British work of art
Malrassic Park
Acar
"Malrassic Park" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rb3o9215r0ag6l6h9...@4ax.com...
> http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=302868&ssid=68&sid=LIF
Is modern art riddled with travesties or is art moving toward greater and
greater validation of the subjective? In any case the tortured explanation
of the curators is a poor excuse for a red face.
fred...@papertig.com
> http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=302868&ssid=68&sid=LIF
Good one, Mal. Very funny.
Fred Weiss
Mark N
John Alway
Acar wrote:
> "Malrassic Park" <Male...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rb3o9215r0ag6l6h9...@4ax.com...
> > http://www.zeenews.com/znnew/articles.asp?aid=302868&ssid=68&sid=LIF
Very funny. Mindful of the German street cleaner who thought a
modern work of "art" was simply rubbish on the road to be removed, so
he did his job, and I thank him for it.
> Is modern art riddled with travesties or is art moving toward greater and
> greater validation of the subjective? In any case the tortured explanation
> of the curators is a poor excuse for a red face.
Modern art is a hoax, a practical joke on the patrons. People who
walk around such museums waxing poetically about the art are simply
dupes in a giant con game. This is demonstrated over and over again,
as trash collectors and even museum curators mistaken modern art for
junk and junk for modern art.
...John
Acar
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151102390.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Modern art is a hoax, a practical joke on the patrons. People who
> walk around such museums waxing poetically about the art are simply
> dupes in a giant con game. This is demonstrated over and over again,
> as trash collectors and even museum curators mistaken modern art for
> junk and junk for modern art.
We see that in literarture as well.
As art becomes more and more subjective it is more prone to differences of
opinion. Fortunately or unfortunately "objective art" is an oxymoron. The
Russian school from which Ayn Rand escaped insisted on accesible art, art
that could be easily understood by the general public. This happened at a
time when modern art was exploding in the free world. Russian artists felt
constricted and oppressed by the objective criteria that were imposed on
them.
If we believe in freedom then we have to endure the messiness that
individual freedom implies, especially in the arts, which by definition
exist for an outward expression of the subjective. You are talking of course
about the consensus of the common man. Yet, a concensus of experts is as
close as we can come to some objective yardstick for the value of a work of
art, but the incident at hand shows how confidently we put our own
subjective judgment above those objective criteria. Objective is not
necessarily factual in the conventional sense of those terms.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> Modern art is a hoax, a practical joke on the patrons.
Why do you assert that opinion as though it were a fact.
Art judgement has always been and always will be subjective.
Beauty/Ugliness is in your head, not Out There.
> People who
> walk around such museums waxing poetically about the art are simply
> dupes in a giant con game. This is demonstrated over and over again,
> as trash collectors and even museum curators mistaken modern art for
> junk and junk for modern art.
You might have a point there. Refer to -The Emporeer and His New
Clothes- by Hans Christian Anderson.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
You seem to be expressing the viewpoint given by Ayn Rand regarding
the schism of Romantic art and Naturalistic art.
She also said that Modern Art was based on Naturalism. If Naturalisim
is bad, then so was Modern art.
Students of her ideas have to a great extent accepted her ideas of art with
fervor and without question, and the development of Objectivist philosophy
insofar as ideas regarding art have pretty much stopped there.
Rand developed her theories of Romanticism, especially, regarding
movies and literature, in terms of her newly identified ideas of ethics and
the wonderful spirit of the individual person.
Rand's ideas regarding the conventional divisions of the arts followed
the patterns previously understood, and these are, literature, drama,
painting, sculpture, and music. They are the fine Arts. She, apparently,
did not hold that architecture and photography are art.
End of discussion?
But music is not representational, and all the other arts she accepts are
representational and figurative.
Nor is music expressed in terms of durable materials. The elastic medium
of air is not that durable. Music is comprised of patterns of acoustic waves
that are arranged according to inventive epistemological concepts and
structures of melodic and harmonic effects. The perceived effects result
in intellectual realizations and esthetic emotions.
Music is similar to architecture in every way, for example, the perceptible
effects and inventions are arranged with respect to the artist's
metaphysical viewpoints, sense of life, beauty, order, drama, and direct
experience of reality.
Architecture is said to be differentiated from the other arts by its
practical purposes. However, esthetic emotions are also practical.
Architecture qualifies as an art due to the durability of the materials used
in its expression.
And music is practical too: it has an ethical and aesthetic purpose and
real-life result just as does architecture. Architecture then has two types
of practicality, the existential practical and the esthetic-emotional.
Music is similar to architecture in still one more way: they are both
non-representational and non-figurative. They are both expressive in terms
of abstract mathematical or geometrical representations, and emotional-
aesthetic concepts are the main deal with both art forms.
At this time I won't discuss the Naturalistic or Romanticist concepts of
music and architecture, nor is stylization within the scope of this article.
I say that both music and architecture are arts.
This is a single example of a discussion that takes esthetics one
more step beyond what has been previously produced or written
in the aesthetics of Objectivism.
Some Modern Art is indeed a hoax; and the artist cons the patron into
believing that some beneficial aesthetic or metaphysical value is being
portrayed when there is only horror or destruction, for example.
And some Modern Art, notably, Surrealism, is outright Nihilistic, is
destructive of the happiness of human beings and also of the human
intellect and emotions.
Those forms of Modern Art are subjectivist.
What of a Rachmaninoff symphony? Or of Frank LLoyd Wright's Falling
Water house? If you owned that house, wouldn't that music be appropriate
for the house at times.
Are those not art? Are they not modern?
I say that Objectivist philosophy of art and aesthetics can continue to
be written. Ayn Rand wrote magnificently and truly, and she said to the
audience at the Ford Hall Forum, regarding what is next for philosophy,
"and now it is up to you."
Cannot more be written about art? Cannot we evaluate and build more
philosophy on that base?
Is there not a Modern Art that is not based in subjectivism, rather, one
that is based upon objective reality and rationality?
I term the arts of music, architecture, and dance the Formal Arts.
I've written and lectured on this matter before, and cannot say more
at this time. I think that you get the idea.
What about the other arts? The representational ones? For example,
literature, drama, painting, sculpture, and music? I term them these
arts the Conceptual Arts.
Architecture is an abstract representation of the artist's reality and life.
Modern Art? Lets let the term remain associated with subjectivism, and
lets start with a new term, the Formal Arts, to express a rational
architecture, music, and dance.
Mondrian's painting, "Broadway Boogie Woogie", that has a lot of
squares in busy linear patterns, is a semi-representational picture. His
simpler ones that have just a number of color squares are more
Formal only. They are expressions delight in terms of principles of
design and geometry in every bit the same way that a music composition
uses invention, drama, measurement, or intervals.
There needs to be space for some modern art in the non-subjective
rational world. Is say that such paintings and sculpture are more
properly sub-classes of the larger class of architecture, and they need
to be moved from the Conceptual arts, or former Fine Arts, into the
formal arts.
This type of thinking about Modern Art yielded another thought that I have
written about. I believe that the materials of which works of art are made
are insufficient for the classification of the arts. What the works say
should determine their classifications. Each of the arts has certain
potentials for the expression of ideas and emotions, and so on, and the
causes for expression, both potential and actual, break down neatly into
the Aristotelian Four Causes: Material, Efficient, Formal, and Final.
The Final Cause is the main idea for the creation of works of art; it is
the demonstration in ideas and/or in actuality of the other three causes.
It integrates the causes into a finished result. That is, the materials, the
principles and tools, and the artist's purposes for the work.
Ralph Hertle
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151102390.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
"John Alway" <jal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151102390.5...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>