Jump to content

jfutral

Member
  • Content Count

    329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jfutral

  1. I know you are talking about something specific, but the use of the word "system" I think is appropriate overall, vs genre or style. That is what most any art movement addresses, the system of art that has gone on before and become the system that everyone has gotten used to. This includes the viewers as well as the critics and schools. That's where the frustration comes in with the notion of novelty (as in something new, not something trivial). When culture or society as a whole has gotten used to something, then the something new can take time to get used to. Sometimes people never g
  2. So, do you think Scruton's issue is primarily realism/representational vs abstract? Sure, and most people would rather be entertained than be challenged. That does not mean the challenging material is without merit or value. Nutcracker is more popular than Concerto Barocco. More people would rather watch a Coppelia than Paul Taylor's Aureole or Tudor's Dark Elegies. Most ordinary people seem to prefer Lady Gaga over John Coltrane. So is your point most ordinary people prefer the easy or approachable rather than the challenging? I agree. I know I do, more often than I like. Does that m
  3. What I think contributes to his air of elitism is his alarmism. The art he rails against is still a fraction of the art world. He speaks as if that is all that is being produced anymore and all the great works of the past are left to be buried in dust if they still exist at all. Modern art is a small part of major museums like the Met. Even museums that specialize in Modern art like the Guggenheim and MOMA, the art he speaks of is often a special exhibit, not ongoing collections. I remember when MOMA made a deal of exhibiting a DADA show. The masters still dominate the museums of Europe, at le
  4. Yes, I do agree with him here. After reading I Drink Therefore I Am, I decided that I loved this guy, and now I've started reading Beauty, which is turning out to be just as good. It's on Amazon here - What I don't understand is how you think his viewpoint from the above documentary is elitist or somehow cares about what social class an artist is from. Scruton's arguments are purely philosophical. He believes "beauty" is a very important value, and he believes (and is told by people he interviews) that they are trying to do away with the idea of "beauty" altogether (whether for tren
  5. Not really sure what to say about all this, there is so much to rail against. What do you think? Do you agree? I think he has a very one dimensional definition of "beauty" and art. I completely disagreed with his labeling of Koons as kitsch. I also disagree that "beauty" should be the only goal of art. And heaven forbid the unwashed masses should think they can be artists! I don't disagree with what he considers art. I disagree with what he does NOT consider art and for his reasons that it is not art. It reeks of elitism. Joe
  6. There's a life lesson in there somewhere. Joe
  7. I usually reply "So the same people who can't handle welfare, health care, banking oversight, taxes, whatever other government program/service you can think of, is some how competent enough to pull off such a conspiracy and keep the general public blind?" Some times I'll tag on "That's impressive." But it usually ends the conversation and we go on to more important things like BBQ and the Braves chances at the world series. Now THERE'S conspiracies! Joe
  8. I'm probably the only person interested here, but being a low budget, DIY builder/modifier (I built my own tube guitar amp and I recently got the schematics for a McIntosh amp), deal scrounging, tech geek, I wanna know. What did you end up doing? Joe
  9. My friend and business partner was the movement coach for "Zombie school"! Pretty cool that it isn't just the story that is based in Atlanta, they are filming here, too. Joe
  10. This article in the NYT today reminded me of this discussion. Joe
  11. You are probably right. My typical viewing distance is about 8-10' and my TV is native 720p. I just can't imagine 1080i or p being that discernible with those parameters. But I could be wrong. I can't tell the difference between 720 and 1080 with TV signals. But maybe movies are different. And maybe it is the computer interface. And maybe it is my cheap ass self regarding what I am willing to spend on a TV. I still can't bring myself to spend more than $250 on a TV. It's a TV for goodness sake! Although HD has made me a fan again. I was about to dump the TV altogether. I have dropped cable
  12. As long as you aren't in a hurry, scour Best Buy for open box/returned items from time to time. I got this receiver for $150. Then I went to Cambridge Soundworks website and picked up some decent main and surround speakers on clearance. And then I found a clearance Polk subwoofer somewhere, but I can't remember where. J&R maybe?. All told I came in just under $500. But my rear speakers are NOT wireless. That sounds sweet! Hooked it up to my Mac Mini which I use as our TV receiver with an Elgato EyeTV set-up. Use an iLink digital cable from the computer to receiver to get surround sound.
  13. I love the typo of "vulture" for "culture" since, ironically, that is how systems sometimes appear. Here is where I got into issues with such delineations. Never mind the potential issues with _how_ one can make such distinctions, who gets to decide? Do you get to make that declaration on other people's work for everyone else? Does the artist make that declaration on his own? Do the critics? the collectors? the gallery owners? Who gets to become the elite decision makers? HT to another thread, there are people out there who firmly believe (and even have the track record to back it up) that
