According to Peter Kivy, the "standard account" tells us that "Certain things transpired in the eighteenth century to alter, in very important ways, how we think about and experience works of the fine arts"
And William is reflecting that change when he tells us that "Art is not measured by its utility", and then goes on to select examples from the 19th and 20th Centuries to prove his point about propaganda, whose pejorative sense, as superficial and misleading, is also a modern construction. Validation need not be propaganda. So it's true that whatever makes Pontormo, and fellow Mannerists good *for us* , it's not in the validation it gave to institutions. But that is not a comment on its original function. And that validation is what enabled the sale of indulgences (and the collection of taxes) rather than the other way around. Without a social validating function, art is all about self: self expression (Mando), personal enrichment (Boris) or personal validation (Wall St. billionaries buying Jeff Koons) Or, art can provide invalidation. (or, at least that's the utterly bizarre left-wing strategy for attacking capitalism) All of which has made high quality ever more problematic as we move further into the modern era. Not impossible -- but ever more difficult to find and learn how to achieve. ............................................................................. .............................................................. >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 ____________________________________________________________ Save on Cellular Service. Click Now! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxZ9S3kBEzpxmnDXV9XSp39ew T6cAsIXmE3zkdJxwpv5QkLcaeWbEs/
