I judge art by its effects on me as a viewer, not on the basis of what a critic (or theorist) says, though of course I am indirectly and unavoidably affected by the latter. Despite being privileged to see much first rate art repeatedly over many years, I simply never "got" Pollock, until one day, passing for the hundredth time the single very large work of his that hung in the old permanent collection in NY MOMA, I suddenly was utterly enthralled by it. In a couple of decades since, that feeling hasn't weakened.
Is it socially relevant? Yes, in the sense that it advances and enlarges feelings of human capability, perhaps in line with what Marcuse offered in "The Aesthetic Dimension." That's assuming one must have theory to back up one's direct reactions. Naturally, I doubt anyone who hasn't had an experience such as mine will be converted. Tant pis! Best, Michael # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: [email protected]
