|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 21:55:52 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
| Sometimes people who have a disease that is typically uncurable get better. Sometimes treatments work for certain people, but fail to help others. This isn't in the realm of the impossible. |
Mosttimes, when those things happen, it requires a lot of money.
Otherwise, I've got to concede, it's an Act Of The Universe. |
 |
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 23:17:38 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox......
| While certainly there are mental illnesses that cause a person to simply behave strangely, most of the people I know with severe mental illness suffer intensely, and their suffering is directly caused by the illness, not outside forces that could be altered with money. Depending on the condition, people with mental illness can be tortured by feelings of paranoia, internal voices, hallucinations, and self-worthlessness. They are disconnected from reality which obviously limits the quality of their interpersonal relationships and can lead to behavior that is self destructive and/or harmful to others. |
| Mental illnesses are treatable, but most are not easily cured even with expensive treatments. Generally they are maintained in the same way that a condition such as having diabetes can be maintained with treatment. Some mental illnesses are temporary or mild. Others are difficult to treat or maintain and lead to being institutionalized or losing legal autonomy. |
Being both diabetic and having had two extremely severe episodes of clinical depression (suicidal) I agree with much that you have said. You could add that many including some of those that are near and dear to you may have no patience with your illness and not make any effort to understand it. The societal taboo concerning mental illness runs deep.
The treatment for mine consisted of my wife and daughter finally understanding something of the nature of the hell that I was undergoing, and FORCING me to see a psychiatrist. A great many very expensive visits and tests later, she (the shrink} hit on a cocktail of four psychotropic drugs in very carefully titrated dosages that did the trick. Retail price for the four drug combination was and is over three hundred dollars a day! That's over $9000 a month for those that are mathematically challenged. At the time of my illness, we did not have health insurance. Fortunately, I had accumulated a reasonable amount of wealth through various business endeavors, and I could afford it until my wife's later employment provided a substantial income above and beyond our investment income. Living expenses including drugs and Doctor's appointments, etc., carved a tidy chunk out of our nest Ostrich egg, however.
I am reasonably lucid and sensible today, at least as I hope you all are witness to! But, as you alluded, Marfknox, it still is a costly experience. Insurance, which is expensive, pays for about 80% of my current medical expenses (at 79, there are a few other problems besides the seratonin uptake inhibitor malfunction.) And due to a robust stock market, cash flow is positive! So no funeral dirges and I am doing damn well, thank you. Money sure as hell bought me health, however.
And one of these fucking politicians has GOT to figure out a health system that works better than what we have now, or a lot of you folks are gonna be in deep doo-doo a few years from now. Forget retirement, save and invest to SURVIVE at the end of your working careers!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 00:25:33 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
Love that mental image of Randy Warhole!
| He has been considered a hack and a Warhole copycat. |
Bill Buck |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 10:58:39 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | I have seen works out of the Rembrandt school (or contemporary simulations of his style) that have been denounced by critics as the work of hacks or poseurs. |
What works? What critics? Frankly, you sound like you are full of it. There are still Academies all over the world that proudly teach traditional Western fine art including my alma mater The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. There is still plenty of respect for and demand from collectors for works done by masters of traditional oil painting. Try opening up an ArtNews or Art in America magazine and looking through the ads and exhibition reviews. Traditional art has hardly been shunned or ignored. It's just no longer the only or biggest game in town.
Nor should it be the only or biggest game in town. Times change. Culture changes. And art reflects culture. Indeed, art is in the eye of the beholder, but the beholder is not an isolated person, detached from time and place, customs and values.
| But I am not a critic and have no idea of how the respective developed talents of a Master and a poseur are judged. All I have is a well-developed sense of what pleases me visually. |
Yes, I realize you are not actually responding to my post but are just throwing out non sequiters. In my original post I wrote: "But if one lacks the natural talent to engage with the art world dialogs (if one is aiming to fit their work into the context of conventional art history) and/or persistence to master a craft (if one desires to paint like Vermeer or DaVinci) no amount of money will solve their problem." Note the part in bold; we often hear about the art world, which generally refers to the lineage of Western art history beginning in Europe in the pre-Rennaissance as a reaction to Greek and Roman Classicism. But in fact there are and always have been multiple "art worlds", which could be defined as any community of interest in the arts. The smallest and newest are often referred to as "art scenes". The vast majority of what is created and which becomes popular is short-lived in its fame, and fails to make a lasting historical mark either because it is just to tied to its particular cultural context or just isn't all that unique and compelling when seen in the grand scheme.
