Miller brings us entertainment from 1915. There are so many totally imbecilic writings on art to choose from and Miller keeps finding the most imbecilic of them to decorate his so scholarly research into Chicago art history. He could have just as easily quoted Josephine Logan's Sanity in Art booklet or Congressman Dondero of the 1940s and 50s, not to overlook Senator Joe McCarthy, and a host of other pin-brained nuts in Washington and all around America down to this very day. There are legions of people who make fun of creative artists and their work. It's a barely masked form of bigotry and racism because it draws on the same hateful, fearful, unexamined emotions.
Who really gives a damn about people who hate art? Who gives a damn about people who can't "understand" abstraction? I feel sorry for dumb people, usually, until they begin blabbing about something that's truly beyond their mental equipment. I never lost a minute in doing my painting due to worry about how it is rated by pinheads or trivialized by the trivial. But even back in the old days of 1915 there were enlightened folks who could deal with abstraction. Jerome Eddy, a Chicago lawyer and collector wrote the first book on cubism which was published in Chicago in 1914 with tipped in plates in color. A prized signed copy is in my library. It is an amazing book for its time. Eddy lived near where I now live and on my walks I often pass his home on Marine Drive. Then I always pause to think of the early masterpieces of modernism that used to hang on his walls pretend to hear his eloquent discourse. Miller could have quoted Eddy if he needed a 1914-15 writer. But why would he when a ludicrous, guffawing philistine newspaper hack is at hand? It's always so much more fun to quote the stupid people when you want to dress up a thin judgment that could never stand on its own. WC --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One reason why this topic is so difficult to discuss > --- is that it's usually > not clear just who is being satisfied. > > So... when William writes: > > "I think the aesthetic rush one gets from > "abstraction" etc etc"--- > we might wonder -- to which *one* is he referring ? > > Himself ? > > Anyone ? > > > Or --- one who is especially > perceptive/sensitive/well-educated/whatever ? > > > No one really wants to focus on her own, personal > satisfaction -- because, how > solipsistic is that! (although -- I wish more > posters would -- since I find > that sort of the comment to often be the most > valuable) > > And no one here can claim any expertise in > sociological or psychological > research -- so we're not really qualified to comment > on what most people or > any people are feeling. > > But -- it's also quite problematic to stick one's > neck out -- and make > assertions about what the best feelers should be > feeling. How arrogant is > that! > > And so - the best strategy is to avoid all three > approaches -- by conflating > them all at once. > > > **** > > And now -- for your entertainment -- I offer this > journalistic response to > "abstract art" -- from back in the day (1915) when > it was considered new > rather than canonically approved: (the writer is > Gene Morgan, of the Chicago > Daily News) > > > "Imagine a picture which looks like nothing, yet > everything, and which is > entitled "Michigan Avenue between Adams Street and 5 > O'clock" At first glance > you might think it was a soup can in a heavy > blizzard. A second glance would > almost convince you that it was J.P.McEvoy's new car > embracing a barber's pole > with its front wheels. > > You see, you can never tell what a futurist painting > represents. Thats where > the fun comes in. > > Generally, it represents its title like a > congressman represents his > consitits. > > A futurist painting presents not ideas, but thought > harmonies, soul tones and > notes sounded by the vibrant emotions (It isn't > every day you read stuff like > that) > > The harmonies conveyed by these paintings are > various. Each painting is an > orchestra in itself. > > One picture may be entitled "Golf Lynx calling its > mate" You look at the > picture and then you think you're hearing a fife and > drum corps passing a > sawmill. > > Another painting is named "The Furniture Mover's > Lament". You don't see any > furniture, but you think you hear a piano being > assaulted by a cabaret artist > who has just been fed meat. Still another > masterpiece in a gold frame is > entitled "Silent prayer" It looks like a big squidge > of yellow paint, but it > listens like a circus band leading the second > division of the parade, with the steam calliope > whistling for coal around the > corner." > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Planning for retirement? Click for free information > on 401(k) plans. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlfGveDCakIGXU3ApLuo6ZQX > sRQYauz5u40IfP8lrOyRy3eE/
