Does the successful work of art necessarily reflect "the economic, social, and
cultural circumstances of its audience" any better than those works deemed
less successful?
Saul, can you give us any examples?
No? -- well -- here's a counter example:
I ran up to Milwaukee a few weeks ago to see the first ever retrospective of
Jan Lievens. Ever hear of him? Probably not, unless you specialize in Dutch
Baroque painting. But he was something of a genius -- a professional artist
at the age of 14 - and an exact contemporary of Rembrandt with whom he may
actually have shared a
studio. In their day, they were both recognized as equally hot properties,
and one clever patron entertained himself by giving both of them commissions
on the same subjects. Hand those results over to a cultural anthropologist,
and I'm sure she'll be able to get just about the same information about "the
economic, social, and cultural circumstances of its audience" Same materials
-- same techniques - same subject matter -- same chiarascuro style -- but
yikes! What a difference !
Lievens painted a Crucifixion that should be put into a closet and kept there.
He just could not relate to sacred subject matter or sustain the composition
of a large painting. (although, I think he was quite successful in other
genres)
This may be one of the few instances where Brady and I agree: if art is that
which "reflects the economic, social, and cultural circumstances of its
audience", then "everything an artist makes is art" (but then, so is every
paperclip, note pad, button hook, spool of string, etc)
Saul has dug himself a hole because, as William puts it, "it's a simple
truism to say that art deals with the economic, social and cultural
circumstances of its time. What doesn't? The statement cannot be
falsified."
So, in a desperate attempt to climb out, he then proposed that "artists are
researchers" -- as if they were making discoveries about those
social/cultural circumstances that improve our body of knowledge about them.
But has a painter or sculptor ever been cited in the footnotes by a
sociologist or economist ?
Saul's notion of art (which is basically Heidegger's) just leads to one dead
end after another - even if it is "the general thrust in MFA education".
(concerning which I share William's horror. Oops - maybe I'm not the only one
here who is dismayed concerning the art institutions of our day)
*********
>this is anecdotal information - it does not extend from the object - nor does
this aspect ability to identify something the economic, social, and cultural
circumstances of its audience be a mark of its makers success - this is
another Miller shell game - bait and switch - using the part rather than the
whole - because he could not deal with the whole - which had to do with the
successful work of art - and its ability to reflect the the economic,social,
and cultural
circumstances of its audience - in which is often centuries after the fact its
been fun - to know that nothing ever changes here
____________________________________________________________
Click here to save cash and find low rates on auto loans.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxXA8CpNhqIWWoRZSp2Kru40p
LO58SHwcybZCNVUJWR72Ufe5lARW4/
