"...First -- it might take a few years to determine whether "creative dynamics" have improved, or not --- so it's more of an historical judgment than a way to determine who is best qualified to jury a show or be a minister of art (which is, BTW, a new position being proposed for the Obama cabinet)."
If something is creative it is improved. I agree it might take some time to get it, but improvement, even slow and almost undetectable (like now) in visual art is constant process. Therefore you are correct, some work, even in social realism, are as good as 'modern'. Selecting qualified juror for a show is not very difficult, if selection is done by competent people without agenda and right person is around. Regarding your aesthetic life. It could be outside particular discussion, but it can't be completely outside societal creative drive, if person has discerning aesthetic life. Boris Shoshensky >-- "Chris Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: A few things I might note about your response, Boris, to the question of how on might identify "competent people with discerning taste and knowledge" First -- it might take a few years to determine whether "creative dynamics" have improved, or not --- so it's more of an historical judgment than a way to determine who is best qualified to jury a show or be a minister of art (which is, BTW, a new position being proposed for the Obama cabinet) Second -- considering the Soviet historical example that I presented -- I'm wondering whether "cultural dynamics", as you conceive it, has any connection with the quality of art as I experience it -- since it's been my experience that a social realist painting or sculpture can be just as good as a Constructivist or Modern-Classical one. (Although -- if we consider American art history --- the social/art forces that have recently been dominant in the American artworld have resulted in contemporary museums that have has much aesthetic interest to me as a stroll down the aisles of Wal-Mart.) Third -- you have queried whether "historical dialectic and personal could be separated" -- and wouldn't Saul and Alexei have agreed with you ? We can probably all agree that our personal lives/feelings/judgments are affected by the kinds of events and conditions that are discussed by historians -- whether Marxist or otherwise -- but whether that discussion is truly prioritizing and accounting for all those effects -- that is a question that would separate the partisans for an "historical dialectic" from the rest of us. I consider my aesthetic life to be completely outside that discussion (so far as I've heard it) -- and perhaps those who would identify themselves as artists on this list would feel the same way. That would explain, for example, why some of us can be so strongly affected/influenced by art that came from societies that were way-way-way different from our own. *************** Chris, my answer is very simple. You are missing 'small' details of factual logic in the essence of my answer. Competency changes things for the Good. Commissars were not competent, so they changed dynamics of timing, but not creativity, which they could not stop but only slow down. Pasternak and alike influenced true creative dynamics of USSR more then all drunken commissars. Boris Shoshensky / ____________________________________________________________ You can take it with you! Click here for a luxurious new motor home and travel in style! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/PnY6rx8JiJsb2L0vywR6E3GHWdhVxY X5NrQoDDIgu1BPAWYa8fKwU/
