Why are we so illiterate about Art?

[Oncle Boris]

Yes, this is the only conclusion I can come to.

There are plenty of intelligent persons on Apolyton, who can debate politics, history, economics, science and philosophy in a competent way.

Why is it that everyone is so illiterate when it comes to Art? The trend is generalized: only a fraction of usually intelligent people have something intelligent to say about Art. Could it be that art is not considered seriously? Why is it that an intelligent person would accept that art is here to manipulate emotions, and that's it?

Discuss.

[Drake Tungsten]

Because art is homo-gay?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Because art is homo-gay?

[mrmitchell]

Art cannot be measured.

[BeBro]

Does the "we" include yourself, or are you, Boris, the only guy at Poly who's not illiterate in this matter?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Art cannot be measured.

Well, the point of 'measuring' art (in a metaphoric sense) is to put aside your personal preferences when judging it.

[monolith94]

I'm art literate.

[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.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by BeBro
Does the "we" include yourself, or are you, Boris, the only guy at Poly who's not illiterate in this matter?

I don't know if it includes myself.

Illiterate was not the exact word, I fear. It has more to do with the (wrong IMO) conception that art is purely subjective, that if you like it then it's fine, etc.

I had thought Brecht would have put the last nail on the coffin of this dumb idea.

[Oncle Boris]

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.

This is a problem, too. There is nothing wrong with traditional stuff. However, by definition, art has to be in some part avant-garde. When it ceases to be, it becomes a social construct at the hand of the ruling elite.

(Though some would argue that even the avant garde is a social construct used by the elite, which is another debate).

[monolith94]

That's a good painting, but your snotty attitude actually makes me want to like it less.

[joncha]

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.

[img]

Verto! Are you sure you're not really my grandmother? The similarity in taste is uncanny.

jon.

[Asher]

That's because people who insist they know art have crap taste. It's a no-win situation.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by joncha


Verto! Are you sure you're not really my grandmother? The similarity in taste is uncanny.

jon.

[Asher]

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.

We have several Thomas Kinkade paintings, and they really are nice.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There is nothing wrong with traditional stuff. However, by definition, art has to be in some part avant-garde. When it ceases to be, it becomes a social construct at the hand of the ruling elite.

This is a problem. That art which is 'hand of the elite' is automatically bad. Bah!

[Verto]

Originally posted by monolith94
That's a good painting, but your snotty attitude actually makes me want to like it less.

Are you talking to me?

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
That's because people who insist they know art have crap taste. It's a no-win situation.

I had once this cinema class where the teacher showed us a very long and drawn movie, with no real beginning and ending, no climax, no resolution of conflict, etc.

Of course, most of the class complained. Then he made a speech as to how Art was like a refined roquefort: you have to practice your taste in order to enjoy it. I agree.

[monolith94]

The bronze cast you see in the foreground is a sculpture of a person's head. I had to write a paper on it and a painting in this exhibit. It was one of the more interesting assignments I've had.

[Verto]

You mean, force yourself to believe something is good, because others do?

[Verto]

Originally posted by joncha


Verto! Are you sure you're not really my grandmother? The similarity in taste is uncanny.

jon.

I hope not.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is a problem. That art which is 'hand of the elite' is automatically bad. Bah!

You agree or not? Well, since you are you and I am me, I don't expect much.

The reason why 'ruling class' art is bad is quite obvious. It is 'mythologic' in nature, in that it uses language (a moving media) to fix history (stagnate it) in a balanced, pleasing representation, destined to manipulate the masses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The reason why 'ruling class' art is bad is quite obvious. It is 'mythologic' in nature, in that it uses language (a moving media) to fix history (stagnate it) in a balanced, pleasing representation, destined to manipulate the masses.

And this is bad 'art' because...?

The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by the elites, that doesn't mean it isn't amazing.

[monolith94]

"I had once this cinema class where the teacher showed us a very long and drawn movie, with no real beginning and ending, no climax, no resolution of conflict, etc."

L'Aventurra?

"That's because people who insist they know art have crap taste. It's a no-win situation."

You have no right to talk, mister. We've all seen your desktop background!

[joncha]

I figured that since I jumped all over Verto, it's only fair game that I post some of my "art."

This is the current wallpaper on my desktop. I likes it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I like Verto's art .

[Verto]

Must...avert...eyes...

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
(...)destined to manipulate the masses.

Isn't in a certain sense any form of art manipulating? Not that I think art is generally brainwashing, but it appeals to our senses.....

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

The reason why 'ruling class' art is bad is quite obvious. It is 'mythologic' in nature, in that it uses language (a moving media) to fix history (stagnate it) in a balanced, pleasing representation, destined to manipulate the masses.

And this is bad 'art' because...?

The Sistine Chapel was commissioned by the elites, that doesn't mean it isn't amazing.

Yes. When talking about art, we need to make a distinction between anything prior to the 19th century and the rest.

We also need to make the distinction between technical prowess (inherent to painting, sculpture) with the rest.

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. Understanding the Sistine chapel requires erudition, that was highly unlikely held by the masses of the Italian Renaissance.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
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.

Not true.