are artworks claiming to be ahead of their time a matter of artistic intent or critical conceit?
brigit bardot brigade
wushy critics merely make the claim so as to feel that THEY know and
understand something most of us just can't appreciate... yet.
if so, how come alot of supposedly 'ahead of its time' stuff from the
60s and 70s are completely forgotten except to a cultish bunch of
postmodernist aesthete ideologues?
Bob Grumman
brigade says...
>
>do artists set out to make something ahead of its time or do gushy
>wushy critics merely make the claim so as to feel that THEY know and
>understand something most of us just can't appreciate... yet.
Neither. Superior artists find it impossible to do the same thing everyone else
is doing, so they invent their way to various beyonds--that superior critics,
bored with the same tripe the superior artists are bored with, recognize as
interesting.
>if so, how come alot of supposedly 'ahead of its time' stuff from the
>60s and 70s are completely forgotten except to a cultish bunch of
>postmodernist aesthete ideologues?
Such as what? Much new art of the 60s and 70s has been forgotten because it
wasn't very good, just as much conventional art from those decades has for the
same reason. Some new art from those decades is widely admired, such as the
music of Philip Glass. Most of the best from those decades, however, has failed
to find wide recognition. I find it hard to explain why it's taken it so
long--longer than any comparable new art ever, it seems to me, to win proper
recognition. The strength of stasguards like you is a factor, of course, but
superior art always has Philistines blocking its way. Possibly the number of
cultural venues is lower now--a few gigantic publishing firms, movie-makers,
recording companies, tv networks, etc., dominate a business smaller fry no
longer have much chance to reach audiences from. A second important factor is
over-population. The more people there are, the more artists there will be
competing for acclaim, and the longer it will tend to take for any of them to
get it against so many others. There are many other factors, but I doubt you're
much interested, for you are clearly only out to bray against art you can't
understand, not to learn anything.
--Bob G.
G*rd*n
What are you thinking of? I haven't seen anything referred
to as being "ahead of its time" since I read old-timey
romanticizations of the lives of the Impressionists. But you
may be lapping up critical works by cultish bunches of
postmodernist aesthete ideologues of which I'm completely
unaware.
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 5/10/04 <-adv't
Bob Grumman
>to as being "ahead of its time" since I read old-timey
>romanticizations of the lives of the Impressionists.
Now that you mention it, that's not a phrase I us as a burstnorm poet/critic,
either. I tend to disparage those who run the poetry establishment in the U.S.
as being fify years behind the times (because they are dead to any poetry that
uses a technique not in wide-spread use fifty years ago), but I never speak of
my kind of poetry as being ahead of its time.
--Bob G.
dobe...@dropsocal.rr.com
>Now that you mention it, that's not a phrase I us as a burstnorm poet/critic,
>either. I tend to disparage those who run the poetry establishment in the U.S.
>as being fify years behind the times (because they are dead to any poetry that
>uses a technique not in wide-spread use fifty years ago), but I never speak of
>my kind of poetry as being ahead of its time.
Ever heard of "Time-For-The-Next-Stanza" poetry?
brigit bardot brigade
> brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade):
> > do artists set out to make something ahead of its time or do gushy
> > wushy critics merely make the claim so as to feel that THEY know and
> > understand something most of us just can't appreciate... yet.
> >
> > if so, how come alot of supposedly 'ahead of its time' stuff from the
> > 60s and 70s are completely forgotten except to a cultish bunch of
> > postmodernist aesthete ideologues?
>
>
> What are you thinking of? I haven't seen anything referred
> to as being "ahead of its time" since I read old-timey
> romanticizations of the lives of the Impressionists. But you
> may be lapping up critical works by cultish bunches of
> postmodernist aesthete ideologues of which I'm completely
> unaware.
well, all i be knowing is movies and movie folks always be saying
godard is 20 or 30 or 100 or 1000 yrs ahead of his time.
brigit bardot brigade
> In article <3cd79f7a.04073...@posting.google.com>, brigit bardot
> brigade says...
> >
> >do artists set out to make something ahead of its time or do gushy
> >wushy critics merely make the claim so as to feel that THEY know and
> >understand something most of us just can't appreciate... yet.
>
> Neither. Superior artists find it impossible to do the same thing everyone else
> is doing, so they invent their way to various beyonds--that superior critics,
> bored with the same tripe the superior artists are bored with, recognize as
> interesting.
is it really a matter of doing something DIFFERENT or doing something
BETTER?
and is there something of greater significance beyond the DIFFERENCE?
'time code' is a very different movie but it sucks. so does jeanne
dielmann. 'midnight run' and 'goodfellas' may not be original in
introducing radical new techniques but they are superior to just about
everything else out there, including all those dumbass avantgardish
pansyass movies.
