Mr Miller, No Matter the priority one gives to them, I have no idea what difference is being imputed by "Either Truth OR talent and sensuality." The statement strikes me as incoherent. Worse, it introduces a distinction that is totally alien to aesthetics (so far as I am aware of the tradition). For, in the first instance, Aesthetics has always been in the business of imputing truth and meaning to the sensuous, and of cultivating though exercise/practice the talents for living in a social world (Baumgarten). The questionnaire attacks the very idea of aesthetics by imputing a difference between truth and the sensuous, which is abstract, ill-informed and ultimately pointless. For instance, a Pollock or Rothko painting is just as 'sensuous' as a Rembrandt, Monet, Or Caravaggio. The only difference, between the first two and the others, is whether they depend upon something 'outside' of the four edges of the canvas for their intelligibility (e.g. experience with a human face/form, what water lilies look like, biblical stories, etc).
I reject the questionnaire outright, and not merely the privilege given to what 'someone call' kitsch. On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 11:06 AM, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Well - yes -- being the sensitive, insecure artistes that they are, Nerdrum > and Tuv constructed a questionnaire where the default value (the one that > requires no consent) puts the test-taker firmly on their side (the > "kitsch" > side) of the culture wars. > > And if you reversed each question -- asking, for example, "Do you prefer > talent and sensuality to truth" instead of "Do you prefer truth to talent > and > sensuality?" -- the test-taker would be identified with their perceived > opponents. > > But the issues raised in most of the questions seem to be ones often raised > here and in other forums where art is discussed. (or if they're not -- they > should be. And many can also be found in this famous essay: > > http://www.sharecom.ca/greenberg/kitsch.html > > > > For a further discussion of "kitsch" - look up the Wikipedia entry - which > was > apparently written by one of Nerdrum's fellow travelers. > > It's interesting how the Wikipedia community initially recognized it as > superior -- but later rescinded that judgment with the following > explanation: > > "is filled with weasle words and what appears to be original research, > editorializing, and opinion." > > ************ > > > > What a terrible, terrible test. Bourdieu once said that the problem with > questionnaires is that they tend to produce dichotomies and opinion in > theabsence of any actual dichotomy or opinion. This test is polemical in > precisely this regard: its very language is weighted against 'modernism' > and > based on a misreading of the individuals mentioned at the bottom. Given > the > wording and mistaken presuppositions of the questions (above all that > modernism = exclusively pop-art/postmodern pastiche, i.e. purely conceptual > art), it strikes me as almost impossible not to answer 'no' to most of the > questions. Boooo for this test. It shows nothing, save how to manufacture > opinion by presenting straw-characterizations in sound-bites. > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > I've just taken the kitsch test compiled by Odd Nerdrum and friend: > > > > http://janovetuv.com/bruker/articles/Questionnaire_E%2044-45.pdf > > > > > > And passed it with flying colors! (not 100% -- but close) > > > > However, I do wonder about the testers' claim that now I am a real > > kitsch-person (as opposed to a true artist) according to: > > > > Broch, Calinescu, Greenberg, Kulka, Kundera, Ortega y Gasset > > > > Can anyone confirm or dispute that ? > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click to become an artist and quit your boring job. > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmKf63BuB8wqFfDSDlT7MlLA > frANMquvMKJmv25JW2scwHIY/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmKf63BuB8wqFfDSDlT7MlLAfrANMquvMKJmv25JW2scwHIY/>
