Mani de Li's Exhibition of Degenerate Art
spino...@msn.com
....is reminiscent of an exhibition of that name by the Nazis, down to the
obsessive focus on shit. Matisse labored, in his 1907 Blue Nude, to help
show that perception unmediated by the struggle for existence could find
beauty and colors in the every day: Mani labors to show us shit. Since
perception is structured by language, and art is a form of language,
Matisse's art talks about finding everyday magnificence, an effort undone
by Mani's description of a blue swirl as a blue fart.
Mani:
>>art = art objects which MD likes
> and art = art objects which Bob C. likes
Bob C:
>Not at all. In many cases, my own personal likes and dislikes contradict
>my assessments of quality. Can you say the same?
A scientific world view sees only the True and the False in scientific
observations, and raw and private perceptions. It leaves no room for
intersubjectivity, and it results in Mani's childish riposte that is
based on the idea that taste is necessarily private. Skill and craft
(which Mani's paintings, in part, fail to manifest, since they use the
Surrealist gesture to evade difficult, traditional questions of the
correct placement of objects in space) are sub rosa scientific criteria.
Only the philosopher Edmund Husserl made a serious attempt to establish
grounds, in his phenomenology, for intersubjectivity and Continental
phenomenology is misunderstood in a society in which it is said (and as
Mani might say, with his typical focus) "opinions are like assholes,
everyone's got one."
Bob C.'s purity of heart is that he can make a distinction between the
pleasure he gets from an inferior work of art and the *frisson* he gets
from a superior work of art.
As I've mentioned, I like Bouguereau, but I like him precisely because I
see through him to an artistic tradition starting with Poussin, from whom
Bouguereau stole in the name of Tradition. Bouguereau is inordinately
popular today for somewhat the same reason Hollywood and Microsoft are
popular: people's admiration is mixed with subconscious respect, shading
into fear, of the arrogance of expropriation.
Considered as an object, a Bouguereau may be a better painting than
Poussin's Triumph of Neptune and Amphitrite because the former arrogates
and incorporates the labor of the latter, and adds technical polish and
stunts learned since the death of Poussin. But this is the same reason
why the Disney re-make of Three Men and a Baby is a "better" film than
the French version.
But if the labor theory of value is even partly correct, a valuable
object is an epiphenomenon with respect to art history, and in
participating in art history we can, I think, rightly celebrate Matisse's
originality without lamenting his lack of indebtedness to Poussin.
Ultimately, the aesthetic responsibility is a moral demand, to view with
disdain the government-supported Salon painters who covered up their lack
of artistic labor with Tradition, and perhaps to view with even more
sadness and disdain Mani's work, which evinces talent, but which uses a
move of the Modernism he derides, Surrealism, to evade pictorial
problems.
These neoconservative artists, with their unresolved rage and fearful
respect for expropriation, sometimes descend into crime. Van Meegeren
was one of these bitter traditionalists who viewed the art establishment
of WWII Holland with the same anger Mani views Robert Hughes et al., and
eventually van Meegeren forged Vermeers, first to prove his point, then
because "the money kept rolling in, from all directions."
PRIVATE PROPERTY CREATED CRIME - Jenny Holzer
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
DFRussell
In article <881795083...@dejanews.com>, spino...@msn.com writes:
|> ....is reminiscent of an exhibition of that name by the Nazis, down to the
|> obsessive focus on shit.
Getting a little shrill.....?
|> Matisse labored, in his 1907 Blue Nude, to help
|> show that perception unmediated by the struggle for existence could find
|> beauty and colors in the every day:
Lots of people "labor" at lots of things -- that doesn't mean
that they've accomplished anything.
|> Mani labors to show us shit.
Yehp. That's shrill.
|> Since
|> perception is structured by language,
Really? You know what other peole are "perceiving"? :)
|> and art is a form of language,
Pretty broad brush........ so to speak :)
.... but you're entitled to your opinion.
|> Matisse's art talks about finding everyday magnificence, an effort undone
|> by Mani's description of a blue swirl as a blue fart.
I read a review of an exhibit by a moderately famous "artist" by a
"noted critic" -- the guy went on and on and on. I figure, the
guy must be fantastic...
Every piece was the same :) up and down/back and forth hash lines.
The only thing that changed was the scale and muddy color :)
Conclusion: the intrinsic value of a piece is inversely
proportional to the number of printed lines generated by
the "critics".
|>
|> Mani:
|> >>art = art objects which MD likes
|> > and art = art objects which Bob C. likes
|>
|> Bob C:
|> >Not at all. In many cases, my own personal likes and dislikes contradict
|> >my assessments of quality. Can you say the same?
|>
|> A scientific world view sees only the True and the False in scientific
|> observations, and raw and private perceptions. It leaves no room for
|> intersubjectivity,
Really?
When did the definition of "theory" change? <LOL>
|> and it results in Mani's childish riposte that is
|> based on the idea that taste is necessarily private. Skill and craft
|> (which Mani's paintings, in part, fail to manifest, since they use the
|> Surrealist gesture to evade difficult, traditional questions of the
|> correct placement of objects in space) are sub rosa scientific criteria.
Hunh?
|>
|> Only the philosopher Edmund Husserl made a serious attempt to establish
|> grounds, in his phenomenology, for intersubjectivity and Continental
|> phenomenology is misunderstood in a society in which it is said (and as
|> Mani might say, with his typical focus) "opinions are like assholes,
|> everyone's got one."
<Hmmmmm, better nod and smile.... this must be something really deep>
:)
|>
|> Bob C.'s purity of heart is that he can make a distinction between the
|> pleasure he gets from an inferior work of art and the *frisson* he gets
|> from a superior work of art.
Well, I guess he's just a better person than some of us :)
[rambling critic-speak deleted]
|> These neoconservative artists, with their unresolved rage and fearful
|> respect for expropriation, sometimes descend into crime.
<ROTFL>
The "crime" voicing *their* opinion, no doubt.
[...]
|> PRIVATE PROPERTY CREATED CRIME - Jenny Holzer
<LOL>
To paraphrase a popular leftist bumper sticker:
If you don't like private property, don't have any.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
mdeli
On Thu, 11 Dec 1997 11:11:54 -0600, spino...@msn.com wrote:
Read my rules for Artspeak on my webpage.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
They might improve your Artspeak.
>....is reminiscent of an exhibition of that name by the Nazis, down to the
>obsessive focus on shit.
Does this mean that anyone who likes Vermeer has nazi tendencies
because Goring admired him. Hitler also liked Titian and Greek
architecture. I guess there are lots of nazi sympathizers running
around in this guy’s opinion.
Nazism was against Bolshevism and Jews who it classed as degenerate,
insane and perverted. To imply that I bear a similar opinion of
Modern Academic Art is just plain stupid.
After reading forty years of ecstatic criticism of Modern Academic
Art its time for a word from the other side. I have read lots of
caustic rage against anything from the likes of Bouguereau to Dali and
never associated that negative criticism with Hitler.
Any obsessive focus is yours. Besides you lack a sense of humor and it
shows in your dadaists babbles.
My webpages contains essays about all aspects of modern academic art.
In fact I didn't even mention shit.
> Matisse labored, in his 1907 Blue Nude, to help
>show that perception unmediated by the struggle for existence could find
>beauty and colors in the every day: Mani labors to show us shit.
We are talking about what is supposed to be a masterpiece here.
Matisse's labors are of no interest if the result is failure. The
picture is an incompetent horror and no philosophical double-talk will
get around it.
I suggest the reader visit my webpage and decide for himself. One of
the best ways to refute a pompous ass is by means of humor.
> Since
>perception is structured by language, and art is a form of language,
>Matisse's art talks about finding everyday magnificence, an effort undone
>by Mani's description of a blue swirl as a blue fart.
Artspeak baloney.
>A scientific world view sees only the True and the False in scientific
>observations, and raw and private perceptions. It leaves no room for
>intersubjectivity, and it results in Mani's childish riposte that is
>based on the idea that taste is necessarily private.
I didn't say anything about taste.
>Skill and craft
>(which Mani's paintings, in part, fail to manifest, since they use the
>Surrealist gesture to evade difficult, traditional questions of the
>correct placement of objects in space) are sub rosa scientific criteria.
More Artspeak
>Only the philosopher Edmund Husserl made a serious attempt to establish
>grounds, in his phenomenology, for intersubjectivity and Continental
>phenomenology is misunderstood in a society in which it is said (and as
>Mani might say, with his typical focus) "opinions are like assholes,
>everyone's got one."
POMO baloney. I suspect you have two.
More Artspeak snipped
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Bob Cantor
DFRussell wrote:
>
> In article <881795083...@dejanews.com>, spino...@msn.com writes:
>
> |>
> |> Bob C.'s purity of heart is that he can make a distinction between the
> |> pleasure he gets from an inferior work of art and the *frisson* he gets
> |> from a superior work of art.
>
> Well, I guess he's just a better person than some of us :)
>
While I appreciate the praise 8), I myself would be more likely to call
it crankiness of age than purity of heart - the older I get, the more
intolerant I become of false dichotomies, non-constructive bombast, and
opinions based on ignorance. Both in myself and others. And the more I
care about simply trying to understand things than constantly trying to
prove who is "right" and who is "wrong".
- Bob C.
DFRussell
I'll assume you understood I was being sarcastic....
And I would question the "simply trying to understand things"
statement -- people such as you claim to be tend to be more
tolerant of opposing points-of-view... such as Mani's.