I think that art comes from each individual's
make-up(the mystery) plus the cultures that
have influenced each one of us. So, what one
creates, has to be a combination all, and the
moment if it's creation. The popularity of that
creation is in the hands those that have the
most public influence at any one.
mando
On Jun 7, 2008, at 8:50 AM, William Conger wrote:
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/
