Skip to main content

Lots to respond to in your previous response to me. I'd prefer to break it down into chunks so I can get through it, and also not be overwhelmed by a wall of words. OK?

quote:
If we do try to avoid labels, what happens? I think a lot of our understanding disappears.


while 'logical' minds could shake their heads in agreement with the above statement, I disagree. [I'll have to go back and study where I may have categorized you - aside from your being christian?]
IF we toss the labels aside, them maybe 'we' begin to understand things. Labels and cliches become faded and jaded and not so much meaningless from overuse as tired.

One thing the west is so good at is categorizing. Strip away the labels and categories and suddenly people have to be intuitive and self-expressive.

Most people don't want to attempt that in case on 'the road less travelled and signposted with authentic academic labels and agreed viewpoints' reach into their pockets to pull out maps of cliches, or trip over some original ideas, and fall on their semantic arses. Wink

What happened to asking people (in the West) how they feel about something? Western thinking is good at logic and disecting and measuring but what about instinct and intuition and sense and nonsense and play?

Isn't that the real appeal of New Age Angel Cards, Tarot, and Dream Kits, Witches Kits etc...being 'allowed' to authentically play?

If you strip away a few levels of authentication and categorizing then what happens?

You've said what you think of Modernist Art, but that you think it is has a Spiritual problem. How does this spiritual problem affect you and how does it make you feel?

Feelings aren't necessarily wrong or right... they are just feelings. A lot of art is about feelings no matter whether it has a political context or a spiritual context or no message at all. That is why I've tried to inject the idea of the creativity of the work back into the discussion, art is not an inanimate manufactured item, it is alive.
.
quote:
Rights of the Artist:
- the right to express themselves without censorship
quote:
- to not have to defend or explain their work
- not to live a reclusive life of poverty
- the right to credibility


At first look I agreed with all but one, which was, the right not to have to defend or explain their work. The more I thought about why I didn't like that idea, the more I felt like the other three weren't beneficial either.

1. The right to express themselves without censorship.

Translated

This right gives anyone the freedom to be deliberately offensive. This right ignores humanity, and the fundamentals of ethics/morality.

I'm not saying that we should go to every house and snatch 'offensive' art out of their possession, but they should NOT be able to publicly display their offensive material.

Our eyes are the windows to our soul.
Artist should be held to the standard of acknowledging this.

2. To not have to defend or explain their work.

Huh?
This should be the highlight of an artists life. The problem here is that some artist create aimless material without any progressive conceptual ideas, and then pawn it off as art. When asked to 'interpret' this art, they reply 'it's art'. This does not fly


3. Not to live a life of reclusive poverty

This one is cute

4. The right to credibility

Isn't this earned?
HeruStar... I apologize for not responding and now I've run out of time.

There have been quite a few censorship/morality/freedom of expression issues happening in the news of late (here and in Europe) I'd like to refer to and I haven't had time to adequately address... and I believe are quite relevant to this discussion.

Also, respond to your 4 points... Wink

So...I'd like to continue the conversation when I get back from overseas in 2 weeks time. Smile

Meantime hope you're enjoying that reggae!
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
I'm not saying that we should go to every house and snatch 'offensive' art out of their possession, but they should NOT be able to publicly display their offensive material.

Our eyes are the windows to our soul.
Artist should be held to the standard of acknowledging this.


Heru, who the hell is to be the judge of what is and is not offensive??? Who is to be the judge of whether my intention was to express a great sentiment or to offend?

Maybe what I find to be great art is offensive to 10 other people because they're uneducated boors with small minds?

If you don't like it, then GODDAMNIT don't look at it. Problem solved...

Be the guardian of your own goddamned soul and leave the rest of us alone.
quote:
If you don't like it, then GODDAMNIT don't look at it. Problem solved...

Be the guardian of your own goddamned soul and leave the rest of us alone.


Hey I got a better idea.

Why don't I just discontinue my internet service and cable service, sound proof my home, throw away all the radios and tv's, and hire someone to filter my mail. I'd probably need to lock myself in my home, and hire someone to do food runs Smile
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
This is why I feel that artist should be able to be questioned as to what there intentions are. No art should go unquestioned or unchecked.


