On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 6:13 AM, caldwell-brobeck < [email protected]> wrote:
> Re. Paglia's "Can Capitalism Save Art?" I wonder if art even needs > saving. Paglia starts off by pointing out that "No major figure of > profound influence has emerged in painting or sculpture since the > waning of Pop Art and the birth of Minimalism in the early 1970s" and > progresses from there to argue that, at least as far as I can > understand, that because there are no overwhelming leadership figures, > or coherent thread, in the art world, somehow art is in decline. > > But doesn't her position require a uniformity in culture - or at least > the among the powerful elements of society - that is no longer > practical? My own POV on this is that art is actually ahead of the > game; there's no shortage of subcultures in the West in which artists > can find their respective places. I also think that learning to deal > with that fragmentation of (somewhat mythical) monolithic public > opinion is going to be an important part of social discourse going > forward. > If you mean that there is a lack of consensus, then I agree. But I have to ask as I did before?: - Can art exist without a consensus?