>
> >if so, how come alot of supposedly 'ahead of its time' stuff from the
> >60s and 70s are completely forgotten except to a cultish bunch of
> >postmodernist aesthete ideologues?
>
> Such as what? Much new art of the 60s and 70s has been forgotten because it
> wasn't very good, just as much conventional art from those decades has for the
> same reason.
it's like this. take a 'conventional' painting that's been forgotten
cuz it wasn't great. but if you look at it, you can still say, 'ah,
what a nice painting of bread and fish or a naked woman or a vase with
flowers'. so even if its artistic merit may not be for all time, it's
about something that's for all time: bread and fish, naked woman, or a
vase with flowers. it may be identified as a 17th or 18th century
painting but there is something that beyond its immediate
historicality. we can always relate to bread and naked women.
but, alot of contemporary pop art stuff are purely about here and now,
about pissing on the zeitgeist or creating a new zeitgeist, and such
and such. once forgotten, they are forgotten forever. you might look
at an 18th painting that's been forgotten but still connect with what
its expression. but, once the socio-cultural context of contemporary
art is forgotten, the work becomes meaningless.
in timeless art, art serves to express themes beyond fashions and
artistic conceits. timeless artist is part of the continuum of art
tradition and history; even as he brings something new, he accepts
with respect and reverence his connection to the artistic past.
but modern and contemporary art is about art exploring itself or using
art as a tool for ideological discourse. exploring itself is
interesting but once you exhaust all possibilities, it's a dead end.
it's like taking a camera and shooting every inch of your body, like
john lennon did with his penis and feet. okay, but then what? it
becomes like a purebred dog. it grows sick thru inbreeding. art needs
health dosage of the real world; it shouldn't be fixated on the self
or to the ideological fashions and conceits of times.
if godard made seven samurai or saving private ryan, maybe it woulda
been interesting in an oddball way like his take on king lear. but,
no matter contemplative or ingenious, it's still about artistic
conceit, the equivalent of picking lice off one's pubes.
> Some new art from those decades is widely admired, such as the
> music of Philip Glass. Most of the best from those decades, however, has failed
> to find wide recognition. I find it hard to explain why it's taken it so
> long--longer than any comparable new art ever, it seems to me, to win proper
> recognition. The strength of stasguards like you is a factor, of course, but
> superior art always has Philistines blocking its way.
philip glass is a timeless artist. he's innovative but his works
connect to timeless themes. he's a very spiritual and philsophical
man, evinced in such works as 'metamorphosis' and 'kundun'.
my point, however, is that when the MAIN goal of art is setting itself
against tradition or convention or whatever, the emphasis is no longer
on expressing something than calling attention to its often gratuitous
or conceited novelty.
it's all about the artist's decadent priveleged bohemougeois ego
rather than something real in the world or about human feeling or
human thought.
i dunno know about you, but i'll take 'searchers', 'chimes at
midnight', 'seven samurai', and 'godfather' over 'jeanne dielmann' or
'cancer in the dark'.
i think whether an art is innovative or not, it should primarily have
something central and essential to convey. innovation should serve
the core timeless subject, not be a rationale in and of itself. this
is primarily true in narrative art which must tell some kind of story.
i suppose more intrinsically abstract forms of art like music and
sculpture can be weirder. but when a painting or a sculpture's main
message is 'i be different', i be maybe intrigued but not much moved.
> Possibly the number of
> cultural venues is lower now--a few gigantic publishing firms, movie-makers,
> recording companies, tv networks, etc., dominate a business smaller fry no
> longer have much chance to reach audiences from.
ah, the days when pop music was dominated by perry como and sinatra.
what diversity.
no, the problem is there's too much. also, 'innovation' has been
absorbed as THE NORM in the artistic community. nothing shocks
anymore so it's much harder to found one's reputation on 'originality'
or scandalousness. heck, i'll bet contemporary artists would want
nothing more than another jesse helms to raise a fuss about jesus in
urin or robert mappledork.
if a picasso arrived on today's scene and did some weird shit, most
people would say... 'BORING!'.
also, the concept of 'high art' is dead. there was a time when
educated middle class people thought some knowledge of high art was
crucial in being cultured, sophisticated, and modern. take shelly
winters in 'lolita'. a philistine boob but at least she tries. she
tries.. or sincerely pretends to admire van gogh, to know a thing or
two about modern art, etc.
but since the 60s, the concept of high art is dead. it's been Pop Art
and pop art. though early modern artists and avant gardists may have
seen themselves as anti-bourgeois and anti-high art, they were almost
exclusively admired by people with elite training and tastes. the
masses always prefered westerns and musicals, later tv and pop music.
but until the 60s, those aspiring to middle class status thought it
was imperative to know a thing or two about classical music, picasso,
and intellectual matters. most of them picked it up thru 'reader's
digest' or middle brow magazines like the New Yorker and some such.
