The 20th C. has proven that concepts of art are too weak to sustain "the innovative expression of what Kandinsky called "inner necessity" a spiritual manifestation of ineffable human creativity"
Haven't you seen that yourself - in how art schools have changed over the past 50 years -- with the loss of idealism and aestheticism? Here's a blog that has followed the journey of an idealistic MFA student: http://sculpturelife.blogspot.com/ ---- who finally writes: "My usually traditional sensibilities have been broadened in the past two years (the academy playing no small part)" -- as then begins his career in the studio of Jeff Koons. The academy has prepared him to join the artworld -- but will we ever see the "spiritual manifestation of ineffable human creativity" ? And this is why I think that the concept of art should be left to the social sciences - while those - whom they may eventually identify as artists - need to focus on spiritual values as they are cultivated within specific traditions. Either very old traditions (Russian icon painting) or very young ones (European abstract painting) ************* William 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. ____________________________________________________________ Free information - Scholarships for college, university or tech school. Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlUNllj3dOesgUyHDZuBl8dG j2GPEYn7CZT2UMCXmxNbCVYA/