| However, when a Jackson Pollack, or Warhol comes along, I start to think that much "art" is truly created by notoriety. Some of this kind of thing may well be critic-created. Much of Pollack is pleasant to my eye, but neither the talent nor the craft is anywhere as evident to me as that of Titian, Vermeer, or certainly Da Vinci (and, obviously, many other Masters) |
I find it truly hilarious that you name both Pollack and Warhol and then credit critics for their notoriety. Pollack was hugely talented and studied under the great American realist Benton. He had a huge amount of talent and skill, and he did more than the action paintings that are so commonly known of by the average Joe. In his case, his name is secured in history for intellectual reasons. In his case, aesthetics takes a back seat to criticism and controversy. Part of his fame is because his action paintings fit so well into a progression of art history. It was so natural for him to make them when and how he did because Pollack himself was so knowledgeable of art history and trained so well as a painter. He had his finger on a cultural pulse and therefore hit on something that resonated with others with passion for this field. The rest of his fame lies in the fact that the technique itself can be imitated by just about anyone. Even though Pollack came to action painting through an elaborate process of training in high craft, the final products resembled something a child or monkey could do, and so they are easy to poke fun at, and all that much more memorable for being in art history books and grand museums. Pollack's paintings and their fame can only be understood within a cultural context, but really, that's true of ANY work of art. We can appreciate the technical difficulty of an ancient Egyptian statue, or a DaVinci painting for that matter, but that doesn't mean we're understanding it. Admiring technique alone is basically thinking, "Damn, that's hard to make!" But to see how something fits in with the progression of history, human thoughts, values, desires, events – that makes something far more rich. That's something that gives us far more insight into the human condition itself.
So anyway, the reason I find the pairing of Pollack with Warhol so funny is because Warhol's place in history is rather the opposite of Pollack's with regards to critics. Pollack's work fit in nicely with what some of the major critics at the time thought about the direction of Western art history. But after Pollack came the minimalists and conceptualism – which also followed that direction, but to the most logical extreme. And when you follow something all the way to the end, well – it ends! And it did. Warhol and the pop art movement was a new beginning. The established critics hated it! But critics are only a few drops in the pool of culture, and pop art was an unstoppable new current. Other critics, dealers, collectors, curators, and art lovers of other stripes are what move the tide of art, and they are moved based on where they come from, and from what has come before. The artist that makes it – not just in the short term – is the one who happens to have his or her finger on the pulse of society and is able to communicate insights effectively through their art. Like falling in love, it is something so complex and intuitive, it can't be predicted. It can't be bought.
| I am cynical enough to believe that one could find an excellent draftsman or CAD operator, hire them to noodle around and produce some carefully contrived provocative images either of near photographic realism (Warhol), or dazzling color splashing (Pollack), or something totally different (fractals, for example) and then proceed to spend a large fortune publicizing these pictures. |
You really should stop before you expose any more of your own ignorance. Warhol's work was never near photographic realism, and Pollack's paintings became most famous when he pulled back is palette to primarily black, white and muted browns and greys. If you actually understood why their art achieved such acclaim when it did, you'd stop making such cliché and ignorant arguments.
| Certainly gallery galas galore. Get as much coverage as you can buy to expose the images to the art world and, especially, the public at large. Purchase, bribe, or whatever it takes to publish a lot of rhetoric and comment about the new artist and his movement. Hire an eccentric actor to play the part. |
Again, if you actually knew anything about art history, I doubt you'd make this argument. Art worlds simply don't work this way. There are far too many people with particular passions and societal factors involved. You couldn't possibly buy off enough of the right people without being exposed and thereby certainly dooming yourself to failure.
| Look at (no, please don't) Fox News. Here is a billionaire spending millions every day to create a totally phony political reality for millions of people. For a while there it looked like a majority of the US electorate! Anyway, if that can be done in the world of politics, it can be done in the world of art. |
False comparison for several reasons, not the least of which is that people participating in the art world are all knowledgeable of art history and are involved because they love art, while people involved in politics are often completely ignorant of law and history (such as most voters!)
