Is art absolute?
Stephen P. Guthrie
then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
that determines whether something like this is art. Do works like this have
more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps), other
than their historical or documentary value in the development of an
important artist, that if exactly the same work was done by a 4 year old
during recess, for example. In the same category, I would include those pictures
I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at random.
So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value or is is dependent on the
context in which it was created, who created it, etc. Or is this a stupid
question?
Ron Hogan
>I suppose this isn't really the right newsgroup to pose this question, but
>then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
You'd never know it, half the time :)
I fall back on the hoary chestnut, "I don't know much about art, but
I know what I like". As a pop culture person, I'm not one to valorize
the acadmeic or the museum context as the sole arbiter of art. As a
guy whos up at 330am listening to a homeless person outside my apt. window,
seven floors below, singing with a voice better than 90% of what I hear
on the radio, I'm also not inclined to be too limiting in my definition
of art, and its necessary contexts for creation.
>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value or is is dependent on the
>context in which it was created, who created it, etc. Or is this a stupid
>question?
Remember-- the only stupid question is the one you don't ask. As for
art, go with what moves you. Ever see that scene in Ferris Bueller's
Day Off when Cameron stands transfixed in front of the Seurat painting,
completely absorbed in it, getting deeper and deeper into the dots in
a series of ever-tighter close ups? A reaction like that always strikes
me as a good criteria for consideration as art, and for me it applies
to everything from Turner and Freidrich, Patrick O'Brian and Thomas Hardy,
Miles Davis and Van Morrison and the list could go on and on for hours...
Ron Hogan
rho...@usc.edu
copyright 1993 Ron Hogan
Ted B Samsel
I was once "bounced" from an artsy-fartsy party where we
(DS Phantom, Anna Livia Tinkerbelle, and my alter -ego
Bosco da Gama) were awarded an "honour" by the Texas Assn of
Small Presses. This was after making the pronouncement that
"ART lives down the street; he lets me borrow his tools."
Now that's absolute. Sort of.
--
Ted....
Stephen P. Guthrie
Eric Andrew Rauchway
s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) wrote:
> I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
> considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
> background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
> scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
> that determines whether something like this is art. Do works like this have
> more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
> themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
> make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps)
Wal, since this is the book newsgroup (whether or not that implies an
intelligent, or even literate, constituency deponent sayeth not) I feel I
might recommend a short, and, within the art world,
regarded-with-nervous-loathing book: Tom Wolfe, _The Painted Word_.
Contained therein you will find a democratized complaint againt modern art,
art-as-theory, and the sort of stuff you seem to find puzzling, if not
objectionable. Besides, Tom Wolfe is always good for a chuckle or two,
even if you don't particularly agree with him.
Eric Rauchway
Department of History
Stanford University
Consider everything heretofore disclaimed by said department and
university.
Those who do not remember history are doomed to flunk my class.
Vance Maverick
No, art is not "absolute" -- it's for use. Fortunately, there are no
guidelines for its use, and it's always possible that a painting you
can't figure out how to use does wonders for me, or that a painting
once loved becomes pointless, for a person or a whole culture.
I'm sorry you didn't like the paintings, but that's not really ground
for any conclusion other than that you didn't figure out how to enjoy
them. As to why they're in the Pompidou -- that just means that
people with the right kind of power enjoyed them, and/or hoped the
visitors would.
Vance
Stewart Tame
>then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
I took the liberty of adding rec.arts.fine to the distribution. There's
a similar discussion in progress there.
>The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
>recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
>Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>that determines whether something like this is art.
Hoo boy! Don't give us any easy questions now . . . :-) First of all,
whether or not something is art depends partly on the observer. You may
want to experiment with a game I used to play with myself that got me
interested in modern art in the first place. Instead of automatically
deciding whether something is or isn't art, ask yourself, "Hmmmm . . .
obviously *somebody* thought this was art or it wouldn't be in a museum.
Now what could they have seen in it that I'm missing?" You might want
to keep a few rules in mind:
1. Paintings (and sculptures and so forth) do *not* necessarily have to
be "of" something. Some paintings are simply experiments in color
or shape. Some sculptures are simply attempts to manipulate space
in interesting ways. Once cameras were invented, artists began to
break away from strict representation.
2. Humor is not an invalid artistic impulse. Just because something makes
you chuckle doesn't mean it's not art. Marcel Duchamp is my favorite
example of this . . .
3. Artistic decisions can sanctify otherwise ordinary objects. This sounds
silly, I know, but it's true. Duchamp, who produced most of his work
in the early part of the century, said, "In the future, the artist will
merely point to designate art," or words to that effect. For instance,
Duchamp bought an iron rack for drying bottles and signed his name on
it and now it's a recognized work of art. Carl Andre (unless I'm
getting him confused with someone else) takes ordinary bricks and
stacks them in geometric patterns and this is art.
4. Once a particular work makes it into the art history texts then for
all intents and purposes it "is" art and there's nothing you can do
about it. :-)
>Do works like this have
>more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
>themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
>make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps), other
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Artists don't always have important points to make. In fact the Dadaists
explicitly avoided making any important points, which was, in itself, an
important point. :-) Isn't art fun?
>than their historical or documentary value in the development of an
>important artist, that if exactly the same work was done by a 4 year old
>during recess, for example. In the same category, I would include those pictures
>I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at random.
>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value or is is dependent on the
>context in which it was created, who created it, etc. Or is this a stupid
>question?
Art is somewhat dependent on the artist. For instance, once an artist
hits it big, all of his or her early work is immediately "discovered" and
rexamined in the light of newfound success. I really don't think art
*can* have an absolute value since it's such a subjective thing as to
whether or not it *is* art in the first place.
-- Stewart "hope all this babbling helps" Tame
High Priest, Universal Church of Barney
Keeper of the Death In June discography
I understand it's obligatory to mention Kibo somewhere in one's postings.
============================================================================
Email: st...@emunix.emich.edu | Disclaimer: Eastern Michigan University
-------------------------------- and all employees thereof fully agree
Snailmail: Stewart Tame | with my opinions. The Easter Bunny told
311 Jarvis, Apt. 103 | me so.
Ypsilanti, MI 48197-2462|____________________________________________
============================================================================
"Dear diary, today I ditched the wife and kids and discovered the grisly
pleasure of necrophilia." -- The Dysfunctional Family Circus
Mark Taranto
> Artists don't always have important points to make.
Absolutely true -- but try telling that to them.
Mark
INFIDEL
>s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) wrote:
>> I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>> considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>> background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>> scissors and colored paper could do.
If Guthrie saw the exhibit in a respectable gallery then it's there
because a big blue square on a white background hasn't been done before,
at least not by a "respectable" artist. A preschooler who did the same
thing wouldn't get exhibited because everyone knows they can't be aware
of art history, their place in the history of art.
Some artists reckon that sacrificing the content for the sake of an
aesthetic to such a great extent (so as to get to the right point in art
history) is a load of bullshit. Even the artist that created it knows
that it's just a piece of fluff (don't be deceived by cheap reviewers'
seriousness), but that's where art's at these days.
(Last year's Australian Contemporary Art exhibition in Melbourne was one
of the most depressing things I saw that year. The most interesting
stuff was by an Italian; the most interesting art these days seems to be
coming out of places like Vietnam, where modernization is clashing with
tradition. There's still a lot of skill involved there.)
>> So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>> that determines whether something like this is art. Do works like this have
>> more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
>> themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
>> make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps)
>Wal, since this is the book newsgroup (whether or not that implies an
>intelligent, or even literate, constituency deponent sayeth not) I feel I
>might recommend a short, and, within the art world,
>regarded-with-nervous-loathing book: Tom Wolfe, _The Painted Word_.
>Contained therein you will find a democratized complaint againt modern art,
>art-as-theory, and the sort of stuff you seem to find puzzling, if not
>objectionable.
A "democratized" complaint against modern art? You mean, he's managed to
spread around his own opinions in such a way that you think he's
speaking for everyone?
Sounds familiar. See the manifesto of the Australijski Soviet
Artisticzny, aka Australia Council for the Arts, the Australian government
arts funding body.
>Eric Rauchway
>Department of History
>Stanford University
>Consider everything heretofore disclaimed by said department and
>university.
>Those who do not remember history are doomed to flunk my class.
Conversely, I should hope those that don't flunk actually understand something
of history.
jw
Michael Feld
For a fine send-up of this issue, see "Calvin and Hobbes", July 20,
1993.
--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada
Eric Andrew Rauchway
wrote:
>
> rauc...@leland.stanford.edu (Eric Andrew Rauchway) writes:
>
> >Wal, since this is the book newsgroup (whether or not that implies an
> >intelligent, or even literate, constituency deponent sayeth not) I feel I
> >might recommend a short, and, within the art world,
> >regarded-with-nervous-loathing book: Tom Wolfe, _The Painted Word_.
> >Contained therein you will find a democratized complaint againt modern art,
> >art-as-theory, and the sort of stuff you seem to find puzzling, if not
> >objectionable.
>
> A "democratized" complaint against modern art? You mean, he's managed to
> spread around his own opinions in such a way that you think he's
> speaking for everyone?
>
> Sounds familiar. See the manifesto of the Australijski Soviet
> Artisticzny, aka Australia Council for the Arts, the Australian government
> arts funding body.
>
>
critiques modern art while keeping the problems of taste and democracy in
mind. If you've read the book, I suspect you know what I mean.
I know nothing of the Australian Council for the Arts, but if it is
anything like analogous Canadian organizations, I expect your sovietization
of the name, if exaggerated, is somewhat accurate.
> >Eric Rauchway
> >Department of History
> >Stanford University
> >Consider everything heretofore disclaimed by said department and
> >university.
> >Those who do not remember history are doomed to flunk my class.
>
> Conversely, I should hope those that don't flunk actually understand something
> of history.
>
You bet your Aussie patootie they do, pal.
Bud Noren
[...]
: I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
: considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
: background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
: scissors and colored paper could do.
[...]
You always hear this when milling around modern art museums:
"Even *I* could have done *that*!"
The best response I've ever come across was:
"But you didn't."
-Bud
Helen Rhine
: then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
: The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
: recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
: Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
I know precisely what you mean. I was at the Pompidou center last
summer and spent 20 minutes looking at an alcove which had a piano,
a roll of carpet, and a couple of cardboard cartons in it, trying to
determine if it was "art" or redecorating. In the section I was in,
either option was possible. So tell me, did you see an alcove with the
piano and the carpet in it? If so, it was probably "art" I was looking
at because they would likely have finished the redecorating by now.
Regards,
Helen Rhine
MICHAEL WISE
It were art. I remember it from 1990.
I'm not particularly fond of museums; I find it boring to go around looking
at pictures. So slowly, as I Interrailed around Europe and hit most of the
big museums, I began to see a narrative forming. Looking at pictures is
just looking at pictures, and is particularly difficult when you don't
know what pictures you're looking at. The truth is, we do not understand
the language of painting. It has developed over centuries, and its figures
were as recognizable as we say the night sky was to the ancients. Then,
the paintings are scattered all over the world, like pieces of a puzzle.
