|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 20:53:53 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote: | In your opinion, this is great art. This does not have to be everyone's opinion. |
You keep on going back and forth. When I say it is great art, I am clearly talking about how it is regarded by experts in the fields of history, art, the humanities in general. You said that you were merely expressing your emotional response to the works, but now you seem to be claiming that these works are not great art.
Look, on one extreme one can say that there is no objective or universal reason why Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel is any "greater" than the scrawling of a retarded chimpanzee.
But on the other hand, human beings do not function only as individuals. Social grouping, sometimes extremely large social groupings, of human beings acknowledge and assign value to certain qualities that works possess, and then use those qualities to assess the merit and value of works, which become objective within that cultural context.
And accepted qualities in art are no more arbitrary than ethical concepts of right or wrong, or judgments in the taste of food. They vary from culture to culture, but only to a certain degree. Two people might be will to kill each other over the issue abortion, but no one except psychotics agrees that random acts of torture and violence against children is acceptable. One person might hate the taste of salmon, while another adores it, but neither like the taste of dogshit.
The most renowned paintings of the Rennaissance most certainly are great works. They are some of the greatest works of art ever known. And I say this in the same way that I declare an ethical stance, such as this: women should have the same rights and opportunities as men with equal abilities. Both of these ultimately subjective statements can be backed up with reasons which are objective facts, but the judgment and application of this information will always be ultimately subjective. You, Gorgo, have many times make critical remarks about other peoples ethical opinions, so why should you be surprised when someone makes critical remarks about your aesthetic opinions?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 21:04:50 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | I'm not impressed by most art. To my eyes most of what is billed as great art is simply not inspiring to me. I like Escher and Salvador Dali's works (probably more for the illusions and paradoxes than the actual artistic value) but the greats like Picasso, Rembrandt, or Leonardo Da Vinci don't inpire me much or at all really. One notable exception is Monet's "The Japanese Footbridge" part of his Waterlilies series, although I can't exactly put my finger on why that one in particular appeals to me so much. |
To acknowledge something as "great art" doesn't mean you have to like it or be inspired personally by it. It is to acknowledge that the piece has established itself as a significant cultural icon for its own period (basically how well is it thought to reflect some important aspect of its own society) and/or influenced future cultural developments (both artistic and otherwise.) Renaissance art was not only technically very proficient. The subtle changes in the work that can be clearly seen over time if you study the paintings over a period reflect aspects of Western culture in a way that is both unique, and yet also related to other recordings and artifacts.
| I do enjoy reading history so if art is put in that context I'm more likely to appreciate it. Most modern and postmodern art has no particular artistic merit in my view. There is a certain pretentiousness about it as well that makes me suspect that the emperor is naked (or at least not dressed as finely as he is made out to be). |
For the emperor to be naked, something false must be claimed. What are the false claims of modern and postmodern art? Significance of art has never been measured by mere craft alone, and high craft is all that much of modern and postmodern art lacks. If significance of art is measured by what is most recognized, they win, because certainly modern and postmodern art are most recognized in the historical record of art in the 20th century. Also, all of the reasons people are angered, confused, or simply unimpressed by those forms of art can be connected to other things happening in the culture they came out of. Artists don't create in a cultural vacuum. Please explain these thoughts further. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/24/2007 21:05:56 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 21:22:11 [Permalink]
|
Matt wrote: | Regarding the article linked in the OP. It struck me as merely a puff piece inasmuch as it builds what is essentially a strawman so that we can all feel good about watching it burn. It fails to address the more relevant argument that Christmas has largely been co-opted by secularism. |
To me, a puff piece wouldn't start with a direct quote illustrating what is being criticized, followed by numerous specific examples. I wouldn't call it a very serious or heavy piece, but neither is it puffy. I can't say about Britain, but in America, Fox news has indeed run stories the last few years citing forced secularization of Christmas that was in actuality totally innocent. For example, Bill O'Reilly last year brought up a public school which had changed the words of "Silent Night" and made it sound like it was done purely to get rid of any reference to Jesus. In fact, the words were changed to accommodate the narrative of a play the kids were performing, and the decision had nothing to do with religion. The idea that the secularism of Christmas is explicitely perpetuated by people with a personally secular worldview persists, even though it is nonsense. People with a supernatural worldview are perpetuating the secularism of the holiday more so as there are more of them than atheists. Businesses do it so as to appeal to the widest customer base and individuals do it so as to be religiously inclusive and political correct.