Your quote from Picasso is laughable. Keep in mind the guy was an artist, not a historian, philosopher, or critic. How often do we hear the bitter antiquarian whine about the tastes and values of our times? How often do we hear that bullshit line about how things were better in the past, and today things are too frivolous and decadent? What shortsighted nonsense! In any time, the majority of what is produced is crap, and often what will live on as classic or great is distained by the majority of critics. We cannot know what will be regarded as the greatest art in our own time, and we can't control that. And we shouldn't burden ourselves by trying to live up to a romanticized past. Picasso was being an idiot in that quote. When measured against a wide spectrum of factors (not only talent and craft, but influence on future and contemporary works, the ways in which the unique qualities of the work relate to the cultural mores of its time, and influence in other cultural spheres), Picasso was one of the greatest artists of the past century, and no less culturally significant for his time as Titian was for his. I'm so sick of people who put past masters on pedestals as demigods, and to read a quote from Picasso doing it just makes it more absurd.
| The same reasoning applies to many of the art forms. If "rap" or "hip hop" is artistic expression, I certainly believe that "natural talent" can be bought. |
LOL! Are you trying to be the quintessential philistine? Why don't you name some rap and hip hop artists with critical notoriety and give a critique of why their music is not a form of artistic expression. You could post favorable reviews and then write your response explaining why the reviewer is blowing smoke.
| At the risk of offending many here, I would apply the same opprobrium to some rock music. Before igniting a nuclear explosion, please notice that I said "some". However, I cotton to Classical and Jazz as to what my ancient ears perceive as Art. |
Such a cliché. Again, I emphasize that the majority of what is produced in any given time is crap, the best stuff lives on, and then we denounce the present because it seems as if things are so bad now. Whether you want to believe it or not, plenty of Classical and Jazz music sucks. Also, people understand and appreciate those forms of music better than others because of cultivated knowledge and cultural context. They are not objectively good or bad. The quality is dependent on human consensus and cultural context. Much like the art that you so ignorantly dismissed and denounced.
| But I'm just the 200 pound cynic in the room, and to hell with giving evidence for those statements! |
You'd be a cynic if you didn't uphold Classical and Jazz music as well as Titian and DaVinci. The fact that you uphold some notable artists and styles but not others shows you're just a curmudgeon who thinks his own tastes and values are superior to that of others, and criticizes that which he does not like and/or understand.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 11:28:31 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | I'm not sure what you are saying here.I feel that money = power and enormous money = enormous power if cleverly used. |
Yes, if cleverly used. But you can't buy cleverness, and there are plenty of clever people out there who spend most of their time and energy trying to cleverly scam people with money. I am reminded of Woody Allen's movie "Small Time Crooks" where a working class couple just barely scraping buy accidentally enter huge financial success, only to lose it all when they are scammed by their own accountants.
| To the point that far more things can be bought than most folks ever imagine. |
Part of the reason people don't imagine it is probably because what is the point of sitting around fanaticizing? Sitting around imagining what you would do with billions of dollars is like imagining what you would do if you had magical powers. Sure, one is materially possible, but it ain't much more likely! Even people who earn a great deal more than average are often not made happy by it because their high income comes with a price. I have a friend who earns over 6x what I do, and he tells me that he fanaticizes about winning the lottery because he wishes he could quit his job and just do whatever he wants. But what he wants takes money, and if he quit his job he wouldn't have the money.
| I've tried this one on a variety of people over the years, and I am constantly amazed at the lack of imagination that I encounter. Folks really don't believe that money can buy happiness. It sure as hell has for me! For those that deny themselves a lot of comfort food like god and heaven and all that shit, it becomes a pretty material world. My point is, most don't realize how material it is. |
If anything, in our culture we think of the world as too material. Given that the likelihood of suddenly have gobs of wealth is slim to none, people must live in the real world. Learning how to be satisfied with less will make you happy if you don't have access or easy access to more.
Happiness has been rigorously studied, and while it may be a difficult thing to qualify, evidence shows that there is not a direct correlation between wealth and overall happiness. There are many other factors at work.
From this article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness#Happiness_and_economics under "Happiness and Economics" (my emphasis in bold)
| Typically market health measures such as GDP and GNP have been used as a measure of successful policy. However, although on average richer nations tend to be happier than poorer nations, beyond an average GDP/capita of about $15,000 a year, studies indicate the average income in a nation makes little difference to the average happiness of the people in the nation. |
Basically, if you live in a third world shithole, you are more likely to be miserable. But if you live in genteel poverty with access to basic necessities, or are middle class, you aren't likely to be any sadder on average than your wealthy counterparts.
When I think of the things which give me happiness, they are rarely strictly material. They are often creative, emotional, and intellectual. I love spending time with my husband. I love feeling the way I do about him and knowing he feels the same about me. I love my cats. Not just any cats. My cats. And cats are cheap. I love making art, and that's not too expensive either. Reading makes me happy. Biking and walking makes me happy. Cooking and eating makes me happy. I'm guessing that experiences similar to mine are why many people say that happiness can't be bought.