So in Europe, I was determined to put some of the pieces together. I took
Miro's sculptures in Munich and connected them with his paintings in Spain,
took Botticellis from Munich to Florence to Madrid, and wove them into a
tapestry of symbols (I was astonished by the triptych in Madrid; which
I still have not figured out), took Picassos from Antibes to childhood
pieces in Barcelona (there is a great series of studies for Velasquez's
"Las Menin~as", done in Picasso's own style) to Paris. I collected
Madonnas (Gaugin does a splendid Madonna with a Tahitian woman in labor),
saints (a saint can often be recognized by what he carries, whether it's
keys, a sword, or a mouth organ), stories, royals (not too interesting),
but I also collected more than a thousand years of aesthetic dispute and
one-upsmanship, all written into the canvas. I took notes on paintings I
found interesting, and compared those notes with other paintings all over
Europe.
What I seem to be saying is that art is not a passive experience, but an
active one, like reading a difficult author like Joyce. I would get excited
when I picked out a symbol, or knew a painting before I looked at the
plaque. But, like books, no one can describe the experience well enough
to replace actually doing the footwork, putting the pieces together your-
self. Art exists only in its relation to other art, society, culture,
religion, folklore, and, most important, the individual mind of the observer.
___________________________________________________________________________
Michael Wise (wwhi...@nevada.edu) UNLV English
"Now I want you to tell me just one thing more. Why do you hate the South?"
"I dont hate it," Quentin said quickly, at once, immediately; "I dont
hate it," he said. I dont hate it he thought, panting in the cold air,
the iron New England dark: I dont. I dont. I dont hate it! I dont hate it!
--William Faulkner, Absalom! Absalom!
Lisa S Chabot
>> ... I was at the Pompidou center last
>>summer and spent 20 minutes looking at an alcove which had a piano,
>>a roll of carpet, and a couple of cardboard cartons in it, trying to
>>determine if it was "art" or redecorating. In the section I was in,
>>either option was possible. So tell me, did you see an alcove with the
>>piano and the carpet in it? If so, it was probably "art" I was looking
>>at because they would likely have finished the redecorating by now.
MICHAEL WISE enlightens:
>It were art. I remember it from 1990.
Oh, dang. I was hoping for something like "No Knife" which recent techies
may have seen in the Hayden Gallery, and which has been captured in print in
_The_Journal_of_the_Institute_for_Hacks,_TomFoolery,_and_Pranks_at_MIT_.
"No Knife" (if I remember correctly) consisted of a cafeteria tray holding
an almost complete place setting, plus a plaque (with commentary--which
is a hoot: check out the book).
--
The good ended happily and the bad unhappily:
that is what "fiction" means.
Unseasonably Cloudy
>Helen Rhine asks:
>>> ... I was at the Pompidou center last
>>>summer and spent 20 minutes looking at an alcove which had a piano,
>>>a roll of carpet, and a couple of cardboard cartons in it, trying to
>>>determine if it was "art" or redecorating. In the section I was in,
>>>either option was possible. So tell me, did you see an alcove with the
>>>piano and the carpet in it? If so, it was probably "art" I was looking
>>>at because they would likely have finished the redecorating by now.
>
>MICHAEL WISE enlightens:
>It were art. I remember it from 1990.
If you think that's confusing, you have to hear my story... I had a
friend who was working in the Williams College Museum of Art (not a
big place, but not shabby either), and who wanted me to see some
exhibit of African Masks. So I went, never having been there before.
After I saw the masks exhibit, I went into some other rooms, and one
was being fixed up; in another along with the paintings & a couple of
sculptures were three big huge folded pieces of felt-like material on
the floor. They were folded diagonally, like a napkin... I liked the
material so I leaned over and lifted part of it to feel it.
My friend flipped out! This was in fact a piece of art.
I refolded it, but it was obviously a little out of line. I still feel
horrible about it. The line between art and redecoration is so thin
these days...
...sharon
--
/// Yes, he had tried psychiatric help, but the shrink had
accomplished nothing except making Kevin a heroin addict.
-Daniel Pinkwater ///
< 95...@williams.edu >
Andrew Dinn
>In article <1993Jul19....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>,
>s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) wrote:
>
>> I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>> considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>> background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>> scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>> that determines whether something like this is art. Do works like this have
>> more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
>> themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
>> make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps)
>
>Wal, since this is the book newsgroup (whether or not that implies an
>intelligent, or even literate, constituency deponent sayeth not) I feel I
>might recommend a short, and, within the art world,
>regarded-with-nervous-loathing book: Tom Wolfe, _The Painted Word_.
>Contained therein you will find a democratized complaint againt modern art,
>art-as-theory, and the sort of stuff you seem to find puzzling, if not
>objectionable. Besides, Tom Wolfe is always good for a chuckle or two,
>even if you don't particularly agree with him.
Two counter-arguments. I don't actually think it would be that easy
for a child to produce some of the afore-mentioned artifacts, no
matter how much paint, paper, paste and glue you gave them. I remember
comparing a Leger painting in the Pompidou centre with the work of one
of his imitators (whose name, not surprisingly, eludes me but he was a
Norwegian contemporary) in the (now defunct) Paris City Museum of
Modern Art. Leger has a marvellous eye for colour and line. The
imitator's colours were garish and ill-matched. I think you need to
see a *lot* of good (and bad) modern abstract art and look at it for
quite a long time before you can begin to start to distinguish.
Before I get flamed I must agree that there is a lot of bad modern
stuff which looks no better than what a child of five could produce. I
just don't remember there being much of it in the Pompidou Centre. I
thought most of their collection was very good and that there were some
exceptional beauties in there - Duchamp-Villon's horse and his female
figure, an amazing collection of Kandinskys and Legers, Giacometti's
portrait of Hirohito etc.
