Well, Florya, you didn't meditate with
the paintings. "Meditate" was the operative word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
swa(y)
the only real think i ever learned from the art classes i have taken is that art can not, and should not, be taught in a structured environment. some asshole teacher telling me "you need to change this, put something in the background, too much negative space" < what fucking right does he have to tell me how to express myself? NONE.
It's funny to me how swa(y) (and others like him) love to reference a
"judge not lest ye be judged"
Christian sentiment whenever they
feel it suits their agenda. It's funny because they usually write from a point of view that's diametrically the opposite. The teacher was merely trying to teach, swa(y). That's why there was a class and that's presumably why you attended it. Chances are, there were some things to learn from that teacher and some things to react against. So calm the fuck down, you impious fuck.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tokolosh
I think it all boils down to aesthetics.
|
Yes, of course, and as a person of reasonable intelligence like yourself, that's what I also wrote that ridiculous time that swa(y) claimed I lost an argument. Some are just interjecting their baggage into the whole thing a little more than others.
a case in point: (baggage)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels
for real, art isn't therapy. although some how it has come to be seen as that. i blame edvard munch and jackson pollock.
|
So you see the artist as more of a craftsperson than a shaman? I'm not sure I follow. The Abstract Expressionists responded to the atomic age by painting what was within and shifting focus to an inner observer. The Post-Expressionists and Pop Artists explored what was outside again utilizing much of what the AbExers had taught them aesthetically and also as a reaction.
But it was not the simple act of "expressing oneself freely" that canonized many AbEx works. It is the unconscious
universal resonance that such inner explorations, carried out in the spirit of artistic truth, have with the viewer that made those works significant and important works of art.
What we see with far too much conceptual and performance are today is that it is not carried out in this same spirit of artistic integrity. These works are merely presented with outsider-posturing as confrontationally as possible to provoke a base reaction for shock value. And these works are far more kitschy caca than Dada; as Rob stated early on, they are just plain "bad art." Art-as-formula is never a good thing. The media coverage of the art world has the propensity to act as a negative influence for this very reason. In many cases, even good artists tend to become formulaic caricatures ofthemsleves over time as their work becomes branded to a certain type by the media and critics.
I'm certainly not going to expend the energy to write
in any sort of real depth. And I'm off to a cookout and
kegger after the Wimbledon coverage.
I do however agree that blanket judgements are, at the very least,
distasteful and, at their worst,
repellent. But, at the same time, whereas relativity rules all, there
are also some people in this world that have more knowledge than
others. It cuts both ways, now doesn't it? Just who are you to
presume that you are as informed as the critics? What makes you think that you should be able to personally pick what's in the canon? It doesn't work that way.
Is it certainly not possible that there are people who
know more than you do about a certain field? With this in mind,
who's being presumptuous here, really? I think you always have to
ask yourself that question.