In short, money can certainly buy a higher material quality of life. But happiness is a mental state, and money can't buy that.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/16/2007 11:31:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 11:40:13 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | And one of these fucking politicians has GOT to figure out a health system that works better than what we have now, or a lot of you folks are gonna be in deep doo-doo a few years from now. Forget retirement, save and invest to SURVIVE at the end of your working careers! |
First let me say that I identify as a political liberal and am a huge supporter of a single payer universal health care system. And I do so because I see that we have the technology and resources to provide a much higher standard of health care to all people than ever before in history, and it strikes me as unethical to not allow all people access to that benefit.
That said, politicians are only people. They are not supermen. Our system is highly flawed. ALways has been, probably always will be. Bringing that down to a personal level and getting upset about it will only lead to personal misery. One can work toward a better society without taking a mentality that something is owed to us as individuals in our personal lives. The reality is that life doesn't owe us shit, we don't have any God-given rights, everything we want we have to figure out how to get for ourselves, and everything we want to keep we have to work to preserve. What's more, we're social AND all individuals who don't all think alike, so sometimes we have to fight, persuade, manipulate, or beg each other to get where we want to go. Life is a big friggin' mess. It has its ups and downs, more ups for some, more down for some. It isn't fair. You can take a cynical view and stop there, or you can take a positive view and move beyond acceptance that life isn't fair. But money alone ain't going to solve any of our problems. Power is as power does, and what we do with power is dependent on thoughts, ideas, biases, emotions, traditions, etc. It is NOT just material. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/16/2007 11:41:51 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 01:54:36 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
Well, let's see. In less than three pages....
"I am full of it"
"I am not responding to your post"
"I am just throwing out non sequiturs"
"I am truly hilarious"
"I am so funny"
"I really should stop before I expose any more of my own ignorance"
"I would if I actually understood"
"I should stop making such cliche' and ignorant arguments"
"I would if I actually knew anything about art history"
"my quote from Picasso is laughable"
I speak "shortsighted nonsense"
"I am trying to be the quintessential philistine"
"I ignorantly dismissed and denounced much art"
"I am just a curmudgeon who thinks his own tastes and values are superior"
"I criticizes that which I do not like and understand"
I appreciate your civility and your courteous choice of respectful nouns, adjectives and adverbs to express your views. So much discourse in these forums degenerates into name-calling and insult coming from children with insufficient maturity to speak without sneering. I have even been told to "fuck off", whatever that means! I had no idea of the encyclopedic breadth of knowledge that you possess on the subject, or I would have been a great deal more circumspect in my comments.
Obviously I can name no paintings out of the Rembrandt school. I made that up. There was no Rembrandt school, or group of artists that attempted to paint in his genre. Equally obvious, there were no critics of such non-existent work! And I apologize for stating that all such works, if they had existed, were so criticized. I have to read my own writing more carefully.
I was attempting to respond to your post, but my current primitive level of mastery of the language prevents me from not creating non-sequiturs (did I spell it correctly?) inadvertently.
I have to say, respectfully, that this beholder tends to be quite isolated in his opinions of what is "art", "music", and similar subjective judgments. I actively try to not be influenced by the time, the place, the customs or values of others. You, and many critics, subscribe to a different methodology of opinion. I now see the superiority of your way. You are incredibly versed in art history, minutae, and theory; and possessed of a vastly superior opinion than my simple and egotistical "I know what I like". Again, I apologize for presuming to confess before an penultimate expert, that I know what I like. Your opinion is greatly superior to mine, particularly with respect to what I like.
| Part of his fame is because his action paintings fit so well into a progression of art history. It was so natural for him to make them when and how he did because Pollack himself was so knowledgeable of art history |
Hmnnn. Precognition, probably.
| He had his finger on a cultural pulse and therefore hit on something that resonated with others with passion for this field. The rest of his fame lies in the fact that the technique itself can be imitated by just about anyone. Even though Pollack came to action painting through an elaborate process of training in high craft, the final products resembled something a child or monkey could do, and so they are easy to poke fun at, and all that much more memorable for being in art history books and grand museums. Pollack's paintings and their fame can only be understood within a cultural context,.... |
My stupidity combined with my ignorance compels me to see a similarity here to the comments of Picasso (below). I await, and defer to your vastly more knowledgeable appraisal of this, however.
| But to see how something fits in with the progression of history, human thoughts, values, desires, events – that makes something far more rich. That's something that gives us far more insight into the human condition itself. |
I DO understand how seeing the result of a monkey dripping various colors of paint on a canvas gives insight into the human condition!
| The artist that makes it – not just in the short term – is the one who happens to have his or her finger on the pulse of society and is able to communicate insights effectively through their art |
There I go again, hearing echos of that idiot commentator Picasso!
| You really should stop before you expose any more of your own ignorance. Warhol's work was never near photographic realism |
Yes, that Campbells Tomato Soup can was definitely surrealistic, or Impressionistic, or Something, but not anwhere near photographic realism! Once again, I have to agree with the obvious! My ignorant arguments proceed from my ignorance!
| You couldn't possibly buy off enough of the right people without being exposed and thereby certainly dooming yourself to failure. |
Thank you for advising me of what you know that I can and cannot do.
