Hi Azeem,
I agree with your descriptions of what you like and why and how. Lines and
colours and shapes and bright, light impressions move me out of myself and
take me within.
Your criticism of The Room reminded me of myself when I see art that doesn't
do anything for me, like paintings with so much detail that they are
life-like. Rather than be moved or struck by the fantastic ability or
vision of this person, I'll say to myself - why bother - take a photograph
next time. Then catch myself in that judgmental mode and realize just how
wonderful it is that such diversity exists, in music as in art - enough for
all of us.
Just got back from "Save the Last Dance For Me", and I'm feeling young and
hopeful (hop-full)and just wanna dance.
Brett
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2001 6:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Art and explanation (njc - probably; I haven't written it yet!)
Interesting discussion on art, folks. My two penn'orth on the subject:
I tend to prefer modern stuff; most of my favourite artists are from the
late
19th or 20th Century (Whistler, Giacommetti, Dali, Rothko, Pollock, etc),
and
like a lot of abstract art. I do have a block, however, with art that
requires an explanation to "appreciate" it: I remember seeing an
installation
in London a few years ago, which was a room. That was it - a room, with
bits
and bobs lying around, a chair, a newspaper, etc etc. It made no impact on
me; I read the card, which explained that this was an exact reproduction of
the artist's room at the moment a significant event in his life occurred, or
something similar. And I thought (age-old thought, this): does that make it
art? I have an impatience with that kind of conceptualising, which to me
often smacks of posturing and poseurism. I am pretty much with David Lahm
on
this, I need to feel moved, or struck in some way by what's there, and not
have to rely on the subtitles.
When it comes to abstract art, I disagree with Diane that you have to know
about Mondrian's landscapes in order to appreciate his work. And what's
wrong with colourful squares? They're not to everyone's taste, but I
believe
you can get the artistic hit just from seeing what's there. That said, I'm
not denying that you might get a fuller *understanding* of them from knowing
the history; it's just that, for me, the art, the genius (or lack thereof),
is on the canvas I'm looking at. I can look at a Rothko and be mesmerised
by
its beauty, and I don't have a clue why it came to look like that.
Azeem, scratching his imaginary goatee with furrowed brow