and if you were hipper, you were into modern jazz. most were phonies
but real phonies. they really believed in their phony appreciation of
Art.
but in the 60s, this notion that there is something higher or worthier
has been tossed out the window so now the masses consume pop day in
and day out without any sense of guilt or restraint. in the 50s,
someone who loved pulp fiction over serious literature probably would
have insisted that he prefers serious literature... though secretly,
he spent more time reading detective thrillers and sci-fi. these
days, everyone's content to say, even brag, that his favorite author
is stephen king of whoeverizits. in fact, such a person is considered
truly democratic and honest compared to all those pretentious, stuffy,
elitist snobs.
what's ironic is that the most radical elements in our culture like
stuff that NO ONE--neither the masses nor the snobs--else likes. the
radical view is the snobs stand for white male patriarchal power
structure and the masses are brainwashed and fed from the corporate
cultural trough.
more ironic yet, some of the biggest defenders of pop culture crap are
radicals who claim to understand the hidden subversive subtext of
what's presumed to be just another dumb product. take the clever
critical tripe inspired by starship troopers.
but if indeed it's supposed to be artistically conspiratorially
subversive, what's the point of pointing it out? i guess parading
one's cleverness counts more than secretly aiding and abetting the
underground revolution and sabotaging the SYSTEM from inside out.
> A second important factor is
> over-population. The more people there are, the more artists there will be
> competing for acclaim, and the longer it will tend to take for any of them to
> get it against so many others.
wow, that's so true. the sparsely populated areas of the amazon forest
continue to produce many world-class artists.
and that explains why the 19th and 20th centuries produced nothing of
value. because of exponential population growth.
> There are many other factors, but I doubt you're
> much interested, for you are clearly only out to bray against art you can't
> understand, not to learn anything.
>
i'm still shellshocked from 'jeanne dielmann'. maybe, i'll recover one
of these days. til then, allow me to stick to stuff like 'duck you
sucker', 'once upon a time in the west', and 'once upon a time in
america'.
Bob Grumman
>> >wushy critics merely make the claim so as to feel that THEY know and
>> >understand something most of us just can't appreciate... yet.
>>
>>Neither. Superior artists find it impossible to do the same thing everyone else
>> is doing, so they invent their way to various beyonds--that superior critics,
>> bored with the same tripe the superior artists are bored with, recognize as
>> interesting.
>is it really a matter of doing something DIFFERENT or doing something
>BETTER?
>and is there something of greater significance beyond the DIFFERENCE?
Sure, but it's too complicated for me to go into.
--Bob G.
G*rd*n
> > > do artists set out to make something ahead of its time or do gushy
> > > wushy critics merely make the claim so as to feel that THEY know and
> > > understand something most of us just can't appreciate... yet.
> > >
> > > if so, how come alot of supposedly 'ahead of its time' stuff from the
> > > 60s and 70s are completely forgotten except to a cultish bunch of
> > > postmodernist aesthete ideologues?
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n):
> > What are you thinking of? I haven't seen anything referred
> > to as being "ahead of its time" since I read old-timey
> > romanticizations of the lives of the Impressionists. But you
> > may be lapping up critical works by cultish bunches of
> > postmodernist aesthete ideologues of which I'm completely
> > unaware.
brigit...@hotmail.com (brigit bardot brigade):
> well, all i be knowing is movies and movie folks always be saying
> godard is 20 or 30 or 100 or 1000 yrs ahead of his time.
I guess it's just one of those vacuous phrases critics like
to use, then, a holdover from the 19th-century conviction of
inevitable progress and uplift -- hence the great genius
gets progressed and uplifted ahead of everybody else because
he's such a superior being. It's like we're all going down
one road. "Ahead of his time" seems very retro. The future
ain't what it used to be, as the man said.
Maybe the movies are more into that sort of thing because
it's a younger art. There's still some sort of illusion of
progress.
Crowfoot
Ambitious artists are always pushing ahead, trying to discover the
not-quite-yet apparent Next Big Thing so they can get their name
attached to it; critics are always deciding whether or not to bet on the
artists who do "outrageous" things as The Next Big Thing -- or not.
It's a game, and there's no satisfactory ending to it, since what's
"great" today may be pushed aside and forgotten fifty years from now, or
a hundred, or five hundred; and/or rediscovered and adored. See the
career of Shakespeare's plays, which have gone in and out of fashion.
It's a game, utlimately futile, but it's also one of the best games
around, IMO. Better than war, anyway.
C
--
Crow
brigit bardot brigade
such games didn't end hitler.
Crowfoot
Of course not; but neither does war, in the long run. There's always
another one -- Milosvic, Idi Amin -- in the wings.
C.
--
Crow
miss guydid
it's like rats. trapping them won't end em but we gotta keep trapping.