It's a big help in managing my life these days!
| False comparison for several reasons, not the least of which is that people participating in the art world are all knowledgeable of art history and are involved because they love art, while people involved in politics are often completely ignorant of law and history (such as most voters!) |
Well taken! Especially the use of the word all. And particularly profound coming from one with such all-encompassing knowledge in the areas noted.
| Your quote from Picasso is laughable. Keep in mind the guy was an artist, not a historian, philosopher, or critic. |
Yes, I confess that I not only found his self-deprecating comment attractive, I thought it actually said a great deal about the clowns who appear to dote on the subject. However, you obviously know a great deal more about the man's mind than I do, and indeed more than he did!
| Picasso was being an idiot in that quote |
I must say that, prior to my education here, I was impressed by certain other statements of his that I foolishly thought spoke to familiarity with history, philosophy, art criticism and even poetry!
What one does is what counts and not what one had the intention of doing. (Pablo Picasso)
One must act in painting as in life, directly. (Pablo Picasso)
It takes a very long time to become young. (Pablo Picasso)
This idea of art for art's sake is a hoax. (Pablo Picasso)
Enough of Art. It's Art that kills us. People no longer want to do painting: they make art.(Pablo Picasso)
Art is the elimination of the unnecessary. (Pablo Picasso)
What do you think an artist is? An imbecile who has only his eyes if he is a painter, or his ears if he is a musician? ...On the contrary, he is at the same time a political being, constantly on the alert to the heart-rending, burning, or happy events in the world, molding himself in their likeness. (Pablo Picasso)
Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once he grows up.(Pablo Picasso)
When you come right down to it, all you have is yourself. Yourself is a sun with a thousand fires in your belly. The rest is nothing. (Pablo Picasso)
Those trying to explain pictures are as a rule completely mistaken. (Pablo Picasso)
Every act of creation is first of all an act of destruction.(Pablo Picasso)
It is a well-known fact that we see the faults in other's works more readily than we do in our own. (Pablo Picasso)
Today we haven't the heart to expel the painters and poets from society because we refuse to admit to ourselves that there is any danger in keeping them in our midst. (Pablo Picasso)
Academic training in beauty is a sham. We have been so deceived, but so well deceived that we can scarcely get back even a shadow of the truth. (Pablo Picasso)
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. (Pablo Picasso)
To me there is no past or future in art. If a work of art does not live in the present, it must not be considered at all. (Pablo Picasso)
-on Marc Chagall
He must have an angel in his head. (Pablo Picasso)
Titian, Rembrandt and Goya were the great painters. I am only a public clown.(Pablo Picasso)
Inspiration exists, but it has to find you working. (Pablo Picasso)
Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life. (Pablo Picasso)
It took me four years to paint like Raphael, but a lifetime to paint like a child. (Pablo Picasso)
Critics, mathematicians, scientists and busybodies want to classify everything, marking the boundaries and limits... In art, there is room for all possibilities. (Pablo Picasso)
No doubt, it is useful for an artist to know all the forms of art which have preceded or which accompany his. That is a sign of strength if it is a question of looking for a stimulus or recognizing mistakes he must avoid. (Pablo Picasso)
Art is a lie that helps us to realize the truth. (Pablo Picasso)
It is your work in life that is the ultimate seduction. (Pablo Picasso) |
I know that all of these idiotic quotes will bring you much amusement, but it certainly is evident that the man was nothing but a highly talented fool!
| LOL! Are you trying to be the quintessential philistine? Why don't you name some rap and hip hop artists with critical notoriety and give a critique of why their music is not a form of artistic expression. You could post favorable reviews and then write your response explaining why the reviewer is blowing smoke. |
Perhaps the quadrissential philistine - guided by materialism, disdainful of intellectual or artistic values, uninformed in the specific knowledge of art, and generally a real snot! However, I could never review a hip-hop or rap performance due to a total inability to listen long enough to form an opinion. I am sure, as your ear matures, you will join music lovers in sharing that view, but in the meantime, I will bow to your current undoubtedly superior knowledge of the phenomenon!
