It's more than that, it's the Cultural War. It affects everything because it creates history. The postmodern cultural theorists are not here (on the list) because they have dismissed all intuitive (Kantian) spiritual thinking to myth, along with high art and modernism. The mass consumer/viewer is now the producer of postmodern culture and the result is all materialist and paralyzingly banal, empty, distressing, depressing, and deathly. (can you tell I just returned from NYC galleries?). Even Christopher Wool's big new gestural swipe paintings look so theatrical and stillborn, begging for life-saving irony like a drowning swimmer gasps for air. The least Hans Hoffman is better because has the authenticity and urgency of its time. Nobody had to assign spiritual power to Hans Hoffman's work. It exudes aliveness even now while the barely dry, monster-sized Wools hang lifeless in the gold-plated gallery.
The word on the art streets is that the moguls are putting their money into art as a safe haven because they expect a world-wide depresssion with gross-out inflation. It's said that's the reason for the art auction run-ups beyond reason. Who really knows? But how else can one park gobs of money with almost no maintenance costs, small near term risk and amazing profit potential? If you've got a bazillion in at-risk cash, buy a Jeff Koons (Mr. very nice guy!) for 20 million, hell, buy 2 for 50 million, and plan to sell them to your doubly rich Russian pal in 2 months or 2 years for another bazillion million. On the nearly absent chance that your rich pals aren't buying, you can sell it for a tax loss or give it to a museum piecemeal over years and maybe avoid taxes altogether. As Warhol saw years ago, art is money. (Some artists like Koons and that English dude also buy big ticket art, I mean they buy money that doubles as art). Art is the new hedge but it has to be 100% banal to be truly equivalent to money. It can't have a surplus value over ordinary material use value, the mystic stuff we used to call aesthetic, beauty, or some quality that can't be named or measured. WC --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is the most basic,divisive issue in aesthetics, > isn't it? > > It may well be, as William reports, that "the > cultural > theorists have almost total power these days" -- but > you will notice that not > a single one remains on this listserv. > > Not one. > > They just have no common ground with the rest of us. > > They have their books and champions of cultural > theory -- and we have our > paintings, plays, operas, novels etc. > > > ********************************** > > > William wrote: > > > > Re Cheerskep['s comment below, he cultural theory > folks agree except they want to insist that even the > responses of the subjects are shaped by received, > and > previously shaped, subjective cultural opinions. So > when we apply meaning to something we don't really > apply our own meaning/s but simply pass on how > we've > been shaped by others and the culture/s we > represent. > History, reality, and meanings are defined by the > "consumer" not by the "producer" for the cultural > theorists...and they are many, and they have almost > total power these days. I'm sick of them. For me, > and old-fashioned sort who thinks something truthful > remains unexplained by cultural theory, something > inherent in objective reality and in human > consciousness/unconsciousness (this reminds me of > Kirby's pro Surrealist stance) that is crucial. > > Objects embody an essence of spiritual animation, a > life form. When we notice that we are at the point > of > making meanings. But we don't create it. This > sounds > crazy or superstitious to cultural theorists but > they > just don't notice reality because they're too busy > pretending to create it. > _____________________________________________________________ > Compete with the big boys. Click here to find > products to benefit your > business. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmSpTDoKTOgr9ZD6nIdkPAsf > Fm7n7n3nHk5Ckebw5IcBCUEc/?count=1234567890
