http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art see Value Judgment. This reflects in the process of judging art.
Okay so I find myself judging a bit of art here now, or at least compelled to answer this along humanistic grounds. One if to describe from the philosophical aspect of human nature, it seems wholly contrived for an individual to claim complete detachment from their work, their surrounding, their environment, their subject matter of art. While perhaps, one could assert in a limited space and time, a context of separation, a feeling, an emotion, in most cases, this weren't the case, or at least I would imagine in context of time and subject matter, most humans would feel something of an emotion regarding a given subject matter (even if this were supposed to something of an ambivalence). Any significant claim otherwise it seems fall under the judgement of bad art on these lines, or merely constitute a claim of deception?...at least bad art neither in asserting something of a humanism with respect to a given composition. Finding myself emotionally compelled because its seems maybe I've accorded something to the artist here. That art weren't merely simply innocent or detached representations, or at least it seldom should seem that enough detachment could exist in the emotive centers of a human being, in so far as the construction of a work were concerned...unless someone simply found ways of engaging in the form of perfect 'enlightenment' which detached all experience from body and mind itself, often times, a context of emotional attachment should exist in some form. Which draws me to a bit of fair 'moral' criticism of a liar otherwise, or at least someone sloppily un aware either as a thinker or much considerate to the meaning of being human. Hmm...finding myself parsing this idea of judging art again, because of a moral certainty regarding a level of self awareness. Seeming bias in stating that art were 'bad' merely because an artist could be either sloppily self un aware regarding the exchange between art and being, or that they were merely dishonest which could exist for any number of reasons. As to explanation and derivation of a given composition, if intentions itself could be absent from the process of creation, one might be inclined to overlook, but when the claim is intertwined with the process of creation and work itself, it seems this is yet another problem, and then I wonder how often the artist themselves are really provided so much freedom to anonymity in working...surely Shakespeare were a name that really were theorized as a group of writers?! If an artist were subject to the scrutiny of provisioning some defense, explanation to work also describe the inherent 'moral' bias of a higher art world, and even in a previous age, it would seem the expectation were that a single mind and name produced any number of works known today. This leads me to consider in the way, a history of, for instance, representational art, which often times could include the artists biases in selecting a given subject matter (e.g., consider art and politics, art and religion, and so forth), and then even so called modern art, however abstracted weren't immune to biases of the artist? Unfortunately it would seem 'modernism' to many could be co opted to serve as to the dis connection people have with a particular media, as though describing in some vague manner the employment of anything that could serve as media for a given subject matter. If this were true though, one could suspect at some level, an artist might serve himself to torture, for example, someone and begin discussion about the transformation of media as represented before and after, but it would seem there are limits to this...I consider another bit of moral criticism of the following: 'Actions which no longer serve imagination have the effect of dis integrating levels of art itself.' It seems this bias were reserved with respect to the propaganda of violence itself, namely, that when reality itself were horrific, the art of a subject matter may suffer for it, or in other words, it seems freedom in conveying suffers at times. Returning to the original subject matter of the tortured subject, a so called modern artist might be hard pressed to convey his/her works in an exhibit, or at least have only so much defense. This is to say, the statement accords, 'Moralists have no place in an art gallery.' asserts something less then well thought out in my opinion, haphazard to the condition of human nature and civilizations themselves. At least, a given space is permeated, and more so one is to wonder how characteristic abstraction reflects only more so the reflexive and careful conditioning of minds? In fairness, one might also retort in world of popular art over less then popular art, one were left to the reflexive and haphazard co opt of a subject matter that were often times thought of as nothing more then phallic graffiti...here, one might be inclined to detest this in as much at times the ACLU?! While poorly drawn characters make for ample return of agreement on a little and often despised subject matter...if you hadn't supposedly needed controversial statements from an electronic 'modernist' composer Stockhausen here, all other pop culture likely were to suit you fine until some firebrand of a cultural warrior re emerged in some future day. Generally speaking, and maybe Stockhausen were right in some manner: did one need to be well understood or accessible?
Anyways, deliberately started this post as a cryptic response to something today. I should eventually get around to my reading of Kafka and the Terror of Art or some book title that I bought like this so many years ago...Don't we all have Gregor Samsa moments?
