Art and Religion defined

The Philosophy of Art & Aesthetics.

Moderator: e_dog

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » April 15th, 2005, 8:25 am

"gon to an art gallery, it is like shopping in a tore. buy only if you like what you see. othrwise, its free and enjoy the free wine and cheese"

Well I think there's a few differences between store shopping and art galleries, etc....don't think Sotheby has a return policy like Walmart and I've never seen a support the store can as I've walked into Staples....but then again, Staples and Walmart don't serve wine and cheese either. And booze and dairy do go a long way. I once caught a play in Chicago called Cannibal Lesbian Cheerleaders Hooked on Crack. It was held in a converted loft and the tickets were something like $7 each. Was a pretty good show actually, some really fun bits, but the thing that irked me was the had a donation can as you left...like the money I paid for the ticket wasn't a donation enough. I've also been to a couple showings that charged a nominal fee. Not that I really have a problem with $7 for a medicore play or a couple bucks to see some decent paintings or pics...but its when you pay $80 bucks to see the tedious Sunset Blvd. because your mother wants to see a musical for Christmas and you contact a lawyer asking if its feasible to sue Webber for lost time, pain and suffering. Or you buy a $20 CD and find out the herion addicted lead singer's inaudible voice is only second worse to the boring repetitive musical accompinament and you feel as disappointed in it as you did when you learned the bullets struck John instead of Yoko, but you can't get your money back anymore than you can change what happened on that stairwell....lol...all said in good fun of course, though I dislike Yoko I don't wish her harm..lol...though a grazing wound, say to her vocal chords which would have silenced her forever but caused no other harm, would have been nice..lol

"museums, library, even browsing in bookstores, great ways to take in free art. (tho, time is money.) "

You must live in a better city than I because museums charge where I'm from...but I get what you are saying and agree. There are many ways to enjoy free art. However its not really enjoyable to read a whole book in a bookstore or a library...plus libraries aren't free either cause I don't know anyone who returns their books on time..lol...But my point was that if you do purchase art, say a book, you can't go to the author and say...ummm, this mystery novel was a little undercooked, could you either rewrite it or give me my money back, nor could I go to the ROM and say, your exhibit on ancient Egypt was not a good fit, may I have my $15 dollars back please. I once had to pretend I was dyslexic to get my money back from a foriegn film citing I didn't know it was in subtitles. Sad but true..lol


"i disagree with Trevor on the concept of art perhaps. i think some art gimmicks are brilliant and not just any schmuck can do it. "

I don't think we disagree, and if so, not by much - probably only on what gimmicks are brilliant and which ones aren't. Like I said earlier, I don't think any artist can deny ever being gimmicky. Lighting a piano on fire and recording it, is not all that brilliant and truly any body can do that. However, perhaps the thoughts behind it and inspired by it may be. Then we go back to intent and music...if I lit a piano on fire, I'd be a mad man because i'd be doing nothing more than burning an expensive instrument...Cage does it boom - brilliance to some. The same way a child hammers on the piano keys differs from Thelonius Monk's non linear ivory stroll. Perhaps with art, the means is not as important as the end result. The effect. Not what is created, but what is caused by the artistic creation. What it inspires. And if Cage burning a piano inspires more than Trevor burning his kazoo, then perhaps that is the brilliance in him burning a piano. I think in Cage's case, perhaps he is more of the art work than any of his gimmicks. But in a gimmicky case such as vomiting on someone else's art work, without their permission and calling it art, inspires absolutely no new thoughts for me other than vomiting on other people's possesions is not cool..lol.

What's also interesting is how some art loses its impact. It does not change its characteristics, though the audience has - thereby occasionally rendering the art impotent. The red spot on the wall is indeed different for everyone. Personally, something like Warhol is uninspiring and gimmicky. I understand why people thought it brilliant for its time, but its not brilliant anymore, we have surpassed it. Like anything that is "pop", it became quickly dated. His own artistic creation, pop art, was its own downfall by design...if it wasn't for ailing health from a gun shot wound, he would have outlived the life of his art. Well I don't know if that is entirely true, I think he will always be remembered as a forefather of pop art...perhaps a shared title with the creator of Bazooka Joe..lol But his films....ohhhh christ....I've seen grade school flipbooks of pole vaulters that are more entertaining and thought provoking...lol Then you get the Sistine Chapel, though religion and its followers (and non followers) have changed substantially, few do not stand in awe at the marvelous paintings that adorn its ceiling.


I think that's all I have in me this morn.

Btw Zyz, great M&R Laugh In pic

User avatar
ZyzxzxzyZ
Posts: 47
Joined: March 11th, 2005, 2:16 am

Post by ZyzxzxzyZ » April 15th, 2005, 1:41 pm

Personally, something like Warhol is uninspiring and gimmicky. I understand why people thought it brilliant for its time, but its not brilliant anymore
Years ago I thought that as well, but now I view Warhol as a sort of visionary: and though the art-bidness has given him the stamp of "pop" I am not sure that is correct. I don't really care about his supposed decadent character. His ironic, troubling, and unsentimental art was about commodification, about corporate America, about a massive insensitive structure based on a few requirements: food, sex, celebrity, death, money. In ways he was more in line with dada than with pop or advertisting: and really I think some of his work is surely an improvement on all of the sludgy, meaningless abstract expressionism or graphx fantasies still pumped out on a daily basis.

