 |
| "Chow: show the inner essence of the subject" |
Art lover Sarah Jessica Parker (Sex in the City) then exhorted the competitors to "be brave."
But nothing quite compared to the the moment when the oleaginous, double breasted Simon de Pury, described as a "leader in the international art world," purred inappropriately over a nude portrait of a contestant half his age ("I seenk eet loooks vehreee appeeling").
The cumulative effect reminded me of Ambrose Bierce's observation,"So scurvy a crew I do not remember to have discerned in vermiculose conspiracy outside the carcass of a dead horse."
It's not like we didn't smell this state of affairs coming. Mid-way through the 20th century, artist Raphael Soyer looked ruefully over his shoulder at the path fine art had recently taken:
The art world of the 1920s and 1930s was different from today's art world. Art was not the big business it has become today. It did not have the air of glitter and commercialism. Art was less sensational, reputations were not so rapidly made and lost. There were about 15 or so modest art galleries in New York, several of them filled with paintings by Eakins, Homer and Ryder. The well known, in fact, famous artists of that time-- Bellows, Sloan, Hopper-- were not celebrities.Saul Bellow had a similar view of the way a foolish prosperity had undermined potentially serious writers:
Nowadays when a young man thinks of becoming a writer, first he thinks of his hairstyle and then what clothes he should wear and then what whiskey he's going to endorse.... The depression bred compassion and solidarity between people instead of breeding crime and antagonism. They were much less harsh or severe than in time of prosperity.Even Soyer and Bellows didn't anticipate the path art would take. One of the contestants on Work of Art: The Next Great Artist created performance art where white males in her audience were invited to apologize for oppressing indigenous people by biting a burrito attached to her substantial hip.
Decadent, superfluous art seems especially difficult to tolerate because of what art has the potential to be. As Shakespeare noted, "Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds."
But the purpose of this week's post is not to shoot fish in a barrel. There is actually an interesting point here. It is worth considering why illustration has largely escaped this type of putrefaction. Illustration admittedly has many limitations, but it also seems to contain antibodies that protect it from the decadence and self-indulgence which have infected much of the fine art field in recent decades.
The relentless efficiency of the marketplace strips illustration of a lot of potential qualities, but at the same time it seems to scrub away a lot of pretensions and illusions.
Illustration art-- in the service of robust commerce-- doesn't have as much latitude for the vices displayed in so many of today's temples of fine art.
331 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 331 of 331Phew. just made it in time.
It's interesting that most of the truly great artists I've met are fairly down to earth people. They usually look down their nose at fancy relativistic and quasi-mystical discussions of art. They brush off art based on reductivism and non-sequitur and prefer to discuss the practical technique and application of expression.
Art movements that expound philosophies and place emphasis on conceptual rather than visual expression are bound to be populated by people who don't think like artists. Art criticism tends to champion these sorts of styles because they translate well to the written word. One can quote Zen Buddhism in a discussion about a block of wood laying on the floor or talk about the futility of life in a review about a skull covered with jewels.
The sorts of discussions that go on in art galleries bear little resemblance to the discussion that go on among artists in their studios.
Richard,
Shall you confess that you confused "formalism" with "representationalism"?
Awww...somebody needs a parade.
My work as kept me from participating in the discussion for the past few days but the conversation seems to have been going better without me. Perhaps I should travel more often.
It's impossible to do justice to the complexity and depth of recent comments by skimming across the surface at the end. Nevertheless, I can't resist offering a few belated thoughts:
For a while it seemed as if some of these comments were being submitted as examples of the previous post:
"Between the veteran artist running out of original ideas and the child who believes his every crayon line is unprecedented...
Between the expert who is hamstrung by too much knowledge of art's long history and the airy ignorance of the novice..."
This week we seem to have witnessed a lot of tugging at either extreme, but we don't seem to be finding much of that "sweet spot" common ground.
Perhaps that is inevitable in a discussion where we can't seem to agree on a definition for "postmodern"-- a task made more difficult because postmodernism is a frustrating "category" of art whose only unifying theme is the time period in which it occurs: taken literally, "post modernism" would include anything that happened after the modern era. That is the kind of non-category you get stuck with when you try to conceptually integrate art produced in an era of disintegration.
Personally, I would have been happy with the wikipedia definition or the Heller / Chwast defintion for purposes of this discussion. failing that, I'd say that anyone who wishes to condemn an entire school of art becomes responsible for defining precisely what they are condemning (and what they are not), just as anyone defending the quality of that school of art has the responsibility for identifying specific examples of high quality.
In my view, it's difficult to find examples of great postmodern art; in fact, it is so easy to find lame ass, puerile examples of postmodern art it is like (as I suggested in this week's post) "shooting fish in a barrel." But the good feeling you get from that particular sport never lasts very long. The more worthwhile task, in my view, is seeing whether we can find quality examples of postmodern art. If we can, is it possible to extrapolate from them? In the words of the great Seneca, "If you would judge, investigate."
I have not been to DIA:Beacon but I have been to DIA's
Lightning Field and I found it to be an incredible experience. I flew across the country, then drove to the ends of the earth to get there, but found it well worth the trip. On the other hand, I would not cross the room to see most of what I understand to be postmodern art.
What do we make of this? I can tell you that I still contain my Lightning Field experience within me and have turned to it several times since, and that keeps me from dismissing postmodernism. In fact, if that is postmodern art, you can sign me up (unless of course Richard disqualifies me as being too old to appreciate it).
Ray-- I too was saddened by the death of Al Williamson. By the time I was back and in a position to comment, several ardent fans (such as Greg Manchess or Michael Kaluta) had already written tributes and the world seemed to have moved on. Sorry I missed it, but perhaps I can do a retrospective on him someday. He was an interesting talent; he started out where Frazetta did but they ended in such different places.
Postscript on that young/old thing: the longer I do this blog, the less I am impressed with the young / old battle lines. Youth tend to be less interesting because they are still fondling all their options and haven't yet committed to something in the ways that make a person interesting (in other words, life has not yet slapped them out of that irksome belief that everything they do-- or that anyone does-- is a work of genius). When the young are nihilistic, it tends to be more out of adolescent disappointment or fashionable cynicism than out of the genuine existential terror of people who have invested in life and built up equity, only to have the trap door open up underneath them. Despite all this, youth still has the advantage if Thoreau is correct in saying that "the only wealth is life."
Older readers tend to feel wiser because they know what it is like to be both young and old, while the young only know what it's like to be young. Young readers tend to feel wiser because the old have forgotten what it is like to be young. As far as I can tell, the best way to bridge this gap when dealing with taste in art is to talk as responsibly as we can, with as much lucidity as the medium will allow, about specific examples of art.
I know that given the choice of a 'young' China Chow or an 'old' China Chow I'd definitely prefer to f*** the young one. I don't care if she can draw or not.
But that's just me, I've always been funny like that. Hmm the joys of youth.
Dirk, I won't challenge your personal taste in that area, but the question remains: "Which China Chow would you rather have lecture to you about how to paint a successful portrait?"
So what do y'all think, is the lightening field a piece of Postmodern art?
"Which China Chow would you rather have lecture to you about how to paint a successful portrait?"
Does China Chow (old/young) lecture how to paint a successful portrait?
Richard, between you and me I suspect she was reading from cue cards but China Chow on the "The Next Great Artist" did indeed explain to the artist/combatants what it takes to make a successful portrait.
If the first test of the artists was a test of their gag reflex, they all passed with flying colors.
I bet China Chow gives good head, I doubt if she could either paint one or lecture on the history of painting them.
She'd probably have difficulty spelling the word.
Still, she is hot, even if you Mr A dont go for 'her kind'.
David...
Cubism, Fauvism, Futurism, Constructivism, and Brandywine Illustration all arrived on the scene in a shorter time span than postmodernism now threatens to cover.
Do you want to just lump them all under the banner of Post Impressionism? Does that provide any insight into the various styles?
Since everything that has come since 1900 or so is Post Impressionist, isn't Postmodernism also Post Impressionist? Isn't Carl Barks a Post Impressionist?
Since everything from now on will be postmodern, won't postmodernism define every work of art until the end of time?
Isn't Frazetta postmodern? And Star Wars?
