From: Sandy King (sanking@CLEMSON.EDU)
Date: 10/07/02-10:46:59 AM Z
Chris,
If Dave Berry were an art critic your comments might have some point.
He is not and they don't, at least in my opinion. The man is neither
an artist nor art critic. He is a satirist who makes his money
poking fun at our public and private habits, and by bringing them
into ridicule for their ignorance, exaggerations and pomposity.
Assuming that his story is true, i.e. that some enterprising artist
did in fact market his own canned excrement as Vision, and that some
museums indeed have purchased such for their collections, is this
activity in and for itself not a parody of art. And that which
parodies does not ask to be defended as sacrosanct.
To respond to his piece as a serious work on the aesthetics of art is
simply ridiculous. No one on the list is defending his argument
because there really is no argument to defend. His purpose was to
make us laugh, not to show either understanding or acceptance of
modern art or modern artists.
I read the piece and found it amusing. Not once did I seriously think
that it was in any way a serious commentary on modern art or on
contemporary artists.
Sandy King
>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