why i ignore modern art
Melynda Reid
In article <ceicher-07...@bellevue-ip11.halcyon.com> (rec.arts.fine), cei...@halcyon.com (Charles Eicher) writes:
> However, if I may make an observation: What good is it to have a deep
> understanding of ancient art, but not modern art? My particular school had
> this weakness, even the dean said that there wasn't anything worth teaching
> about since the 1930s. If you're going to be an artist in modern society,
> you better learn the modern language.
> -------------------
> Charles Eicher
> CEi...@Halcyon.com
> -------------------
it is much easier to pretend to an understanding of ancient art because so
much has been destroyed. modern art has not yet been sieved by time to allow
fewer works for study. i do not confine my studies to ancient art. i read
scientific literature in a number of disciplines, and am currently drafting a
proposal for a research project in metabolism, trying to develop an auto-
nomically structured map of metabolic processes to provide a meta-language
for discourse across disciplinary lines in the biological and medical
sciences. it is more efficient for me to study modern scientific literature
than to study contemporary art. contemporary art might be very good but it is
so hard to find and study works which are worth the time to study. in the
sciences literature is peer-reviewed and thus it is easier to find the
classic texts and generative works and theories.
i study art not from an expressive viewpoint but from an interest in the process
of description and communication. ancient art had explicit rules. modern art
appears to be idiosyncratic in its use of symbols and signs. i do not have
the time to study everything so i use my time selectively. it is perhaps intellectual
laziness on my part. but i like being surprised by my own ignorance as well
as the superior knowledge of other people. the modern language i know is one
derived from four decades of studying biological nomenclatures.
so even though i may be lost in ancient art i am also immersed in
contemporary scientific discourse. to each his or her own universe of choices.
melynda
melynda reid who wears hats but does not type caps
eel: mel...@titipu.resun.com or nosc.mil!titipu.resun.com!melynda
snail: p o box 378 greensboro, florida 32330
Timothy Collins
Melynda how do you meld these interests in biological nomenclature and art.
I find your description "Anatomically structured map of metabolic process
to provide a meta language for discussion across disciplinary lines in
biology and science". To be interesting but a little vague.... what is it
your doing in simple language?
Charles Eicher
: it is much easier to pretend to an understanding of ancient art because
so
: much has been destroyed. modern art has not yet been sieved by time to
allow
: fewer works for study. i do not confine my studies to ancient art. i read
: scientific literature in a number of disciplines, and am currently
drafting a
: proposal for a research project in metabolism, trying to develop an auto-
: nomically structured map of metabolic processes to provide a
meta-language
: for discourse across disciplinary lines in the biological and medical
: sciences. it is more efficient for me to study modern scientific
literature
: than to study contemporary art. contemporary art might be very good but
it is
: so hard to find and study works which are worth the time to study. in the
: sciences literature is peer-reviewed and thus it is easier to find the
: classic texts and generative works and theories.
: i study art not from an expressive viewpoint but from an interest in the
process
: of description and communication. ancient art had explicit rules. modern
art
: appears to be idiosyncratic in its use of symbols and signs.
Rarely have I heard something so completely off-target. Perhaps you are
mistaking the fact that we now, in retrospect, understand more about
'ancient artists' were trying to achieve, and perhaps you're
misunderstanding the art historians efforts at attaching a theory to
everything. This is an incredibly naive concept of art. Just because you
can go into a museum and see works neatly categorized does not mean the
artists actually created them to fit into neat categories. In fact, most
artists, even 'ancient' artists challenged the categories that people put
them into.
I think what you're really getting at, is that you just don't understand
abstract art. Yes, abstract art often is idiosyncratic in its use of signs
and symbols. And so is your research project in biochemistry. No, I'm not
being malicious, its true. Good abstract art (well, some anyway) strips
away the object; the subject is a set of signs and symbols. Art might even
be described as "an autonomically structured map of a meta-language for
discourse across disciplinary lines" (although anyone who actually would
work with this concept has taken too many classes in semiotics).
I don't see how it is possible to view art separate of its 'expressive
viewpoint' as this is the fundamental aspect of all art-creating
activities.
By the way, most artists do not view destruction of artworks by the erosion
of time as a sieve that makes surviving works worthy of study, merely by
their survival. And if you want 'peer review' then I suggest you attend any
juried art show, or attend any modern art museum with a curator (all of
them) or pick up a copy of ArtForum (or any other art magazine with
professional critics). All of these will provide you with prefabricated
opinions so you can avoid any intellectual efforts. And it DOES take
intellectual effort to deal with abstract ideas.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean or malicious. I just believe you ought to
think for yourself. And think deeply.
