Miller lands on the central issue of art theory and criticism. Is art simply a product of culture, reflecting the iconic imagery of visual culture at large which shapes the "gaze" of the audiences who thus "create" it? Or is art the innovative expression of what Kandinsky called "inner necessity" a spiritual manifestation of ineffable human creativity that shapes culture and the "gaze"? In short, does the artist create art or does cultural audience create art? If both, as likely, which side has the greatest sway? Which side ultimately decides the issue?
Today, in the late apotheosis of Duchamp and the degrading of art's uniqueness to the equivalence of the commonplace, the plam of victory belongs to the "culture creates" camp. Remember, it was Duchamp's readymades and rejection of skilled art practice that effectively tossed the creative act to the vewer (and to the institutional authority of the "artworld". The downside of the cultural gaze is the tendency to rank art as artifact where quality is contingent upon social utility and the most useful commonplace object or practice may trump all else. The downside of the artist's gaze is the strong possibility of its being irrelevant to culture through redundancy, oddness, and uselessness as an artifact (as, say, for propaganda or a sign for established beliefs, etc). A very tough dilemma. WC --- Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Regarding the understanding of a work of art (or > anything else) -- the first > question has to be why should it be considered as > such? > > For example -- why is the painting that Michael > mentioned, "Phidias Showing > the Frieze of the Parthenon to his Friends" by > Alma-Tadema, a W.O.A. ? > > If it's a WOA because it has been sold, displayed, > and honored as such -- then > our understanding must begin with the kinds of > questions asked by sociologists > and historians -- especially regarding how it was > received when first > presented. > > If that's the approach -- then any personal > admiration for it is completely > irrelevant. > > But if one considers it a WOA because one admires it > as such -- then those > historical associations may or may not be relevant. > > > When I consider something as a WOA -- I prefer to > take the > sociological/historical approach --- but usually I > don't care about things as > such. > > I do care about whether I like them and want to see > them again -- and if I do > -- then a lot of other questions get raised - some > historical, some personal. > > Regarding this specific painting -- I think its a > fascinating illustration of > how certain 19th C. upperclass Brits felt about > Classical antiquity and about > homosexuality. And it's also a pleasant -- somewhat > enjoyable trip into their > gay, elegant world. > > But it doesn't satisfy me (or at least, the web > reproduction doesn't) and it > leaves me longing for something with a little more > punch. > > It's so staid and quiet -- it feels like an ad for a > travel company. > > It doesn't make me think "Yes -- that's exactly how > I want to live!" -- which > is how even photos of the Elgin marbles make me > feel. > > > ************************ > > Michael wrote: > > ' What is there in a WoA to "understand"? I believe > it's just a matter of > seeing (or hearing) it better.... "Understanding" a > painting means being able > to see it with greater clarity, ...' > > Others were going on about understanding paintings > or musical pieces, etc., > and not being particularly precise with that term. > "Understanding" has been > hobbled by the fetters of popular use, especially as > practiced by gurus of > communication, interactivity skills, etc. It's a > vague term that, for me, is a > shorthand to signify the whole range of cognitive > reactions to a WoA, and > those reactions are refined and given greater range > and detail as I learn more > and more about all manner of things. A great, > wonerful painting from the > hey-day of Beaux Arts style, is Alma-Tadema's > "Pericles Inspecting the > Parthenon Frieze." I had great admiration when I > first saw a reproduction of > it, but that was a long time before I knew any Greek > history, had studied the > Parthenon, etc. My admiration increased as I learned > more about it, and I > discerned details that just passed me by in a blur > of stage props: his hair > style and clothing, the size of the frieze, the > depth of the overhanging > colonnade roof, etc. The more I knew, the more I > could see, and thus the more > I "understood". > > ____________________________________________________________ > Free quotes fast! Get competitive rates on homeowner > insurance. Click Now. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmOCQS7ei6xdDhKQKa4qNEji > bU4wdKVBfzVXT0Z9BBM36aAc/