Let's stop a moment and consider how Frazetta's Death Dealer is like a pile of sand on a floor of a gallery...
I'm sorry, my cerebral cortex has just had a blowout.
The inclusive category has no sense behind it. Postmodern isn't everything that has happened since the modern age.... especially given that postmodernism was invented in 1912 at the very start of modernism. There is no clear demarcation of the "postmodern" era. Streams of contrasting philosophy run side by side for long periods of time.
Categorizing by time periods is taxonomically easy, but destructive to understanding.
Speaking of understanding, I did supply a definition of postmodernism that is generally accepted. (I say this because not only was this the definition I was taught in college, but years later a former girlfriend taught a college course in postmodernism, and the outline of that course dovetails perfectly with what I have written. This definition can also be found in many histories of art, and even our POMO pal Richard agrees with it.)
Just to refresh:
Postmodern art is about testing the word "art." It chips away at the idea of the artistic author (By sampling/pastiching existing content, having assistants do the art work, or using found objects as the artwork), it pushes the bounds of what is proper subject matter or materials used to create "fine" art, it questions the idea of an original work by being obviously derivative, it discusses the role of the gallery space and the picture frame or sculpture base in defining a work as a piece of art, rather than transfiguring the ordinary into the extraordinary, postmodernism makes commentary on the banality, nihilism, and commerciality of modern life by being banal, nihilistic, and commercial itself (daring to be un-interesting or repetitive/serial, based on advertising or print media, using dead flesh as a sculptural element, committing suicide as an artistic act, etc), postmodernism questions the role of content, meaning, creativity, permanence, beauty or other transcendent values as necessary to art by being meaningless, banal, impermanent, uncreative or destructive, ugly, taboo, clunky, tedious, undesigned, etc.
On the lightning field, yes I'm sure it was a spectacular experience...
Why you call it Art is beyond me. There's lightning labs all across the country that will provide similar experiences, also Tesla societies with massive coils shooting lightning all over the place, downed power lines, and kids sticking forks into power sockets.
Maybe any harnessing of awesome natural forces is a work of art now as long as it is called art? The Hoover dam, a wind tunnel, fluid dynamics labs, an arson fire that destroys a city block, any really big pile of rocks, an atomic bomb explosion... Anything that will impress or deliver an experience of note using nature.
Maybe a brothel is a work of art, too, David? (As long as it is called a work of art, that is.)
If you accept the semantic argument of postmodernism, that anything that is called "art" IS art, then everything is potentially art. And you KNOW that is not true.
This is not fuddy-duddy-ism. It is the simple application of logic.
You say we are in a "era of disintegration." I would say, only if we choose to be. You have agency and I have agency. We can elect to be coherent and belong to a parallel age.
On the subject of the Lightning Field, the official DIA link is inexplicably understated. Perhaps they don't want to encourage visitors. You can find far better images of the experience, along with a far better description here . Postmodern or not, it was a truly great aesthetic experience for me and maybe someday when I feel I am up to the challenge I will write about it on this blog. I am still processing it.
And by the way, while we are making confessions, I really like Smithson's "spiral jetty" and much of Christo's work. I don't know if these people are postmodern or not but they strike me as serious, committed artists with very interesting taste.
To go back to the Bravo TV show....
After seeing the second episode, I take back anything nice I might have said about this show.....
If we didn't have this silly semantically obfuscating philosophy to contend with, Cristo and Smithson would both be called Exterior Decorators.
But since "decoration" is a bad word because it implies shallowness, which is a judgment upon the work of a holy human, we aren't allowed to use it.
Within a relativist worldview, there shall be no judgment and no hierarchies... which means there shall be no discussion of quality and depth.
Since, I refuse to have my brains turned to mush by utopian ideologues, I'll just call Cristo and Smithson "Exterior Decorators" and see who I piss off. ;)
Dirk McQuirk said: "I bet China Chow gives good head."
I don't know what reason you could possibly have for believing that... from the fact that she is on the Maxim "hot" list? From the fact that she looks like a model? She could just as easily despise all men for poking and pinching her from the time she reached puberty, or for demanding sexual favors from her as the price of advancement in show business. For all you know, she would sooner eviscerate you like a capon than give head.
This demonstrates one of the central flaws of the self-centered, navel gazing approach to images: if everything becomes subjective, then the people around you become mere objects. Whether China Chow is a dope or not, she is not a video game. I understand that interpersonal communications are necessarily flawed and objective standards are impossible to articulate, but there are still rewards to trying.
Norm, Norm, Norm...
How quickly you've gone overboard.
If only China Chow and Sarah Jessica Parker had spent some time caressing the two stone anuses... we could have had a landmark television moment.
"Since, I refuse to have my brains turned to mush by utopian ideologues, I'll just call Cristo and Smithson "Exterior Decorators" and see who I piss off. ;)"
A lot of people would similarly classify artists as a subsection of interior decoration.
Yes, a lot of people don't understand anything about art and can't tell a meaningful work from a decoration.
Miseducation proceeds apace throughout the culture, as your posts demonstrate.
"if everything becomes subjective, then the people around you become mere objects."
Not if you have a conscience.
Anonymouse...
Since a conscience arises from a relatively objective view of things, by saying "when everything becomes subjective" David was obviously implying the lack of a conscience to start.
So what was your point, anonymouse, except to be critical for the sake of being critical?
Barking for no reason is what dogs do. So think before you woof, k?
Oh, I'd also just like to point out that Camp is a Postmodern sensibility.
Spaghetti Western-style comicboooks about Zombie Cowboys are most definitely Camp.
Thus Zombie Cowboys are Postmodern.
That seems to debase in a lot of ways everything you've said thus far against Postmodernism ... unless of course you don't view your comics as Camp, in which case they are kitsche.
That's a far worse company to fall in than with the likes of the Postmodernists.
Perhaps your excess machismo has been misguided this entire time.
Richard,
If you can manage to argue a point, rather than going for personal attacks, that would be great.
You seem to be on a hair-trigger, emotionally.
I illustrate a lot of different stuff and work in a lot of different creative fields. And if you actually read the graphic novel I'm working on, you'd see it isn't some cliche gore fest, but an examination of fate, how we damn ourselves with our choices, and what it means to forgive.
Regarding neoplasticism...
I was cross posting with your bug-eyed fulminating judgment-fest. Sorry.
You crack me up man. Hair trigger emotions...
Will discuss neoplasticism soon...
Oh, and camp is at least as old as Shakespeare.
And, since that is true, it should be obvious from your relation of camp to kitsch that you don't know the definition of kitsch.
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound overly judgemental -- I think Camp is great!
Take Batman for example or Adventure Time.
It's okay to be Camp, I just wanted to point out that it's a Postmodern attitude, that is all.
Well, once again I will refer to Wikipedia. Feel free to deny that this is the meaning, but this is the Encyclopedia I use, so you'll have to bear with me.
"Kitsch (English pronunciation: /ˈkɪtʃ/, loanword from German) is a form of art that is considered an inferior, tasteless copy of an extant style of art or a worthless imitation of art of recognized value."
"The concept is associated with the deliberate use of elements that may be thought of as cultural icons[1]"
"Kitsch also refers to the types of art that are aesthetically deficient and that make creative gestures which merely imitate the superficial appearances of art through repeated conventions and formulae."
"The term kitsch is considered derogatory, denoting works executed to pander to popular demand alone and purely for commercial purposes rather than works created as self-expression by an artist."
Yeah, that's pretty much exactly what I meant.
Kev,
"Relatively objective" but not really objective? That leaves us with subjectivity, which means David is wrong because things don't ever "become subjective" they just ARE subjective.
If you are right about what David was implying then I suggest David stop implying and just state what he means directly. David's implications are often grossly innacurate.
Oh, and the way I was using and relating Camp and Kitsch is directly from Umbero Eco's text "On Ugliness".
I think his formulations are clear and accurate.
It's worth the read.
Decorative window, Frank Lloyd Wright 1912: http://www.cambridge2000.com/gallery/images/P10323935e.jpg
Decorative Panel, Mondrian, 1920: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/m/mondrian/mondrian_composition_a.jpg
It was understood, before the effort to destroy the distinction between meaningful art and decoration got underway, that stylized abstraction was a method of creating decorative/graphic elements.
