Ohhh lovely response. I wish I had time to comment more fully right now but you make some great points.
What is harmful about this system is that it enforces upon the common people the notion that art is something above their heads. Whatever else they misunderstand or ignore, they certainly do not misunderstand that.This is perhaps my favorite bit. Now I will say there is art done that requires a certain amount of intelligent observation, but of course, that's the same as with Alan Moore
( ... )
I am afraid that, to judge from your response, I have not made my meaning clear enough. The purpose served by "modern art" does not stop with "modern artists" themselves. They are kept in being by a network of intellectual and, above all, financial support, that begins with state institutions. All these unpopular arts are regularly attended by ministers, wealthy patrons, mayors. What I am saying is that the existence of modern art is a genuinely anti-democractic, anti-popular part of society, and shows a really hostile frame of mind towards the mind of the populace, the experience and values of the middle and working classes, on the part of those who support it. "Bourgeois," or, even worse, "petty-bourgeois" prejudices are the enemy to be defeated, the resistance to be forcibly broken - with taxpayers' money. It is a token of belonging to an elite. The attitude of the artists themselves is the least of it. This struck me forcibly when I read, not so long ago, a report on the increasingly unpopular and poorly attended opera and
( ... )
"The very idea has been, in art-critical discourse, excised; I suspect that young students at Goldsmiths' [...] or such places never even hear the suggestion that art might be beautiful."
I can't speak to the situation at art schools specifically, but during my first year at varsity we were explicitly told in English I, by a professor attempting to tell us how to write a lit.crit. essay, that the term "beautiful" had no business cropping up in any of our papers because it was meaningless and irrelevant.
I don't think he ever tried to prove or justify the claim in any way; as far as I can remember, he seemed to regard the truth of it as self-evident and requiring no more proof than the claim that the sky is blue.
beautiful as irrelevantelskuligrMay 5 2008, 09:59:23 UTC
(Thanks fpb for the interesting point you make. I especially agree with the notion that the world of contemporary art tend to be elitist and self-centered.)
Just a quick reaction to the notion of beautiful in criticism: I would agree with your teacher that 'beautiful' is a word to avoid in an essay, but not because beauty as such is irrelevant, only because 'beautiful' is not an analytical criterion.
If someone says a work is beautiful or moving, well it might be true, but if they don't say anthing else, then it's just a subjective statement, not criticism.
On the other hand, if you analyse carefully the structure of a work of art and how it creates its appeal, e.g. because of a particular harmony or a powerful use of contrast or whatever, then I think you are entitled to use the word 'beautiful' because your analysis makes it clear what you mean by that and because it is now a justifiably valid assertion and not just a completely subjective impression.
Re: beautiful as irrelevantfpbMay 5 2008, 10:20:12 UTC
I do not know that I agree. First, because the first great critic I ever read, and the man who really gave me the taste for criticism that I still enjoy, was Matthew Arnold. And Arnold quite often would in fact say the equivalent of, this passage is beautiful, quote the passage, and leave it at that. This was in the context of showing levels of achievement in literature; for instance, when an over-enthusiastic French critic had placed the Chanson de Roland at the very pinnacle of literary achievement, Arnold answered by placing the long verses about Roland thinking of his life as he lays dying, and next to it just a couple of verses from the Iliad. (I think they were Achilles' grieving reflection to his guest and enemy, Priam: "And, you, old man, you too used to be famous for your good fortune...") The result is that, to any person of sense, the much higher value of the Homeric passage becomes clear, blazingly clear; and this also serves to clarify and improve our taste in literature, to come to understand the difference between
( ... )
The absurdity of the term 'modern art' is illustrated by the ludicrous term 'postmodern art'.
Elbowed out of the public gaze by the pushy Hirsts and Whiteheads, serious artists like you and this Andy Goldsworthy you mention (I never heard of him - doesn't it just show you?) have to live in the cracks and carry on for the love of it.
Which would be a very serious problem, if the opinions of intellectuals actually mattered. Self-important intellectuals will always attempt to elevate those things which justify their status as self-important intellectuals. And the rest of the world largely ignores them.
The things called 'modern art' will continue to be inaccessible. But the public will continue to buy Rowling.
But you haven't heard of Liz Argall, Ingrid Bean, or 'Bonsall and Goldfinch', I'll bet. And those are some of the best writers and performers (they all do both) that I know.
If you do it for the love of it, you get to do something that you love. If you do it for some other reason, then you might get what you're looking for, but if you're doing something that you love, what other reward do you need?
Well, when I was into comics, I wrote reviews for nine years solid, with the exact purpose of praising the best and introducing unknown authors to the public. I am happy to say that I was the man who introduced Carla Speed MacNeill's FINDER to the English public, and if I did not discover Denny Derbyshire (someone else did), at least I got her public attention. It makes me very angry that the best go unnoticed while the Hirst get pages on the dailies.
The thought that occurs to me on reading this, is that 'modern art' of the accademic, publically funded type, is actually a product of art criticism. Without theorists to discuss it, it would probably not exist at all. The audience for this type of art is limited to the people who discuss it and create it, critics and other artists.
As such it is almost bound to become 'elitist', although I would like to use a word that is not as prejoritive as I see no issue with a group of people producing art for their own group. Where that would be a problem would be if that was the only form of art arround, and the only form of art being discussed.
As to your comments about the funding of art. Has it not always been so? That patrons have been important in funding many works, great and otherwise?
I think you miss the main point that I am trying to make: that the only positive content in "modern art" is opposition to the average person, who, at the same time, funds it through taxation. It is the way that a parasitical upper class with delusions of intellectualism asserts its mental superiority over the clods who pay tax. As for private sponsors, the argument is pretty much the same, especially since corporate power is not really very different from state power - it certainly has nothing to do with competition or free markets - except in being even less responsible.
No, I understood your point. I'm just not sure I followed the logic behind the assertion that modern art is opposed to the average person.
At one point in your post you do mention that rather than being against the common people, that modern art may be against common perceptions. I think that is closer to the mark, and could be restated in a less prejoritive way by saying that modern art challenges common perceptions and thought. I would argue that the challenge is a noble tradition of the arts, from the court jester to Defoe or Swift right through to modern satire.
Where I would, and have agreed with you, is that modern art exists in a rarefied, elitist, atmosphere. I would describe it as being irrelevant to most people, rather than being actively in opposition to them.
Exactly what is challenging about Dante or Aeschylus? Challenge is no more a noble tradition of the arts than it is noble anywhere else. Challenge, as such, means nothing. The issue is whatis being challenged, and why. And as far as I am concerned, the message is: our perceptions are special and yours are so rotten that the whole trade of art is simply to rip them apart - and leave nothing in their place.
Comments 29
What is harmful about this system is that it enforces upon the common people the notion that art is something above their heads. Whatever else they misunderstand or ignore, they certainly do not misunderstand that.This is perhaps my favorite bit. Now I will say there is art done that requires a certain amount of intelligent observation, but of course, that's the same as with Alan Moore ( ... )
Reply
Reply
I can't speak to the situation at art schools specifically, but during my first year at varsity we were explicitly told in English I, by a professor attempting to tell us how to write a lit.crit. essay, that the term "beautiful" had no business cropping up in any of our papers because it was meaningless and irrelevant.
I don't think he ever tried to prove or justify the claim in any way; as far as I can remember, he seemed to regard the truth of it as self-evident and requiring no more proof than the claim that the sky is blue.
Reply
Just a quick reaction to the notion of beautiful in criticism: I would agree with your teacher that 'beautiful' is a word to avoid in an essay, but not because beauty as such is irrelevant, only because 'beautiful' is not an analytical criterion.
If someone says a work is beautiful or moving, well it might be true, but if they don't say anthing else, then it's just a subjective statement, not criticism.
On the other hand, if you analyse carefully the structure of a work of art and how it creates its appeal, e.g. because of a particular harmony or a powerful use of contrast or whatever, then I think you are entitled to use the word 'beautiful' because your analysis makes it clear what you mean by that and because it is now a justifiably valid assertion and not just a completely subjective impression.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Elbowed out of the public gaze by the pushy Hirsts and Whiteheads, serious artists like you and this Andy Goldsworthy you mention (I never heard of him - doesn't it just show you?) have to live in the cracks and carry on for the love of it.
Which would be a very serious problem, if the opinions of intellectuals actually mattered. Self-important intellectuals will always attempt to elevate those things which justify their status as self-important intellectuals. And the rest of the world largely ignores them.
The things called 'modern art' will continue to be inaccessible. But the public will continue to buy Rowling.
Reply
Reply
But you haven't heard of Liz Argall, Ingrid Bean, or 'Bonsall and Goldfinch', I'll bet. And those are some of the best writers and performers (they all do both) that I know.
If you do it for the love of it, you get to do something that you love. If you do it for some other reason, then you might get what you're looking for, but if you're doing something that you love, what other reward do you need?
Reply
Reply
As such it is almost bound to become 'elitist', although I would like to use a word that is not as prejoritive as I see no issue with a group of people producing art for their own group. Where that would be a problem would be if that was the only form of art arround, and the only form of art being discussed.
As to your comments about the funding of art. Has it not always been so? That patrons have been important in funding many works, great and otherwise?
Reply
Reply
At one point in your post you do mention that rather than being against the common people, that modern art may be against common perceptions. I think that is closer to the mark, and could be restated in a less prejoritive way by saying that modern art challenges common perceptions and thought. I would argue that the challenge is a noble tradition of the arts, from the court jester to Defoe or Swift right through to modern satire.
Where I would, and have agreed with you, is that modern art exists in a rarefied, elitist, atmosphere. I would describe it as being irrelevant to most people, rather than being actively in opposition to them.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment