There's some truth in what Miller says. There's always some truth in qualitative arguments, particularly when the issue is form and function. Personally I agree that form counts a bit more than function for me in most cases but when the two can be balanced for best results, why not aim for that?
As a lover of old time autos, I like to look at them, mostly in auto museums. There might be a place for them in an art museum but I still prefer them in te context of "motor head" environments. I agree that one's aesthetic is largely shaped by one's time. Yes, I do have a blind spot for nazi and similar propaganda art and have yet to see a single example of 20C stuff of that sort that appeals to me. I think my early years were very affected by the hideous imagery of the war and the wanton killing it fostered in the name of nationalist aesthetic ideals. I admit I can't erase that from my mature aesthetic even though I can when it comes to looking at ancient art...that's a human contradiction. One's aesthetic is a complex mix of all sorts of emotional experiences, memories, knowledge, and idealized projections. It is the organic product of a reflective lifetime and thus it can't be separated from that and be regarded as a separate, pristine thing. We are all of our time and at any given moment many individual "times" are overlapping. Yes, I agree that the arguments for some contemporary art are worthless in justifying tha actual experience of the art they surround. I agree that art should stand on its own...via formal privilege...however contextualized it might be by arguments. My problem with Miller's overall philosophy is its totalizing urge by which I mean his taking a partially true observation to the unreasoned extreme where it is claimed to be wholly true, eliminating modifying arguments. That's what I mean by ridiculous. WC --- On Sat, 3/21/09, Chris Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: "Innovation of new objects seems to go mo re and more toward the d evelopment of tawdry junk for the annual Christmas gift market. > To: [email protected] > Date: Saturday, March 21, 2009, 8:53 AM > "Ridiculous" snorts William ? > > I'm sure that the M.O.M.A. directors of today would react > the same way. > > But I'm not asking them to do anything other than what > curators of historical > art are doing as they sift through millions of pots, > figurines, portraits, > icons, landscapes etc, and then select a few on the basis > of visual > distinction, regardless of whatever "argument" each piece > might be making. > > > > Regarding automobiles, I saw one displayed in the > Cincinnati Art museum just > last weekend, right across the hall from the little > memorial to the art > catalog design of Noel Martin. > > Apparently some big-time collector loans the museum one of > his vintage sport > cars on a regular basis. Do the things still run? Who > knows? -- who cares? > > Granted, it's very difficult to ignore the arguments that > can be associated > with the arts of ones own time, which is why > William's generation will always > hate Nazi art, and later generations are so fond of > whatever is "P.C." It > takes a special, aesthetic discipline to set aside > such attitudes, and just > focus on visual distinction. > > Unfortunately, museums of contemporary art are places where > selected arguments > are flouted rather than ignored, which makes them more like > display rooms of > fashionable ideas rather than art museums. ( while M.O.M.A > is somewhere in > between ) > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Click for affordable Student Health Insurance plans. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxQxK4CV5iZiJj26RNnS8yJmw > 2DGNfzKGHHTpnP7RUynPWVIcZcINK/