The neoplasticians were part of the "democratizing" effort to eradicate such hierarchical distinctions as between decoration and anything deeper. That they, and others like them in Europe, were influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright is obvious. (For instance, the Bauhaus mantra of Form Follows Function, is actually a quote from Louis Sullivan, Wright's mentor.)
But Frank Lloyd Wright wasn't fooled, was he? He called the contents of the Guggenheim "childish scribblings." (Guess he was old at the time, right?)
This is why it is so tough to set a start point on postmodernism, because the utopian relativism was a part of a lot of modernist effort as well.
I've read Umberto Eco. He is not THE WORD that must be obeyed because IT IS WRITTEN.
Which is to say, again... I can think for myself, thanks.
God, you really can't understand anything you don't already know (or what isn't written on wikipedia by other 22 year olds). Camp stretches back for centuries.
Very true, not THE WORD, still a great writer and On Ugliness is a fantastic work.
Capuchin monkey got a new bell to ring.
Your work is KITSCH!
Your work is KITSCH!
Your work is KITSCH!
Your work is KITSCH!
God, what a dull mind you have.
"If you can manage to argue a point, rather than going for personal attacks, that would be great.
You seem to be on a hair-trigger, emotionally."
In an interview, Roger Ebert admitted that film criticism was subjective, not absolute. He said that different critics might have totally differing opinions that were all valid. But he made a point of saying that there were exceptions... The Godfather is a great movie, no matter how you look at it.
I think that's the focus of the discussion here. If you define post modernism as the same as contemporary, you're naturally going to come to a different conclusion than if you define it as being the "art of nihilism and cynicism" as expressed by Hirst. I think that Michael Jackson's monkey and jokes painted on canvases and crappy walls full of magenta yellow and cyan hued celebrity photos fall into the category of junk by anyone's standards. Sure, it could be argued that they're important if you want to twist the meanings and definitions of words all around, but what's the point if we can look at it ourselves and see the self evident truth?
I'd be happy to accept that contemporary art includes some worthwhile things if I wasn't coming up against the "everything is subjective, therefore nothing is bad" argument over and over. The simple resolution to the whole boo ha ha is the realization that some people define the term post modern to be a tighter group than all contemporary art. They define it to mean that aspect of contemporary art that can be objectively described as rubbish.
Alright, gotta get back to work now, capuchin monkey.
Now's your chance to write a bunch of insulting posts all in a row. So you can WIN THE ARGUMENT!
...without actually ever making an argument.
Peace out bro
kev
"You seem to be on a hair-trigger, emotionally."
It's okay to be Camp, I just wanted to point out that it's a Postmodern attitude, that is all.
How is being deliberately vulgar, artificial and banal a good thing for art? I can see the entertainment value, but is that really the purpose of art?
The main distinction for me between camp an kitsch is that camp is deliberate and kitsch is unintentional. Neither of them have a heck of a lot of value, but for me, sincere ignorance is better than willful ignorance. To me, willful ignorance is just another name for stupidity.
Richard, you just didn't get it.
When kev complemented you on "Pot kettle black" he was being sarcastic. Pot kettle Black is the most overused cliche on the net... for people who can't think for themselves, yet want to seem sharp... they repeat what other people have thought of and try to pass it off as their own.
And now, you repeat what Kev has said, as if that makes you clever... it just doesn't work. We can see how you argue.... ad hominem all the way and in bad faith. Pretending to be non-judgmental and then freaking out and attacking when you don't win the point.
Try to be original in what you think and say. Otherwise you will lose the argument. Don't be lame.
Yeah, Umberto Eco... let's take a POMO priest and use him for all our definitions.
Nothing worse than how the political mind wants to control words all the time. Is it any wonder they've taken over wikipedia... given that they have all the time in the world and are zealots for control.
As MORAN said earlier, makes you want to punch these jackasses in the face.
Kev Ferrara wrote: "Cubism, Fauvism, Futurism, Constructivism, and Brandywine Illustration all arrived on the scene in a shorter time span than postmodernism now threatens to cover."
I understand, and the fact that "postmodernism" is so open ended that it continues to spew undifferentiated artists and styles endlessly the way the BP hole in the Gulf of Mexico continues to spew crude oil, is a result of a failure of definition. The problem in both cases is, "once you have opened the hole, how do you plug it?"
The whole point of a "definition" is to draw boundaries around a word or concept to distinguish it from the rest of the world. Based on my limited experience, Postmodernism has only two defining boundaries: a starting point in time and a consensus that anything can be art except a painting by Norman Rockwell. (Postmodern artists have argued passionately to me that anything, including scratching your butt, can qualify as art but when you ask if that means that Norman Rockwell also qualifies as legitimate art, they are forced to draw the line.)
The problem I have with your defintion ( "testing the word art") is that artists have been testing the word art since before there was a word art. (I have read, but cannot swear, that some of the most amazing cultures, such as the ancient Egyptians, produced world class art without ever having a separate word for it. I often think our sociery might be better off if we viewed art that way). Old values in art have been tested and subverted by new values in art as part of the normal cycle of things forever, not merely since Harold Rosenberg wrote The De-definition of Art. Your standard of "pushing the bounds of proper subject matter for art" could include Michelangelo painting nude figures on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel,or visual depictions of the prophet Mohammed. The introduction of African art to the west tested the word "art." I admit the process gained momentum with postmodernism, but I'm not sure it's a qualitatively different phenomenon. If that's the case, your definition may not help us get a tighter grip on postmodernism.
As for why I consider the Lightning Field art-- if I had a ready answer I would be able to write that blog post about it. Let's begin by saying that it did everything that I would hope a great work of art would do. It sensitized me and gifted me with important moments of reflection; it was strikingly beautiful in a conscious way (that is, created as a deliberate act combining natural materials with human effort); it was an intellectually stimulating act by a mind that thought about the world in a very different way than I had up until that point. I'm not sure what more one could demand from a work of art.
We are havingh so much trouble finding a definition of "postmodernism" that works for all, I have trepidation about charging into the larger issues raised by your comment-- not only finding a suitable dividing line between art and decoration (not as clear cut as we might think) but finding the dividing line between the aesthetic reaction to a work of art and the aesthetic reaction to nature, or life. But I will be back to you after I take this conference call from a client.
I didn't mean to write "jackasses" in my last post.
I apologize.
I meant "geniuses."
That definition isn't just mine. It really is a rather widely acknowledged definition (in my experience anyway.)
Jeez, I said I was going to get back to work... and here I am. Thank god my deadline is early August! :)
Anyway...
I too have heard from pomo indoctrinates that Rockwell is not an artist. I have also heard that Michaelangelo is not an artist. Who knew that the very art that defines the word Art isn't art?
Such clever little fellows, these postmodernists.
"that artists have been testing the word art since before there was a word art."
Can you test the word before it exists as a word?
I'm sure pushing the boundaries of what is art wasn't their sole purpose, was it? I'm sure they just applied themselves to the task at hand.
To me, the core of the work determines the philosophy behind the work. If the core of the work is to test the word art, then we are talking about a true postmodern work. Duschamp's urinal is the perfect case of the idea. Michaelangelo wasn't testing the word with his work. He may have been pushing boundaries, but these boundaries were NOT semantic boundaries.
If you can demonstrate that someone in, say, 1730 was attempting to make a work that pushes the boundaries of the definition of art, we can just push back the origin of postmodernism one more time. Again, competing philosophies can exist simultaneously over long stretches of time. There's no reason to help ourselves taxonomically and hurt our ability to understand the phenomenon.
Certainly, Impressionism, and Whistlerism are part of this debate, as is modernism. But because there was still value involved, we are not talking about a wholly postmodern work, or a work that is at core, postmodern. (Again, Michaelangelo may have been pushing bounds, but it wasn't the core purpose of the work.) To exchange one value for another, still means value is involved. Postmodernism denies value, and that's why it separates itself from actual art.
Again, regarding the lightning field, wouldn't witnessing an atomic bomb explosion, whethere it was specifically discussed as a work of art or not, also have the same transformative affect on you?
If you jumped from a ten story building onto a giant safety mat, wouldn't that have a transformative affect?
There is a serious distinction to be drawn here between actual sensation and aesthetic sensation.
"When kev complemented you on 'Pot kettle black' he was being sarcastic."
Wow, Thank you. Really, thank you so much for explaining that to me. With all the glue I'm huffing here in the office I just can't seem to detect even the more hamfisted attempts at sarcasm.
"Pot kettle Black is the most overused cliche on the net... for people who can't think for themselves, yet want to seem sharp... they repeat what other people have thought of and try to pass it off as their own."
That is why I was particularly amused when he replied (to something meant to be taken tongue in cheek) with an exceptionally earnest, albeit flowery rewording of the middleschool classic "Nice comeback dude!"
"And now, you repeat what Kev has said, as if that makes you clever... it just doesn't work."
Shoot! Failed again. ;-D
"Don't be lame."
An astute bit of advice.
"I too have heard from pomo indoctrinates that Rockwell is not an artist. I have also heard that Michaelangelo is not an artist. Who knew that the very art that defines the word Art isn't art?
Such clever little fellows, these postmodernists."
I have heard anti-Post Modernists say that Thomas Kinkade is the greatest American artist.
Gosh, these anti-Postmodernists are very clever, wouldn't you say?
;)
Richard,
If you have decided to stop contributing to the discussion, there are other ways to go about it.
For instance, stop posting and do something else with your time.
Kev,
I am always rooting for you when you post because I feel much the same way almost all the time and you say it very well. However, I think Dave also has some valid points about art always pushing the envelope about what should be considered art.
I hate the philosophical bases of post-modernism because it's fundamentally a worldview that I think is wrong, self-refuting (in many aspects) and in some applications dangerous to society, ethics, and the way humans see themselves in the grand scheme of things. However, a broken clock (provided it's analogue) can be right twice a day. There are a few instances of post-modern art that I like. As I've said before, post-modern architecture has, on the whole, been much more satisfying in my eyes than modernism. And, I think, those instances is where the work is post moderism diluted...where other philosophical or aesthetic considerations influence.
I have a few observations.
The problem with post-modernism (which has been touched on already) is that it can mean too much. A word that can mean anything means nothing at all. It's like if you ask for directions to my house and I say, "Earth." Or, if I ask, "What's David like?" and you answer, "he's human." Well, that's not really helpful.
To all:
I say ditch the term altogether all you art critics in the world, and come up with a series of smaller categories that actually mean something a bit more concrete and narrow — something useful.
A lot of what is being discussed is the age-old question of "what is art." What is it? What does it include or exclude? Is it merely human expression that is only done for its own sake--as Oscar Wilde and some others have defined it? Or does it include comic books and movie posters? Does it include huge lightning rods standing in the desert? Does it include having my studio-hand take a shit and my signing my name underneath?
At the end of the day, I think the question of what is art is a never-ending road to nowhere—and artists who make their art focus on addressing that question are engaged in pointless navel-gazing within their own incestuous world of intellectualism. Art about art about art about art (or maybe art for ego's sake). And the art (whether it is or isn't art) is largely irrelevant to the rest of the world. So, maybe it's art but who cares? So what?
The great art of history — whether made for its own sake or not — always spoke to something outside of itself. It didn't hold a mirror to itself. It was the mirror or window for us. The problem I have with POMO is that it's the artistic equivalent of two mirrors facing one another just bouncing the image of the other back and forth endlessly...or of a black hole that feeds on itself and folds in on itself over and over so that nothing can escape...and then it winks out of existence...which I think POMO will do. And it will leave very little if anything of lasting value.
Ultimately, POMO is self-refuting, unimportant and dying. It's nihilism. It's truly meaningless — all the while promoting itself as full of meaning, intellectual, and profound.
So, is it art? It doesn't matter.
Kev said,
"I'm sure pushing the boundaries of what is art wasn't their sole purpose, was it? I'm sure they just applied themselves to the task at hand.
To me, the core of the work determines the philosophy behind the work. If the core of the work is to test the word art, then we are talking about a true postmodern work. Duschamp's urinal is the perfect case of the idea. Michaelangelo wasn't testing the word with his work. He may have been pushing boundaries, but these boundaries were NOT semantic boundaries."
I think that's true. There's a difference between pushing the boundaries of art and pushing the boundaries of what IS art. Those are two very different motivations.
It appears that my last post is a bit contradictory to the first part of my previous post, but I actually intend it to be a clarification.
I have heard anti-Post Modernists say that Thomas Kinkade is the greatest American artist
Kincade and Hirst actually have a lot in common. Their art is based on playing a game on the gallery scene at the expense of the art loving public.
Anonymouse said: "David is wrong because things don't ever "become subjective" they just ARE subjective. If you are right about what David was implying then I suggest David stop implying and just state what he means directly. David's implications are often grossly innacurate."
Anonymouse, I'm not sure how it is possible to be grossly inaccurate if truth is subjective. But the answer to your inital point should be pretty evident. If you have your subjective taste and I have mine, and there is no common vocabulary or objective standard by which we can meet on a common ground and establish that one judgment is better or more correct than the other, all we can do is retire to our respective corners. I can never persuade you, and you can never persuade me. There is no hierarchy of values. And at that point, what started out as a good faith acknowledgment of the importance of subjectivity has transformed your fellow human beings into objects; we are all self-contained, and I can no more communicate with you than I can with a tree or another "object."
Regarding definitions, the 34 volume Grove Dictionary of Art is an amazing resource if you have access to or can afford it. Not that one should always accept it as the final word, but it's a really good place to start, and it has excellent bibliographies.
Thanks, Ray. It sounds like you are agreeing with me now about the definition of postmodernism as a semantic genre, which is why it is fundamentally different from Art, which is an aesthetic genre.
etc. etc., I've never encountered that work... But thanks for the recommendation. Sounds intriguing.
Hmm, same old circular bullshit "hey look at me" messages...and I left the TV with Roseanne Barr talking about having her butt probed at the airport, along with Sandra Bernhart who hasn't aged a bit...still as ugly as the day she was born and some overweight black comic saying motherfucker and nigger every third word...and I left that sort of uplifting conversation for this...well, sheeeit!
David,
"I'm not sure how it is possible to be grossly inaccurate if truth is subjective."
Subjective just means that truth is experienced personally and interpreted through your own opinions or feelings. It does not mean that you make it up from scratch based on a whim. This is something most people will never understand. You don't get to freely choose the opinions or feelings you use to arrive at the truth (or fall into error). They are caused to arise in you.
"all we can do is retire to our respective corners. I can never persuade you, and you can never persuade me"
That's exactly what a sane, rational person would do when it comes to matters of taste. We can't persuade each other because there is nothing to persuade each other about. There is no absolute truth in art or taste. It's not math or philosophy. However, since people prefer to go on pseudo-intellectual ego trips or augment the value of their private art collections, they won't bother to admit this or even try to understand it. Their egos wouldn't handle it very well.
"what started out as a good faith acknowledgment of the importance of subjectivity has transformed your fellow human beings into objects"
As I already said, this isn't true if one happens to have a conscience. By conscience, I mean the ability to accurately distinguish between true and false. I'll reiterate my previous point in this context: you do not get to haphazardly choose what you deem to be true or false, just like you don't choose to be born, or to be male or female, a frog or a person, or any other quality that has an influence on how you experience the world.
ON a very basic level, someone with a modicum of awareness will know that they don't like being treated like an object and could go on to decide not to treat others like objects either. This is not due to some objective truth that exists beyond consciousness, but because they personally don't like it and all signs indicate that other people probably don't like it either. There's also the fact that treating other people like objects will have negative consequences for the abuser as well. These negative consequences are experienced personally. One would need a very convincing personal reason to endure such negative consequences indefinitely.
"we are all self-contained, and I can no more communicate with you than I can with a tree or another "object."
Communication seems to be possible, it's just never guaranteed.
"Hmm, same old circular bullshit "hey look at me" messages"
Hey Rob! I see you!
Feel free to try to persuade me. I have been converted many times before. All It takes is a logical set of criteria to judge by, compelling arguments and clear examples. I'm not here speaking entirely for my own benefit. I'm here to learn from you all. Don't abdicate on the altar of subjectivity. Defend your opinions.
Kev Ferarra wrote: "regarding the lightning field, wouldn't witnessing an atomic bomb explosion, whethere it was specifically discussed as a work of art or not, also have the same transformative affect on you?.... There is a serious distinction to be drawn here between actual sensation and aesthetic sensation."