| Whether you want to believe it or not, plenty of Classical and Jazz music sucks. |
From that statement, I am certain that your performance and appreciation abilities exceed mine, as your erudition in other areas would negate any other possibility. May I simply congratulate you on achieving a higher degree of critical musical appreciation in your 30 odd years on the planet than I have been able to achieve in devoting more than 70 years to the same lofty goals; and, as we both know, she is a difficult and unforgiving muse! Would that I could perform in concert with the response that you undoubtedly receive.
| The fact that you uphold some notable artists and styles but not others shows you're just a curmudgeon who thinks his own tastes and values are superior to that of others, and criticizes that which he does not like and/or understand. |
Indeed, you have taught me that the appreciation of any example of either the auditory or visual arts can only be achieved by intense study of the general media of which the example is representative.
No more, "I like that!" A great deal of musical education is necessary to enjoy either Shubert or Satchmo, Sibelius or Snoop Dog. Enormous scholarly endeavor studying Art history, brush technique, composition, aesthetics and the theory of art is necessary before attempting a trip to the Louvre, or even a glance at a Matisse, Mickey Mouse or a Maxwell Parrish. And then one must conform one's opinion to the extant critical view of the particular art form that one is examining. At least whatever that view is currently. But under no conditions make up one's own, uninformed mind about appreciating a particular piece of art! That would indeed be curmudgeonly, not ingenuous - like yourself! |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 03:11:16 [Permalink]
|
| I had no idea of the encyclopedic breadth of knowledge that you possess on the subject, or I would have been a great deal more circumspect in my comments. |
My profile says that I'm an artist, an art teacher, and that I have a Masters in Fine Art. After all these years and money spent, I would think I'd have an encyclopedic breadth of knowledge on the subject of fine art.
| Obviously I can name no paintings out of the Rembrandt school. I made that up. There was no Rembrandt school, or group of artists that attempted to paint in his genre. Equally obvious, there were no critics of such non-existent work! |
I realized that was probably the case, however, you said it to make a point that I thought false. It seemed your point was that there have been works done in classical styles today that have been rejected by critics. I threw out a few things to show that this is not at all the case. Look, I've had to deal with ignorant people saying crap about art that is complete bs for most of my life. I once listened to this woman at a party drone on and on about how Western culture is losing all the artistic techniques it developed in the Renaissance because nobody learns it or does it anymore. At the time I was just a freshman and didn't know if she was right or wrong. I later found out that there are many Academies all over the world teaching these styles, and a huge market and critical base still for them.
If I got the point you were attempting to make with the Rembrandt school comment, please clarify, and I will respond to your true intentions. If I got it right, defend your argument or concede.
| I have to say, respectfully, that this beholder tends to be quite isolated in his opinions of what is "art", "music", and similar subjective judgments. |
When did we start talking about what is art and music? I thought we were talking about how to measure the quality and value of various works and styles.
| I actively try to not be influenced by the time, the place, the customs or values of others. |
You are, to some degree, a product of your own time, place, and the customs and values of that time and place. So am I. That is simply part of being a human. But you seem to be trying to put some kind of objective value on certain types of art outside the realm of human consensuses. This all started because I said nobody can buy themselves into art history books as a great artist. They might be able to receive short-term fame and success, but longterm is too unpredictable and involves too many factors which are not purchasable or bribable. You must have your finger on that cultural pulse at just the right time and be able to communicate it visually. There is no formula, no clear path to that kind of achievement.
| My stupidity combined with my ignorance compels me to see a similarity here to the comments of Picasso (below). |
Picasso was making a value judgment about how art was received in different historical contexts. I made no judgment.
| I DO understand how seeing the result of a monkey dripping various colors of paint on a canvas gives insight into the human condition! |
No, obviously you do not, nor are you open to discover why so many people have been moved by Pollack's work and regard it as historically significant.
| There I go again, hearing echos of that idiot commentator Picasso! |
Again, Picasso made a judgment. He acted as if his judgment were objective, elevating the judgments and successful works of the past to that of some sort of demigod status, and refusing to acknowledge the hard work and deep insight that also goes into many currently acclaimed works.
| I must say that, prior to my education here, I was impressed by certain other statements of his that I foolishly thought spoke to familiarity with history, philosophy, art criticism and even poetry! |
Showing off great quotes from Picasso does not prove that he was right or having great insight with that other quote. And my criticism of one cherry-picked paragraph from Picasso is hardly me calling him a fool in all spoken matters.
| However, I could never review a hip-hop or rap performance due to a total inability to listen long enough to form an opinion. I am sure, as your ear matures, you will join music lovers in sharing that view, but in the meantime, I will bow to your current undoubtedly superior knowledge of the phenomenon! |
So you admit your ignorance judgment due to personal preferences.