1. Who is going to question the questioner?

2. Who is going to check the intentions of the questioner?

3. Is there necessarily any connection whatsoever between the intention of the artist (even in cases where it's clear to the artist himself) and the capacity of his art to offend. I.e., Is it possible for the artist to pass the "intentions test" and still produce art that many find highly offensive?

For example, suppose a black artist living in the year 1900 painted a portrait of a black President of the United States. The intentions of the artist are clearly noble. He's dared to suggest a black person can aspire to such a high station. But wouldn't his art be offensive - at the least controversial - to most (circa 1900)?

(4) Should the intentions of the artist necessarily be clear to the artist himself?

I ask these questions seriously. I'm not trying to be cute. there is a long history of works which are presently regarded as great which were considered offensive when first introduced to the public.

* Shouldn't one function of art be to challenge the public? In these cases, who is to be the judge of intentions? *
Yes it's quite obvious that we live in a less than perfect world. Some undertones in your questions deal with elitism, racism, white supremacists views, etc.

This is the same issue we face with policing the police. The only difference is we have the common sense to know that, yes, there are crooked cops, but police ARE neccessary.

It seems that you suggest that since we can't know the 'intentions' of the 'questioner' then there shouldn't be a questioner. Is this true?
quote:
Originally posted by HonestBrother:
For example, suppose a black artist living in the year 1900 painted a portrait of a black President of the United States. The intentions of the artist are clearly noble. He's dared to suggest a black person can aspire to such a high station. But wouldn't his art be offensive - at the least controversial - to most (circa 1900)?


Hell, many Whites today would STILL find a portrait of a Black President offensive.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
It seems that you suggest that since we can't know the 'intentions' of the 'questioner' then there shouldn't be a questioner. Is this true?


Of course I believe we should intensely question the art we encounter... questioning is the right of every viewer... What I was objecting to was the idea that there should be official questioners to which an artwork be subjected before public display.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
So I guess we have no disagreement, because I never said anything about 'offical' questioners.


OK. If you say so. Perhaps I misunderstood you but you seemed to be favoring some form of censorship:

quote:

1. The right to express themselves without censorship.

Translated

This right gives anyone the freedom to be deliberately offensive. This right ignores humanity, and the fundamentals of ethics/morality.

I'm not saying that we should go to every house and snatch 'offensive' art out of their possession, but they should NOT be able to publicly display their offensive material.

Our eyes are the windows to our soul.
Artist should be held to the standard of acknowledging this.
quote:
Originally posted by HeruStar:
quote:
Well if you favor censorship, then you favor that there be "official questioners"


If...Then...

Nonsequitur


It's only a non-sequitur if the conclusion does NOT follow from the premises. "non sequitur" is Latin for "does not follow".

How do you enforce censorship without censors (i.e., "official questioners")????

Premises:

(1) You favor censorship

(2) The enforcement of censorship requires censors - those whose official capacity require that they question the value of forms of artistic expression - "official questioners" if you will.

Conclusion:

You favor official questioners.

This isn't a non-sequitur. But a conclusion that can be logically inferred from what you've said...
quote:
How do you enforce censorship without censors (i.e., "official questioners")????


You can't be serious.

'official questioners'


That's the only way that 'logical' minds can 'enforce' censorship.

If you favor censorship, then you MUST favor official questioners

1. I favor censorship

2. official questioners is a way to enforce censorship

3. Therefore I favor official questioners..

This somehow follows Confused

Please...
One way for us to enforce censorship is to get back to the issue....

quote:
Modern art has quite consciously set itself above and apart from, the majority of people. While some artists (David Sedaris has a sadly funny essay on a performance artist who works mainly with sock monkeys) choose to see themselves as above the average and inaccessible to them because they are so good and high and intellectual no matter how bad their art may be


Let's begin by making these artist accessible to the masses. Putting official questioners aside, how do we make these artist accessible?

It's alot easier to be offensive, abnoxious, rude, inconsiderate when you know that you are inaccessible.
Well... One obvious way is to make the masses more knowledgeble of what art represents. To begin, students('official questioners') should be educated on how to think critically about a piece of work. This would start a 'trend' of critical questioners. Which would in turn give the masses the ability to 'produce' more critical thinking artists.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×