From: Robert Lyman (railroad@northweb.com)
Date: 09/16/00-08:12:50 PM Z
Keith wrote--------
> The problem is that art, whether one wishes it to have political content
or not,
> cannot but have political content and a political nature..
>
> Art, as many have said elsewhere, is a mirror for society... And society
is
> drawn of the polis, the people, from which the word political derives..
>
> Every work of art is a political commentary upon and/or derivation of the
> society in which it was born..
>
> An artist has the right to choose to represent any opinion within that
society
> (or outside it) if he/she can do so.. And at times, as we all know, the
message
> we perceive as viewers was not that intended..
>
> Robert Mapplethorpe, Jock Sturges, and Sally Mann, have been attacked and
> vilified for presenting sensuality/sexuality in ways that, for some,
disturb
> them..
>
> But, think for a moment, is not the purpose too of art, at times, to
disturb the
> viewer to shake them from the comfortable somnolence of the everyday..?
Just as
> at other time, and in other places, it is to make one feel safe and
> comfortable... Art is about the evocation of human emotion and about the
> expression of human emotion, nothing can be more unpredictable.. (except
perhaps
> a Parisian or Bostonian motorist)
>
> When I was at Berkeley, I endured a particularly tough crit from some
classmates
> who found some of my imagery in a particular piece presenting a "too
Vogueish"
> idealized view of women.. Needless to say, I did not intend to provoke
those
> reactions, but they were there.. In fact I later utilized them in further
work..
>
> The problem with the discussion of nudes here is that we speak of two
different
> issues..
>
> One, the issue of the idealized in art and what we each perceive the
proper role
> of art.. Well, the Soviets tried to hold art to an objective standard of
> promoting the common good.. They called it Socialist Realism.. Any
surprise that
> the best art from the Soviet period was "degenerate" or "decadent" and not
> Socialist Realism..?
>
> Two, whether each individual artist need portray a particular standard or
be
> subject to sanction.. Whether an artist pursues art for themselves or
whether we
> should harness them to the social goals and mores of the day.. To me, the
> latter sounds like Jesse Helms, no like the voice of an artist..
>
> One is free to like or dislike a particular piece. Aesthetic tastes,
politics,
> life experiences, all will play a part in the choice of one's personal
> preferences in art, I however, will always support the choice of the
artist,
> whether or not I enjoy the work in question...
>
> Keith
Very well said, I couldn't agree more.
Regardless of our opinion of an particular work of art, we need to preserve
the autonomy of the individual artist's vision. It is always above the
realm of political and social fashion..
Bob Lyman ( railroad@northweb.com )
http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Workshop/7610/
http://www.artists-in-residence.com/users/radiance/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT