Chris.
In my own simplistic and limitied way, but backed up with as much
experience
in the "doing" of art as anyone else on this list (from 1946 to
today), I will
say that the "inevitable and resolved" is a rare bird in ones art.
It is a difficult
thing to achieve every time. Too much Experience & knowledge is often
the
very thing that prevents ones "being" to do it's will. When I do a
good work of
art,which is rarlly, I feel it and I know it. BUT it does not mean
that every one
else will, also.Art is personal and unique and does not need experts
approval.
mando
On Jun 9, 2009, at 6:58 AM, Chris Miller wrote:
I would like to see your objections to the proposal rewritten without
resorting to the personal characteristics of those conducting the
discussion
with you. (Kate)
That's not possible, Kate, if we accept that proposals about "good
art" can
only be subjective. (unless we're just talking about price)
Please note that William began his proposal with a personal
reference to his
interlocutor as ignorant and lazy: "Typical of Miller to reserve
for himself
the passive expectation that art will speak to him, as it were,
without any
effort on his part."
Then, as you castigate my "ad hominem" while ignoring his, you
move beyond
subjectivity into group dynamics. Humans form alliances when we
get together
in groups, don't we? It's unavoidable, we're social animals, more
like
termites than eagles.
And since personal references and group dynamics are unavoidable in
discussions of aesthetics, I won't complain about them one teensy bit.
But getting back to the discussion of "inevitable and resolved" -
I found it
exciting because this is the first time our listserv has seen
these words in
reference to that mysterious quality that separates good visual art
from bad.
As Michael writes, "Inevitable and resolved" implies completion and
coherence,
fittedness, proportion, all those things.". But "inevitable" also
involves
the powerful feelings associated with destiny and history. The idea
that all
this sturm und drang is eventually going somewhere; while
"resolved" gives
hope that our many frayed loose ends will eventually be tied.
The quality that separates good art from bad is going to remain an
unspeakable
mystery, but unless something is said about it, there is no way to
challenge
the economic engines of the art and educational industries.
I wonder where William got those words? From critiques with other
artists,
perhaps his teachers? From writers of art theory? I'd be
interested to
know.
But unfortunately, no sooner had he introduced them as the make-or-
break of
visual art, than he retreated back into the dominant ideology of the
contemporary art world and art school - where art needs to appear
"confusing
and paradoxical" so that authorities are needed to explain it.
And where do you stand on this, Kate?
Does the goodness of visual art jump out at you (if not at first
sight, then
maybe second or third) --- and are "inevitable and resolved" words
that you
might apply, or does it often require an explanation (provided by
yourself
or others) so that you can recognize it as
clever/insightful/appropriate/whatever ? And if so -- do you
consider the
"genuinely good art" to be that which at first appears to be
confusing and
paradoxical?
____________________________________________________________
Let your voice be heard! Click here and get paid to participate in
surveys!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/
BLSrjnxPqYaSowucuFzZfJLYWwNl4m
t70eB3UeaxikPlAarkOSUrVPOZSTm/
