|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 12/28/2007 : 22:39:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I think about it this way – if something can be communicated more directly, then art is not the proper means for communicating it. |
And a picture is worth a thousand words, so fifty paintings are as direct as one novel.| I'm not saying artists can't also be activists or that an artist's political and philosophical views don't influence their art. |
Actually, what you said was that artists are not political or social leaders or activists, and that artists cannot invent social ideals. I disagree on both points, and nothing you've said disuades me from my view. Because...| When I was a kid, I loved the paintings of Diego Rivera, and still do. But never because of their social messages. Like most people, I loved his potent use of color and composition, and his distinctive style. Did his political murals inspire a social movement in Mexico? No. Quite the opposite – a social movement that he was involved in (and which failed) inspired his subject matter. Today, he and the other Mexican muralists' works are preserved and valued by history and Mexican culture buffs, but they aren't inspiring anybody in Mexico to start another revolution. Those murals didn't change the world, they were part of social change that was already happening. They are important to history in that they help mark that time and place, but they don't seem to (yet?) be very important to art history. |
...pointing out one case where an artist was inspired by someone else's ideals does nothing to take away from my point. That's like saying that computer programmers can't be political leaders because one famous computer programmer followed some political leader.| The musical qualities of the song "We Are the World" were not responsible for the huge rallying around the issue of starvation in Africa. Rather, it was the popularity of the celebrities performing and widespread promotion of it. If a band of unknown street performers had written and played the same song in the NYC subways, and were heard by thousands, it would have had absolutely zero effect on famine relief. The song itself is somewhat moving in its simple and clear message, but I can imagine many songs in its place having the same impact. |
Nononono. The question is: if those musicians had gotten together and become activists for famine relief just by talking about it in op-eds and on talk shows and radio interviews (for examples), would it have had the same effect as it did when they put their talents to use for the cause?
How many people has Tom Cruise discouraged from using psychiatric medicine by blabbing about its evils on Oprah? How many more could he discourage by acting out those evils on screen in a movie with a compelling Scientology message?| Not sure why you brought up Delaney and Heinlein – it seems to me that the cult-like following over their books does indeed have to do with the art of the books, not any social activism. Maybe I'm missing your point. |
Not activisim. The social ideals you spoke of. The books drew the cult-like following they did because readers embraced the ideals expressed within them for how society should be. Thankfully (and I'm sure the authors would agree - were one not dead) their following was never large. Had they been in the mood, these authors could have abused the power that their fans were willing to give them. Heinlein, if I recall an interview correctly, was apalled at such thoughts. Dunno 'bout Delaney.
Artists have as much ability to effect social and political change as any other person, marf, and it all depends upon how much power other people are willing to hand over. I might even go so far as to say that rhetoric is an asthetic discipline, as well, thus turning the current political campaigns into battles within the world of the art of bullshitting. How many actors have governed California? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2007 : 01:54:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
All of the art that I can think of which is very obscure is so by necessity to what the artist is expressing. Making it more accessible would be changing the meaning. Abstract artists today know that they will forever be made fun of and misunderstood by most people. But they care too much about what they are doing to stop. |
Well understand that I was speaking about art and art criticism in general not any particular piece. I don't expect every piece to be comprehensible to me but I do expect that art should succeed on its artistic merits and I suspect that for much of the art promoted by the art world its high valuation is maintained through other means.
| I really don't understand what you are saying. Could you refer to some specific works? |
Voice of Fire, which made headlines when it was purchased by the National Gallery of Canada for $1.8 million in 1989, is a representative example of what I am talking about. To be clear though it's not that I think that "Voice of Fire" has no value, it's just that the valuation (and it has appreciated since it was purchased) seems completely off the wall.
| If I think of something like dada (such as Duchamp's famous urinal) I don't see how it could possibly be made more accessible without changing the meaning. |
That's another good example. Though I do understand the message behind it (I think). It is the extreme atmosphere of sublime importance that surrounds it that is unsupported. I suppose that is somewhat ironic as I've always kinda seen it as partly an attempt to take the piss out of that kind of attitude.
| And as for open to outside criticism, the stuffy art world has been criticized by lowbrow artists such as illustrators and cartoonists, comedians, talk show hosts, and more for decades. And the art world doesn't take offense to this jabs. Hell, a few years ago ArtNews (the foremost magazine of the American world of fine art) did a story on a retrospective of cartoons by Robert Crumb and even included one of his strips which made fun of fine art snobs. I don't get what you are asking for. |
Why should they take offense? For the most part they don't take it seriously. Hell they'd probably take praise by the lowbrows as an indication they were doing something wrong. As for Robert Crumb I have a feeling that many of the "art fucks" secretly love his work. It's so low brow it's almost high brow. Heh.
| I still don't see where the problem is when there aren't false claims involved. If the people who love and study art the most don't emphasize its importance, no one will. |
They should emphasize it's importance, but they should not isolate themselves from negative criticism. They should respond to it, get angry about it, agree with it, mock it or rebut it but never, ever ignore it or suppress it.
| And I still don't see how other sources of criticism are cut off. Although they are often stemming from ignorance. For example, so many people in NYC went ape shit about the show "Sensation" which included works by Chris Ofili who used elephant dung in paintings of the Madonna. But the critics mostly hadn't even gone to see the show, much less read even a short review of these works to find out that Ofili was of Nigerian decent, and in Nigeria elephant dung is used in artwork in a reverent manner. People were also upset because Ofili used pornographic imagery for the cherubs in some of the paintings. But if anyone bothered to read the New York Times review or any other article about these paintings, they'd find out that Ofili was trying more blatently express the sexual charge he felt as a child looking at old master paintings of the Madonna. Mary almost always looks directly and intensely at the viewer, and in fact, many of the old masters used models for Mary that they had had affairs with. Also, so much religious importance is put on Mary's virginity, and Ofili was raised Catholic. Ofili had this profound experience with art as a child, and as an adult artist wanted to share it. The art world was happy to welcome this unique and exciting interpretation of a very old theme in Western art, but the outside critics were essentially covering their eyes and ears and chanting, "That has poop and porn so it is bad bad bad!" |
Mixing poop and porn is never good  .
Two of Ofili's offending images (the first one has the dung – three paddies, not exactly smeared in any kind of visually offensive or defacing manner):
It isn't that the art world wouldn't welcome intelligible outside criticism. It does, as ArtNews welcomed R. Crumb's satirical observations. But most of it is ignorance and unintelligible. |
It's it's almost never unintelligible, it may be worthy of mockery as in the example you gave above but to call it unintelligible is a cop out. Based on ignorance? Sure it often is. But frankly so what? Ignorance is a legitimate reason for not appreciating the artistic value of something. Not that anyone should revel in ignorance of course, but it is impossible or impractical to avoid being ignorant in some cases.
| Art culture includes everyone who is interested in art. Those who are outside of it don't care. Why make some extra effort to communicate to them? |
The point I am making is that it doesn't in fact include everyone who is interested in art. There is an inner clique of people who act as the gatekeepers of high art. Influential art critics, curators of major art museums, wealthy art collecters, and favored artists form a sort of ecosystem that is insulated from the broader art world.
| Who said fear of populism? I said it shouldn't feel obligated to pander to the majority. Art as a whole is broadly relevant. |
Art as a whole isn't what we've been talking about though. I think there is a kind of fear of being too popular with the lowbrows among the art intelligentsia.
| Like I said, every social grouping has its own art, even the urban poor with graffiti. Recently a small group of poor African American women in a southern town have become famous for their handmade quilts, a form of folk art. Why should fine art have broad appeal? |
Fine art is in some sense considered to be the best, most representative, most poingnant. If it doesn't manage to have broad artistic appeal that is cause for concern, no?
| Like I said, that would be ridiculous in the first place. The only people who have the money and time to be fine artists or become curators and critics are people who come from the educated middle class. How are people like that going to make art for broader society? |
If they can't reliably recognize and emphasize or create art that will stand the test of time, then the self-agrandizing culture they are a part of is all the more indefensible.
| The thing is that postmodern art seems to refer to something different depending on who is talking or the time of day. |
That's pretty much the main point of postmodernism – a hyperawareness that everything is dependant on context. If you complain about people using the term in different ways in different contexts, you have missed the point. |
Well the point is an ass then. It seems to mean whatever the person talking wants it to mean without regard to any sort of context. If postmodernism refered to "a hyperawareness that everything is dependant on context" then there should be some sort of consistency in that usage but as far as I can tell there is not. Taking the definition of a word and making it a feature of the word only sows confusion. It would be like me writing "invisible" as invisible and then blaming other people for not understanding what I wrote.
| I think you are right that postmodernism is not a coherent movement but it does, to my mind at least, attempt to present a unified facade. |
Can you be more specific, give examples? I went to art school and don't see who could be trying to present this unified facade. |
When people speak of postmodern art they speak about it as if it were somehow all thematically related. There is the sense that "postmodern art" actually refers to some style or theme or art movement, rather than being just a catchall category for art that the intelligentsia likes.
| Hmmm... how is that ironic? Isn't that an indication that what I'm saying has some merit since even within postmodernism there is an attempt to address concerns similar to the ones I have voiced. |
It is ironic because you cited postmodernism as one of the things that you think is falling short. |
Uh huh. No offence but perhaps the real irony here is that something you brought up because you thought it was ironic in fact supports my point.
| Fine art hasn't been what it once was ever since the democratic revolution took hold in Western culture. However, it doesn't seek to cultivate or influence anything other than its own lineage, which would truly be a sad thing to see disappear altogether. It would be even more sad to see the academic art world disappear since that is the institution which seeks out and recognizes high quality art among that which is not fine art (such as graffiti and innovative quilters.) I don't think self-consciously high art ever had its roles filled by popular entertainment. Popular entertainment is not a new thing. Shakespeare's plays were popular entertainment in their day. Japanese woodblock prints starts as theater posters. There isn't this hard and fast line between high and low art once we step back and view it from an academic perspective – which is what postmodernism realized. I don't get your beef with postmodernism; you seem to agree with it quite well. |
I'm sure that it was realized that the line between high art and low art was blurry before the advent of postmodernism. I just can't imagine that it wasn't.
Do I agree with postmodernism? I'm pretty sure I disagree with much of postmodern philosophy but we were talking here about art. How can someone agree or disagree with an art movement or collection of unrelated art styles? One can disagree in the sense of not liking it but as you have said ad infinitum it does not make a claim of fact.
| Interesting, perhaps it would be fair to say that it's all connected by its lack of connection or unified by its lack of unity. |
This reminds me of another Herbert Read quote. This one is from his book "The Meaning of Art" first published in 1931: | Art is communication, and though it works by and with the sensibility, there is simply no reason why it should not communicate a sense of values. The answer to the question whether great art can exist independently of religion will therefore depend on our scale of values. The court of judgment is sooner or later the community. It would in some way appeal to a community-feeling. Hitherto the highest form of community-feeling has been religious: it is for those who deny the necessary connection between religion and art to discover some equivalent form of community-feeling which will, in the long run, ensure an historic continuity for the art that is not religious. |
|
Great quote.
| So the aesthetic that tends to develop is one of general aimlessness or vertigo. |
Yes, but the same could be said for the "community" of Western culture as a whole. Like I said before, we have no unifying values as we did in the ages where one religion was imposed. The art of today is only inadequate because of the nature of the society which produces it. |
Ah, yes okay. But the important point is that it is inadequate. Glossing over that point with various excuses or rationalizations could partly be contributing to the continuing irrelevance of todays so called "high art".
| I wonder though if the art world sort of got stuck there in some ways. I think the outside world has started to move away from that aesthetic and is learning to cope with not having a dogmatic worldview handed down to them. |
You keep saying things about the art world that as far as I could tell while earning my masters, were thrown out before WWI. The art world has been coping with that for a long time now. |
I'm not sure what to make of this since in the bit you are responding to I am suggesting that society is moving away from limbo which you don't seem to take issue with. Above you acknowledge that art is inadequate so I'm not sure what you're geting at here. I would note that secularization continues apace and is a slow (somtimes torturously so) process, so it's not exactly a theme lost to the mists of time quite yet.
