To deny influences from outside on our likes would be stupid. To deny born commonalities to dislike some and prefer some - the same. I have student, retired lawyer. Almost zero art history knowledge when started. When was exposed to Fauvists and Expressionists showed unusual admiration of the styles with enthusiasm of a child or expert. Go figure. Boris Shoshensky
---------- Original Message ---------- From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 19:44:15 -0500 I don't think there is such a thing as an innocent eye. I can remember liking the Renoir of Suzanne VAladon in the kimono when I was four-I liked the dress and the girl and the red paint. And I didn't like my mother's pictures and I still don't like MAx Ernst. What did Boris like in the way of pictures in gneral when he was very young? KAte Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 6:48 pm Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Artspeak. Conceptualism, art as anything, and the rise of art theory have ruined the word aesthetics. Lots of people now say philosophy of art instead of aesthetics but I think the next big word for both -- and all art discourse - will be Roy Harris' use of the term Artspeak. See his book, The Necessity of Artspeak. My saying that art is what's said about it is an attempt to provoke discussion of how words really constitute aesthetic experience, at least in focussing on "explanations" of that which is ineffable (in the Kantian sense). Boris, for instance, does not tolerate the notion that his "taste" or aesthetic response has a source outside of his choice of art or art that somehow attracted him out of the blue, as it were. But that subjectivity has a larger source and not only for Boris but for the artists he likes. He may say he was "an innocent eye" when he first responded to the work of Demuth, but maybe it was Demuth's work that was conforming to Boris's taste. In other words, Demuth "liked" Boris's aesthetic taste before Boris did. We've got to come to grips with the reality that our values and preferences, our experiences and feelings, and the ways we describe them or mentally process them, are largely, not totally, pre-shaped and evolving in our culture, in both our immediate culture and in a mega culture that includes historical heritage. It's not an attack on one's integrity or individualism to say that. In fact, it should be enlightening to recognize how we share our sensibilities with others past, present, and surely future too. If you like so and so's art, then so and so likes your liking. What is it you both share in the larger social context? WC ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 3:41:03 PM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art I think we all should know that according to the google Ngram viewer the use of the wros aesthetics dropped sharply between 1995 and now in printed sources. So they're callling it something else. What could that be? Kate Sullivan -----Original Message----- From: William Conger <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 12:47 pm Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art OK. Boris does not want to examine the idea but to reject it on solipsistic grounds. Maybe it's because he resents any implication that free-individualism is shaped by cultural habits. I don't have a clue as to what the mumbo-jumbo regarding evolution means except everything changes. ----- Original Message ---- From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 11:18:22 AM Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art William's challenge on artists is incorrect, in my case. I did not have any info on John Marin or Demuth before I saw the work and instantly was intrigued by the talent. If I was only influenced by institutional or cultural canon I would not appreciate mostly unknown folk arts of different cultures, including music and dance, and would like crap dominating present institutionalized culture. I am cold to Warhol and many others regardless 'experts' praises. I was fascinated by Russian Avant-Guard instantly, being very young and uneducated in modernity which was forbidden to be shown even in print in the USSR. Before I go to the second question I have to correct your distortion of my phrase which changes the meaning of what I said. I said I believe in objective criteria not standards. There is a difference, for me. My use of 'I believe' is different from 'I have belief'. It is 'I know', but subjectively, because it based on my professional observations and not on cold scientific research. Independent criteria of beauty is its anti-entropic organizational quality leading to the evolutional progress of matter and mind. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: the boring false opposition between money and art Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 14:52:37 -0800 (PST) Boris; Your comments seem to confirm my argument that we tend to prefer the art we've been told is good, not only by individuals in our midst but by the canonic standards of art history. All to the artists you mention are artists whose work has been widely, even universally, discussed as excellent within the canon of Western art. So how can you be sure your opinions of that work are free from institutional and cultural influence that even predetermine those opinions? I say you can't. Further, I am puzzled by your statement that you "believe" in objective standards of beauty and thought. If such standards exist why is it necessary to believe in them? Ordinarily we distinguish between believing and knowing. Believing is accepting something as true without sufficient independent evidence where as knowing is a result of validating independent evidence. For instance we can say we "believe" that a human has an immortal soul but we "know"
