Actually, the informed art audiences are huge. I was fortunate to teach in universities during the past 40 years and the still increasing numbers of students who enroll in serious art history and art theory courses, to say nothing of art practice courses (in all the arts), are truly amazing. Everybody knows about the huge number of people visiting art museums nowadays. Many of these people are fairly well informed, but tainted by the high-low conflation.
I don't think art needs to be dumbed down for your average soccer mom or six-pack Joe, at least not yet. I readily admit that I'm a child of the era when there was a high art and I still cling to the belief that important ideas and discourse require real friendship with the "literature" in the field in question. As for disagreements among outstanding practitioners, such as Courbet and Manet, so much the better. The more they complained about each other, the more they influenced each other. After all, Manet copied a Courbet rowboat in painting his Luncheon on the Grass. Intellectual rivals are usually secret admirers; otherwise they'd not bother to notice each other. It's true that both Courbet and Manet sought a new art public (in the time when artists had to invent their audiences) but they did it in different ways. Courbet would go straight to the public and Manet would try to strip art of its pretenses, but with insider wryness and painterly genius. Different artists, same goal. WC --- On Tue, 10/7/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > To: [email protected] > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 1:05 PM > William: If art is not made "for ordinary lookers" > and it is true that > Gustave Courbet said of Eduard Manet: " I myself > shouldn't like to meet this > young man. I should be obliged to tell him that I don't > understand anything > about his painting (and I don't want to be disagreeable > to him)" (brackets > supplied) and that neither Mozart nor Salieri appreciated > each other's > compositions, I would conclude that you will have very many > persons to > convert to your opinion through discursive writing. One > must presumably be a > member of a particular "school" or approach to > qualify as an expert and > allowed to have an opinion, with even artistic > contemporaries excluded. > Geoff C > > > >From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on Canvas > >Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:36:10 -0700 (PDT) > > > >I stand by all of my comments regarding this worn out > thread. Miller is > >wrong because he bases all of his arguments on > reception, that is, the > >viewer, any viewer, and particularly the less informed > and sensitive > >viewers. Would he advocate the man in the street as > the deciding expert on > >a musical composition, a symphony by a major composer? > > > >Ordinary viewers get what they look for. Art is not > made for ordinary > >lookers but for some elusive standard of excellence, > based on the > >excellences already evident to the most expert judges. > That's how it > >works. Art quality is not a mob rule sort of degraded > pop contest, despite > >the now pervasive notion that all passive audiences can > evaluate anything. > > > >As for the decorative, non-decorative issue, it's > mainly moot. The word > >decorative has become a pejorative word, robbing it of > the values it > >evokes, which are every bit as expressive as any > illustrative narrative > >work. Since Hans Hofmann is still being mentioned here > (by me, I suppose) > >one should read his own remarks about decoration. In > fact, when the more > >civilized past was less drunk with vulgar culture, the > word was quite > >honorific. However, it should be said that the > decorative is also > >metaphoric in the sense that a configuration of form > (the whole design) can > >easily, and always does, in fact, bring to mind > multiple associations and > >imagery that we regard as explicit, or > representational. That's why any > >shape at all will always "look like something > else". The expression of any > >visual artwork depends on its decorative elements, > synonymous with Form, > >Design, "Disegno" Composition. > >WC > > > >These topics are interesting but they deserve more > nuanced investigation > >that the list is willing to consider. > > > > > >--- On Tue, 10/7/08, Chris Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > From: Chris Miller > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Subject: Re: Perceptual Cropping was Marks on > Canvas > > > To: [email protected] > > > Date: Tuesday, October 7, 2008, 10:03 AM > > > It looks like William's dogmatic formalism > has gotten > > > him into a hole, and > > > even the loyal Brady has only helped him dig it a > little > > > deeper. > > > > > > Once again, it's time to apply the Miller > test for > > > aesthetic discrimination. > > > > > > Change the nose of the Mona Lisa by only a > millimeter or > > > two -- and every > > > healthy human over the age of 10 will be able to > > > distinguish (and deplore) the > > > difference. > > > > > > But change those lines in the background by a > similar > > > distance, and I'm > > > doubting that even the visual artists on this > list would be > > > able to notice. > > > While entire lines could be removed or added in a > Jackson > > > Pollack painting, > > > and no one in the world would be the wiser. > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, William refuses to recognize that > his > > > aesthetic ideology is > > > appropriate to his own school painting (for which > he should > > > be proud) but > > > doesn't apply outside modern formalism or > historically, > > > what is usually called > > > the decorative arts. > > > > > > Impressionable guy that I am -- the more I chat > with > > > William -- and look at > > > his work and the other geo-form painters, the > more > > > interested I am -- just > > > as my interest has grown in other non-figurative > genres > > > like calligraphy and > > > painted ceramics. > > > > > > But once the thrill of new-ness is gone from > modern > > > abstract painting (and I > > > think it left about 40-50 years ago) -- how can > it still > > > maintain it's appeal > > > -- or more importantly -- how can it still > maintain that > > > high cultural value > > > that elevates it above the merely decorative arts > - and > > > allows the > > > practitioner to call himself an artist rather > than a mere > > > artisan. > > > > > > This is a real challenge for those who care about > this > > > genre. > > > > > > Trying to apply, as William does, its > doctrines/ideologies