Second argument: in some cases the ideas behind the objects *are* more
important than the objects themselves. Again, I will don asbestos and
agree that this does not excuse the triteness of much recent stuff
e.g. performance artists asserting the uniqueness of their individual
vision *in unison*. It was clever, funny and iconoclastic idea of
Duchamp's to submit a urinal straight out of the warehouse to the
Paris art exhibition. Just because some jerk has tried to repeat the
trick does not diminish the impact of the original. After reading Tom
Wolfe why not try reading Art and Its Objects by Richard Wollheim. It
is a basic introduction to aesthetics which considers the importance
of artifacts to art in a clear and entertaining way.
Andrew Dinn
----------------
The Counterforce
Chris Crowley
>>
>>Wal, since this is the book newsgroup (whether or not that implies an
>>intelligent, or even literate, constituency deponent sayeth not) I feel I
>>might recommend a short, and, within the art world,
>>regarded-with-nervous-loathing book: Tom Wolfe, _The Painted Word_.
>>Contained therein you will find a democratized complaint againt modern art,
>>art-as-theory, and the sort of stuff you seem to find puzzling, if not
>>objectionable. Besides, Tom Wolfe is always good for a chuckle or two,
>>even if you don't particularly agree with him.
>
denunciation of modern architecture.
The original query about modern art reminded me of an exhibit at the Museum of
Modern Art in the late 70's or early 80's of an artist who painted nothing but
white canvases. As time went on it got so you couldn't even see the brush
strokes. I do like a lot of modern art, even some really simple designs; but
I've always thought if you wanted to do an exhibit like this you might just as
well have the maintenance people who prepare the walls make the paintings too.
br...@quake.sylmar.ca.us
>The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
>recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
>Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>considered art.
who don't think it is art at all?
>You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>that determines whether something like this is art.
wrong, some stark raving mad.
>Do works like this have
>more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
>themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
>make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps), other
>than their historical or documentary value in the development of an
>important artist, that if exactly the same work was done by a 4 year old
>during recess, for example.
artistic value, they have no merit above the 4-year old. Unfortunately, the
"Emperor's New Clothes" effect is alive and well.
>In the same category, I would include those pictures
>I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at random.
>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value or is is dependent on the
>context in which it was created, who created it, etc. Or is this a stupid
>question?
the so-called "serious" art world. Perhaps some of "them" will comment on what
follows.
Before one can address the value of anything (artistic or not) one must associate
it with some goal. For example, one can't evaluate the value of a knife without
associating it with some purpose (say, cutting). Evaluating it according to a
different goal (say, pounding nails) would yeild a very different result.
So, what is the goal of art? It is the expression of value judgements. Any artist
needs to include some things in his work and exclude other things (that includes
all forms of art, painting, sculpture, film, music, or literature). The inclusion of
some element in the work implicitly says "I think this is important.". There are
many ways in which that expression can occur, and many ways in which some
conceptual content can be included. One can portray a perfect example of the
thing being expressed, say a perfectly beautiful woman, a perfectly innocent
child, a perfect summer afternoon, etc. One can also signify something by
it's absence, say by portraying a starkly empty cradle for example. The most
important portrayals have to do with abstractions. These are things we know
about, but can never actually see in reality. Art recreates, or concretizes them
in a form we can perceive directly. One can never really see love, heroism,
abandoment, grief, regret, wonder, joy, etc. in real life in pure form. You
CAN see them in art and it helps to make clear just what they are all about.
It also allows the discussion and communication of thos ideas in a compact
"all at once" form instead of being spread out through years of life. Art is the
great integrator of ideas in life. We can see the good and bad things in life,
we can experience and express our views about life in powerful and expressive
ways.
What does this have to do with blue squares on white canvas? Absolutely
nothing. Such nonsense is to painting what mating cats are to music. I could
explain more about the specific arts as well as the reasons for the
disintegration of the arts in the 20th century, and the prospects for
improvement in the future, but I am sure I have butchered enough sacred cows
with this post already.
--Brian
Andy Pearlman
>In article <1993Jul19....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) writes:
I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at random.
>>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value or is is dependent on the
>>context in which it was created, who created it, etc. Or is this a stupid
>>question?
>No, on the contrary it is a very important question, and one long ignored by
>the so-called "serious" art world. Perhaps some of "them" will comment on what
>follows.
(Btw, this is what much of Abstract Expressionism is talking about - What is
art's value, etc... But that would be a goal :-)
Speaking as a so-called "them", it has to do with the philosophical issue of:
"Who defines what is good art?" Now most people, if you ask them, will say
something to the effect of:"I can't come up with a set of definitions as
to what a piece of art is, but I know it when I see it."
The problem with this, is many people include "In order for this to be art,
*I* must be able to see the technical skill involved in the making of this
piece." and are unwilling to admit it. It is far too easy to say the
meaningless statement of "A 4 year old could have done it." In general, no
4 year old knows about layering effects, how to apply paint, or really have
any control over what they are doing. If you asked a 4 year old to make an
exact copy of what he just did(abstract), it would look forced and very
clumsy(btw, please don't ask your 4 year to do this. Good way to have your
kid need therapy later on) What 4 year olds are good at is:
1) they are not afraid of color
2) they don't see the need for obsessive realism
Now in the 1850s, this was reasonably easy: Either you could effect realism
or you couldn't. The problem with realism was the following:
1) After a while, everything had been done.
2) Photography was developing, eliminating the need for painters to record
scenery.
What Rothko did, was he defined the rules he was going to play with, and
adhered to them. i.e. where a Leonardo might have said:"Using reality as my
base, I will talk about enigmas.", Rothko said:"Using colors as my base, I
will talk about hope, fear, etc...."
I don't like the Abstract Expressionists in general. Jackson Pollack in
particular. For the most part, other than being the first ones there, they
really aren't that good.
But Rothko knew what he was doing. If you really want to know, try to make
a painting similar to one of his, and get anyone who can draw realistically
to say yours is better. Lots of luck.
Andy Pearlman
(My qualifications for "them" status - Can draw realistically. Seen selling
abstract artworks that I would not explain to people, even fellow art
students. Wanted, dead or alive)
Roger Lustig
>Before one can address the value of anything (artistic or not) one must associate
>it with some goal. For example, one can't evaluate the value of a knife without
>associating it with some purpose (say, cutting). Evaluating it according to a
>different goal (say, pounding nails) would yeild a very different result.
We're making progress, Brian. A while back you had real problems with this.
>So, what is the goal of art? It is the expression of value judgements.
On the other hand, you're still hung up on this one.
So tell me: what value judgments are expressed in Beethoven's 7th? You've
had all kinds of time to find out.
For that matter, what value judgments are expressed in the Rokeby Venus?
And why did the painter need a painting to express them?
>Any artist
>needs to include some things in his work and exclude other things (that includes
>all forms of art, painting, sculpture, film, music, or literature). The inclusion of
>some element in the work implicitly says "I think this is important.".
Important to what? I thought things had to be considered wrt a particular
purpose.
>There are
>many ways in which that expression can occur, and many ways in which some
>conceptual content can be included. One can portray a perfect example of the
>thing being expressed, say a perfectly beautiful woman,
How will we know? After all, we don't agree on who or what is perfectly
beautiful.
>a perfectly innocent child,
How do we portray innocence?
>a perfect summer afternoon, etc. One can also signify something by
>it's absence, say by portraying a starkly empty cradle for example. The most
>important portrayals have to do with abstractions. These are things we know
>about, but can never actually see in reality. Art recreates, or concretizes them
>in a form we can perceive directly. One can never really see love, heroism,
>abandoment, grief, regret, wonder, joy, etc. in real life in pure form. You
>CAN see them in art
Bosh. You can *impute* them to a work of art. Nor can you do that in pure
form -- especially since it's up in the air whether those things *exist* in
any pure form, as opposed to particular instances.
>and it helps to make clear just what they are all about.
Is that why paintings have titles?
>It also allows the discussion and communication of thos ideas in a compact
>"all at once" form instead of being spread out through years of life. Art is the
Give an example.
>great integrator of ideas in life.
Except that we never seem to be able to agree on what the ideas are.
For instance, what are the ideas integrated in Beethoven's Seventh?
>We see the good and bad things in life,
Not to mention the other 99% which we give neither label to.
>we can experience and express our views about life in powerful and expressive
>ways.
And yet people interpret any given art work in a variety of ways. Why
is this?
>What does this have to do with blue squares on white canvas? Absolutely
>nothing.
Why not? Are not color, form, shape, texture, etc. examples of things that
make our esthetic existence richer? Why should art not comment on those
things directly?
>Such nonsense is to painting what mating cats are to music. I could
Ah, I *knew* we could get an analogy out of you if we waited.
>explain more about the specific arts
Brian, you couldn't explain less.
>as well as the reasons for the
>disintegration of the arts in the 20th century, and the prospects for
>improvement in the future, but I am sure I have butchered enough sacred cows
>with this post already.
No, Brian, you've only uttered a few of your own -- pardon me, a few things
from _Romantic Manifesto_.
Roger
Roger Lustig
>then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
>The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
>recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
>Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>that determines whether something like this is art.
Money, mainly. Same as always.
Art is what an artist makes. An artist is someone who makes art.
>Do works like this have
>more value (leaving aside the question of whether any art has value) in
>themselves when done by some famous artist, who presumably is trying to
>make some important point (?) (or just having a good joke, perhaps), other
>than their historical or documentary value in the development of an
>important artist, that if exactly the same work was done by a 4 year old
>during recess, for example.
Well, most four-year-olds *don't*.
As for the important point/joke, the latter is a big part of it in this
century. Visual puns, pranks (the infamous urinal), art that directly
comments on other art, art that disses other art, etc.
My grandfather, who to this day has an Abstract Expressionist canvas in
his study, but doesn't like it anymore, once asked me why artists lost their
respect for the image (the occasion was the big 1980 Picasso show, from which
I brought him a catalogue).
Eventually I found an answer: the image lost respect for the painters.
It went and hung out with the photographers and then with the moviemakers.
The Impressionists felt this happening, and started to make paintings that
had things you couldn't do with a camera. They distorted "real" reality
to produce a psychological reality.
The distortion took on a life of its own, and as different approaches
(from innovations in photography, from art of different cultures, etc.)
became known, painters began to play more and more with the raw materials
of their craft at the expense of traditional (family?) values.
To answer one of your questions, then, no, some of this stuff is
incomprehensible outside of the history and sociology of the art world.
>In the same category, I would include those pictures
>I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at random.
Haven't seen them, though I've seen some Jackson Pollocks. They look like
nothing at first; after a while, they really begin to swing. Try doing one
of your own sometime! You'll learn the difference.
>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value
No, of course not. I can think of no work of art that has been valued
the same way, or even according to the same terms, over a period of time
greater than a few years.
>or is is dependent on the
>context in which it was created, who created it, etc.
Actually, the context in which it is *received* (viewed, heard, read) is at
least as important! Think of Shakespeare on TV, Shakespeare in the park,
Shakespeare in Stratford, Shakespeare in an avant-garde theatre, Shakespeare
at the movies, Shakespeare in the high school gym/auditorium. It's not
quite the same play!
More important, different readers and writers and actors and directors have
put different values on each of Shakespeare's plays over the centuries,
including diametrically opposed readings and valuations.
>Or is this a stupid question?
No. In fact, it's *the* question that leads to all the rest.
Roger
Joseph M Green-1
In <1993Jul25.0...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@faust.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <1993Jul19....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) writes:
>>I suppose this isn't really the right newsgroup to pose this question, but
>>then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
>>The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
>>recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
>>Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>>considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>>background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>>scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>>that determines whether something like this is art.
R. Lustig subvents:
>Money, mainly. Same as always.
>Art is what an artist makes. An artist is someone who makes art.
This seems as banal as the definition of art provided by the other
fellow. A bricklayer is someone who lays bricks... So what?
Money mostly seems wrong too. Easy cynicism -- usual cultural studies stuff.
R. Lustig recollects:
>My grandfather, who to this day has an Abstract Expressionist canvas in
>his study, but doesn't like it anymore, once asked me why artists lost their
>respect for the image (the occasion was the big 1980 Picasso show, from which
>I brought him a catalogue).
>Eventually I found an answer: the image lost respect for the painters.
How long did finding the answer that every other art critic had found take?
>It went and hung out with the photographers and then with the moviemakers.
>The Impressionists felt this happening, and started to make paintings that
>had things you couldn't do with a camera. They distorted "real" reality
>to produce a psychological reality.
Are we assuming that the Impressionists were so stupid that they
thought that the art that came before their art was the kind of
art that could be done with a camera?
"Ok, Missy I wanta you to give me a half smile..."
R. Lustig asseverates:
>To answer one of your questions, then, no, some of this stuff is
>incomprehensible outside of the history and sociology of the art world.
And just where does the art-world end?
The person who wants to be enlightened asks:
>>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value
R. Lustig absolutely relativistically replies:
>No, of course not. I can think of no work of art that has been valued
>the same way, or even according to the same terms, over a period of time
>greater than a few years.
What would this have to do with whether art has absolute value?
>>or is is dependent on the
>>context in which it was created, who created it, etc.
>Actually, the context in which it is *received* (viewed, heard, read) is at
>least as important! Think of Shakespeare on TV, Shakespeare in the park,
>Shakespeare in Stratford, Shakespeare in an avant-garde theatre, Shakespeare
>at the movies, Shakespeare in the high school gym/auditorium. It's not
>quite the same play!
As is the context of anything apprehended. Why is your point even
interesting and what does it have to do with the question of
absolute value?
>More important, different readers and writers and actors and directors have
>put different values on each of Shakespeare's plays over the centuries,
>including diametrically opposed readings and valuations.
Of course the same thing might be said about the tough question
of whether it is ok to kill other humans and eat them. Has nothing
whatever to do with absolute value.
hhend...@vax.clarku.edu
>My grandfather, who to this day has an Abstract Expressionist canvas in
>his study, but doesn't like it anymore, once asked me why artists lost their
>respect for the image (the occasion was the big 1980 Picasso show, from
>which I brought him a catalogue).
>
>Eventually I found an answer: the image lost respect for the painters.
>It went and hung out with the photographers and then with the moviemakers.
>The Impressionists felt this happening, and started to make paintings that
>had things you couldn't do with a camera. They distorted "real" reality
>to produce a psychological reality.
Oh, were they the first to do this? Wow. Holland must have been
*much* more interesting in the time of Hieronymus Bosch than it is
today.
(Stephen Guthrie):
>>In the same category, I would include those pictures
>>I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at
>>random.
>Haven't seen them, though I've seen some Jackson Pollocks. They look like
>nothing at first; after a while, they really begin to swing. Try doing one
>of your own sometime! You'll learn the difference.
You know what else is cool? Find something ordinary, like a kitchen
table, or a lawn chair, or a garage door, or a rock, or a broken
umbrella, and stare at it for a really *really* long time. You'll discover
all kinds of fascinating things about the object. You'll be amazed!
Heather
HHEND...@vax.clarku.edu
Roger Lustig
>In <1993Jul25.0...@Princeton.EDU> ro...@faust.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <1993Jul19....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) writes:
>>>I suppose this isn't really the right newsgroup to pose this question, but
>>>then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
>>>The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
>>>recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
>>>Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>>>considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>>>background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>>>scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>>>that determines whether something like this is art.
>R. Lustig subvents:
>>Money, mainly. Same as always.
>>Art is what an artist makes. An artist is someone who makes art.
>This seems as banal as the definition of art provided by the other
>fellow. A bricklayer is someone who lays bricks... So what?
The point is that if some people recognize what you're doing as art,
it's art. If *you* feel that what you're doing is art, then it's
art, thought possibly more localized. If the Centre Beaubourg buys
it as art, they consider it art.
>Money mostly seems wrong too. Easy cynicism -- usual cultural studies stuff.
"No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money." --Dr. Johnson.
Boswell isn't exactly what I'd call "cultural studies," either.
As for today's art market, and the art markets of the past, one can
make a point for the *extreme* importance of the patron's wallet to
the whole enterprise. Showing off one's money is a form of display,
like a peacock's feathers (which cost a lot of energy to produce!);
it's less crass than lighting one's cigar with a C-note, and lasts
longer. Gets you in the news occasionally, too.
Used to be, they painted the patron right into the picture.
Oh, and as for cynicism, everyone from Man Ray to R. Mutt and
Jeff Koons may have a little to say about that...
>R. Lustig recollects:
>>My grandfather, who to this day has an Abstract Expressionist canvas in
>>his study, but doesn't like it anymore, once asked me why artists lost their
>>respect for the image (the occasion was the big 1980 Picasso show, from which
>>I brought him a catalogue).
>>Eventually I found an answer: the image lost respect for the painters.
>How long did finding the answer that every other art critic had found take?
Most of them didn't quite frame it that way -- but I agree it's not original.
>>It went and hung out with the photographers and then with the moviemakers.
>>The Impressionists felt this happening, and started to make paintings that
>>had things you couldn't do with a camera. They distorted "real" reality
>>to produce a psychological reality.
>Are we assuming that the Impressionists were so stupid that they
>thought that the art that came before their art was the kind of
>art that could be done with a camera?
No. Did I say that?
The point was that people were *viewing* paintings differently now that
they had the photographic image that also stood still for them.
>"Ok, Missy I wanta you to give me a half smile..."
Cute. Painters, of course, knew how to give *Missy* a half smile, which
added a certain thrill to the photographic process.
>R. Lustig asseverates:
>>To answer one of your questions, then, no, some of this stuff is
>>incomprehensible outside of the history and sociology of the art world.
>And just where does the art-world end?
Right where you stop understanding it.
>The person who wants to be enlightened asks:
>>>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value
>R. Lustig absolutely relativistically replies:
>>No, of course not. I can think of no work of art that has been valued
>>the same way, or even according to the same terms, over a period of time
>>greater than a few years.
>What would this have to do with whether art has absolute value?
Good point. I should perhaps have said that art is the part of human
endeavor that *doesn't* have absolute value. One may, perhaps, argue
for pennicillin, quantum mechanics, or even the pythagorean theorem
having some kind of global value, if not necessarily an utterly
absolute, timeless value. Art gets its value from the reactions of
those who observe (and occasionally buy) it; those reactions are
in no case global or otherwise standard, nor is there any way of
valuing art that removes the individual from the equation.
>>>or is is dependent on the
>>>context in which it was created, who created it, etc.
>>Actually, the context in which it is *received* (viewed, heard, read) is at
>>least as important! Think of Shakespeare on TV, Shakespeare in the park,
>>Shakespeare in Stratford, Shakespeare in an avant-garde theatre, Shakespeare
>>at the movies, Shakespeare in the high school gym/auditorium. It's not
>>quite the same play!
>As is the context of anything apprehended. Why is your point even
>interesting and what does it have to do with the question of
>absolute value?
It addresses the *appropriateness* of asking about absolute value
wrt a thing apprehended.
>>More important, different readers and writers and actors and directors have
>>put different values on each of Shakespeare's plays over the centuries,
>>including diametrically opposed readings and valuations.
>Of course the same thing might be said about the tough question
>of whether it is ok to kill other humans and eat them. Has nothing
>whatever to do with absolute value.
No. Even absolutes are relative. 8-) That is, within an ethical
system, cannibalism may be considered so fundamentally wrong that
it is dismissed as globally, absolutely wrong. Artistic judgments
don't generally get that treatment.
Of course, if you wish to be strict, you may argue that nothing
beyond number has an absolute value. That's fine, too.
Oh, and if they're tough, don't eat them.
Roger
Barclay Blanchard
>You know what else is cool? Find something ordinary, like a kitchen
>table, or a lawn chair, or a garage door, or a rock, or a broken
>umbrella, and stare at it for a really *really* long time. You'll discover
>all kinds of fascinating things about the object. You'll be amazed!
It sounds as if you've been on an acid trip, Heather.
--
Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard bar...@rail9000.gatech.edu
"I've been laughed at by some of the funniest people."
--Lissie, Alice Walker's _The Temple of My Familiar_
Roger Lustig
>>My grandfather, who to this day has an Abstract Expressionist canvas in
>>his study, but doesn't like it anymore, once asked me why artists lost their
>>respect for the image (the occasion was the big 1980 Picasso show, from
>>which I brought him a catalogue).
>>Eventually I found an answer: the image lost respect for the painters.
>>It went and hung out with the photographers and then with the moviemakers.
>>The Impressionists felt this happening, and started to make paintings that
>>had things you couldn't do with a camera. They distorted "real" reality
>>to produce a psychological reality.
>Oh, were they the first to do this?
No. Did I say they were?
On the other hand, they *were* the first to react to the "real" reality
of the photographic image in that way.
>Wow. Holland must have been
>*much* more interesting in the time of Hieronymus Bosch than it is
>today.
I've often felt that way myself. Sorry to make myself unclear--*all*
artistic images are distortions of reality. The issue was the force
of a new kind of *image* that made claims regarding its own truthfulness.
>(Stephen Guthrie):
>>>In the same category, I would include those pictures
>>>I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at
>>>random.
>>Haven't seen them, though I've seen some Jackson Pollocks. They look like
>>nothing at first; after a while, they really begin to swing. Try doing one
>>of your own sometime! You'll learn the difference.
>You know what else is cool? Find something ordinary, like a kitchen
>table, or a lawn chair, or a garage door, or a rock, or a broken
>umbrella, and stare at it for a really *really* long time. You'll discover
>all kinds of fascinating things about the object. You'll be amazed!
Even better: have Jackson Pollock come over and do your refrigerator.
Mine *never* swung before...
Roger
hhend...@vax.clarku.edu
>have Jackson Pollock come over and do your refrigerator.
He was a great painter until his arm went.
Heather
HHEND...@vax.clarku.edu
Roger Lustig
>>have Jackson Pollock come over and do your refrigerator.
>
>He was a great painter until his arm went.
Yeah. Holding up a Hotpoint with one hand so you can do the bottom is
tough if you're not properly stretched first.
Roger (six Canadian Clubs and those pains are lawng gawn) Lustig
Tom von Alten
: The point is that if some people recognize what you're doing as art,
: it's art. If *you* feel that what you're doing is art, then it's
: art, thought possibly more localized. If the Centre Beaubourg buys
: it as art, they consider it art.
Interesting observation when compared to the rule of thumb that
"the difference between art and craft is that a craftsman knows what
he is doing."
_____________
Tom von Alten email: al...@boi.hp.com
Hewlett-Packard Disk Memory Division
INFIDEL
>In article <25JUL93....@vax.clarku.edu> hhend...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>You know what else is cool? Find something ordinary, like a kitchen
>>table, or a lawn chair, or a garage door, or a rock, or a broken
>>umbrella, and stare at it for a really *really* long time. You'll discover
>>all kinds of fascinating things about the object. You'll be amazed!
>It sounds as if you've been on an acid trip, Heather.
No no no, Barclay, Heather's quite right. Come along with me, one day,
and I'll teach you how to look.
>--
>Barclay Elizabeth Blanchard bar...@rail9000.gatech.edu
jw
INFIDEL
>In article <1993Jul19....@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> s...@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Stephen P. Guthrie) writes:
>>I suppose this isn't really the right newsgroup to pose this question, but
>>then this is the place where the intelligent net people hang out, isn't it?
>>The question is not confined to books but to art in general. Anyway, I
>>recently visited the Modern Art Museum at the Centre Georges Pompidou in
>>Paris, and I was honestly quite surprised at why some of this stuff is
>>considered art. You know, stuff like a big blue square on a white
>>background, which probably any pre-schooler with a jar of paste, some
>>scissors and colored paper could do. So I wonder then, what is the criteria
>>that determines whether something like this is art.
>Money, mainly. Same as always.
Unfortunately this is more and more wisespread these days. There was
actually an article on the front page of the national Australian paper,
the "Australian", the other day about a survey that indicated how many
people went to which art productions (plays etc.) last year. The
headline was "Survey Explodes Art Desert Myth". (I think it was the
economics writer who wrote the article.) Australia is obviously not a
land of philistine troglodytes anymore, as hundreds of millions of
dollars of tickets were sold in the arts industry, including independent
plays, operas etc. Closer scrutiny reveals that two thirds went to three
broadway musicals that ran more or less the whole year. It generated lots of
jobs, so they said.
Meanwhile, the theatre scene in Perth has collapsed, with about 1
production happening every couple of months, of even the smallest scale.
>Art is what an artist makes. An artist is someone who makes art.
Yes. And they get a spread in the "Australian" colour magazine. It
would be an awful choice to make.
To be known as an "artist" - a death knell.
>My grandfather, who to this day has an Abstract Expressionist canvas in
>his study, but doesn't like it anymore, once asked me why artists lost their
>respect for the image (the occasion was the big 1980 Picasso show, from which
>I brought him a catalogue).
>Eventually I found an answer: the image lost respect for the painters.
Especially from the Modernists on.
>It went and hung out with the photographers and then with the moviemakers.
>The Impressionists felt this happening, and started to make paintings that
>had things you couldn't do with a camera. They distorted "real" reality
>to produce a psychological reality.
It's possible to produce a lasting Impressionist image. A painting of a
girl holding a bunch of flowers on a spring day might be seen as a
passing psychological happy mood, but then it could also be the blue sky
of Liberty, a lasting thing, even if is only a dream.
The best painter in Australia (my opinion) is a Polish friend of mine,
Artur Lyczba, 30 years old, who paints like Delacroix except in Abstract
Expressionist language. Of course, he's "too European" for local
tastes. The problem is that the blue sky in his Abstract Expressionist
rendering of Monet's painting represents an Idea, rather than an ephemeral,
blob. Or, what I should say, it can be taken to represent an idea;
Australian art gorgers don't like it when something has that quality. It
makes them choke to look at themselves.
>The distortion took on a life of its own, and as different approaches
>(from innovations in photography, from art of different cultures, etc.)
>became known, painters began to play more and more with the raw materials
>of their craft at the expense of traditional (family?) values.
No artist that I know of in Australia could tell you what Australian
society is like in 100 words or less, in a clear way. They do not
understand the Constitution, they don't see how its limitations are
evident in the way every Australian acts, in the hestitancy in public,
an inbuilt conservatism, Rights and Freedoms no more than obscure
objects of desire. They are an ignorant lot. How is their art supposed
to mean anything to the wider population?
Picasso was very aware of the world; Dali, for instance, wasn't; he was
just a dickhead.
>>In the same category, I would include those pictures
>>I saw there which appear to be paint thrown on the canvas seemingly at random.
>Haven't seen them, though I've seen some Jackson Pollocks. They look like
>nothing at first; after a while, they really begin to swing. Try doing one
>of your own sometime! You'll learn the difference.
The Abstract Expressionist vision is a fascinating one, where blobs and
trickles can combine to make the deepest impressions on oneself. If there's
a representation in the image, I find it a lot easier to get something out of
the painting. Colourful splodges (non representationist) do little for me.
There're too many such things already in nature, if you're prepared to
look hard. Take your camera along.
>>So what is the answer? Does art have absolute value
>No, of course not. I can think of no work of art that has been valued
>the same way, or even according to the same terms, over a period of time
>greater than a few years.
It's absolute in the sense that it needs no justification with the outside
world. Like Green's Teapot, with its once-resident family of ticks.
>Roger
jw
cw...@marcie.wellesley.edu
serious, ventriloquism of ideas on the is-art-what-I-say-it-is problem
is given in Tom Stoppard's play _Travesties_, which features, among
others, Joyce, Lenin, and Tristan Tzara (Dada Dada Dada).
(For "Joyce as I Knew Him" see an early monologue in that play.)
Caroline
Mark Taranto
> The header "joyce [as] I know him" reminds me that a very amusing, and quite
Like all Stoppard plays, this one is wonderful, except that the
character of Lenin is deadly dull. (Da, da!)
Mark
Chris Brewster
> is given in Tom Stoppard's play _Travesties_, which features, among
Like all Stoppard plays, this one is wonderful, except that the
character of Lenin is deadly dull. (Da, da!)
Has anyone seen his play Professional Foul? It's a little dated now
because it deals with human rights in communist Czechoslovakia, but
still it's a brilliant play. The construction is ingenious: academic
philosophy types confronting a real ethical/philosophical issue. As in
traditional lit, the guy with more breeding turns out to be the "good"
one. I don't know if Stoppard meant it that way, but in real life it
could just as easily work the opposite way.
Chris Brewster E-MAIL ADDRESS: c...@cray.com