From: Marco Milazzo (mmilazz1@elp.rr.com)
Date: 01/07/03-10:04:35 PM Z
Jonathan Bailey wrote:
> . . . I believe that art as
> "self-expression" is propaganda: a kind of self-aggrandizement.
> And, as I've said recently in posts to the list, I believe it's useful to
> de-emphasize the "me" and the "I want" in image-making; that it's
> perhaps more useful to offer ourselves as a kind of conduit for the
> images.
Please bear with me while I crawl out onto this limb:
Sometimes, In a gallery or museum where contemporaty artists are being
shown, I feel like I'm in a room full of competing egos -- as though each
one is re-creating the world in his or her own image, one particle at a
time.
I don't get that feeling with most older (pre-Rennaissance) western art, and
almost never when looking at traditional Asian painting. In those schools,
the real subject seems to be . . .well, the subject, not the artist.
When the thread about Ansel Adams was going, I repeated a glib assessment of
him I once heard: that he was the best 19th century artist who worked in the
20th century. What feels 19th century about Adams is the way he renders
the subject anonymously. He seems to have such reverence for creation that
he stands respectfully back from it. This is difficult for us to appreciate
today because we're not used to it. We feel a kind of vacuum, and I think
that's why Adams leaves some people cold.
Well, I'm not sure what the point of this rant is -- maybe you can tell me.
Marco
El Paso
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 02/21/03-10:44:16 AM Z CST