Education:
3) Let's say you have 3 gifted children, 24 normal children, and 3 slow
children in a classroom. What do you, as teacher, set as the pace for the
year?(I've seen a couple actually try to set it to slow)
Using the LCD as a basis for judgement will always set a very badly flawed
standard.
Andy Pearlman
shih liang lei
discussion begin ( I haven't kept up w/ this group for a while, and have no
access to the start of this thread )? It seems that the focus is on the
problems of the modern artist and the question of what makes good art. What
is the underlying definition of art in this discussion? If the various sides
do not agree on what is art, it seems futile to discuss what makes good art,
since the criteria ( if any ) are different. Or are we assuming here that art
is one of those undefinable words, and perhaps art "is" like the Judeo-
Christian God "is"?
I've been reading what I can of this thread, and was just wondering whether any
foundational agreement exists concerning art amidst the debate.
Tim
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> Not to throw this fascinating thread back into the stone ages, but how did this
|> discussion begin ( I haven't kept up w/ this group for a while, and have no
|> access to the start of this thread )?
It started when some pseudonymous fellow claimed that art critics
in general were interested only in art as intellectual stimulation,
while true art included an emotional component as well, and postulated
that this was the reason that art critics (and those educated in art
doctrine) were interested in works that almost everyone else, even those
with a strong interest in art, find pointless and silly. I joined in
when this position (which I find perfectly sensible) was met with disrespect
and ridicule by a flurry of responses from people who seemed not to see
the point of the posting at all.
|> It seems that the focus is on the
|> problems of the modern artist and the question of what makes good art. What
|> is the underlying definition of art in this discussion?
Neither "art" nor "good art" have received definitions in this discussion
that are acceptable to all. Indeed, the distinction between those who
take the more dubious works seriously and those who don't is very clear
in the approaches they take to trying to make this difficult definition.
The critical school says "art is what artists do" or "art is what museums
exhibit" or "art is what those most educated in art consider art", that
is, a definition that is purely social and political. I think the opposing
camp believes that art is defined by the nature of its impact on the
audience, regardless of the circumstances of its production or display.
That is, the modernist camp focuses on the intentions of the artist, while
the traditionalist camp is more interested in the response of the viewer.
|> If the various sides
|> do not agree on what is art, it seems futile to discuss what makes good art,
|> since the criteria ( if any ) are different. Or are we assuming here that art
|> is one of those undefinable words, and perhaps art "is" like the Judeo-
|> Christian God "is"?
Unfortunately, giving up on this question leaves the decision of what to
exhibit in the hands of a closed group of self-congratulatory self-affirming
people whose interests are narrow and frankly disjoint with what most of
the public with an interest in the arts desires.
The plausible solutions are: 1) convince the curators to make concessions to
the tastes of the segment of the public interested in the arts 2) replace
them with an entirely new group or 3) abandon public support for the arts
entirely. I find 2 the ideal solution, but one with enormous practical
difficulties. I have seen cogent arguments for 3, but I find this
unacceptable. I'm trying to pursue 1 here, but the deck is stacked against
me. Arguments for the possibility of art are met with "what do you mean,
this isn't art?" and gestures toward vast featureless canvases (or worse!).
I know what art means to me, and I know what it means to the critics, but
they seem to refuse to get a glimmer of what it means to me. This isn't just
an intellectual exercise as far as I'm concerned, so a precise definition
isn't the central issue. (In any case, I'm not sure one exists.) It's clear
that we will not agree on such a definition since there are specific
instances that one group believes is art that the other does not. The big
question is whether the enormous spiritual possibilities of art can be
realized in our time, despite the preference by the art-school-indoctrinated
(who have so much influence over what is shown) for sour little jokes.
Now they can intimidate the majority of their opponents by claiming that the
opponents know very little about art, but they are very puzzled as to what
to do with the remainder who aren't afraid of that attack and insist that,
in fact, we know quite a bit about art, and this crap isn't it at all,
thanks.
A clear and succinct analysis by the artist and critic Don Gray can be found
in the book _Culture Wars_, Richard Bolton, ed., New Press (pub) W.W.Norton
(distrib) 1992. He argues (in testimony to congress) that the art community
is so irretrievably lost in its own shabby self-referential and nihilist
pursuits that they have lost sight of art entirely, and that on those
grounds (rather than of decency or morality as Jesse Helms was arguing) all
government (and presumably, corporate) funding of the fine arts should cease.
I hope his conclusion is overdrawn but I'm not at all certain that it is.
I have enjoyed the discussion, but I still feel that apologists for modern
art are willfully missing the point. They think this sort of discussion is
exactly the point of art. I think this sort of discussion is a very poor
substitute for art, no matter how stimulating or amusing it gets.
mt
PS - A fine essay explaining the tragic and absurd collapse of architecture
under the onslaught of sterile theory is Tom Wolfe's _From Bauhaus to Our
House_, published in book form in 1981. I think he had another very nice
essay about the modern art world, perhaps in the Atlantic, comparing the
critical community to a preisthood, and explaining how so-called "art" had
subsumed the functions of religion for the wealthy. (Was this indeed Tom
Wolfe? Can anyone point me at this essay? Thanks.)
Andy Pearlman
>In article <27vatm...@puffer.cis.ohio-state.edu>, sl...@cis.ohio-state.edu (shih liang lei) writes:
>|> Not to throw this fascinating thread back into the stone ages, but how did this
>in general were interested only in art as intellectual stimulation,
>while true art included an emotional component as well, and postulated
>that this was the reason that art critics (and those educated in art
>doctrine) were interested in works that almost everyone else, even those
>with a strong interest in art, find pointless and silly. I joined in
>when this position (which I find perfectly sensible) was met with disrespect
The problem with this viewpoint is the 'almost everyone else'. I personally
find Pollock pointless and silly. This does not mean that I feel everyone
else shares my view or that someone else is silly for not doing so. I happen
to like Rothkos. In fact, even as a child, when I basically hated all other
forms of art known to man, I liked Rothkos.
>The critical school says "art is what artists do" or "art is what museums
>exhibit" or "art is what those most educated in art consider art", that
>is, a definition that is purely social and political. I think the opposing
>camp believes that art is defined by the nature of its impact on the
>audience, regardless of the circumstances of its production or display.
>
>That is, the modernist camp focuses on the intentions of the artist, while
>the traditionalist camp is more interested in the response of the viewer.
This is somewhat extreme. The modernist camp is interested in the artist and
the artwork. There is also a third camp of artists.
>Unfortunately, giving up on this question leaves the decision of what to
>exhibit in the hands of a closed group of self-congratulatory self-affirming
>people whose interests are narrow and frankly disjoint with what most of
>the public with an interest in the arts desires.
Remember, it is fully possible to start your own gallery. Most curators have
worked at a gallery at one point and certainly at a museum. How do you prove
most of the public desires?
>instances that one group believes is art that the other does not. The big
>question is whether the enormous spiritual possibilities of art can be
>realized in our time, despite the preference by the art-school-indoctrinated
>(who have so much influence over what is shown) for sour little jokes.
>
>Now they can intimidate the majority of their opponents by claiming that the
>opponents know very little about art, but they are very puzzled as to what
>to do with the remainder who aren't afraid of that attack and insist that,
>in fact, we know quite a bit about art, and this crap isn't it at all,
>thanks.
>I have enjoyed the discussion, but I still feel that apologists for modern
>art are willfully missing the point. They think this sort of discussion is
>exactly the point of art. I think this sort of discussion is a very poor
>substitute for art, no matter how stimulating or amusing it gets.
No. I'm hoping that you will understand that I respect your choices about
what kind of art you like and that you will respect mine. I am also hoping
that you will understand that your point is probably not the majority
viewpoint of those interested in art.
Andy Pearlman
Dave Poindexter
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu writes:
>In article <27vatm...@puffer.cis.ohio-state.edu>,
sl...@cis.ohio-state.edu
>(shih liang lei) writes:
>|> Not to throw this fascinating thread back into the stone ages, but
how did
>
>It started when some pseudonymous fellow claimed that art critics
>in general were interested only in art as intellectual stimulation,
>while true art included an emotional component as well, and postulated
>that this was the reason that art critics (and those educated in art
>doctrine) were interested in works that almost everyone else, even
those
>with a strong interest in art, find pointless and silly. I joined in
>when this position (which I find perfectly sensible) was met with
disrespect
see
>the point of the posting at all.
>
I must admit that I must have missed or lost sight of the beginning of
this thread. It would appear that I am in less disagreement with
Tobias than I thought. I still have some disagreements I hope to
cogently express below.
>
>The critical school says "art is what artists do" or "art is what
museums
>exhibit" or "art is what those most educated in art consider art",
that
>is, a definition that is purely social and political. I think the
opposing
>camp believes that art is defined by the nature of its impact on the
>audience, regardless of the circumstances of its production or
display.
>
>That is, the modernist camp focuses on the intentions of the artist,
while
>the traditionalist camp is more interested in the response of the
viewer.
>
As a producer of art, I hold most output by critics as suspect at
best. There are many more academically educated artists whose chief
(sole?) interest is in their impact on the viewer; than there are
artists whose output is geared to soliciting the approval of critics
as a means toward big sales. Unfornuately, the art market business has
been chiefly driven since the eighties by poorly educated investors
whose sole interest in art is what kind of return they will get at a
future date.
This has lead to inflated prices for not only recognized masterpieces
but other art which in the not-too-distant past would have recieved
little recognition, let alone instant aclaim. It has also lead to the
rise in percieved importance of the critic who often built his
so-called credibility by championing the work of one or more
priviously little-recognized artists. The results were (and still
largely are) a market-driven industry where the new and the extreme
were promoted in acompaniment of more and more suspect critical
thoery. All to pander to the investment buyer.
If these trends had mostly confined themselves to the comercial art
scene, we would not be having these discussions on the net.
Unfornutatly, the much more conservative public and private museums
have been seduced to exhibit work with untested sustaning impact to
present and future viewers chiefly because of the money being thrown
at many contemporary artists and the volumes of critical writing being
produced by the self-interested promoters of the same.
>
>Unfortunately, giving up on this question leaves the decision of what
to
>exhibit in the hands of a closed group of self-congratulatory
self-affirming
>people whose interests are narrow and frankly disjoint with what most
of
>the public with an interest in the arts desires.
>
Here Tobias and I have to part ways. While I agree that exhibit
decisions are usually made by a small group, I disagree that:
1) most of the people in the public and private museum selection
committees are as described--most meembers of any museum committee are
not arts professionals but civic-minded private citizens from all
walks of life--usually with no more arts training than the average
person.
2) as these people usually come from many different backgrounds, most
committees have people on them with widely varied tastes in the arts.
3) the large majority of shows exhibited by any private or public
museum is geared toward the general population, after all, the museum
wants people to come to their building--its their charter.
4) some controversial exhibits are shown by many museums because these
museums feel (it may be specifically spelled out) that it is also part
of their charter to be a part of the ongoing sociatal and cultural
discourse.
5) derogatory appelations only pushes people!s buttons and does
nothing to futher intelligent discussion.
>
>The big
>question is whether the enormous spiritual possibilities of art can be
>realized in our time, despite the preference by the
art-school-indoctrinated
>(who have so much influence over what is shown) for sour little jokes.
>
Suprise! Many contemporary artists (myself included) are most
interested in the spiritual power of art. I would not be surprised
that the contemporary art of today that gets shown 50 years from now
and beyond will have a strong spiriual compoent. On the other hand, I
think there is a place for socially-, culturally- and
politically-aware art in the museum today--I am just not sure how much
of it will be of relevance in the future.
>Now they can intimidate the majority of their opponents by claiming
that the
>opponents know very little about art, but they are very puzzled as to
what
>to do with the remainder who aren't afraid of that attack and insist
that,
>in fact, we know quite a bit about art, and this crap isn't it at all,
>thanks.
>
>A clear and succinct analysis by the artist and critic Don Gray can
be found
>
>I hope his conclusion is overdrawn but I'm not at all certain that it
is.
>
>I have enjoyed the discussion, but I still feel that apologists for
modern
>art are willfully missing the point. They think this sort of
discussion is
>exactly the point of art. I think this sort of discussion is a very
poor
>substitute for art, no matter how stimulating or amusing it gets.
>
>mt
>
I have no problem listening to the views of anyone who is even
minimally educated in fine art. I even like to talk to the
art-uneducated as long as their opinions are not set in stone. As my
art has a pretty strong social and cultural comentary compoent, it
helps to try to understand as many points of view as possible--that
way I have a better chance to !speak! to these people with my art.
The vast majority of publicly funded exhibits are non-controversial,
it would be a shame to cut federal, regional, state and local funding
because a few shows offend a few, or even a majority of viewers. If
one sees the mission of museums to be part of the social diolog, even
the controversial shows have their place. Is society really too
fragile for non-majority viewpoints? If it is not art by any
definition to one, is that any reason another person who might, have
the opertunity to see it in a museum? After all, your federally-spent
dollars are my dollars as well.
Discussion about contemporary- (and historical-) art is necessary to
the process of determining what art has relevance to the present or
survives into the future. A few artists (and maybe many critics) may
find discussion their primary (or whole) point. Its OK to ignore them
if you want, I usually do.
Dave Poindexter
poind...@scri.fsu.edu
Graphic Artist (for the rent) & Computer Artist (for the soul)
Supercomputer Computations Research Inst. @ Florida State U.
phone: (904) 644-2851; fax: 644-0098
*** It's laa-aug! Laa-aug! It's better than Bad, it's GOOD! ***
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Tobis writes:
> I have enjoyed the discussion, but I still feel that apologists for modern
> art are willfully missing the point. They think this sort of discussion is
> exactly the point of art.
