Knock knock - Mr. Miller let us for the moment set aside this digression and focus on your lack of knowledge concerning Marxism ---- seeming you don't want to go there - that's okay
But, if you do insist on digressing , let us begin with your literal minded-ness - In the abstract can you understand what the phrase the "desire to believe itself to be universal" might refer to? (and please do not ask us to explain this to you - its something youwillhave to work out yourself.) Can you in turn guess at what the artist seeking the universal might look for in the liturgical works of other cultures? Once having made some sense of this , can you connect that understanding, to how those works might effect someone who is attempting to create Jewish liturgical sculpture. From there imagine, why such sculptures if truly an expression of that liturgy might appeal to more than those Jews who are traditional enough to be interested in such things? - just "think" Chris, reflect upon what might be the connection between his collection and his ambition to create a liturgical art - mightn't his audience of Jews within their worship desire to believe themsleves and their faith participate in some universal- essential truth - or are you going to tell me that Jews do not have this aspiration and therefore if an artist sought to give expression to this vision no one but the Jews would be interested in it On 5/2/09 8:43 AM, "Chris Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: My attitude to transgenerational and transcultural art is similar to what William expresses below -- but I don't see how that is evidence of an "egocentric , and it diminishes the moral power of that phrase to apply it so carelessly. The only desire involved is to "be in the presence of their aesthetic". And does it really take any special ability to "remain unaffected by their magic or symbolism"? Wouldn't it take a much greater ability to respond to those Native American artifacts in the way originally intended? (which Heidegger tells us is impossible anyway) My father's teacher, Milton Horn, had a large collection of transgenerational and transcultural art -- including 19th C Euro-Amerian paintings, Japanese prints, and sculpture from Medieval France, Germany, India, China, and even a piece from ancient Rome and Africa. (eventually, it would all go to Christie's to support him in his old age) He always said that he kept these pieces around to "learn from them", and that they "were his teachers". But if he had an "egocentric desire to believe himself to be universal" -- he certainly chose an unlikely way to express it, because his own work was an attempt to create a style of Jewish liturgical sculpture - a genre that could only appeal to Jews who were traditional enough to be interested in such things, but non-traditional enough to break the fourth commandment. There are many ways in which our civilization is acting irresponsibly (ego-centrically?) regarding the planet and the cultures that it has inherited -- but preserving/cherishing/using transgenerational and transcultural art is not one of them. ******************** ** >Yes, I think so. By having some artifacts of Native American cultures, I not only express my admiration and humility in the presence of their aesthetic but I also reinforce my inherited Euro-centrist heritage to demonstrate my ability to admire it without adopting its symbolic purposes. That heritage/ability enables me to feel superior to the artifacts, to remain unaffected by their magic or symbolism. ____________________________________________ Saul Ostrow | Visual Arts & Technologies Environment Chair, Sculpture Voice: 216-421-7927 | [email protected] | www.cia.edu<http://www.cia.edu/> The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106 ____________________________________________________________ Get educated. Click here for Adult Education programs. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVwOxCfudh7ruz0ms4VU5W6B BY03HtldhprBz6nqwkIVFEaeNJF4U/ --