Well Kev, now we are honing in on one of the ultimate issues. Amazing what kind of topics turn up 250 comments into a post on a crappy TV show.
I understand why one might balk at opening the definition of art to include the lightning field (or a nuclear explosion) despite the fact that the thrills we get from such experiences might seem very similar to what you call an "aesthetic sensation." You don't want to open the floodgates to some of the raw sewage we have been discussing on this post, and neither do I.
Yet, it seems to me that there are other, larger considerations that argue for inclusion. Let's start by focusing on what matters most in art. In the past I have praised Lionello Venturi's wise formulation:
"What ultimately matters in art is not the canvas, the hue of oil or tempera, the anatomical structure and all the other measurable items, but its contribution to our life, its suggestions to our sensations, feeling and imagination."
Venturi's philosophy raises a question for you: if you are correct that "There is a serious distinction to be drawn here between actual sensation and aesthetic sensation," perhaps the distinction is that aesthetic sensation is only a means toward achieving (or enhancing) actual sensation?
In any event, if you start with Venturi's view, then it's not obvious why Art should be limited to a set of objects embodying taste and talent and technical skill. Sure, a rectangle hung on a wall with a nail has proven over the centuries to be a very effective way of packaging "suggestions to our sensations, feeling and imagination" but it is not clear that it is the best way.
Not only that, but even if it was once the best way, in recent centuries art seems to have become more stratified from life (and distant from Venturi's goal) as it has moved out of an integrated, functional role in hunting rituals on prehistoric cave walls or sacred rituals in churches, or other roles in our daily lives, and become instead a remote phenomenon that exists only for its own sake, kept only on museum walls. As art is increasingly owned, maintained and explained by experts, one can easily argue that it has strayed further away from Venturi's laudable goal.
Jean Dubuffet, an excellent artist and a thinker I admire, raised some scintillating possibilities: "the very principle of painting, inscribed in a rectangle limited by a frame, is extremely misleading and remains in all cases intimately linked to a cultural convention....[I]t is quite probable that soon the painting, a rectangle hung with a nail on the wall, will become an outdated and ridiculous object-- a fruit fallen from the tree of culture and henceforth considered an antique. [When] forms of art [are] liberated from this constraining mode of the rectangle, the nail, and the wall.... the mind will have ceased to project art as a notion to be gazed upon, and art will be integrated in such a manner that thought, instead of facing it, will be inside it...."
So the importance of Art as a traditional object of skill in a gold frame on a museum wall-- as opposed to a picture in a magazine advertisement or an experience in the middle of the New Mexico desert-- carries less and less weight with me.
If you are secure that Venturi's polar star won't lead us astray, it will be more important to swim toward that star-- regardless of the unorthodox forms of art you might encounter on the way-- than to swim away from the bad examples of art that might attempt to slip in through a loosened definition.
Stephen Worth said: Kinkade and Hirst actually have a lot in common."
I hadn't considered this, but I think it is true. They are both marketing geniuses (artists of the deal, in a way that Warhol would respect). Their difference is not so much in the quality of their art as in the market segment they target: Kinkade takes a little money from a lot of people but Hirst takes a lot of money from a few people. I respect them both (although not as artists).
I respect artists that gain recognition and success on their merits. I don't respect con men.
""more important to swim toward that star""
As things are, wouldn't the title, Work of Art: The Next Art Star, be more accurate?
As a point of order, I gave up trying to 'debate' with the monobrow knuckledraggers who inhabit this forum months ago.
The only time they stop tearing each other apart is when they decide to maul a new contributor who dares to express an opinion.
I use the word 'maul' but I should also add 'toothlessly' as their only strategy is to tediously go on and on ad infinitum till you lose interest in the topic and drift away to more interesting wastes of time.
Stephen Worth wrote: "I don't respect con men."
I certainly sympathize with you, although I tend to draw a distinction between Professor Harold Hill and Bernie Madoff. I try to remember that there have been charlatans and rogues among the ranks of some of the greatest artists, so a few distinctions mght be warranted.
In the present case, I tend to be more tolerant of Hirst, who targets the vanity of super rich status seekers, than con men such as Kinkade who misrepresent scarcity and investment potential to tasteless middle class people. In my view, the former deserve to be swindled more than the latter.
Chas Hurley-- "I gave up trying to 'debate' with the monobrow knuckledraggers who inhabit this forum months ago."
I hope this doesn't mean you have stopped contributing. It is easy to decline to get drawn into a debate around here, just by declining to respond. The commenters who get trapped into long and sometimes pointless debates with name callers are the ones who feel compelled to have the last word. Take it from me, as long as you are willing to let your comment speak for itself and you don't need to respond to every insult, you can have pretty meaningful dialogues around here.
David...
1. The idea that the rectangle/square is going to go away strikes me as absurd. You might as well say text is going to die. There is something innate about the way our brains and bodies work that keeps bringing us back to squares and rectangles as containers of information (computer screen, windshields, ipads, mirrors, billboards, book covers, etc.). I have my own theories on why this is so, but I leave you to ponder this without my suggestions.
2. Are certain forms not timeless? Are we not still responding to Greek sculpture? Shakespeare? The Mona Lisa? Rubens? Degas? This is the same question as, "Will Aristotle one day be wrong?" Or, to put it more plainly, "Shall we not remain human?" If someday, Aristotle becomes wrong, we will no longer be human, frankly.
3. Whatever new forms arise to rival the old, they will either have the capacity as a form to provide resonant metaphors for our experience of life, or they will be insufficient as a form of art. Newness alone guarantees nothing. There must be an innate capacity to the form. (For instance, disallowing the figure in an artwork diminishes the innate capacity of the form.)
3. Aesthetic emotion is a very specific thing. One of its hallmarks is that we don't notice its cause, so we don't see it coming. And unless we are well versed in the craft of the particular artform, you will not be able to explain the affect after it occurs. If we are wholly aware of the effect that causes the affect, we are merely experiencing a sensation.
For another hallmark of aesthetic emotion absent from, say, the average roller coaster ride, I'll defer to Robert McKee (from Story):
"In life, if you see a dead body in the street, you're struck by a rush of adrenaline... perhaps you drive away in fear. Later, in the coolness of time, you may reflect on the meaning of this stranger's demise, on your own mortality, on life in the shadow of death. This contemplation may change you within so that the next time you are confronted with death, you have a new, perhaps more compassionate reaction. Or, reversing the pattern, you may, in youth, think deeply but not wisely about love, embracing an idealistic vision that trips you into a poignant but very painful romance. This may harden the heart, creating a cynic who in later years finds bitter what the young still think sweet."
"Your intellectual life prepares you for emotional experiences that then urge you toward fresh perceptions that in turn remix the chemistry of new encounters. The two realms influence each other, but first one, then the other. In fact, in life, moments that blaze with a fusion of idea and emotion are so rare, when they happen you think you're having a religious experience. But whereas life separates meaning from emotion, art unites them. Story is an instrument by which you create such epiphanies at will, the phenomenon known as aesthetic emotion."
"The source for all art is the human psyche's primal, prelinguistic need for the resolution of stress and discord through beauty and harmony, for the use of creativity to revive a life deadened by routine, for a link to reality through our instinctive, sensory feel for the truth. Like music and dance, painting and sculpture, poetry and song, story is first, last, and always the experience of aesthetic emotion -- the simultaneous encounter of thought and feeling."
"When an idea wraps itself in an emotional charge, it becomes all the more powerful, all the more profound, all the more memorable. You might forget the day you saw a dead body in the street, but the death of Hamlet haunts you forever. Life on its own, without art to shape it, leaves you in confusion and chaos, but aesthetic emotion harmonizes what you know with what you feel to give you a heightened awareness and a sureness of your place in reality. In short, a story well told gives you the very thing you cannot get from life: meaningful emotional experience. In life, experiences become meaningful with reflection in time. In art, they are meaningful now, at the instant they happen."