What is the strawman you mentioned? Are you saying that conservative media pundits don't point a finger at atheists when it comes to explaining the secularization of the Christmas holiday? |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 12/24/2007 21:22:34 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 21:52:31 [Permalink]
|
So anyway...
I just came back from Mexico with an assortment of art objects that are mostly rooted in the religion of the artists who made them. For example, I purchased a set of rosary beads made in the Ocumichu area of Michoacan. The beads are skulls. I have in my collection some great ceramic demons from the same area. One is a demon riding on top of a taxicab with the driver looking very scared.
The whole skull art thing of which I have many pieces is often an example of the blending of two cultures, Catholic and native Mexican culture in most cases, but I have an African mask that fits right in. In fact, much of the folk art of Mexico has its roots in religion. That they approach their art of sometimes very serious subjects, like death, with so much whimsy or over the top seriousness is what attracts me to the pieces. There is often humor and wit and a kind of religious naiveté all mixed together in a way that places Mexican art way up among my favorite “primitive” and not so “primitive” kinds of art.
You can't remove the culture from art, and the culture is what it is. Hell, we can't even understand a culture unless we look at its religions, superstitions and how that may be reflected in its art. And somewhat conversely, we couldn't begin to understand our own culture, our roots, without looking at the art it has produced.
Art appreciation aside, there is the intrinsic value of gaining a deeper understanding of a time and place, when looking at an artwork, that can't logically be ignored if we want to know more about ourselves or other cultures.
Dia De Los Muertos
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
 Posted - 12/24/2007 : 22:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
To acknowledge something as "great art" doesn't mean you have to like it or be inspired personally by it. It is to acknowledge that the piece has established itself as a significant cultural icon for its own period (basically how well is it thought to reflect some important aspect of its own society) and/or influenced future cultural developments (both artistic and otherwise.) Renaissance art was not only technically very proficient. The subtle changes in the work that can be clearly seen over time if you study the paintings over a period reflect aspects of Western culture in a way that is both unique, and yet also related to other recordings and artifacts. |
I certainly acknowledge that they are great cultural icons and technically amazing for the time. What they lack for me is asthetic impact.
| For the emperor to be naked, something false must be claimed. What are the false claims of modern and postmodern art? |
False claims? Art is subjective. Much of art criticism seems excessively superlative, obscure and simply unrelated to anything outside of the ivory tower. Much modern and postmodern art fails to communicate its message clearly with those outside of an inner clique of art critics.
| Significance of art has never been measured by mere craft alone, and high craft is all that much of modern and postmodern art lacks. |
Actually this isn't where I think it falls down. Although the craftmanship is not always evident they are usually quite skillfully done.
| If significance of art is measured by what is most recognized, they win, because certainly modern and postmodern art are most recognized in the historical record of art in the 20th century. |
Sure, but it's not really a matter of keeping score. Much great art is not recognized as such in its time and faddish art tends to be largely forgotten over time even if it is hailed as great art in its day.
| Also, all of the reasons people are angered, confused, or simply unimpressed by those forms of art can be connected to other things happening in the culture they came out of. Artists don't create in a cultural vacuum. |
Artists don't create in a cultural vaccuum but I think there is a certain amount of self-obsessing evident in much modern and post-modern art. The culture that has been built up around art often seems disconnected from the culture of the larger society. |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2007 : 22:41:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
To me, a puff piece wouldn't start with a direct quote illustrating what is being criticized, followed by numerous specific examples. I wouldn't call it a very serious or heavy piece, but neither is it puffy. |
It lacks balance and plays loose with its implications. Certainly some Christians fit the stereotype presented but by no means all. Indeed some secularists fit the streotype that the piece is debunking but as is typical of a puff piece it employs an implicit double standard.
