Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[Verto]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Same old poly eh? Blowing a lot of hot air and chasing your tails as usual...

How many collective hours has everyone wasted typing their overly verbose opinions on this thread and where has it got you?

Some of the stuff on this thread really appalls me, like that mass produced soft-glow Thomas Kinkade sh*t for a start (he must laugh all the way to the bank every time some sucker buys one of his hideously overpriced offerings from one of his chainstores! )...

But it is art - because someone created it and someone (heaven help them!) likes it...

It's that simple.

None of this pseudo-intellectual d*ck waving where every here desperately jostles for position in the various interest camps as usual is required.

Totally unnecessary.

The only good thing about this thread appears to be the complete absence of Fez from this thread - it is just a shame that I had to suffer a Thomas Kinkade painting (the same one twice!) for that dubious pleasure...

So instead of the usual one-upmanship that this site has slipped into, why don't you just start appreciating art for art's sake?

Even if it is Thomas Kinkade!

If I'm reading between the lines correctly, it seems you don't like Kinkade?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I remember seeing the work of a photographer reviewed in the Arts section of London's 'Time Out'.

Most of the photographs were out of focus, badly organised visually, and clipped clumsily. The reviewer said that the photographer was not interested in traditional concepts of framing, and reproduction, and quality- I thought, well, if that had been a bricklayer building a wall, or a plumber fixing a drain, I'd be suing them.

How the reviewer could intuit that the photographer actually knew what they were doing, or couldn't tell the operations of a camera from the instructions on a boil in the bag meal, I'm not sure.

[Fake Boris]

Re: Re: Why are we so illiterate about Art?

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Becasue so high a proportion of current art is ****, just an excuse for useless unproductive persons to artificialy inflate their egos.

Well, if something is bad because it's in part inflating someone's ego, then, anything created by humaity is bad.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In essense both elite try to create art for their own domination, they just have different defintions on what 'domination' means . The liberal elite want domination over the minds of the 'intellectual' and in order to do so engage in this sort of destructive avant guard.

The liberal elite never, ever dominates. When it start doing so, it's not the liberal elite anymore.

But art doesn't always have to represent the real. In fact, the avant guard art you point to doesn't represent any reality. A lot of art may indeed represent reality, but much of it goes beyond reality. Just like it goes beyond language.

In a specific sense, you are right. However, the 'real' is meant here in very broad sense. Actually, you almost pointed it out- that what goes beyong language, is truly 'real', and not what tries to be so with overused conventions (example, Hollywoodian cinema). There is absolutely no way you can say that a painting by David is more realistic than one from Pollock.

Not really. Why does a denial of Nature (which I'm not sure most societies do, they embrace Nature and say their order is most conducive to that nature) mean there must be art with is black and white and moral?

It sounds like you agree with me here. Embracing nature, or claiming you are, is necessarily denying it, in the sense that that it is being appropriated by a force, which is hijacking nature's true nature towards some goal.

Why is it creating a new order rather than continuing an existing one? Is man simply a part of his society? So if art was for man rather than society (as you say), wouldn't the man simply create art which would mostly fit his society? And only a relative few would try to go beyond society.

Good point. In fact, society forces an unnatural order to man, and in such cannot truly belong to man. The order it creates is new, in that it is unnatural.

BTW, why are you discussing this with me? Do you agree or disagree that taking art for granted and linking it with emotional responses is being illiterate about it?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The liberal elite never, ever dominates. When it start doing so, it's not the liberal elite anymore.

I disagree. I think the liberal elite DOES dominate, but over its own sphere. It gets to have its own little place where it is King.

There is absolutely no way you can say that a painting by David is more realistic than one from Pollock.

Realistic in what sense? I can say it is realistic because it looks more like real life.

Embracing nature, or claiming you are, is necessarily denying it

the sense that that it is being appropriated by a force, which is hijacking nature's true nature towards some goal.

The argument is that other societal groups are taking nature by force and our system brings us back to what nature intended. And there may not be some goal... not all systems are based on teleological philosophies.

society forces an unnatural order to man, and in such cannot truly belong to man.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Many philosophers will talk about a state of nature which naturally results in man forming society. It is perhaps very natural indeed... an evolution of ideals.

Why are you discussing this with me?

It's what I do.

Do you agree or disagree that taking art for granted and linking it with emotional responses is being illiterate about it?

I don't know yet. I'll see when it comes time .

[Wraith]

--"Finally, you have to keep in mind that it was only with the appearance of cartoons and cinema that art was destined directly for the masses."

Actually, Ukiyo-e, Japanese wood-block prints, were definitely meant for the masses. The earlier forms of Japanese art it's decended from are another matter; they're incredibly expensive, even today (a single painting in the traditional Japanese style can cost thousands of dollars just for the pigments). The wood-block prints, on the other hand, could be produced cheaply and in quantity, and were always meant to sell to the masses.

And yes, this was long before television or movies. ^_^

--"Pirates of the Caribbean is a brilliant movie that is far smarter than anyone has given it credit for."

You forgot the sarcasm tag...

Don't think I'm being snooty just because it's a movie. One of the best works of art I've seen in a while was a TV series (Haibane Renmei; incidentally involving one of my favorite artists, ABe yo****oshi, who was trained in Classical Japanese painting styles). My problem with Pirates is because, in the words of Jay Sherman, "It stinks!".

--"Because art exists within a social context and aesthetic legacy. It is constantly redefining itself: it is proactively intellectual, and it requires constant reflexion. If you passively take X film and claim it is art- because it is, then you are using it in the false sense."

You got this from one of those comment generator pages, didn't you?
Oddly enough, half of this thread (on both sides) could have been written by an Eliza script. But that's true of most of the threads here ^_^

--"So instead of the usual one-upmanship that this site has slipped into, why don't you just start appreciating art for art's sake?"

Because this is Poly. Where would we be if people stopped the one-upmanship?

Wraith
Fine. No one understands you. That doesn't make you an artist.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Verto
Because the art I like is not the modern-throw-some-paint-at-canvas art.

I doubt anyone wants to talk about, say, Thomas Kinkade, since he's probably not considered avant garde by the psuedo-intellectuals.

That's actually really cool.

IMO about 5% of art is genuinely good, and the rest of them are hacks.

[Imran Siddiqui]

My problem with Pirates is because, in the words of Jay Sherman, "It stinks!".

Snob! Pirates was an awesome movie .

[Jaguar]

Pirates ruled! YAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!

[Az]

I think this debate is futile. To me, everything which is aesthetically pleasing, is art. Especially so, if it's only purpose is to be aesthetically pleasing. For each era, and "school", however, I have different favourites.

If it is, all is great. If you don't like something, don't look at it, and don't buy it. It's your choice. Everyone can design their own houses, and make whatever art they want.

On the issue of Kinkade: From the posts I've seen here, and in other places, each and every person who has seriously dissed his painitings, showed himself to be an incredibly arrogant *****. I am quite ambivalent, myself, to his work, but I certainly will "not" degenerate this debate, and humiliate the people who like him, just because they like pictures of calmness and naivity. I think that kinkade's work is calming to the eye, and brings one to an era of childhood most of us will forever cherish, respect and love. OTOH, there is more to life than childhood's bliss.