All to say, it is easy to suggest that in the future, "the mind will have ceased to project art as a notion to be gazed upon, and art will be integrated in such a manner that thought, instead of facing it, will be inside it...." but how this blue sky idea differs from a roller coaster ride, a first person shooter game, or virtual reality porn seems not to arise as a question. Debuffet may be a great cartoonist with an original design sense, but, like many modernist thinkers, I don't think he has really grasped the human value of aesthetic emotion in the classic Aristotelian sense. Thus he seems to have no interest in the crafting of epiphany, the cornerstone of profound art, or the capacity of any particular form to allow for such crafting.
Which brings me to my last point, on being constrained... I have no opinion, good or bad, of "unorthodox" forms of art. My only interest is that the form itself have a capacity that allows for the presentation of epiphany, rather than simply sensation. Bigger and newer, as you are well aware, is often just dumber and dumber.
Not to wander away from the endlessly fascinating philosophical discussions and descend into something as pedestrian as discussing illustration, but...for those two or three non-philosophers out there, Amazon just sent an email announcing The Art of Neal Adams will soon be in print and they are taking advance orders.
We return you to the previously unreadable discussion
Chas Hurley, is there any evidence that you ever contributed to these conversations? It really is sooooo easy to just not post and GO AWAY. But no... the baby needs somebody to hear her cry. Complainers really need to get a life.
Neal Adams, yeah, he was big in the 70's.... zzz....
What's he done since then? Oh yeah, he believes the earth is expanding and makes Youtube videos about it... fascinating....
Kev wrote: There is something innate about the way our brains and bodies work that keeps bringing us back to squares and rectangles as containers of information (computer screen, windshields, ipads, mirrors, billboards, book covers, etc.). I have my own theories on why this is so,"
Kev, I can't think of any biological reason why this should be the case; it seems more likely to be the result of manufacturing limitations and the practicalities of storing and shipping objects. I see no reason why we should continue to be bound by the same restrictions. If you ever make it out to the Lightning Field and see storms rolling across a huge sky over flat land for as far as the eye can see, the frame of a rectangle will feel claustrophobic.
Rob Howard said: " Amazon just sent an email announcing The Art of Neal Adams will soon be in print"
That could be very good news indeed, depending on what is in it. He is an amazing talent and an absolutely fearless inker. When he isn't caught up doing those repetitive guys with clenched fists yelling, his work is really quite a treat.
Rob Howard said: " Amazon just sent an email announcing The Art of Neal Adams will soon be in print"
David said, "That could be very good news indeed, depending on what is in it. He is an amazing talent and an absolutely fearless inker. When he isn't caught up doing those repetitive guys with clenched fists yelling, his work is really quite a treat."
I agree. The more of his older stuff, the better. He was my absolute favorite comic artist growing up, but I think his stuff now is just repetitive and overworked. He also does not ink with the same tools and the same sensitivity he did back in the day.
I met him last year at the San Diego Comic-con which was quite a thrill. He's a no-nonsense guy who doesn't like to waste time—which was even more thrilling that he spent almost half-an-hour talking to me about my comic work. He was rough on me, but I could tell he thought I had something worth spending a little time with.
I'll definitely be checking out the book.
"If you ever make it out to the Lightning Field and see storms rolling across a huge sky over flat land for as far as the eye can see, the frame of a rectangle will feel claustrophobic."
I have to agree with you. I'm simply delighted by the idea that 20 years down the road we may be able to merely think art into existence, and transmit it directly, so that it may be experienced as viscerally as our daily lives.
Imagine if we were to record the momentary brainstates of a child with kwashiorkor and transmit that to the people of the world. Would we so easily and thoughtlessly neglect him?
Sure, that sort of technology will have the danger of drawing people away from reality (as with kev's VR pornography), but it will just as easily allow us to create and transmit meaningful experiences as real as our dreams at night, and as meaningful as any masterwork.
The quality of art will be understood as merely what it contains and a truly egalitarian revolution will happen if we can have the open-mindedness and foresight to work with it positively, rather than just reacting to that sort of technology with fear/Ludditeisms.
"The quality of art will be understood as merely what it contains"
*appreciated for how it is experienced, be that aesthetically or experientially
"...and see storms rolling across a huge sky over flat land for as far as the eye can see, the frame of a rectangle will feel claustrophobic"
you really don't need art anymore if the wonder of nature can provide it all for you.
Any hour of the day I can demonstrate the smallness of a canvas. No lightning field is required. I can just step out my front door and look at the sky. Or the woods. Or climb the local hiking trails to the top of the local mountains.
People have been climbing mountain trails for thousands of years.... and stood on top of those mountains through lightning storms and tornadoes and meteor showers and rainbows. And yet the square box of information has continued.
Some thought on why...
The limitations of an art form are its strengths.
Complex information requires sturdy structure.
All thoughts begin and end, and thus come in a container.
It is important when attempting to understand a thought to know when it begins and ends. Only when the container is evident can its contents be comprehensible. This is why art is framed. This is why theater has a curtain. This is why movies have start times and credits and titles. This is why sculpture has a base, is surrounded by air, and doesn't follow you home.
The awesomeness of nature is not a thought, it is not a metaphor. It simply is. Sensation is. Experience is.
If the lightning field is art, we should acknowledge that Six Flags Great Adventure is a museum.
"I have to agree with you. I'm simply delighted by the idea that 20 years down the road we may be able to merely think art into existence, and transmit it directly, so that it may be experienced as viscerally as our daily lives."
... and we're all going to sit around all day downloading each others half-baked thoughts directly into our cerebral cortex ? no thanks, sounds like absolute hell. thankfully it's too preposterous an idea to realize.
Kev said...
"There is something innate about the way our brains and bodies work that keeps bringing us back to squares and rectangles"
Kev, I am fascinated by this kind of thing, Platonic solids, etc.
I think we are innately drawn to straight lines because of their simple mathematical/geometric description, and to right angles due to a natural vertical/horizontal orientation, maybe something to do with being upright bipedals (vertical) with a inner ear balance system that is always conscious of the ground (horizontal). Thus you have the component parts of squares and rectangles. Of course, that could be total nonsense.
Would love to hear your theories.
And maybe human physiology plays a role also, with its angle forming extremities, and symmetry that perhaps suggests planes.
http://img.tfd.com/dorland/plane.jpg
Laurence and Kev-- I have not adequately explained the nature of the LIghtning Field experience. It is not, as you suggest, simply taking a stroll through mother nature. An artist spent many months seeking out the right location with the right appearance and climatic conditions. He judiciously placed an array of polished metal poles over a huge area. They reflect the light, and as the sun sets they change colors. You walk amongst them and as you see the rows from a variety of perspectives they seem to form waves. Up close, there is an interesting contrast between the ageless, organic desert and the poles, which are kept polished and shiny-- definitely NOT mother nature. Best of all, the poles are constructed to alter what would be the natural configuration of lightning in the area, to summon it down. Think of a traditional sculpture that is placed to interact with its surroundings-- silhouetted against the sky, or changing color in the ambient light-- and multiply it by 100.
A war of attrition is not an interesting debate.
The blowhards on this blog are motivated solely by ego and the desire to assert their narrow point and 'win' the battle.
In doing so the debate becomes more and more arcane and increasingly boring.
This is why new contributors drift away after a couple of posts.
Anyone who dares to make a point that one of the regulars doesn't agree with is called on to 'show us your portfolio' because you couldnt possibly have an opinion about art that's not validated by a collection of sub-Frazetta sequentials or sterile portraiture could you?
Seriously, there's a malignant tone to this potentially good forum, it's just spoiled by overly opinionated average talents with too much time on their hands and too little going on in their lives.
"...the poles are constructed to alter what would be the natural configuration of lightning in the area, to summon it down..."
sounds like an art-accident waiting to happen !
seriously, i'm sure it was a sublime experience. i'm not a fan of that Donald Judd type of machine-made minimalism, but with weather and natural light hitting it i can see how it might be transformed. i wonder though where this trend of giant installation art will go in the future as artists compete to outdo each other. there's a different kind of challenge in the humble dimensions (but vast blank white void) of the printed page, comic book or gallery wall.
It seems that our comments about Kinkade this week are out of date. Reports are that the Kinkade empire is collapsing and he appears to be coming to a bad end. Draw whatever moral you wish.
There is a reason why the dead language phrase "caveat emptor" is still with us. I wonder how many Kinkade investors and acolytes are familiar with Frederic Edwin Church or even any Hudson River school painter? Poor things must be the most gullible demographic in the entire art market.