| I can't say about Britain, but in America, Fox news has indeed run stories the last few years citing forced secularization of Christmas that was in actuality totally innocent. For example, Bill O'Reilly last year brought up a public school which had changed the words of "Silent Night" and made it sound like it was done purely to get rid of any reference to Jesus. In fact, the words were changed to accommodate the narrative of a play the kids were performing, and the decision had nothing to do with religion. The idea that the secularism of Christmas is explicitely perpetuated by people with a personally secular worldview persists, even though it is nonsense. People with a supernatural worldview are perpetuating the secularism of the holiday more so as there are more of them than atheists. Businesses do it so as to appeal to the widest customer base and individuals do it so as to be religiously inclusive and political correct. |
True but the piece commits the very same hypocrisy by tarring all British Christians with the same brush. I suspect that a greater number of British Christians either don't oppose the secularisation or are simply opposed to secularism of Christmas in general regardless of who's doing it. Some attack the secular boogyman in particular, but the piece doesn't single them out very well.
What is the strawman you mentioned? Are you saying that conservative media pundits don't point a finger at atheists when it comes to explaining the secularization of the Christmas holiday?
|
It doesn't point out that they are pundits and debunks the argument as if it were mainstream among British Christians. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 00:49:53 [Permalink]
|
Atomic.....
| Is there a problem with being turned off by things with a religious theme? I know I am and I don't think that means I can't appreciate art or that I'm ignorant. |
All "things", yes. The problem is in not being able to see or sense beyond, beneath the religious theme. If an art form that has high 'merit', to use Gorgo's term, happens to have a religious subject matter, it is ignorant to condemn the form for the content. It is ignorance of the wealth of human creativity and skill and emotional expression that went into the art form itself, irrespective of what subject matter it took, be it secular or religious.
If you are ignorant of art, or music, or poetry, or dance, or any of the myriad forms of artistic expression, and you want to remain that way, fine. But it is wrong to be "turned off" simply because the subject of a song, or painting, or poem is one that you happen to disagree with.
Suppose you are "turned on" by a certain rock band's particular song , in which the lyrics are secular. Does the music appeal to you simply because of what the lyrics say? Is the music of equal importance?
Substitute religious lyrics for the secular ones - same tune, same band. Does this destroy the notes and delivery of the original? How? If so, you only liked the lyrics, not the song. This is not appreciation of music, only appreciation of the expression of certain ideas set to any music. Change the lyrics again to a language you do not understand, but keep the same exact tune and delivery. Do you like the product now? Music, and visual art - and any art form - is far more than the subject matter of the art piece.
Appreciation of any art is largely an acquired facility. It does require extensive exposure to examples of the art form, which is education. And those that are not educated, are ignorant. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 00:55:42 [Permalink]
|
You, Gorgo, have many times make critical remarks about other peoples ethical opinions, so why should you be surprised when someone makes critical remarks about your aesthetic opinions?
|
I am not surprised. I am not saying it is not great art to you and the experts on the subject. It may be. I only replied that way on the last post because your attitude, and that of Bngbuck seems somewhat dogmatic. If you're telling me that great art is great art just like a salt is sodium chloride, then no one can argue that. Just because it's great based on some expert's criteria doesn't mean that it has any appeal to me.
But when I look at some of it, especially churches, I think, "What a waste." I've said that may be wrong. I've said that may be based on ignorance. That is my reaction. Like looking at a great genius who squandered his ability. If you tell me that it's great art even though it has no appeal to me, then I have to take your word for it, but I don't have to like it.
