"But -- well --- didn't the early Surrealists also like to include "an abundance of insider reference to esoteric, obscure, vague "discourse" that can be easily alluded to in general terms but never explicitly identified"
Bringing up Surrealists to "an abundance of insider reference to esoteric, obscure, vague "discourse" that can be easily alluded to in general terms but never explicitly identified" proved to me that you are bringing utterly different meaning to "an abundance of insider reference to esoteric, obscure, vague "discourse"....." then most of the listers. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Heidegger and puzzling Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:22:41 GMT Unless we consider some of the early modernists to have been puzzle painters, I think I get to avoid wearing the solipsist's big scarlet "S" (at least on this issue), since "The Origin of the Work of Art" was written more than a hundred years after the end of the late Baroque-Roccoco-and early neo-classic periods. But -- well --- didn't the early Surrealists also like to include "an abundance of insider reference to esoteric, obscure, vague "discourse" that can be easily alluded to in general terms but never explicitly identified" Perhaps, as you attempt to distinguish "today's art" from early Modernism, you, William, are a solipsist as well. And this does raise the question: just what kind contemporary art did M.H. think was unconcealing the truth in his era? Apparently, Van Gogh was included -- but what about Duchamps, Dali, and what about that crazy Russian who packed his canvas with dozens of highly detailed, obscure references ? (sorry, I forgot his name - he was in that Early Modern Russian show at the Cultural Center about 8 years ago) Or -- was he more interested in the likes of Arno Breker and the Nazi mythologizers ? Did he ever offer an opinion regarding the exhibit of "Decadent Art"? ************** >Once again Miller's triumphal comments, like the one below, have no veracity except to himself, the giveaway trait of the solipsist. In various eras, art was made to remain opaque to all but a few insiders who enjoyed puzzling over content and references, the iconology and the iconography. This was particularly true in the late Baroque-Roccoco-and early neo-classic period. As always, people love, then as now, being insiders and knowledge of the most esoteric references and symbols in art is often the signal of membership. In fact, this is what disturbs me about much of today's art with its overdone abundance of insider reference to esoteric, obscure, vague "discourse" that can be easily alluded to in general terms but never explicitly identified. If anything modernism has become stuck in a late neo-baroque redux. ____________________________________________________________ Information on Online Teaching Degree programs. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxXZaS3VAQNeA5JNmQSIw4sBE aFBUcnPYbeYayj42rLcmje5TJz8NS/
