Art is not measured by its utility. That's the function of propaganda. Although art is often put into service as propaganda, that use is not the measure of its quality. Otherwise, I suppose Flagg's "Uncle Sam wants you" or the Statue of Liberty---surely effective propaganda imagery -- would be among the world's greatest art. But no one has ever seriously proposed that.
Whatever makes Pontormo, and fellow Mannerists good, it's not in the validation it gave to institutions. Likewise, it's not today's Wall Street billionaires who determine the quality of Koons' or Hirst's art even though they seek validation for themselves by bidding it up to huge market values and thereby ensuring that only they can acquire it. I do agree that the quality of many goods is supposedly reflected in their prices -- like real estate -- but the aesthetic quality of something can't be measured by the supply-demand formula or by how it validates something separate from it. I also realize that there's a subtle subtext in this because the validation of other might be a subjective, individual, consciousness, as when I say, "Pontormo's art validates my sense of aesthetic" But I am not an institution. Since there are so many diverse things that may be used to validate anything at all, and each likely to contradict another, we can't say that a particular quality is identified by it. Actually, the old Church, the institution Miller says was validated by art, was far more validated by its "indulgences" that enabled one to purchase a better spot in the line to heaven, or "fear" of its power to destroy wealth and life at will. It's the power thing again. If you want validation, get the power to enforce it: money, arms, and Miller's favorite "institutional authority". wc wc ________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:10:56 AM Subject: Re: The propositional nature of art > One can hardly claim that Pontormo didn't have a wildly alternative view from what had been current fifty years before. (Kate Sullivan) But one can claim that his view was not "wildly alternative" in order to qualify as important art. Rather than seeking validation, the art of that period (indeed, of every period of human civilization other than our own) was made to offer it -- to the various institutions of church, state, or clan. That's why it was so good. It had to be. And it had to be inventive, too -- because institutions are always changing. (even the apparently private art of calligraphy and landscape painting in dynastic China - which is why it was so important for each Emperor to practice and collect it) >I thought you said you were emulating Pontormo and Bronzino both of whom had some very beautiful criteria. No, I had never seen a life drawing by Pontormo until about 5 years ago, at a wonderful exhibit of the "Art of the Medici" (yet another example of an institution seeking validation from art, rather then vice versa) I'm afraid that like Mando (and unlike the great artists of the past) I only draw to please myself - and, for whatever reason, Pontormo and I are fellow travelers. >Could you explain the ideology behind your preference for drawing to draw like Bronzino. It is possible to have preferences that are not based upon an ideology -- and they are none the worse for it. ____________________________________________________________ Pledge your allegiance with a beautiful new flag! Click now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxR8OvbzEs11XfKM5QuHyr5Sv ZfbGl5okkZo8FvQBj51M4bJSIrcUQ/