  14. That's why I'm one of those postmodernists who isn't anti-Modernity. I love indoor plumbing. I love technology. My favourite art periods are still from the post-impressionists on, though I have a soft spot for Caravaggio and Raphael. And who can deny the impact of perspective or of depicting light? The revival of Greek-like humanism in art is quite frankly one of the most beautiful things to happen. I just happen to think that Modernism is too myopic and removes too much of what makes us human by saying that some things are superfluous or "merely" decorative/ornamental, in search of the unifyi
  15. have you read the art instinct: beauty, pleasure and human evolution by denis dutton? in it, he does a pretty good job of debunking that myth. to grossly simplify (since i read it recently, but have yet to acquire my own copy to scribble in), his point is that in every culture, there are objects that are considered to be "art objects" because they are created by superior skilled artists. there are always examples that are, in fact, considered to be art precisely because of the degree of accomplishment/ skill involved in their making. it's a very interesting book in how it interrogates the idea
  16. but didn't postmodernism as an architectural idiom embrace "decoration" and surfaces? Well, yeah, exactly. The postmodern movement was (at least partially if not primarily) and attempt to counter that Modern thinking of function being more important than form, thus ornamentation/decoration is superfluous and an unworthy pursuit. The postmodern movement made Julius Shulman almost give up photographing architecture. At least that what he says. Joe
  17. I also thought of the influence of (and what influenced them) Modern architecture and the whole elimination of "ornamentation", form following function mentality. Gehry, Lautner, and their ilk from the So Cal peeps were big about that thinking. The only obstacle might be how many people in the church, or even CIVA, think this is an area in need of examination? Joe
  18. It might be better to ask what does it mean for a work to be spiritual or decorative? "Or" pretty much makes it oppositional right out of the box. As I said, I think all art/creativity is spiritual. Some works explore more weighty ideas than others, but decorative is just as valid and necessary than more existential concerns. Even then, is there really such a thing as only decorative? How one decorates is as reflective of the person as anything else. Even _if_ one decorates says something. If you think of these ideas on a line graph, how far from decorative can you get before it is re
  19. If one used a word other than "spiritual" and outside the context of the article, possibly. When the writer says "decorative chaff" that's not simply descriptive. That's a statement of worth, that some works of art are worth existing and other are not, and this judgement is universally true. As I said, I believe all creativity is spiritual in nature. So that needs to be reworded or defined. If we want to say in this discussion that we mean "decorative" is a work by someone not making any attempt in creation or use of art to do more than make something pleasant to put over the couch and "spi
  20. As a means of validation or justification, it still strikes me as a variation of secular/sacred, art/craft. It is an attempt to frame some work more important than others, especially the work of the artist doing the talking. Trying to show why his work is more important because it is spiritual and not "decorative chaff". Or as I heard one person put it, "work of eternal value". He meant that in a religious sense, not in the sense that he wanted his work to affect others long after he passed. Christian artists have long had to contend with the need for this. We were told for a long time that
  21. Ahh. So this is a variation on "fine art" vs "decorative art". Joe
  22. I guess I am just not sure how this statement is different from the whole sacred/secular idea. If I consider "spiritual" as pertaining to or affecting the spirit, then decorative has an affect on the spirit, IMO. I just don't know how it can't. Then there is the thought I have of where does decoration come from? Decoration is not spiritually neutral. The idea of decoration or how one "decorates" (or creates), to me, needs to come from one's spirit. And since I think that all art emanates from a spiritual C/creator, all art is spiritual. Not that I was all that clear. But, I think you
  23. Not sure why "spiritual" and "decorative" are "or" positions. Joe
  24. HereMy link. Is the responsibility for creativity a burden too great for an individual to bear? Are we better off considering our moments of artistry as something on loan, given for a specific time and/or purpose? We've talked about and around the idea of artist genius here before. She poses an interesting twist that seems (don't know the actual history) based on history—having a "genius" rather than being a genius. Interesting thoughts, Joe
  25. I think the protestations of the artists speak for themselves. A huge march on the capital is supposed to take place today. Never mind neither body is in session. I heard one artist say to call our state senator and "beg". I have no intention of begging to anyone about this. Anyway, Joe
×
×
  • Create New...