I admit that it took me a while to answer the first question on the test:
"Do you prefer truth to talent and sensuality?"
Perhaps the mainstream tradition of European aesthetics would not accept this
as a dichotomy -- but it's hardly novel to make a distinction between truth
and very clever, skilled appearances. (especially in an election year)
The artworld example that first popped into my mind was the fabulous cycle of
ancient Buddhist paintings from Ajanta. Those images of beautiful,
half-naked, elegant, regal women have always appealed to me -- even after I
learned that they are supposed to represent man-eating demons in disguise. I
recognize the truth of the doctrine being presented -- and yet still -- I
prefer to admire the talent and enjoy the sensuality.
Whether this distinction is made by any of the writers that were mentioned - -
I can't say.
Certainly Greenberg's essay makes a dichotomy between true culture and kitsch
-- but he attributes the appeal of kitsch to its presentation of things or
stories that are vividly recognizable (rather than especially sensual) -- and
he does not seem to allow that very much talent was required to achieve that
vivid recognizability.
This is, I think, a serious oversight in Greenberg's approach -- especially
if his category of kitsch is going to include the paintings of Repin.
Perhaps Odd and Jan should have presented that kind of critique -- instead of
making a short, little test -- but hey, they're painters - not philosophers.
They quickly put a bunch of issues up on the table -- it's up to others to do
the follow up.
**********
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:
>
____________________________________________________________
Click to receive credit card help and get out of debt fast.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijmM9jfl6qvUZcND6yFZc3IyZ
mbZ4GNcYLjuPnbwrgPHufJvW/
