A very interest subject popped up last night about "What is Art".PromiseMeThis, in response to a question from Lemonade714 had some very definite opinions to deliver about what he considers to be the differences between "high art" vs "crude art".
"Lemonade,
"PMT, while you provided the picture, you did not comment on Mapplethorpe, do you like his work?"
Yes.
"No comments on Serrano? I did not link to offend, but to fill out the discussion. I personally was disgusted by what purports to be art, but do not believe in censorship. I also find many types of art and music unmoving, but I am not so arrogant as to think that it is not special to others. Like beauty, art in the eye of the beholder."
So what is art?
First and foremost, one must distinguish between crude art and 'High Art'. The litmus test, the question one must ask is, "Is the purported truth of the work, in fact, the 'actual truth'?"
A couple of examples are in order:
One of the most famous Baroque paintings is Peter Paul Rubens' The Disembarkation at Marseilles">. This painting while exhibiting a degree of craftsmanship is, never-the-less, nothing more than commercial art. The painting serves exactly the same purpose as television commercials do today .. to sell us something. It was commissioned by the Medici's to cause the average schmuck (in this case, many of them being supposedly educated nobleman) to swoon when they saw it and to welcome Catherine d'Medici with open arms as the new, semi-divine Queen of France. Either Rubens was a complete idiot, or he was a whore who took the job for the money.
Contrast that to Picasso's Guernica, an UGLY painting. Guernica is that quintessential picture that Ma and Pa Kettle inevitably encounter upon their arrival at the Prado. Upon which, old Pa turns to old Ma and says, "Wood ya look at that monstrosidy, Myrna! Li'l Jimmie cooda paintud sump'n better'n that." Picasso's work, unlike Ruben's, was not primarily economically determined. The man was expressing his outrage over the
atrocities committed during the Spanish Civil War. He was not being commissioned to sell a lie. He was sincere, and that is what differentiates him from Paul Ruben.
So, is Mapplethorpe a whore?
Before you answer ... ask yourself, "Which does more harm, the image of someone willingly inserting something into there rectum, or someone shedding somebody else's blood, as is so often depicted on TV?
How pretty a work of art is, how well it adorns one's accoutrements is meaningless. The only question is whether or not the artist was sincere or merely a whore.
I just had a lot of questions.
PMT, So...An artist accepts a commission to paint a specific subject. He is not emotionally moved by the subject. He still sincerely does the best technical rendition he can because he owes it to the patron.
Are you saying that no matter how beautiful his execution might be, the product is merely "crude art"? Is what you call high art only to be determined by motive? Is the Sistine Chapel "crude" because an unwilling Michelangelo was waylaid by Pope Julius into the painting? Or did it become "high art" because of his personal religious convictions? What if that motive or sincerity cannot be determined? Are centuries of Church and royal commissions to be tossed aside as crude simply because we cannot know the mindset of the artist?"
I thought Wolfmom, as our resident pro, might want to weigh in on the subject. And of course, any other comments from PMT would be interesting.
2 comments:
I think we all know what art is. We are bombarded by it daily. As we drive down the freeway or through town, it comes blasting out of our radios, our TVs. It even commands our visual attention via those ugly billboards. If talking on the phone sans headset is illegal, then why not those monstrosities? Yet, I digress.
I think the question is not so much, "What is art?", rather, "What is truth?"
Art and artists are, and always have been, used by the powers that be.
What matters is that we teach our children to have the capacity for 'critical thinking'. This ability seems to be sorely lacking in our society. I understood long ago that the single most important tool/weapon that one could have in their personal arsenal was the ability to 'learn'. By that I mean, the ability to educate oneself. I grasped that at an early age, at a pivotal time when I realized that there were good and bad teachers and that teachers and schools could not be trusted.
That being said, I feel that this is a good time to try to explain why it is that I can reconcile my interest in flute works by Debussy, Faure, Poulenc, etc. with rock bands like Metallica, Soundgarden and Live. These bands are not making 'pretty'. They are much more akin to Picasso's Guernica in that regard. It is not about the mechanics. It is about the message. Does that raise the question, "Are they telling the truth?" Sure it does and everyone has to make a judgement call where that is concerned, cést la vie. I, for one, occasionally enjoy these very loud, very angry bands. I get it. I get it when Live proclaims that:
"warm bodies, I sense, are not machines that can only make money"
or when they declare,
"It's easier not to be wise
And measure these things by your brains
I sank into Eden with you
Alone in the church by and by
I'll read to you here, save your eyes
You'll need them, your boat is at sea
Your anchor is up, you've been swept away
And the greatest of teachers won't hesitate
To leave you there, by yourself, chained to fate"
This to me is 'High Art'. Yet, art is rarely 'High Art'. It is, more often than not, pernicious.
CA:
I wouldn't say it elsewhere, but I doubt your claim, total or otherwise. And thanks for the support there earlier. I just wish I could get the damn puzzle. I feel a little like the proverbial red-headed stepchild.
Final comment: Unforgettably intense.
Windhover, reminiscing.
Post a Comment