Vladimir Nakobov once was asked about what made someone a great writer. He
replied, "There are no great writers, only great readers." And I believe
this is true about artists too. View as much art as you can, in as many
different styles as possible, ALL art is worthy of consideration (to some
degree). View enough great art, and perhaps you will come to a great
understanding of art.
Malgosia Askanas
Charles Eicher wrote in response to Melynda:
>Perhaps you are
>mistaking the fact that we now, in retrospect, understand more about
>'ancient artists' were trying to achieve, and perhaps you're
>misunderstanding the art historians efforts at attaching a theory to
>everything. This is an incredibly naive concept of art.
I don't think Melynda's post was attempting to offer any concept
of art; I read it as a statement of her personal interests. She
is particularly interested in art as an activity of developing
systems of signs for description and communication. From this point
of view, she believes that the study of ancient art is more
_efficient_ than the study of contemporary art, and she offered
reasons for her belief.
>I think what you're really getting at, is that you just don't understand
>abstract art. Yes, abstract art often is idiosyncratic in its use of signs
>and symbols. [...] Good abstract art (well, some anyway) strips
>away the object; the subject is a set of signs and symbols.
This may well be true; but it does not mean that contemporary
abstract art is the _best_ art to learn from if you are predominantly
interested in this aspect.
>I don't see how it is possible to view art separate of its 'expressive
>viewpoint' as this is the fundamental aspect of all art-creating
>activities.
It seems to me that she has just described her _own_ expressive
viewpoint, which, like everyobody's, finds material expression
not just in the kind of art she makes but also in the choices of
art on which she concentrates her studies.
>
>Sorry, I'm not trying to be mean or malicious. I just believe you ought to
>think for yourself. And think deeply.
I would say that her post describes exactly the way in which she thinks
for herself; you want her to think in some way other than her own.
John Colasante
scientific literature in a number of disciplines, and am currently drafting a
proposal for a research project in metabolism, trying to develop an auto-
nomically structured map of metabolic processes to provide a meta-language
for discourse across disciplinary lines in the biological and medical
sciences. it is more efficient for me to study modern scientific literature
than to study contemporary art. contemporary art might be very good but it is
so hard to find and study works which are worth the time to study. in the
sciences literature is peer-reviewed and thus it is easier to find the
classic texts and generative works and theories.
Sheesh Melynda, I wish I could understand what you're talking about because
it sure sounds interesting. Too bad there isn't some sort of remedial
guide to "art-speak" so I could at least contribute. :):)
Andy Pearlman
>Melynda Reid (mel...@titipu.resun.com) wrote:
>: it is much easier to pretend to an understanding of ancient art because
>so
>: much has been destroyed. modern art has not yet been sieved by time to
>allow
>: fewer works for study. i do not confine my studies to ancient art. i read
>process
>: of description and communication. ancient art had explicit rules. modern
>art
>: appears to be idiosyncratic in its use of symbols and signs.
>Rarely have I heard something so completely off-target. Perhaps you are
>mistaking the fact that we now, in retrospect, understand more about
>'ancient artists' were trying to achieve, and perhaps you're
>misunderstanding the art historians efforts at attaching a theory to
>everything. This is an incredibly naive concept of art. Just because you
>can go into a museum and see works neatly categorized does not mean the
>artists actually created them to fit into neat categories. In fact, most
>artists, even 'ancient' artists challenged the categories that people put
>them into.
I don't think that was the gist. Generally time tends to separate the good
from the bad, simply because a lot more effort goes into preserving the good.
Usually. Modern art, other than the sense of 'I know good art when I see
it.' simply does not have any standards, whatsoever. There are enough
famous technically incompetent artists out there right this moment from
the 20th century to show that one.
>I think what you're really getting at, is that you just don't understand
>abstract art. Yes, abstract art often is idiosyncratic in its use of signs
>being malicious, its true. Good abstract art (well, some anyway) strips
>away the object; the subject is a set of signs and symbols. Art might even
>be described as "an autonomically structured map of a meta-language for
>discourse across disciplinary lines" (although anyone who actually would
>work with this concept has taken too many classes in semiotics).
The number of artists who actually really understand that is miniscule. So
either they don't comprehend their own work or that is not a valid theory.
Neither of which is acceptable in my eyes.
Andy Pearlman
--
Andy Pearlman
apea...@panix.com
"Someone stole all the paintings in a museum, leaving a building as a ransom
note." "What did it say?" "I don't know, the writer's a deconstructionist."