Yeah, and when Miller complains about those who question capitalism, he reveals his true nature, the underlying conviction that a monetary system in which capital gravitates to a center, pooling in vast amounts, money attracts money, is somehow ideal. Why? How has capitalism aided Miller? The little fellows, all of us, are left to splish-spash in tiny puddles that soon enough will drain off to the center. His rambles about validation remind me of Joshua Taylor's famous remark that modernism began when artists had to find or invent their own audiences. He put the emergence of that around 1750.
Saul's last sentence in his comment below is most pertinent. wc ________________________________ From: Saul Ostrow <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; Chris Miller <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2009 8:42:51 AM Subject: Re: The propositional nature of art Accompanying the institutional shift you reference here - their were also the shift in how artists thought about art - influenced by the move toward self expression and individualism, which was a result of the idea that the artist was not a type of crafts person, but rather an type of author/ producer - this was a consequence of the newly created 16th century concept of fine art, and the affects of the reformation and the counter reformation . This shift accompanied the rise of the merchant and middle classes (who were destined to become the bourgeoisie) whose attitude toward art was significantly different than that of the old feudal nobility that they sought to displace and by the end of the 19th century did displace socially, politically and culturally. Art as a collective practice (the sum of all artistic practices) therefore (consciously and unconsciously) came to reflect in its forms and subjects the self- conflicted ideology of its patrons the bourgeois - consequently the residual arguments and values of the 18th century still haunt us culturally - yet like the scorpion and frog joke capitalism can not help itself but debase what it values = because its only acts according to its nautre and this is is reflected in its aesthetic practices On 9/24/09 9:09 AM, "Chris Miller" <[email protected]> wrote: 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/ --
