It seems that Ben Davis is not very bright at least in comparison with Dutton. The same time Dutton gives too much to Duchamp's wittiness. Yes urinal is a complicated art of design with fine aesthetic qualities fitting its purpose- attractive commercial object to pee in; nothing more. It did not reach dialectic jump toward enough autonomy to become a work of fine art. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Reading Dutton: Chapter 10 - Four Characteristics of Great Art Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:20:35 GMT
Ben Davis begins by asking "Is it becoming cool to hate conceptual art? " and immediately moves to the proposition "that conceptual art is no art at all." -- by way of introducing his discussion of Duttons Op-Ed piece in the New York Times which he immediately characterizes as "an assault on all things "conceptual,"" But if you take the time to read Dutton's piece, you will find that Dutton is only contemplating the future cash value of the top selling conceptual art of our day. If the human "art instinct" responds to displays of virtuosity, will the virtuosity of these pieces be apparent to future generations who are unfamiliar with "todays intellectual zeitgeist.". And he provocatively concludes that "Somewhere out there in collectorland is the unlucky guy who will be the last one holding the vacuum cleaner, and wondering why." Nowhere does Dutton suggest that he hates all conceptual art or that conceptual art is no art at all. He calls Marcel Duchamp "endearingly witty", while in "The Art Instinct" he takes that few steps further, and compares "Fountain" to a brilliant, prescient move made by a master chess player, and ticks off all of the reasons why that piece is properly considered a work of art. Does Dutton's argument imply that "art has become a game for insiders with no connection to popular values of art."? Hardly. He never makes that distinction at all, and it's a bit sloppy to conflate "popular" with "instinctive". Does Dutton ask whether "craft is a value left over from our grandparents culture." ? No he does not - and he never mentions craft at all in the op-ed piece (although he does discuss it in Chapter 10 of "The Art Instinct", where he asserts that "The arts are not just crafts". Instead, Dutton questioned whether "painstakingly developed artistic technique is passi, a value left over from our grandparents culture." So once again, Ben Davis has mis-stated Dutton's position, and then bravely changed forth to attack it -- presumably for the benefit of the beleaguered fans of conceptual art who are standing on the sidelines cheering wildly. "Slam dunk" indeed. Which doesn't mean that Dutton's op-ed piece on the art market and Acheulian hand axes is especially enlightening. It's more like pulling the tiger's tail by way of self promotion, and I'm sure that Ben Davis' shrill, clumsy, heavy-handed, partisan response suits him just fine. ......................................................................... >See today's www.artnet.com/magazine for Ben Davis on Dutton. Good slam-dunk. wc http://www.artnet.com/magazineus/reviews/davis/in-defense-of-concepts11-24-09 .asp ____________________________________________________________ Weight Loss Program Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/c?cp=Lab-yveZpJTKoaW_9RhYDAAAJz6c l_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAAA=