I hate tomato sauce. I'll be sure to become a food critic, go to a restaurant that specializes in them, and then write a horrible review of their food.
| May I simply congratulate you on achieving a higher degree of critical musical appreciation in your 30 odd years on the planet than I have been able to achieve in devoting more than 70 years to the same lofty goals; and, as we both know, she is a difficult and unforgiving muse! Would that I could perform in concert with the response that you undoubtedly receive. |
Some old people are morons when it comes to certain subjects that people in their 20's are brilliant about, so I'm not sure why you are bringing up the age factor. Do you actually have anything of substance to offer, or is this just one big sarcastic rant whining about me calling you ignorant?
| No more, "I like that!" A great deal of musical education is necessary to enjoy either Shubert or Satchmo, Sibelius or Snoop Dog. Enormous scholarly endeavor studying Art history, brush technique, composition, aesthetics and the theory of art is necessary before attempting a trip to the Louvre, or even a glance at a Matisse, Mickey Mouse or a Maxwell Parrish. And then one must conform one's opinion to the extant critical view of the particular art form that one is examining. At least whatever that view is currently. But under no conditions make up one's own, uninformed mind about appreciating a particular piece of art! That would indeed be curmudgeonly, not ingenuous - like yourself! |
I acknowledge much art as great and significant even though I personally don't like it. It is simply a matter of acknowledging a huge body of knowledge, insightful opinions, and dialogue. While human consensuses will never be truly objective, without them, no works of art could ever be judged in any kind of way except personal preference. It has nothing to do with letting other people think for you and everything to do with connecting to a broader scope of humanity and broader understanding of human history and society.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/17/2007 05:01:01 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 05:08:56 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck wrote: | The same reasoning applies to many of the art forms. If "rap" or "hip hop" is artistic expression, I certainly believe that "natural talent" can be bought. |
Rap and hip hop both originated folk poetry and drumming of slaves, and later with the urban poor. Despite poverty and racial prejudice, it slowly rose to acclaim and has changed with the times. Most of the notable rap and hip hop artists themselves come from urban poverty or working class backgrounds. How was its success an example of artistic recognition being bought? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2007 : 06:09:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Val wrote: Ummmm.
Money turns "batshit crazy" into "eccentric", Marf.
Sorry. |
I hope this is a joke. I don't think that anyone who has watched a few people and their family and friends suffer because of severe mental illness would say something like this and mean it seriously.
While certainly there are mental illnesses that cause a person to simply behave strangely, most of the people I know with severe mental illness suffer intensely, and their suffering is directly caused by the illness, not outside forces that could be altered with money. Depending on the condition, people with mental illness can be tortured by feelings of paranoia, internal voices, hallucinations, and self-worthlessness. They are disconnected from reality which obviously limits the quality of their interpersonal relationships and can lead to behavior that is self destructive and/or harmful to others. Dr. W.C. Minor, who gain fame for contributing thousands of entries for the Oxford English Dictionary was confined to an asylum most of his life because he murdered a man while having a paranoid hallucinatory episode. Later in life he cut off his own penis during another episode. Many with certain mental illnesses can develop egocentricism, which is often not recognized as part of their mental illness, but rather a negative personality trait. Severe mental illness is an unwanted tragedy regardless of how much money someone has.
|
In 1947, the Collyer brothers were called eccentric. They collected newspapers and other periodicals. Their mansion was so filled with them that one had to crawl on hands and knees to get from place to place. The Collyers were also paranoid and had made booby traps.
One was a parapalegic and required assistance from his brother. When his brother was killed by one of the booby traps, he starved to death.
It took the police and firefighters several hours to extricate the paralysed brother's body. The other brother was recovered 19 days later about ten feet away. The mansion contained 300 tons of stuff. The mansion had to be destroyed.
That's what I call "batshit crazy" and others call "eccentric".
The definition of mental illness seens to change once the person who has it crosses their first 20 million dollars. My point here is that it shouldn't. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 14:08:57 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox....
I started this thread with the intention of having some fun with a preposterous assertion "Money can buy anything!" If there is any steam left in that boiler, I would like to hear the calliope.
Filthy has graciously agreed to play with me, also Furshur, Dave, and yourself. Kil, Half Moon, Val and John have chimed in. I thank you all. I promise not to print a word of what has been said if I ever get close enough to a printing press to smell the money.
