From: Christopher Lovenguth (chrisml@pacbell.net)
Date: 10/07/02-08:49:00 AM Z
I said I wouldn't get in to this, but I agree with your first statement
Marcie about this article. It's not that he critiques the actual art. He
attacks the artist who does it and complains that no reasonable human would
understand this art. He is attacking what he thinks is the art snob as well.
It just like attacking anything else someone doesn't understand. Like when I
was in Cleveland OH and people were complaining about the wine drinkers at
baseball games. "Where are the true fans?" people cried on the radio also
stating how they can't wait for those "wine snobs", who must not be true
fans since they drink wine I guess, to stop coming to the games.
Leave these tactics up to the politicians to attack a debate by acting like
it's the playground and calling someone names; saying the point is valid
because everyone else thinks it is. Man Dave Berry sounds like our president
telling "facts".
Case in point from the article:
"Yes. He got thirty grand for that. Why? Because The Lights Going On and Off
possesses the quality that your sophisticated art snot looks for above all
else in a work of art, namely: No normal human would ever mistake it for
art. Normal humans, confronted with a room containing only blinking lights,
would say: ``Where's the art? And what's wrong with these lights?''
The public prefers the old-fashioned style of art, where you have some clue
as to what the art is supposed to represent. This is why the Sistine Chapel
frescoes painted by the great Italian artist Mike L. Angelo are so popular.
The public is impressed because (1) the people in the frescoes actually look
like people, and (2) Mike painted them on the ceiling. The public has
painted its share of ceilings, and it always winds up with most of the paint
in its hair. So the public considers the Sistine Chapel to be a major
artistic achievement, and will spend several minutes gazing at it in awe and
wonder (''Do you think he used a roller?'') before moving on to the next
thing on the tour, which ideally will be lunch.
The public has, over the years, learned to tolerate modern art, but only to
the degree that it has nice colors that would go with the public's home
decor. When examining a modern painting, the public invariably pictures it
hanging over the public's living-room sofa. As far as the public is
concerned, museums should put sofas in front of all the paintings, to make
it easier to judge them."
This is his logic as to why modern art is bad and people on this list are
actually defending his argument?
As for the comment on the NEA, again I'll just recommend the book
"Visionaries and Outcasts" by Michael Brenson.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marcie Greer [mailto:tea.dye@verizon.net]
Sent: Monday, October 07, 2002 7:15 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: RE: "sophisticated art snot"
I thought the article was sort of funny but it would have been funnier
if it had addressed the issue from a point of true understanding rather
than the same tired old diatribe. No one says we *have* to believe in
the merits of certain works and a real live critique with some razor wit
would have served his purpose better. As it reads I don't get much of a
sense of why he thought the art was crap... as art... and why we should
take his word for it. In many ways his review had no more content than
the art he was panning... two craps don't make a right? (But you can
hang it on a wall and sell it to someone).
Speaking of crap, NEA grants have always been doodoo. They have
historically gone to those who don't need them or to children's "art"
ventures. The WPA did more to forward art in the US than the NEA ever
has.
Marcie
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST