CB wrote:
> >Didn't it just come out that the CIA WAS promoting modern art with an
> anti-communist political aim ? <
I replied:
>that doesn't mean that it was bad art.
CB now replies:
>I thought the Soviets knocked it out because it was being used for
>anti-communist purposes, "good or bad".
So, maybe they were right about one thing. But they -- the unelected Soviet
equivalents of Jesse Helms -- deserved to be tweaked by art, if not more.
> What is good art ?
I don't know. All it does is remind me of a cartoon, with two fellows at a
modern art museum. Says one "I don't know much about art..." and the other
replies "but you know more than the artist did."
>Whose correct about art ? Me or you ?
We're both correct and we're both wrong, even though we may have
contradictory tastes. As a died-in-the-wool Philistine, I think that
defining "good" art is a matter of taste. The purpose of art criticism, as
far as I can tell, is to help the viewer understand what's seen by
presenting possible interpretations.
I have this "proletarian style" portrait of Chairman Mao on my wall. It's
painted on black velvet and he's got big eyes like a Keane painting...
(Actually, that's a joke from an old "Anarchy" comic book.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
