Print

Print


--part1_55.1a07531d.28b0be9f_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

cyrus1949,

I think when you've had a chance to see more of art and the art world, you'll 
recognize some of the fuzzy points in your definition. You might be 
over-estimating, for example, your own importance in the scheme. I mean by 
this that we could ask a painter whether he'd rather be "acclaimed" by you or 
by the chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art. I think most painters would 
pick the curator. 

It might be somewhat different with movies, where a film can be panned by all 
the critics and still rake in huge amounts of money. With the visual arts, if 
you aren't in a position to make major purchases, or to influence others who 
make them, I'm afraid you're out of the running as a taste-maker. But why 
would you want to be a tastemaker anyway? Why not just enjoy the art you 
like, without regard to whether your liking it counts for anything in the  
universal scheme?  Maybe it's kind of like the general election, in which 
your vote has a value, but isn't likely to decide the election.

pat
============================
In a message dated 8/18/01 3:12:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:


> To me it seems there are two roads to "art"-- intention and acclaim. 
> Sometimes these two roads converge and run along the same harmonious way, 
> like an interstate and a state highway sharing the same concrete and 
> traffic 
> for the most part flows smoothly. The artist and the audience both agree 
> THIS (whatever "this" is) IS ART!
> 
> At other times these two roads are estranged and may intersect at various 
> angles whereupon traffic signals, or "definitions," are thrown up as 
> defensive necessities. The artist says "This is art because I intended it 
> to 
> be so" and the audience disagrees because it does not like or understand, 
> or 
> it feels threatened by, the intention of the artist.
> 
> The audience in this case has three main components: the artists' community 
> (yes you CAN be on both roads at once), the academic community (those who 
> study and arbitrate but do not produce art), and the market (the rest of us 
> who may or may not like what we are told by the other two communities). It 
> is in this tripartite mix that definitions will be born. The artist's 
> intention alone stands no chance of survival and achieves only minimal 
> survival if but one of these three audience communities acclaims the 
> intention. If, however, the artist's intention can garner the acclaim of 
> any 
> two of these three communities the intention will prosper; and if all three 
> communities acclaim the intention IS "art," then the intention will thrive 
> and become a definition of "art," where the roads have converged. Not all 
> this acclaim  may happen smoothly, nor even with one conscious mind toward 
> that end. This is the way we recognize art, large-scale subjectivity, as a 
> process of politics and communications, never defined but always being 
> defined, roads we are willing to travel.
> 
> 

--part1_55.1a07531d.28b0be9f_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial Narrow" LANG="0"><B>cyrus1949,
<BR>
<BR>I think when you've had a chance to see more of art and the art world, you'll 
<BR>recognize some of the fuzzy points in your definition. You might be 
<BR>over-estimating, for example, your own importance in the scheme. I mean by 
<BR>this that we could ask a painter whether he'd rather be "acclaimed" by you or 
<BR>by the chief curator of the Museum of Modern Art. I think most painters would 
<BR>pick the curator. 
<BR>
<BR>It might be somewhat different with movies, where a film can be panned by all 
<BR>the critics and still rake in huge amounts of money. With the visual arts, if 
<BR>you aren't in a position to make major purchases, or to influence others who 
<BR>make them, I'm afraid you're out of the running as a taste-maker. But why 
<BR>would you want to be a tastemaker anyway? Why not just enjoy the art you 
<BR>like, without regard to whether your liking it counts for anything in the &nbsp;
<BR>universal scheme? &nbsp;Maybe it's kind of like the general election, in which 
<BR>your vote has a value, but isn't likely to decide the election.
<BR>
<BR>pat
<BR>============================
<BR>In a message dated 8/18/01 3:12:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
<BR>[log in to unmask] writes:
<BR>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></B>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">To me it seems there are two roads to "art"-- intention and acclaim. 
<BR>Sometimes these two roads converge and run along the same harmonious way, 
<BR>like an interstate and a state highway sharing the same concrete and 
<BR>traffic 
<BR>for the most part flows smoothly. The artist and the audience both agree 
<BR>THIS (whatever "this" is) IS ART!
<BR>
<BR>At other times these two roads are estranged and may intersect at various 
<BR>angles whereupon traffic signals, or "definitions," are thrown up as 
<BR>defensive necessities. The artist says "This is art because I intended it 
<BR>to 
<BR>be so" and the audience disagrees because it does not like or understand, 
<BR>or 
<BR>it feels threatened by, the intention of the artist.
<BR>
<BR>The audience in this case has three main components: the artists' community 
<BR>(yes you CAN be on both roads at once), the academic community (those who 
<BR>study and arbitrate but do not produce art), and the market (the rest of us 
<BR>who may or may not like what we are told by the other two communities). It 
<BR>is in this tripartite mix that definitions will be born. The artist's 
<BR>intention alone stands no chance of survival and achieves only minimal 
<BR>survival if but one of these three audience communities acclaims the 
<BR>intention. If, however, the artist's intention can garner the acclaim of 
<BR>any 
<BR>two of these three communities the intention will prosper; and if all three 
<BR>communities acclaim the intention IS "art," then the intention will thrive 
<BR>and become a definition of "art," where the roads have converged. Not all 
<BR>this acclaim &nbsp;may happen smoothly, nor even with one conscious mind toward 
<BR>that end. This is the way we recognize art, large-scale subjectivity, as a 
<BR>process of politics and communications, never defined but always being 
<BR>defined, roads we are willing to travel.
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_55.1a07531d.28b0be9f_boundary--