No, I do NOT think that, and I would have imagined that by now at least
THAT much has become clear. Conversing with you reminds me of the
laws of motion on the other side of the Looking Glass: one has to
run very fast to remain in the same place.
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
I am a bit perplexed as to how to respond to this, as it paints me as
thickheaded, stubborn, and rude, all of which interfere with my self-image.
Remaining silent has its advantages: both Malgosia and I suspect that we
have taken this discussion as far as it can go in general terms, and any
followup will have to refer to specific works and artists or quasi-artists.
But leaving the last word here leaves me as the villain of the piece, and
I have trouble accepting that.
I COULD weasel out by noting that Malgosia, not I, has included Malgosia
(I wish someone would tell me Malgosia's gender so I could avoid dancing
around pronouns when referring to Malgosia...) in the category of people
that define art in those terms. I'm afraid that would be dishonest, as I
do indeed see Malgosia's position as being of that type.
I could claim that Malgosia is misrepresenting Malgosia's definition of art,
but that would be more confrontational that I want to be, and wouldn't
really describe what I think is going on. (Despite our strong disagreements,
I rather like Malgosia.)
So I must resort to admitting that I am perplexed. I cannot see how the
sorts of positions Malgosia has taken are particularly far from saying that
contemporary art is primarily a discussion about the purpose of art! (A more
futile pursuit is hard to imagine: consider my claim that all is blrvs, and
all blrvs is, that which takes a position on the nature of blrvs.)
I can think of no other way to construe the following.
Malgosia says:
>| The way I see it, every work of contemporary art faces these two problems:
>| 1. How to have an impact
>| 2. How to prevent the wrong kind of impact.
>| Both problems arise out of the position of art in contemporary
>| society. Unlike in previous centuries, art does not have a well-defined
>| societal place, well-defined sources of patronage, well-defined
>| authorities in whose service and in whose interest it functions.
>| In addition, various forms of art have become ubiquitous, and
>| we have acquired a considerable immunity to such stimula.
>| For artists who acquire any kind of prominence, there is the constant
>| threat of trivialization and misinterpretation by mass media.
...
>| I would venture to say that almost every contemporary artwork, in one
>| way or another, takes a position with respect to these two questions.
>| The work may deal with many other issues, but it will almost always
>| have to deal with these two and propose for itself some "solution".
>| Unless one acknowledges the pressing nature of these two questions and
>| is attentive to those aspects of the work which stem from them, one
>| will not be able to engage with contemporary art. Making objects
>| which are ephemeral, shocking, disgusting, ugly, boring, literal,
>| hermetic, incomprehensible, trite, exhibitionistic, and so on, are
>| all proposals for solutions. If one cannot see these features as a
>| kind of protective armor and then go on from them to the object's other
>| possible meanings (which may or may not exist -- the object may exhaust
>| itself in taking a position on these particular issues), one is excluding
>| engagement. This does not mean that one has to *agree* with the
>| particular solution proposed, that one has to "approve" of the ugliness,
>| boredom, etc; but one have to be able to see them as serious, often
>| desperate stances with respect to something very vital.
I cannot diasgree that these issues exist, of course, nor that art inescapably
takes some sort of implicit position with them. I can and certainly do
disagree that this posturing is central or even important to art itself.
Similarly, running a restaurant, one takes an implicit position on what
cuisine is and how it is conducted. But one would have trouble accepting a
product which "exhausted itself" in gently satirizing the modern concept of
a restaurant as a successful dinner. One might well be amused, but one would
still be hungry.
I claim that all these "proposals for solutions" are precisely irrelevant to
the functions which traditionally attach to art, and that an object which
which "exhausts itself" in taking such a position, however amusing, cannot
itself be said to function as what I take to be art, for want of a better
word.
Now clearly, my definition of art differs from Malgosia's. Also, we both
admit some difficulty in defining the boundaries of art. Accordingly, my
efforts to characterize Malgosia's view will likely be even more clumsy that
my efforts to characterize my own. I apologize to the extent that I'm off
the mark, but so far this is my best honest effort to capture the gist of
what people genuinely "engaged" in much of the art that so many others
find foolish and wasteful see in it.
I am reading an interesting book going by the modest title "Simplicity and
Complexity in Games of the Intellect". The author claims that revolutionary
changes in a discipline often consist of radical simplification in one
aspect followed by a spectacular efflorescence of complexity in an aspect
previously considered marginal. For instance, the Christian revolution
against the intricate legalisms of Judaisms was followed by an outburst
of theology, to an extent that Christians, and non-Christians raised in
Christian societies, conceive of religions as belief structures, when in
fact beliefs are quite peripheral to many religions, and in particular to
the religion to which Christianity was a reaction.
Similarly, the modern radical simplification in the *content* of artistic
efforts is accompanied by an enormous expansion in the amount of *context*
that accompanies it. One looks into a Durer portrait with the uncanny
feeling that one is making the acquaintance of a human soul long vanished,
(NB, I mean the subject and not the artist!) and there isn't much to be
said short of a deeply felt gasp of awe and recognition of the continuity of
the human spirit. It is possible to spend a great deal of time appreciating
an individual painting of this type, but its charm is hardly opaque to a
first viewing. Furthermore, one feels "moved" rather than "engaged", I would
think.
One looks at a bichromatic Rothko panel, or a Pollock aerobic exercise,
and sees little, without the support of great tomes of justification. At
least, this is my experience.
I suspect Malgosia will object to the last statement. Very well.
I've already spent several hours trying to understand your position, and
might as well spend a few more. I'm sure there must be a Rothko or two among
the huge featureless canvases that I've breezed by in the post-Impressionist
section of the Art Institute of Chicago. I would like to put in the few
hours that you claim will allow me to "engage" this art. Can I do this
by standing in front of the piece itself? Or do I need to read some books
and attend some lectures? Does the piece have significant meaning in its
own terms, or mostly in the context of "art" "art museums" and "art theory"
as I suspect.
Perhaps my mind is closed, and I have to admit that seeing your point will
be made more diificult by the probable need to swallow my words if some
value to the experience that I do not suspect somehow arises. So address
yourself to some reader who is perplexed and hasn't yet committed themselves
to one side or the other. I am genuinely curious as to how one goes about
"engaging" an almost featureless canvas.
mt
Andy Pearlman
>In article <CE0ps...@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, m...@bogart.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas) writes:
>|> Michael Tobis writes:
>|> > I have enjoyed the discussion, but I still feel that apologists for modern
>|> > art are willfully missing the point. They think this sort of discussion is
>|> > exactly the point of art.
>thickheaded, stubborn, and rude, all of which interfere with my self-image.
Consider that you just painted 'apologists for modern art...think this sort of
discussion is exactly the point of art.' Think of the discussion as being an
extended analogy. The student is shown the problem. The student says I don't
get it. The teacher says, "Here is a way of looking at it."
Insert painting into this. This certainly does not mean that all modernist
paintings are wonderful. I tend to dislike a lot of them, especially ones
showing blatant lack of technical skill and those of a 'spiritual' bent(when
I say spiritual, I mean the ones that are painted to look spiritual, rather
than those that simply are)
You have just told the 'teacher', "That (analogy) is utterly stupid. There is
no point to understanding the problem." The teacher's response:"Then why are
you wasting my time by taking the course???"
>Similarly, running a restaurant, one takes an implicit position on what
>cuisine is and how it is conducted. But one would have trouble accepting a
>product which "exhausted itself" in gently satirizing the modern concept of
>a restaurant as a successful dinner. One might well be amused, but one would
>still be hungry.
Actually cuisine can do this, though it is harder to do without a professional
chef/foodtaster being the 'viewer'. A simple example might be serving an
absolutely gorgeous cake in the center of the table. Something that looked
like the chef spent hours on the presentation. It might be difficult to eat
your dinner at first, especially at a table of say 4, with waiters hovering
around you.
Another might be to make food in the shape/color of plates, forks, spoons, and
glasses. You are not served any food, but you get to eat.
Both of them are still meals, yet they definitely play around with restaurant =
dinner.
Andy Pearlman
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Tobis, about the issues of "impact" in contemporary art:
> I cannot diasgree that these issues exist, of course, nor that art inescapably
> takes some sort of implicit position with them. I can and certainly do
> disagree that this posturing is central or even important to art itself.
> Similarly, running a restaurant, one takes an implicit position on what
> cuisine is and how it is conducted. But one would have trouble accepting a
> product which "exhausted itself" in gently satirizing the modern concept of
> a restaurant as a successful dinner. One might well be amused, but one would
> still be hungry.
Restaurants exist to serve the desires of their particular patrons.
There are restaurants that provide more entertainment than food, and
some of them do resemble your description. Others simply serve food.
The latter exist because physical hunger is a recognized fact and its
satisfaction by institutions outside the home is a service that people
want.
Spiritual hunger is, in this society, not a recognized fact and I
don't see any widespread demands for its satisfaction. More precisely:
it is a recognized fact only in the realm of religion. There is
no recognition of it in a secular context and no public language to
talk about it.