Again, look at what Read was writing nearly 80 years ago: | During the course of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, humanism loses its idealistic element. Civilization grows more and more materialistic, and the artist finally ends, in the eighteenth century by becoming either the servant of this materialistic society or simply his own masters. In the former case he is in no better position than the primitive artist; he has merely exchanged one kind of fear for another. The second case brings us to th real issue: can the artist, on the basis of his own sensibility, and without the aid of mass-emotions and traditional ideals – can such an artist, 'good, great and joyous, beautiful and free', create works of art which will hold their own with the greatest creations of religious art? |
The servants of the materialistic society are the entertainers, decorators, designers, and other commercial artists, and the ones who maintain their individuality are largely unknown, and many who are known are called out of touch snobs, financial failures, weirdos, irrelevant, eccentrics, selfish, misanthropic. Most quit within 10 years and a handful manage to have some success in various artistic circles, be they high or lowbrow, but hardly any ever manage to communicate something meaningful, fresh, and complex to a large segment of the public. For now, the answer is to Read's question is probably no, though I have hope for the future. The fact that most Americans use a religious label, but most art (including all forms, not just fine art) is not at all religious, shows that the worldview people profess and the one they actually live by are not at all in sync. Many people in Europe are waking up and getting them in sync, but until most do, art will continue to be either commercial garbage or weird and out of touch with most of society. I'm just happy there still is fine art, and I hope this is just a transitional period, not a slow death. |
I agree though I am suprised. I would've thought you would answer yes to Read's question. Given that it was asked almost eighty years ago and the answer is still probably no, doesn't that suggest a sort of stagnation or stasis at least in comparison? |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/29/2007 : 14:38:03 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Actually, what you said was that artists are not political or social leaders or activists, and that artists cannot invent social ideals. |
I meant that they can't be and do these things through art. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
| That's like saying that computer programmers can't be political leaders because one famous computer programmer followed some political leader. |
A computer programmer can't be a political leader through computer programming. Computer programming and political leadership are two different activities with different goals, just like art and activism are different activities with different goals. Doesn't mean that one person can't be a great computer programmer and a great political leader. I don't think artists are some sort of special people with a singular calling in life.
| The question is: if those musicians had gotten together and become activists for famine relief just by talking about it in op-eds and on talk shows and radio interviews (for examples), would it have had the same effect as it did when they put their talents to use for the cause? |
But the music is not what made it work. Cults of personality and marketing, not to mention the novelty of it were at play. What I mean is, anyone who looks at the "We Are The World" song from an objective POV is unlikely to credit the music itself with the public reaction. So I'll agree it is art, but only in the broad sense that includes home decorating and children's doodles also as art. Art as propaganda, which is exactly what "We Are The World" is, is manipulative and encourages the opposite of critical thinking. In Robert Greene's book, The 48 Laws of Power, Law 37 advocates creating compelling spectacles as a way of gaining power without debate. Greene writes:
“The visual short-circuits the labyrinth of words. It strikes with an emotional power and immediacy that leaves no gaps for reflection or doubt. Like music, it leaps right over rational, reasonable thoughts.”
Art as propaganda is shallow and manipulative, like advertising. If it is art, it is the most cynical and patronizing kind.
| Not activisim. The social ideals you spoke of. The books drew the cult-like following they did because readers embraced the ideals expressed within them for how society should be. Thankfully (and I'm sure the authors would agree - were one not dead) their following was never large. Had they been in the mood, these authors could have abused the power that their fans were willing to give them. Heinlein, if I recall an interview correctly, was apalled at such thoughts. Dunno 'bout Delaney. |
That's different, the message doesn't take away from the art because the art was not created for the primary purpose of disseminating the message in order to inspire a specific kind of social change. That is probably why Heinlein was appalled. I question whether the following of the authors could have been so easily abused by themselves, however. Often artists become popular because they touch in values that were underneath but previously not well articulated, but when the artist turns activist, people are turned off.
Again, I truly believe art - or perhaps just the most lasting and significant art in the longrun - functions as a mirror for society (the best when it reflects things in a way not thought of before that jostles our awareness), not so much as a catalyst for social change. And when it is a catalyst, it is so in a manipulative, anti-rational sort of way.
|
"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 - 12/29/2007 : 16:31:05 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Well understand that I was speaking about art and art criticism in general not any particular piece. I don't expect every piece to be comprehensible to me but I do expect that art should succeed on its artistic merits and I suspect that for much of the art promoted by the art world its high valuation is maintained through other means. |
What art isn't succeeding on its merits. I mean, unfortunately people who come from greater financial security tend to succeed because they are more likely to get better education, and the security allows one to obtain the tools for making and promoting their work. If we talk about the Ivory Tower, the artistic merit is all that is discussed. But in the gallery scene, marketability becomes a factor much greater than the merit. The business of art is known for being especially corrupt and abusive toward artists. In the long run, most of the artists who are successful financially are not the ones who get their names in art history books. Thomas Kinkade is one of the best selling painters alive, but he isn't even taken seriously by critics now, and I'd be shocked if he were regarded in the history of fine art, though he might achieve notoriety in the history of decorative arts. Guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure what you mean by "valuation". Do you mean monetary or intellectual/historical value?