However, this has turned into two person monologue concerned primarily with various issues involving talent, the history of art, and other fascinating subjects that, not being an artist, I am neither qualified for debating, nor interested in continuing a discourse on at this time.
I played the long game with you last night, I am VERY glad you recognized at least part of the sarcasm Marf,(it was all sarcasm) and my pompous ego is satiated. If yours is not, you can start another thread or whatever you need to pontificate.
We are both fully capable of viciously or cleverly (or both) barbing each other until one of us (that would be me) dies of old age. However, despite the raging adrenaline that your response to my last post has engendered, I want to now publicly concede that you are all that and a bag of chips, Master of the Art Universe! I see a great improvement in your efforts at civil discourse in your latest postings, and, Benzaiten willing (Boticelli would have it as Venus) you will mature out of your tender years into a mannerly adult. Like me.
After you finish your PhD dissertation, I would suggest that you return to the Halls of Ivy and go for a BS in Humor.
As to the rest of you folks, if we're all done, it's been fun. Any more thoughts on what money won't buy?
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/17/2007 14:17:50 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 19:03:48 [Permalink]
|
| And you wonder why I'm so abusive toward you. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
boomer
BANNED
6 Posts |
 Posted - 10/17/2007 : 19:22:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
And you wonder why I'm so abusive toward you.
|
From one bitch to another:
FUCK YOU!!!
I don't think an official warning is really necessary in this case. Boomer, I have zero tolerance for what you just posted. You are now banned. Have a nice life…
Kil
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 19:33:38 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
Back on Topic
Your statement.....
| Yes, if cleverly used. But you can't buy cleverness, and there are plenty of clever people out there who spend most of their time and energy trying to cleverly scam people with money |
really answers your question.....
| Part of the reason people don't imagine it is probably because what is the point of sitting around fanaticizing? |
Perhaps to understand that big money can and does buy big influence in big government, big marketing, and big politics. Most people don't have any idea the manipulation of their lives that can be done and is being done by damn clever people with lots of money. I am currently involved in a political endeavor to teach undecided voters to think along these lines.
Silly scenarios like buying another Harry Potter and Filthy's roll in the hay with an underage movie star are merely metaphors for the terribly real and really terrible misuse of big money to the detriment of the citizenry.
| If anything, in our culture we think of the world as too material. Given that the likelihood of suddenly have gobs of wealth is slim to none, people must live in the real world. Learning how to be satisfied with less will make you happy if you don't have access or easy access to more. |
But the real world IS material. And most material, money can buy.
And learning how to get along with less will make you less happy than having more, if that access happens to change by accident or design.
Would you deny that if I suddenly gave you fifty thousand dollars, you would not be happier than you were the minute before I gave it to you? I'm guessing that your answer would be "...for a while"
Another plum picked from your Wiki tree is this: (Same link)
What causes Happiness - Scientific Research
Looking for the level of happiness as reported by people, and comparing it to various elements in their life reveals the following findings:
1) about 50% of one's happiness depends on his genes. This is shown by studying identical twins, and learning that their happiness is 50% correlated even when growing up in different houses.
2) 10-15% is a result of various measurable variables. Like socioeconomic status, marital status, health, income, and others.
3) The rest of the variance does not have a discernible cause. Called "unexplained variance". It may actually be attributed to noise.
|
My bolding
Marital status can frequently be improved by availability of money.
I believe that good health, especially over 50, is dependent on having money.
And I'll bet that "noise" factor is largely the sound of "ka-ching"
| Basically, if you live in a third world shithole, you are more likely to be miserable. But if you live in genteel poverty with access to basic necessities, or are middle class, you aren't likely to be any sadder on average than your wealthy counterparts. |
That may very well be true, but my statement is that Money can buy Happiness. Not average money. Bigger money. Maybe big money! To hell with the statistics, would your average middle class happiness be increased by a tax free infusion of a million dollars? If the answer is no, is there an amount that would increase your average daily happiness? I would try a poll on this, but I don't have the slightest idea of how to do it and I fucked up so bad over at Skepticality, that I wouldn't dare try it here!
| In short, money can certainly buy a higher material quality of life. But happiness is a mental state, and money can't buy that. |
Do I understand then that significant additional money in your life with no attendant time restraints or the like (win the lottery)would not make you significantly happier?
I'll get back to you on buying cleverness. It's called Karl Rove!
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 19:41:53 [Permalink]
|
Marfknox.....
You said...
| And you wonder why I'm so abusive toward you. |
I never wondered, most unruly children are abusive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Money can buy (almost) Anything!
