Post by Mike on Feb 18, 2014 19:22:24 GMT
from wrongopinionblog.blogspot.com
"Without leaders there is no action, and the status quo becomes even more entrenched than in aristocracies. Equality is the ultimate guarantee of stasis, since no one feels qualified to publicly disagree..." - Miles Mathis
mileswmathis.com/elit.html
It seems these days that the masses have lost interest and passion in Art. The modernist mantra since Duchamp is that "anything can be art if I say it is art" yet does this not completely strip the meaning of the word altogether? One may have an opinion on a work of Art but is all Art mere opinion altogether? I do not think so.
Yet it is a popular message to say that anything can be Art and that all Art is equal and beautiful in it's own way, like we are taught about people themselves these days. But as Miles Mathis asks in the article linked above, "How hard is it to see that Michelangelo is a better artist than Andy Warhol?" A person with real self-esteem can admit, "Some people are more beautiful than myself," just like a real artist can admit, "I make art, but some might do it better." How hard is it to see that some artifacts (and people) are formed with greater skill, depth, subtly, or expression and content than others? This understanding is the spark which ignites the drive and ambition to strive to do better, but I digress.
A Modernist may respond that the theory behind Warhol's Pop Art or Duchamp's Fountain may have great 'depth' and 'content' but even if we assume this, then it is no longer the artifact itself which produces this inspiration. All you need to do is hear the words, "a urinal displayed in a gallery", or "The Mona Lisa with a mustache" and the response is evoked. The artifact itself is irrelevant because the idea of it is enough.
Doesn't that destroy the entire point of art? Isn't Art to create a form (an object) of expression and content? Isn't the creation itself supposed to evoke the response? Forgive me if this sounds old-fashioned but an idea is not the same as a work of Art. The words, "a majestic mountain range at sunrise" or "A beautiful woman in a delicate dress" do not evoke a deep response, the conceptual subject itself is not enough. Yet, a skillfully painted picture of these subjects may... and this is what Art is supposed to be. The common cliche is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but we can stop with just, "Beauty is in the eye"... or at least in the visualization. It's not in the intellectual analysis but the visual and emotional one. Even the blind can visualize the difference between a flower in bloom and a pile of trash.
This is why I think Art should contain everything in itself. We may each respond to a certain painting or sculpture differently and individually, but the response should be generated from the piece itself. Real art produces it's own context and detail, it needs none to be analyzed intellectually in. When the concept of the work is everything, then the artifact is made irrelevant. Art should be a wedding of an interesting subject and a skillful execution of it's representation.
Neither technical skill nor an interesting idea is enough on it's own, which brings us back to the initial point. Lots of modern Art lacks both skillful execution and it's own self-generated context that stands alone. They must be propped up by the bigger picture of it's place within a social movement or political ideology or (anti)intellectual statement that must be explained before, during, and after the viewing- which is itself largely irrelevant, as I said above. This sort of thing is not art, but a symbol of a concept, like the words you're reading or a stop sign or a question mark. When the artifact is less important than the explanation of it, it ceases to be Art.
So Art is not whatever you want it to be. It's an artifact that is created skillfully and contains content on it's own which may evoke a response. If we accept this then we can also accept the quote I included at the start of this article. Since Art is meant to generate it's own context and illicit a response as a standalone object, then we can understand that some people will accomplish this with greater skill than others. If Art is not a result of saying the magic words, "This is art", but rather it is the result of a skillful and expressive creation, the naturally technique and leadership will be welcomed back into the community and looked upon for guidance and inspiration. People can have justified opinions again, rather than arrogant assertions that anything they do is Art... the masters of the field will be revered and embraced for their ability, not the social, cultural or political theories they push.
But I guess that's all just my opinion.
"Without leaders there is no action, and the status quo becomes even more entrenched than in aristocracies. Equality is the ultimate guarantee of stasis, since no one feels qualified to publicly disagree..." - Miles Mathis
mileswmathis.com/elit.html
It seems these days that the masses have lost interest and passion in Art. The modernist mantra since Duchamp is that "anything can be art if I say it is art" yet does this not completely strip the meaning of the word altogether? One may have an opinion on a work of Art but is all Art mere opinion altogether? I do not think so.
Yet it is a popular message to say that anything can be Art and that all Art is equal and beautiful in it's own way, like we are taught about people themselves these days. But as Miles Mathis asks in the article linked above, "How hard is it to see that Michelangelo is a better artist than Andy Warhol?" A person with real self-esteem can admit, "Some people are more beautiful than myself," just like a real artist can admit, "I make art, but some might do it better." How hard is it to see that some artifacts (and people) are formed with greater skill, depth, subtly, or expression and content than others? This understanding is the spark which ignites the drive and ambition to strive to do better, but I digress.
A Modernist may respond that the theory behind Warhol's Pop Art or Duchamp's Fountain may have great 'depth' and 'content' but even if we assume this, then it is no longer the artifact itself which produces this inspiration. All you need to do is hear the words, "a urinal displayed in a gallery", or "The Mona Lisa with a mustache" and the response is evoked. The artifact itself is irrelevant because the idea of it is enough.
Doesn't that destroy the entire point of art? Isn't Art to create a form (an object) of expression and content? Isn't the creation itself supposed to evoke the response? Forgive me if this sounds old-fashioned but an idea is not the same as a work of Art. The words, "a majestic mountain range at sunrise" or "A beautiful woman in a delicate dress" do not evoke a deep response, the conceptual subject itself is not enough. Yet, a skillfully painted picture of these subjects may... and this is what Art is supposed to be. The common cliche is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", but we can stop with just, "Beauty is in the eye"... or at least in the visualization. It's not in the intellectual analysis but the visual and emotional one. Even the blind can visualize the difference between a flower in bloom and a pile of trash.
This is why I think Art should contain everything in itself. We may each respond to a certain painting or sculpture differently and individually, but the response should be generated from the piece itself. Real art produces it's own context and detail, it needs none to be analyzed intellectually in. When the concept of the work is everything, then the artifact is made irrelevant. Art should be a wedding of an interesting subject and a skillful execution of it's representation.
Neither technical skill nor an interesting idea is enough on it's own, which brings us back to the initial point. Lots of modern Art lacks both skillful execution and it's own self-generated context that stands alone. They must be propped up by the bigger picture of it's place within a social movement or political ideology or (anti)intellectual statement that must be explained before, during, and after the viewing- which is itself largely irrelevant, as I said above. This sort of thing is not art, but a symbol of a concept, like the words you're reading or a stop sign or a question mark. When the artifact is less important than the explanation of it, it ceases to be Art.
So Art is not whatever you want it to be. It's an artifact that is created skillfully and contains content on it's own which may evoke a response. If we accept this then we can also accept the quote I included at the start of this article. Since Art is meant to generate it's own context and illicit a response as a standalone object, then we can understand that some people will accomplish this with greater skill than others. If Art is not a result of saying the magic words, "This is art", but rather it is the result of a skillful and expressive creation, the naturally technique and leadership will be welcomed back into the community and looked upon for guidance and inspiration. People can have justified opinions again, rather than arrogant assertions that anything they do is Art... the masters of the field will be revered and embraced for their ability, not the social, cultural or political theories they push.
But I guess that's all just my opinion.