Okay so I find myself judging a bit of art here now, or at least compelled to answer this along humanistic grounds. One if to describe from the philosophical aspect of human nature, it seems wholly contrived for an individual to claim complete detachment from their work, their surrounding, their environment, their subject matter of art. While perhaps, one could assert in a limited space and time, a context of separation, a feeling, an emotion, in most cases, this weren't the case, or at least I would imagine in context of time and subject matter, most humans would feel something of an emotion regarding a given subject matter (even if this were supposed to something of an ambivalence). Any significant claim otherwise it seems fall under the judgement of bad art on these lines, or merely constitute a claim of deception?...at least bad art neither in asserting something of a humanism with respect to a given composition. Finding myself emotionally compelled because its seems maybe I've accorded something to the artist here. That art weren't merely simply innocent or detached representations, or at least it seldom should seem that enough detachment could exist in the emotive centers of a human being, in so far as the construction of a work were concerned...unless someone simply found ways of engaging in the form of perfect 'enlightenment' which detached all experience from body and mind itself, often times, a context of emotional attachment should exist in some form. Which draws me to a bit of fair 'moral' criticism of a liar otherwise, or at least someone sloppily un aware either as a thinker or much considerate to the meaning of being human. Hmm...finding myself parsing this idea of judging art again, because of a moral certainty regarding a level of self awareness. Seeming bias in stating that art were 'bad' merely because an artist could be either sloppily self un aware regarding the exchange between art and being, or that they were merely dishonest which could exist for any number of reasons. As to explanation and derivation of a given composition, if intentions itself could be absent from the process of creation, one might be inclined to overlook, but when the claim is intertwined with the process of creation and work itself, it seems this is yet another problem, and then I wonder how often the artist themselves are really provided so much freedom to anonymity in working...surely Shakespeare were a name that really were theorized as a group of writers?! If an artist were subject to the scrutiny of provisioning some defense, explanation to work also describe the inherent 'moral' bias of a higher art world, and even in a previous age, it would seem the expectation were that a single mind and name produced any number of works known today. This leads me to consider in the way, a history of, for instance, representational art, which often times could include the artists biases in selecting a given subject matter (e.g., consider art and politics, art and religion, and so forth), and then even so called modern art, however abstracted weren't immune to biases of the artist? Unfortunately it would seem 'modernism' to many could be co opted to serve as to the dis connection people have with a particular media, as though describing in some vague manner the employment of anything that could serve as media for a given subject matter. If this were true though, one could suspect at some level, an artist might serve himself to torture, for example, someone and begin discussion about the transformation of media as represented before and after, but it would seem there are limits to this...I consider another bit of moral criticism of the following: 'Actions which no longer serve imagination have the effect of dis integrating levels of art itself.' It seems this bias were reserved with respect to the propaganda of violence itself, namely, that when reality itself were horrific, the art of a subject matter may suffer for it, or in other words, it seems freedom in conveying suffers at times. Returning to the original subject matter of the tortured subject, a so called modern artist might be hard pressed to convey his/her works in an exhibit, or at least have only so much defense. This is to say, the statement accords, 'Moralists have no place in an art gallery.' asserts something less then well thought out in my opinion, haphazard to the condition of human nature and civilizations themselves. At least, a given space is permeated, and more so one is to wonder how characteristic abstraction reflects only more so the reflexive and careful conditioning of minds? In fairness, one might also retort in world of popular art over less then popular art, one were left to the reflexive and haphazard co opt of a subject matter that were often times thought of as nothing more then phallic graffiti...here, one might be inclined to detest this in as much at times the ACLU?! While poorly drawn characters make for ample return of agreement on a little and often despised subject matter...if you hadn't supposedly needed controversial statements from an electronic 'modernist' composer Stockhausen here, all other pop culture likely were to suit you fine until some firebrand of a cultural warrior re emerged in some future day. Generally speaking, and maybe Stockhausen were right in some manner: did one need to be well understood or accessible?
Anyways, deliberately started this post as a cryptic response to something today. I should eventually get around to my reading of Kafka and the Terror of Art or some book title that I bought like this so many years ago...Don't we all have Gregor Samsa moments?
No comments:
Post a Comment