You have said that people are not perfect, which seems to say that you agree with me, that religion is an aberration. You keep telling me that it's great art either because of, or in spite of, people's imperfections. That's fine. I'm not arguing any of that. I'm simply saying that this is my reaction. I don't know why you have a problem with that. I'm not asking you to have that reaction. In fact, as I've said, I can see that a church is beautiful in a sense. I can see that a painting or a song has appeal (not the ones that you've shown, but others). But, my reaction to it is that it is still a waste. What could have been done had it not been for religion? Enough of that. Sorry if that is not understandable. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 01:05:44 [Permalink]
|
Suppose you are "turned on" by a certain rock band's particular song , in which the lyrics are secular. Does the music appeal to you simply because of what the lyrics say? Is the music of equal importance?
|
The lyrics are part of the song. If you're asking if a song sounds good without the lyrics, of course it can. If you're asking if I can dance to Ave Maria, no I can't. so I give it a 30. If you're asking if I have mixed emotions about a song like "I Can't Live if Living is Without You" only because of the stupid lyrics, yes that is true. HOWEVER, to the extent that I do like it, I can also realize at the same time that this is a song about a temporary feeling. The band is not necessarily promoting stupid ideas, just expressing transient feelings.
Then you would tell me that your song only expresses feeling. However, it cannot be said that it is just a transient feeling. A church building promotes stupid ideas permanently. (yes, I understand that even inside churches good ideas can be promoted)
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 01:38:35 [Permalink]
|
| But it is wrong to be "turned off" simply because the subject of a song, or painting, or poem is one that you happen to disagree with. |
I can't believe anyone could be so arrogant to claim that being turned off to art for any reason is ignorant. That is very offensive and I think you don't have a clue what you're talking about. I can't believe you actually are trying to tell me I have to like something and that if I don't, I'm ignorant. I mean, hell here I was thinking art was subjective. Now I have to like everything or else I'm an ignorant? WTF? Who said I couldn't sense anything at all? How do you know? Aren't I allowed preferences? Is that OK with you sir?
And I'm the type that often selects songs for their lyrics. I'm not as big on the music as some people are. Switching out the lyrics is not on the table except for perhaps Beck since he selects words for the sounds they make and not their meanings. Is it OK in your eyes to pay little attention to music and more to the lyrics. In my eyes my tastes make perfect sense.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 12/25/2007 : 09:38:18 [Permalink]
|
Gosh, I really do love gospel music too. I can't help it. I can actually hear the connection to some popular music in mood and phrasing, in chord progressions and delivery. In fact, often these days, what is on popular radio is crap when compared to the music that influenced it.
Blues also often has religious themes, sometimes hidden, but they are there. Death Letter Blues or Preaching Blues by Son House are good examples of that. And then there is Crossroads by Robert Johnson where, as myth has it, he sold his soul to the devil. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 10:01:22 [Permalink]
|
| There are one or two songs I can stomach this time of year. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 11:02:33 [Permalink]
|
| Gosh, I really do love gospel music too. I can't help it. I can actually hear the connection to some popular music in mood and phrasing, in chord progressions and delivery. In fact, often these days, what is on popular radio is crap when compared to the music that influenced it. |
Nothing wrong with that. I just hate the idea that I'm ignorant if I don't care for gospel music.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 11:38:14 [Permalink]
|
@tomic:
Nothing wrong with that. I just hate the idea that I'm ignorant if I don't care for gospel music. |
Sure. But hey, if you enjoy a song like “Respect” by Aretha Franklin, you are basically hearing a gospel song with pop lyrics. Take the gospel attack away, and, well, it's unthinkable since the style of the song is the song.
Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that there is a lot of popular music that you do like that also has its roots in gospel and blues. Remove the roots and you don't get the songs, if you see what I mean.
You know what? I bet I could take you to a Gospel Brunch at the House of Blues and it would knock your sox off. I may be wrong but I almost think you would have to be dead not to be entertained by the intensity and the joy of that music, even if you reject the religious part of the message. And since the music was born out of church vocalization styles, you can't take away the influence and still expect to have such songs as Respect around.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2007 : 13:32:59 [Permalink]
|
Only I am not a big blues fan either. nor an Aretha Franklin fan. Doesn't pump my nads. How about some electronica? I don't get the insistance that I must appreciate things that are even remotely based on Gospel or whatever. You're reaching. Don't try to force it into a hole it won't fit into.
@
|
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Sportsbettingacumen.com: The science of sports betting |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The myth of the secularist humbug