> I claim that all these "proposals for solutions" are precisely irrelevant to
> the functions which traditionally attach to art, and that an object which
> which "exhausts itself" in taking such a position, however amusing, cannot
> itself be said to function as what I take to be art, for want of a better
> word.
What are the functions which traditionally attach to art? To give
visible expression to the glory of the rich and powerful? To propagate
the ideology of the Church? To properly entertain the rulers and satisfy
their spiritual needs? To properly entertain and satisfy the
spiritual needs of the rulers' subjects? I suspect that these are all
central to the traditional role of art, and they are just as
irrelevant to art today as art today is to them.
Who pays for art today? Why do they pay? What do they demand of the
artist? What role are artists expected to play in society? Who
determines this role? You seem to indicate that the role is
determined, and can be changed, simply by an effort on the part of artists
and critics, but I very much doubt that. To the extent that society
can be changed by the efforts of individuals, yes. But an individual
wanting to effect change could not -- I think -- do so simply by
making, or praising, certain kinds of paintings, however powerful and
moving. He would have to dedicate his life to effecting social/spiritual
change, most of which would involve activities very remote from
painting. The willingness to do so can be no more demanded of an artist
than of you and me.
In fact what I have tried to point out is that certain artists DID
devote their life to effecting these kinds of changes, two
notable examples being Cage and Beuys. But you dismiss Cage and Beuys
because their art does not take the traditional forms which you value
and which you think art should take. You seem to want art to be at the
same time transformative and traditional. It should be
transformative, but it should not demand a transformation of *you*.
> Similarly, the modern radical simplification in the *content* of artistic
> efforts is accompanied by an enormous expansion in the amount of *context*
> that accompanies it. One looks into a Durer portrait with the uncanny
> feeling that one is making the acquaintance of a human soul long vanished,
> (NB, I mean the subject and not the artist!) and there isn't much to be
> said short of a deeply felt gasp of awe and recognition of the continuity of
> the human spirit. It is possible to spend a great deal of time appreciating
> an individual painting of this type, but its charm is hardly opaque to a
> first viewing. Furthermore, one feels "moved" rather than "engaged", I would
> think.
> One looks at a bichromatic Rothko panel, or a Pollock aerobic exercise,
> and sees little, without the support of great tomes of justification. At
> least, this is my experience.
> I suspect Malgosia will object to the last statement. Very well.
No, I will not object. There is an expansion of the context, because
the surrounding context of art is no longer known and stable.
A painting destined for a museum is a very different kettle of fish
than a painting destined for a Catholic church.
This notion of being "moved", which I believe is very central to your
argument, is a bit tricky. You are trying to get at universals, but
I believe that being moved is actually the most personal, the least
universal aspect of art. There is no doubt that you and I are moved
by different things. What we get moved by has very much to do with
our personal history, and I am not sure it has that much to do with
any universal qualities of art. Slappy is moved by Leonardo; I am
not. You are moved by some works of Durer and so am I; but I suspect
that for very different reasons. I am moved by Beuys and told you
so; you find this fact so unassimilable that you feel compelled
to doubt either my seriousness or my honesty. Some of what for
me are the most profoundly moving artistic experiences leave
other people completely cold.
What I mean by "engagement" is the willingness to enter into a
dialogue with the work, to listen to its own voice rather than
trying to drown it out with one's own. Engagement is not a substitute
for being moved, but a prerequisite. I am sure you are not equally
moved by all art of Durer's time; but you are open to the possibility;
you are willing to enter into a dialogue. In the case of modern art,
this dialogue may indeed require reading tomes of justification and
doing a lot of thinking. The structure of art patronage is
such that the context of modern art is largely modern art itself.
Unless you are embedded in the context, you will not be able to engage
with the art until you have taken steps to understand the context.
Similarly, you would have to do a lot of preparation if you wanted
to engage with Noh theater. But the fact that you would have to do
such preparation is your problem, not Noh's. The fact that you
cannot unpreparedly relate to modern art is due to the fact that you
have treated modern art as a kind of foreign culture. You may decide
that familiarizing yourself with this culture is not worth your time
and effort; but that is *not* a judgement on the merits of
contemporary art as such. And it does not mean that those who are
willing to familiarize themselves with this context are somehow
disingenuous or misguided when they compare their relationship with
certain works of modern art to your relationship with Durer.
The issue of public support becomes relevant here. I fully agree that
if art functions in a certain context, then those to whom this context
is of no interest whatsoever should not be made to fund it, or else
those who manage the funds should place demands on the art for which
the funds are used. But the artistic merits or demerits of a Rothko piece
have little to do with the funds that paid for its acquisition.
The politics of art funding are irrelevant to judging the artistic
merits of a work, although they could obviously be relevant to
the kinds of works we get in the future.