Chas Hurley...
Chas Hurley
Chas Hurley
You seem like the type of asshole that complains all the time, yet contributes nothing.
It sounds like you were butthurt by some of the posts. Yet it doesn't seem like you were directly involved. Unless you were writing under another name?
Instead of complaining and insulting, why don't you go away. Nobody wants to hear a non-contributing zero like you whine about an interesting discussion.
What EGO it takes for you to think YOUR OPINION IS IMPORTANT. Really, take a look in the mirror. Then go away you non-contributing zero.
David, I understand that there is more than natural phenomena involved in the lightning field.... but not much more. Regarding what specifically about the installation makes a canvas appear "claustrophobic", it must be the weather/open sky. (You can find a bunch of poles in a basement.)
If lightning wasn't involved, I doubt you would have bothered with just the poles at sunset. Just about any place on earth will go through an amazing transformation at sunset or sundown.
And I really feel you would have had a transformative experience at any outdoor lightning lab in the country... none of which are pretending to be Art.
I'd love to hear you tangle with this question: If the lightning field is art, is six flags great adventure a museum?
etc. etc... I will answer on the topic of symmetry some time this evening.
kev
It's not as well produced as "Project Runway" which it's styled after but I found the show amusing. (For me, a few of the participants have annoying personalities, so, I probably won't continue watching it.) The comparison between the two shows and your observation about why Illustration hasn't gone down this bizarre path, has one noticing that when art is used to produce a product, like in fashion design, we have set standards; we all know a well made garment when we see it or if an illustration hits the mark it's meant to convey. We may not like the trend or style but their inherent nature produces limitations and a standard.
Art is wide open. It has gone past just decorating our walls or adding a center-piece to our garden. Its existence is purely to delight, amuse or stimulate us: no limitations and no set standards. I can't see why this exploration is bad and am intrigued at where and what it will lead to.
p.s. For those without a TV, you can watch it on Hulu.com or MegaVideo (MV has no commercials).
The blowhards on this blog are motivated solely by ego and the desire to assert their narrow point and 'win' the battle.
I think we've hurt Richard's feelings.
Re:
Sick of the Whiners
Stephen Worth
Quad erat demonstrandum.
And this passes for an intellectual forum?
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha...
David and Etc. etc.,
As a Christian myself, Kincaid's marketing of subpar painting using the name of God to dupe Christians who would never otherwise own a piece of art is something I'm very happy to see come to an end. I've been embarrassed by my fellow Christians who have been willingly taken by this artistic charlatan. The 2001 "60 Minutes" story on him confirmed all my initial suspicions and gave me even more reason to loathe the whole Kincaid machine.
I couldn't have happened soon enough.
Ray,
I think the Kinkade movement was largely a WASP movement. Having grown up in it, my experience is that it more or less teaches that artlessness is something to strive for. I'm a little sad to see some try to get beyond that, only to end up getting burned. But who knows; perhaps they don't feel burned and will try to cultivate better taste. Hopefully. Maybe. Please?
Etc. etc.,
One can only hope.
I thought this was an art form. When did it become an intellectual form?
300
>>>I thought this was an art form. When did it become an intellectual form?<<<
It started on the Internet when art became bullshit. It spawned an army of bullshit artists.
The truth is that most people who don the mantle of "artist" haven't got much skill, so they resort to all sorts of verbal bullshit. It's like the Shavian dictum...those who can, paint. Those who can't, bullshit about it.
>>>... and we're all going to sit around all day downloading each others half-baked thoughts directly into our cerebral cortex ? no thanks, sounds like absolute hell.<<<
I agree, Laurence, it's another fantasy of those challenged by a lack of talent. They simply do not understand that mastering the skills of the artist are what helps form the ideas. That sort of Everyman's art would be the graphic equivalent of Rap...a repository for the lack of literary and musical skills.
Kev said, "You can find a bunch of poles in a basement."
Yup, and you can find cans of paint right there next to them. The issue, whether you are working with poles or paint, is what you do with them.
I agree the % of "natural phenomenon" in an object could become a disqualifying factor. I only hope that you are clocking the natural hydrology of ink as carefully as you are clocking the natural electricity of the lightning field.
I don't see much relation between 6 Flags and the Lightning Field-- in terms of intent, aesthetics, profundity, they are totally different. I'm sure there is a lot of art (or at least design) at 6 Flags but not of a quality that interests me.
LCG-- I really like Project Runway. As for "no limitations and no set standards. I can't see why this exploration is bad and am intrigued at where and what it will lead to...." I am intrigued as well but I fear that without some standards you are bound for disappointment.
Etc. etc...
So, yes I agree with you about verticals and horizontals... one of our core instincts without which we'd never survive. Our sense of verticals and horizontals is the anchor by which we successfully navigate life, step by step, moment by moment, without having to think about it. The vertical and horizontal are utterly perfect in their perfect utility.
Related to the vertical and horizontal is the object which is symmetrical about a horizontal or vertical line. A human body is obviously symmetrical about a vertical... and this symmetry is a sign of health, because it is a sign of balance, and, again, balance is necessary to survival. And perfect symmetry is so secure in its balance it is widely considered sacred (pyramid power, anyone?)
That nature does not actually make horizontals and verticals (the horizon is curved, straight verticals only exist as motion towards the center of the earth when an object is dropped... a vector we must abstract into a still line.) shows how our imagination has provided symbols of perfections that we don't actually experience.
The ability of the human mind to abstract the vertical and horizontal, and thus to be able to easily create the square and cross is not only extremely useful, but comforting as well. Our greatest weapon against nature is our abilities to abstract, and I think these abilities are symbolized by the square. (The square is ultra rare in nature, even more rare than something resembling either a vertical or horizontal alone, which is why the human abilities with squares makes the square so associated with humanity wherever it appears... in art, as its frame, or as a part of the design of anything touched by the hand of man.)
The square/rectangle is not only instantly comprehended but, in its clarity and simplicity, it makes an excellent frame for anything else, particularly if the frame is human scaled. (There also happens to be a host of interesting graphic properties to a square/rectangle which are not shared by any other shapes. For instance, the circle/oval frame lacks significant graphic tension as a shape.)
Once a frame scales up, it begins to get too large to be used for the purposes of containing intense information. Large frames contain un-intense information... So you have the repetitiousness of the side of a building, or tiled wallpaper, or the same old road lines and telephone poles mile after mile.
And in other instances, the boundaries of the frame become lost and we don't know where the information begins or ends. As the saying goes, without restriction the work will "tend to sprawl."
With restriction, however, poetic concision becomes necessary. (And poetry is just another name for Art.)
This is why, in my estimation, human scaled art will always be the richest art, in the sense of being the most deep in its humanity. Because what we need to communicate to each other about ourselves can only be just so much at a time for it to have unity, and can only be so big before it becomes structurally lax, and seemingly without end... which is to say, seemingly without a point.
As Pyle used to say, Nature expresses itself. Artists are after something else.
Hmmm...
You went on a ride, David. It blew your mind. There are many rides that can do this. That's how grand attractions work... by overloading the senses.
At the lightning field you have lightning, in Free Fall™ its gravity, height and speed. In Splashdown its a mass of water. In Tip Top, its centrifugal force. In a weightless simulation ride, its wind power.
Each ride has its own aesthetics, its own design. And each uses a force of nature to create a sense of awe in the participants, awe that results from a sense of our own frailty, diminutiveness, and weakness.
The aesthetics of the rides may not interest you, but they are there nonetheless. (I'm sure they would paint the poles and slightly offset them, if the proprietors thought they could bring in a bit more business by declaring their attraction postmodern artworks. They already do the fireworks at sundown thing.)
I hope I haven't insulted you David by this line of argument. I'm sure I've tried your patience, so this will be my last comment on the matter. I think I've made my case, for what its worth.
kev
LCG, I think you confuse Art with Design. All art is designed, but not all design results in an artwork. (wallpaper, for instance.)
Design has always been wide open. Art, less so.
Your criteria that art "delight, amuse or stimulate us" can just as easily apply to a basketball or scrabble game or a demonstration of an industrial laser. Thus "delighting, amusing, and stimulating" can not be the sole criteria for art.