| Voice of Fire, which made headlines when it was purchased by the National Gallery of Canada for $1.8 million in 1989, is a representative example of what I am talking about. To be clear though it's not that I think that "Voice of Fire" has no value, it's just that the valuation (and it has appreciated since it was purchased) seems completely off the wall. |
Barnett Newman is regarded as an incredibly important artist simply because of what he was doing when and where he was doing it. Color field painters are a dime a dozen now, but when he did it it was new. So his name seems like it is going to be pretty well immortalized in histories of 20th century art. As such, his surviving works are going to be valued highly, and rich people or institutions will invest in them. That's just supply and demand at work. I don't know how one would try to put some kind of objective value on the work for its artistic merits itself… I mean, it is so context based. Do you think that if we invent a printer capable for making exact 3D replicas (which we aren't far from doing) that copies of the Mona Lisa should be worth the same as the original? People always attach sentimental value to originals.
I think the problem here is that I think the monetary value of the work should not be thought of as perfectly reflecting the intellectual/historical value of the work. Romare Bearden is a highly popular and important artist, but his works are worth less than some which are regarded as less significant, largely because he made so much work and there is therefore more to go around. Supply and demand.
| That's another good example. Though I do understand the message behind it (I think). It is the extreme atmosphere of sublime importance that surrounds it that is unsupported. I suppose that is somewhat ironic as I've always kinda seen it as partly an attempt to take the piss out of that kind of attitude. |
There is an irony about Duchamp's work in that he himself would probably be rolling his eyes at how his "ready mades" are immortalized in art museums. But at the same time, without doing so, the message is rendered insignificant, even though dada and its related movements had a huge impact. Do you not think it culturally important that Western art reached a point |
"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 12/29/2007 16:32:07 |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/30/2007 : 23:16:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
What art isn't succeeding on its merits. I mean, unfortunately people who come from greater financial security tend to succeed because they are more likely to get better education, and the security allows one to obtain the tools for making and promoting their work. If we talk about the Ivory Tower, the artistic merit is all that is discussed. But in the gallery scene, marketability becomes a factor much greater than the merit. The business of art is known for being especially corrupt and abusive toward artists. In the long run, most of the artists who are successful financially are not the ones who get their names in art history books. Thomas Kinkade is one of the best selling painters alive, but he isn't even taken seriously by critics now, and I'd be shocked if he were regarded in the history of fine art, though he might achieve notoriety in the history of decorative arts. Guess what I'm saying is that I'm not sure what you mean by "valuation". Do you mean monetary or intellectual/historical value? |
I mean that the artistic value gets eclipsed by other things (economics, hype, notoriety, lack of perspective, faddishness) and judging by the above you largely agree only you point out that the art business is the culprit rather than the Ivory Tower. I don't see the two as particularily distinct entities but for what it's worth you do have a point there.
| Barnett Newman is regarded as an incredibly important artist simply because of what he was doing when and where he was doing it. Color field painters are a dime a dozen now, but when he did it it was new. So his name seems like it is going to be pretty well immortalized in histories of 20th century art. As such, his surviving works are going to be valued highly, and rich people or institutions will invest in them. That's just supply and demand at work. I don't know how one would try to put some kind of objective value on the work for its artistic merits itself… I mean, it is so context based. Do you think that if we invent a printer capable for making exact 3D replicas (which we aren't far from doing) that copies of the Mona Lisa should be worth the same as the original? People always attach sentimental value to originals. |
I agree but it's a matter of degree. Is it sentimental value or simply art remade as a status symbol? If the artistic merit could somehow be completely separated out and measured independantly of the rest then an original would probably still retain a higher valuation, there is a certain aesthetic appeal or poignancy inherent in the knowledge that a piece is the original. Though that is probably more true of works that don't look like they were produced by a machine in the first place.
| I think the problem here is that I think the monetary value of the work should not be thought of as perfectly reflecting the intellectual/historical value of the work. Romare Bearden is a highly popular and important artist, but his works are worth less than some which are regarded as less significant, largely because he made so much work and there is therefore more to go around. Supply and demand. |
Fair enough.
| There is an irony about Duchamp's work in that he himself would probably be rolling his eyes at how his "ready mades" are immortalized in art museums. But at the same time, without doing so, the message is rendered insignificant, even though dada and its related movements had a huge impact. Do you not think it culturally important that Western art reached a point where its major institutions accepted a found u |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
The myth of the secularist humbug