Malgosia Askanas
Michael Tobis says:
> (I wish someone would tell me Malgosia's gender so I could avoid dancing
> around pronouns when referring to Malgosia...)
I herely grant you complete freedom to genderize me as you wish.
Lisa L Lock
about "`engaging' an almost featureless canvas." The following is a
paper I dug up that I had written for a class in March of 1988. In
order to write it, I did not consult "great tomes of justification"; I
consulted the painting itself. I sat far away from it. I looked at a
spot above the canvas so I could see it all at once. I moved very close
and stared at one spot on the canvas and let the rest drift out of focus.
I walked to the left. I walked to the right. I took notes and I came
back the next afternoon. Here is what I came up with. Please bear with
the length. I believe there are some good things in it...
#207 (Red over Dark Blue on Dark Grey)
by Mark Rothko
The reproducibility of art for books or prints is always suspect,
but for the works of mark Rothko, accurate reproduction is impossible.
Rothko's canvases are autonomous objects. Their power lies in their
actual physical presence--their size and their placement before the
viewer. #207 (Red over Dark Blue on Dark Grey), a work of Rothko's
late style creates an intermediate space between itself and the viewer
through a series of interrelationships in color tones and their placement
on the canvas. Rothko's paintings are not primarily about contrasting
color hues or the possible symbolic content in the geometry of stacked
rectangles. But they do create a mood expressive of the emotion the
artist had intended to promote in choosing each color, its size and
interdependence. Because of the directness of the confrontation between
the viewer and the painting and the nature of its abstraction, the work
mirrors the viewer's contemplation of it. Rothko's art is about how art
is perceived, and therefore the emotion can be clarified but not defined.
And the power of the emotion in #207 is in the contrast of the vibrancy
of the surface plane and solemn quiet of the space before it and through it.
#207, as a statement about how to view art, creates a unique
visual situation. The actuality of the painting is most aggresively
projected in the huge size of the canvas. And in relation to the viewer,
the large painting more accurately reflects the experience of both looking
and making. Intimacy exists in the largeness of the work. A painting
of human size is easier to enter than a small, intricate work. Rothko's
canvases invite entrance--they reach out for contemplation strongly enough
to captivate the viewer because they mirror human presence. #207 is
small enough so that all its edges can be seen at a glance while still
large enough to command attention. On a wall, it is vividly set off
from its environment in that the tensest area of the canvas (between the
red and the blue) lands at eye level, and the painting is framed on the
wall with no lines or angles to detract from it. Due to these conditions
and the flatness of the surface, the painting envelopes the viewer; instead
of projecting into our space, it creates its own neutral space and invites
us in.
This created space, however, depends on more than the flatness of
the picture. The application of paint, the lack of a frame, and the
optical effects of the surfaces all work to create a complex space, a
complex effect. But the mirror flatness of the canvas is the most
important factor to the ease of entry into the space. Rothko has applied
the dark grey to the entire canvas, even the sides, in such a manner as
to make it dye the linen, not sit on top as actual paint. But it is not
done mechanically or evenly; the artist lets his hand show. Brushstrokes
are visible, but nothing extends off the surface of the canvas. The
surface texture is neutral. This is best seen in the area of red. The
paint is punched on at the edges of the rectangle; the hairs of the brush
have been separated and paint is smudged, clotted, worked into the canvas.
The unevenness of application here works to great advantage because it lets
the grey underpainting shine through the brilliance of the red, making it
shimmer and suggest a depth behind the flatness. This depth is not produced
by three-dimensional recession or overlapping of objects. It does not
even clearly recede into the picture plane, like a window; but the
painting creates space by making the red seem to sit farther ahead of the
grey--to literally float into the space just in front of the surface.
The blue, in wonderful contrast, has a great effect next to the
red and the grey. It is not like the grey dye--it is a glossy, not a
matte surface. And by optical effect, our eyes place the blue deeper in
space than the grey. So with the red floating on the surface of the grey
and the blue sinking into infinity through it, the entire painting slides
in and out of itself, silently, without friction. In this way, Rothko
was a supreme colorist, achieving subtle effects of motion through the
simple proximity of color tones that breathe and expand. The flat surface
then, emphasized by characterists of color and thinned paint, holds in it
varied surfaces available to the eye alone. The picture plane assumes no
physical presence other than the visual, there is no texture, no tactile
quality, no violence or passion evident in the hand of the artist to
suggest the physicalness of touch. In this way, the space created is an
inviting space, mirroring the viewer's thoughts outside the work and
directly deals with the power of the emotions brought to it.
But there are too many other things happening here to categorize
this painting as simply an exploration of color relationships. Nor does
it only aspire to optical effect. I believe this work shows the nature
of perceiving art according to Rothko and other painters of his time--
art itself as a vehicle for revealing emotions already present in the
viewer, to exist as an object in and of itself but to be common to
human experience.
Red in #207, in contrast to the dark shades around it is
vibrant, full of life and immediacy; the blue gives a glimpse of infinity,
the quiet of death and inactivity. Somewhere in between, in the tenso
strip of grey between the red and blue, the viewer is allowed to stay.
One cannot stare into the red too long, yet cannot feel comfortable
falling into the blue forever either. In the suspense at eye level is
the energy of thought, between life and death, between motion and stability.
A strange effec occurs within the blue section of the canvas.
There is something electric in the blue that I knew could not be under-
painting as was the case with the red section. After looking closely,
I found a random pattern of royal blue pushed into the surface on top
of the dark blue. By a trick of the eye, the color relationship gives
the impression that one gets after looking into the sun too long and
blinking--a glowing bluish-purple light that separates itself from things
around it. And to echo this strange separation, the edges of the blue
rectangle are fuzzier than the red. It is a wider rectangle than the red,
and blends into the grey so intricately that it promotes the spacelessness
of the lower half by extending it horizontally.
To reiterate quickly, the power of #207 comes in the quiet contrast
of flatness and depth, motion and stillness, immediacy and infinity; color
and technique being merely vehicles. The emotion is then defined only
by the viewer's position in those contrasts, in the individual reaction
to the ideas presented in paint and space. This canvas only echoes the
vibrancy of life against the solemnity and quietude of eternity and
memory, fixing it in the present and making it available to the scrutiny
and contemplation of the viewer.
____________
And tha's my $.02 worth. Ultimately, you have to be there and you have
to look. Really look, and think about what you see and what it does to
what you think.
to...@skool.ssec.wisc.edu
|> Actually cuisine can do this, though it is harder to do without a professional
|> chef/foodtaster being the 'viewer'. A simple example might be serving an
|> absolutely gorgeous cake in the center of the table. Something that looked
|> like the chef spent hours on the presentation. It might be difficult to eat
|> your dinner at first, especially at a table of say 4, with waiters hovering
|> around you.
I don't get that one.
|> Another might be to make food in the shape/color of plates, forks, spoons, and
|> glasses. You are not served any food, but you get to eat.
Pretty good!
My vision is of a perfectly cubical white room, with a single perfectly
square white tableclothed table in the exact center. The exit door is
perfectly centered on one wall, and the door to the kitchen on the other.
A perfectly square menu would have a single item listed, with an
unrecognizeable name, perhaps something like "Concoction #17, 1993". When
you complied with the script by ordering it, you would recieve a perfect
hemisphere of cherry Jell-o centered on a white plate, and a perfectly
cylindrical glass of water. The bill would be $99.99 per person, unless the
chef was dead, in which case the bill would be $999.99 . (Note that Jell-o
molds keep for a long time, allowing the chef's family to take advantage of
this price hike. If the chef remorsefully commits suicide after eating a
fine meal at Chez Antoine, each Jell-o mold goes up to $9999.99 .)
Despite the limited seating, reservations would probably not be necessary.
|> Both of them are still meals, yet they definitely play around with restaurant =
|> dinner.
Absolutely. These sorts of ideas are certainly quite amusing.
Do you think you would be a regular customer at these restaurants?
Do you think they would do a very good business? Do you go to restaurants
for this sort of amusement? Is this sort of amusement comparable in value
to an excellent dinner? What value would going through the dinner have over
simply describing it?
mt
Andy Pearlman
>In article <28ik3h$3...@panix.com>, apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) writes:
>
>|> Actually cuisine can do this, though it is harder to do without a professional
>|> chef/foodtaster being the 'viewer'. A simple example might be serving an
>|> absolutely gorgeous cake in the center of the table. Something that looked
>|> like the chef spent hours on the presentation. It might be difficult to eat
>|> your dinner at first, especially at a table of say 4, with waiters hovering
>|> around you.
>I don't get that one.
Ever see the problem that occurs with taking the first bite and last one? If
the food looked like a work of art, you might be more than a little reluctant
to eat it.
>Absolutely. These sorts of ideas are certainly quite amusing.
>
>Do you think you would be a regular customer at these restaurants?
>Do you think they would do a very good business? Do you go to restaurants
>for this sort of amusement? Is this sort of amusement comparable in value
>to an excellent dinner? What value would going through the dinner have over
>simply describing it?
Well, no, I would not. But I happen to think that Chinese style white rice
is the best tasting food on earth. Plain. It just isn't worth the money for
me. But it is for some people.
Andy Pearlman