Again, sensation is different than aesthetic emotion.
>>I am intrigued as well but I fear that without some standards you are bound for disappointment.<<
David, will I be any more disappointed than after seeing my gazillioneth fantastically rendered head along with its accompanying accolades? I suspect, just as in other fields, the cream will rise to the top and we will recognize it as Art.
Kev, whatever the definition of Art is, I didn't think I had to qualify that the delight or enjoyment was an aesthetic pleasure much different than savoring a delicious meal or reveling in a good game nor was I limiting its effect to just those three words.
(pyramid power, anyone?)~ If all things must pass, even a pyramid won't last
Bobby Analog said- ""They simply do not understand that mastering the skills of the artist are what helps form the ideas.""
~ The technique depends mainly on arm and finger strength… (cover art by Bill Sienkiewicz)
Apparently many of you are unaware that the content of historiographic material left to us by artists consists almost entirely of philosophical musings.
अर्जुन said...
(pyramid power, anyone?)
That was hilarious/awesome.
"thankfully it's too preposterous an idea to realize."
What's preposterous about recording experiential data?
What's preposterous about input by way of direct thought?
Do you really not see why we would work towards these things -- the benefits that would come with these technologies?
I'll continue,
We have already been able to decode and record information from a cat's vision.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479703
We can stream sound into the brain with Cochlear implants, and are most of the way towards visual prosthesises.
We can even *buy* personal systems that allow for basic text input by way of the brain alone --
http://www.intendix.com/
How much more of an evidence trend do you need?
An 'art form'?
or possibly, 'forum'.
Believe me there IS a difference.
It's that old Shavian dictum.
Those that can, paint; those that can't make lifeless photographic portraits and crap about on 'art forums' trying to come off like a big shot.
Chas Chas Chas --
Why do you persist? Now you make an issue of a spelling error, like anybody cares. Seriously, stop complaining and just go away. We're 300 posts in and you could have left anytime.... you could have stopped reading anytime. But you don't... so something is clearly up your butt which is compelling you to stay. Whatever it is, get over it.
Shavian addenda: Those that merely complain are the worst of the worst.
I'm afraid my iPad insists on correcting what it sees as spelling errors. It isn't always correct.
Alan Parsons Project? Good lord. They call it "art rock", but it's neither. Hideous.
But you see 'art form' and 'art forum' are 2 very different things -in case you didnt know- so I needed to know of which you spoke.
But really if you can't see something as simple as that, any debate with you would be a waste of my valuable time.
Especially as your stock in trade is a rather low and uninspired form of sarcasm.
And your right, over 300 posts and enough crap for the likes of you to roll around in all day.
Oh look there I go resorting to your level. I must desist.
Ha! Good try, Chas. But you're doing it wrong. If you want to grow up to be a real troll, simple insults, spelling corrections and google search references aren't good enough. You need to listen to what the object of your trolling is talking about and find a hook. Then ramp it up slowly so he doesn't realize he's being trolled. Look at Richard. He's done a much better job of it than you have.
Wow, you sound like you've developed that into something like an 'art form'.You've got some terminology an M.O, it's almost as if you're practised at this.
Whereas I'm just a humble guy who takes things at face value.
Even a dook chute like you.
Chas is a common troll posting under another name. Ignore him.
>>>Whereas I'm just a humble guy who takes things at face value.<<<
Yeah, and I'm just a plain ol' cowboy who can still sight translate Greek into Latin, but...aww shucks feller.
Rather than try to bend the prevailing windbags of this blog to fit your tastes, why don't you just do what our host did, start your own blog. In that way you'll soon find how many people agree with your hectoring ...a la recherche du temps perdu approach.
Go ahead, start a blog. It's free and easy to do.
Better yet, do as this writer did and start a subscription forum where artists actually pay money to learn those things about art you have yet to discover. Then again, could pony up a mere $70 a year to subscribe to the Cennini Forum to see how it's done.
As you and so many others have pointed out, I'm nothing but a lacklustre hack and blowhard but, if an inferior artist and human such as myself can con people into paying to listen to my gaseous and brainless outbursts and learn how they too can become a lacklustre artist, certainly people of the quality of my detractors can EASILY draw a much bigger, paying audience.
The latest stats on Cennini Forum are Threads: 10,303, Posts: 186,277, Members: 4,229 If I can do it, imagine what a luminous mind like yours can accomplish.
Go ahead. Grow a pair and do it! While you're at it, post some of your work to embarass me by showing how a real artist does it. I'd love to read your books, too.
Oh darn...that would mean breaking your vows of anonymity and coming out of the closet. But for you guys that would show who and what you really are...figments of your own imaginations.
Kev Ferrara wrote: "You went on a ride, David."
True, but reading Huckleberry Finn is like going on a ride, too. Dante's Divine Comedy is another ride and it blows your mind as much as 6 Flags. You have to fasten your seat belt for the ride we call "Paradise Lost." So for me, the fact that the LIghtning Field is a ride doesn't distinguish it from art. I am open to the possibility that art is a temporary crutch, and that a thousand years from now if we behave ourselves we will have a heightened aesthetic appreciation of life and the world around us, without needing the stepping stones of an artist / intermediary's vision to serve as a catalyst. I think it was Pascal who said, "what folly that art excites admiration by its resemblance to things we do not even admire in the original." Perhaps art such as the lightning field is a first step toward cutting out the middle man.
Laurence John wrote: you really don't need art anymore if the wonder of nature can provide it all for you."
See my response to Kev above. Are you saying that this would be a good thing or a bad thing? (Assuming of course that the wonder of nature really does "provide it all" at a level comparable to or greater than art?)
Etc, etc said: "I think we are innately drawn to straight lines because of their simple mathematical/geometric description, and to right angles due to a natural vertical/horizontal orientation,"
I think the strongest case for this was the ancient Egyptians, who built a thousand year culture on x/y axes; the Nile river forming the north/south axis and the sun overhead forming the east/west axis. Life took place on the east side of the Nile where the sun came up and the dead were buried on the west side of the Nile where the sun set. I think that since that time, we have moved, to the extent that technology permits, in a more omni-directional form of artistic perception.
I don't underestimate your point, and Kev's, about horizontals and verticals, etc. I also recognize that old modes of perception don't vanish overnight. (William Burroughs can say that he wants to banish the old form of the novel, which for 200 years was presented in a tidy, linear fashion, and to write about the world in the chaotic way we really experience it with our sense, where our thoughts drift randomly and our "linear" conversations are interrupted by a barking dog or a car horn. But we still read it from left to right).
If you think that there is some kind of geometry innate in the world, I would urge you to consider one of the coolest things that Bertrand Russell ever said, which I quoted in an earlier post: "Physics is mathematical not because we know so much about the physical world but because we know so little: it is only its mathematical properties that we can discover."
Are you saying that this would be a good thing or a bad thing? (Assuming of course that the wonder of nature really does "provide it all" at a level comparable to or greater than art?)
i hadn't thought of it as good or bad. personally, i'd rather look at a landscape in reality than in a representation, so it seems like a healthy thing to me. i prefer art to go where the eyes can't... the stylized worlds of the imagination.
I like the show.
Bill-- I can think of a variety of reasons for liking the show. I guess the question is, do you think it is likely to produce "The Next Great Artist"?
Uh maybe next year... if I could get on it. ;-) I haven’t read thru all the back and forth, but I think it will do on a small scale what American Idol does for it’s winners, some have record contracts and the some are doing dinner theater and parking cars. Miles might go someplace and maybe the kid who won last week. As you know in the fine art world talent is not an asset.
Jesus H.R. Christ, Cynthia G., what kind of woman ISN'T impressed by trolling as performance art?
I think you're in sore need of checking thy self, lest ye wrecketh thy self.
After seven episodes, I notice a distinct trend in the critiques...the emphasis is almost entirely on the emotional response to the work. I don't recall any reference to beauty or design. It certainly underscores the breach that has occurred in art.
Just watched the finale. At least a solid collection built around figurative realism won out in the end.
I really admire designers,painters,persons who's very good in any art.I admit i'm not one of them but i appreciate a lot the way each piece created.
There seem to be many of them trying to become stars instead. You can be a great artist without the wealth and celebrity lifestyle. In fact, I'd say it probably helps.
Post a Comment