Image

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » April 15th, 2005, 1:57 pm

so-called "pop art" isn't like pop music or pop culture; rather pop art is about pop culture. as ZYZ said, Warhol's art is ironic and is an implicit critique of commodity production, marketing, consumerism, etc. the connection between pop art and dada is most apparent in British pop art, which is, in my opinion, better than the American version.
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » April 15th, 2005, 1:58 pm

see the work of Richard Hamilton and a cat named Paolozzi (spelling?).
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Trevor
Posts: 176
Joined: September 8th, 2004, 9:34 am

Post by Trevor » April 15th, 2005, 5:51 pm

"Years ago I thought that as well, but now I view Warhol as a sort of visionary: and though the art-bidness has given him the stamp of "pop" I am not sure that is correct."

Don't get me wrong, I do think he's a visionary, no doubt about it, but then again so was the guy who made the first stone wheel. I think "pop" does apply because I do believe his art is gimmicky, (though not necessarily the thoughts behind it), easily reproduced, often dated, and easily accessible. l think its gimmicky much in the same way it would be if I wrote, art repeats itself, art repeats itself, art repeats itself ad naseum, to describe artistic trends...then interchange art with history, or society, etc. Like he did with soup cans and Marilyn Monroe and so on....Am i the only one who feels like saying...yeah Andy, got it with the soup cans now leave that teet be. Furthermore, because of its nature, his art is easily reproduced. I think this may be an intentional irony on his behalf, and the style - the esthetics; which is of great importance to visual art in order to hold attention and inspire, is in fact highly dependant on current trends often leaving it dated. That is why I think that the form of his art, not the meaning, hurts itself - then again, if you think about it, it is also a statement about the disposibilty of art in a modern world..but that I think was an after effect and not his intention. I don't think any artist wants their work to lose meaning or impact.

"In ways he was more in line with dada than with pop or advertisting: "

Perhaps. I really don't know a great deal about Dadaism except it has its roots in Nilhism and founded as a counter culture against western decadence. Maybe it leans towards Dadaism because of its cynicism, though it leans away from it with its orderly composition, careful presentation, marketing, etc. I think Warhol had a love-hate relationship with popular art and the modern world. Although he had a quiet shy demeanor, he seemed to never balk the attention of the public eye. Though he may have hated conventionalism, it was in fact the very thing that made his career. Maybe I'm ignorant of his career, but other than his "pop" art and helping to market The Velvet Underground, did he really do anything else? I think his statement probably would have blown my ass off if he did it in the late fourties, early fifties, and I was there to witness his keen eye for a societal trend. But perhaps I'm hard pressed to be impressed because I was born into a society that is so mockable. I will give Warhol this, his art is still interesting whether it be pop, dadism or otherwise but nonetheless I think it has lost some of its mojo.

"and really I think some of his work is surely an improvement on all of the sludgy, meaningless abstract expressionism or graphx fantasies still pumped out on a daily basis."

Yes for sure, but I think its lost its meaning moreso not because of an artist's intent, but rather because we are so inundated with this brand of artistic expression. For this same reason, I find Warhol's work has lost its effect. His style has become somewhat meaningless because it is so easily mimicked, thereby affecting the poignancy of his statement due to a loss of individuality. In all probability, in the very near future, if not already, most people look at their mass produced, paper printed, bathroom hung Warhol and like it because they find it matches the wallpaper, not because they are pondering the effects of living in a Ravel'ian Bolero.


Edog:

"so-called "pop art" isn't like pop music or pop culture; rather pop art is about pop culture. as ZYZ said"

I think you're right, except when pop art becomes a mainstream of pop culture. Like I had mentioned in the above, poignant pop art often loses its effectiveness by becoming that which it is commenting on. This is what I think has become of Warhol's work. Though mass consumption and reproduction of his prints is a grand statement for the context of his work, it loses audience effectiveness the same way a great wine loses its taste to a slobering drunk. It becomes a joke that everyone has heard. We become dulled by it, not inspired. Perhaps that is the dangers of gimmicks, not always its fate, but can be more so then other forms.

"the connection between pop art and dada is most apparent in British pop art, which is, in my opinion, better than the American version."

As per your suggestion, I did check out Richard Hamilton. Some interesting stuff, some of it gimmicky as well, but I do see why you would draw a stronger comparison for some of his earlier work to Dadaism then you would Warhol's. I especially liked the "Lux 50 - functioning prototype", though I think that piece may be more pop art than Dada.

The mentioning of American vs British art, and my earlier tip of the hat to Ravel reminds me of a quote I snippet I once read. I guess Ravel always thought that American composers faultered by not easily accepting new ideas or varying from classical form. One day Gershwin approached Ravel and asked if he could study under him. Ravel replied, "Why would you want to be a second rate Ravel when you could be a first rate Gershwin?" or something to that affect.

User avatar
e_dog
Posts: 2764
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 2:02 pm
Location: Knowhere, Pun-jab

Post by e_dog » April 19th, 2005, 8:56 pm

Dada is definitely an inspiration for pop art. indeed, dada is an inspiration for a whole lot of modern and postmodern art. of course, dada does not have very firm and coherent boundaries and genuinely defies definition.

one connection i see between dada and pop art -- some strands of each at any rate, siunce they are hardly homogenous in the different works produced by these movements -- is collage or variable repetition/juxtaposition of elements from the popular culture or political culture. what dada and surrealism did for the critique of politics and art itself and for the critique of bourgeois morality; pop art tries to do in its own way with consumer culture. pop art is just the postmodernizing of dada in some respects, and like many a postmodernizing trend, it tends to water-down the strong critical import of its modernist avant garde forefather.

(Cf. Frederick Jameson's contrast between satire and pastiche in film for example of a similar phenom.)
I don't think 'Therefore, I am.' Therefore, I am.

Post Reply

Return to “The Anti-Academy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest