History is useless - Especially about ART!

[Kay]

>Ponderable wrote in message
><20000123192435...@ng-ff1.aol.com>...
>:If I seem out of step to you, know that yours and Alison's opinion are not
>ones
>:which I come across very often. I guess we hang around with very different
>:circles of friends.
>
>Definitely! But many of my friends are from NYC too. Artists.
>
>No one I know really gives a shit what happened in Germany
>:(or where ever) in art in the distant past. I mean, it's just not relevant
>to
>:my life.
>
>So I guess you didn't study the Holocaust in Grade School?
>:
>:Yes, I've given my share of artist talks and when I do I talk about me and
>my
>:opinions. I know more about me and my opinions than anyone on earth.
>
>I agree with you totally. But, usually artists are in the audience and they
>want to know past influences. I've opened an ugly can of worms but at
first
>I thought you were kidding about not knowing. I am being honest in stating
>that I've NEVER met an artist who didn't know art history unless they made
>crafts or cow paintings.
>
>I'm very
>:comfortable talking about me.
>
>
>I'm sure you do it well but there is more to your art than what you put
into
>it. What context does it fit into? Who were your influences? If they put a
>"neo-" tag onto your work will you freak or find out what they are calling
>it?
>
>:If someone in the audience is not interested in what interests me, then
>they
>:can leave. What interests me just does. I don't take up interests due to
>peer
>:pressure.
>
>Someone here (Marilyn or Chris?) mentioned "cult mentality" and peer
>pressure certainly fits into that category. I mean no offense, but having
>any dealings with Rev. Moon is definitely being or seeking "cult
mentality".
>I'm glad you weren't stuck into it and had the sense to get out and perhaps
>it served a need at the time, but it definitely makes your statement about
>peer pressure a bit unbelievable.
>
>I guess I place my emphasis in all that I do in being true to myself.
>:It seems to work. I've gone far. People seem to respond to me just fine.
>
>I agree.
>
>:Perhaps they enjoy my candor. I've never been good at pretentious
>endeavors.
>
>
>I agree. Then again, I think we all lie to ourselves a bit...
>
>:Interest in something is much like inspiration. It just is. You can no
more
>:force someone to take an interest in history any more than you can force
>them
>:to take an interest in physics or mathematics. I'm not a historian. I am
an
>:artist.
>
>
>Then the natural assumption would be that you take an interest in art
>history?
>
>:As far as I know, you do not have to pass a history test to hang your work
>in
>:The Met. I believe they base their selections solely on the strength of
the
>art
>:itself.
>
>
>And in the rest of the artworld? Actually, you are right. There is no
>questionare for the Met. It is on past achievements, mainly, quality of
>work, and someone to keep your work and name visable. I have a couple of
>friends whose work hangs in the Met. It isn't the biggest thrill of their
>lives.
>
>:As far as my participation here, gee, stupid person that I am, I seem to
be
>:doing just fine.
>
>
>Yes. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it. But, the group was getting
>sleepy. They are all awake now. Maybe you are right about art historical
>knowledge. I have just never encountered the lack of it in any artist I
>know. I reacted. I guess I still do. I loved every single class in which I
>learned art history. Nothing was ever wasted. I feel as though you are
>denying yourself and deeming it "worthless". That's OK, but you seem to be
>making a blanket statement that it isn't necessary and if it isn't
necessary
>for you, in particular, then it is an extraordinary exception. It is
>necessary for the vast majority of us to grow and mature as artists.
>Kay
>
>
>:Tim Folzenlogen
>