I think the urinal had more than enough aesthetic qualities to be
used as small
grotto on a wall for other purposes, other than just to pee in. ;- )
mando
On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Boris Shoshensky wrote:
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_zTaptgNR5c8Mer1v9kAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEUgAAAA
A=
