From: Olga Bourlin (fauxever@sprynet.com)
Date: Tue May 21 2002 - 21:05:43 MDT
From: "Technotranscendence" <neptune@mars.superlink.net>
> On Monday, May 20, 2002 5:04 AM Olga Bourlin fauxever@sprynet.com wrote:
> >
> > ... for the sake of simplification - I am not including carvings,
photography, moviemaking, documentaries (and all others forms of art ...).
>
> Why restrict yourself thus? I'm sure if Samatha was restricting herself
> to painting. I would also say the major art form of our time is film
> and its variants.
Not restricting myself so much as responding to the particular medium chosen
by Newberry, and also due to a self-imposed restriction on time. Scads of
books have been written about each subcategory of the various art forms
humans have piddled with, and if we were to get into literature as well -
whoa - whole libraries have been devoted to literary criticism (so we
needn't get into that here in talking about the initial subject matter).
> > ...I suspect the majority of heroic incidents happen subtly and quietly,
rather than the all-out-conking-you-on-the-head-Baby-Jane-makeup variety ...
(i.e., one needn't shout or exaggerate for the effect, expecially when one
is drawing a picture for posterity).
>
> For example? (I don't disagree here, but I want to get a better grip on
> what you mean by "heroic incident" here.)
Oh, we probably all know people among our friends and relations who've been
some-kind-of heroes - and each one of us has probably done extraordinary
things - kind or brave or inspiring things (sometimes known only to
ourselves, but that doesn't matter as long as we know and acknowledge it to,
and give ourselves a bit pat on the back). Being human is often synonymous
with being brave, don't you think? Getting through life with aplomb, in
spite of all the obstacles we face - what can be more heroic? When I think
of the billions of heroic moments (unknown to me) that happen every day - I
am all-at-once gladdened and humbled and warmed. That's why art that goes
overboard in depicting humans not unlike those master-race-Nazi marketing
ads of the 1930s and 1940s leaves me particularly cold. That kind of hype
diminishes us. We don't need hype - we're already human beings. (BTW, when
I originally said I thought Newberry's art was (among other things)
chauvinistic - I didn't mean sexist (as I took a broader approach to
chauvinistic, meaning bigotted). I never use "chauvinist" to mean sexist,
because wouldn't the "sexist" designation then have to include
discrimination against women OR men, and so wouldn't that make the term
"chauvinist" utterly useless? Please correct me if I'm wrong.)
> > I'm not certain we don't already have enough art portraying the best
> of > > humanity, however. I'm not certain we don't have enough art
period.
>
> I'm not sure about this. First, each generation or person needs to
> reinvent such things anew. A lot of this depends on context too. To
> use an example from poetry, Ancient Greeks responded differently, I bet,
> to Homer's _Odyssey_ than Moderns.
I don't mean we shouldn't reinvent and add to the mix. I just meant
painting pictures isn't a terribly serious occupation. I have a great
respect for science, and many other professions and occuparions. But
painting pictures? Certainly, as I've already said - painting can be fun -
I do a bit of it myself. But, besides being decorative, c'mon ... even
aspirin has more real practical uses.
> > ... when you come down
> to > > it, what has fingerpainting ever done for humanity?
>
> Fingerpainting?:) Don't you think you're being a bit too hyperbolic
> here?
Of course, I am.
> > In a variation on the
> > pen/sword mightiness question, my vote weighs in heavily on the pen
> ... rather than the paintbrush.
>
> An interesting mix: the pen vs. the sword vs. the paintbrush. I'm not
> sure if I disagree, though for generations of illiterate people, the
> paintbrush was the pen.
When we were like like children (I mean illiterate children, not the
Montessori-type kiddies, heh heh heh), we played like children. But, hey,
it's great early humans left us so much in the way of their doodlings on
cave walls - it's helped us learn about ourselves when young. I respect
that humans have this one big difference with the higher apes - our
propensity for creativity in the various art forms. While painting is
dandy, masterpieces in literature - and great moviemaking, which IMO is
becoming more like an adjunct to literature - show that propensity at its
highest level (not including the human creativity that goes on in the
professions of science and technology, where direct benefits to humans can
be measured on a scale different from "entertainment," which is basically
what "the arts" give us).
> > There are exceptions. Without a doubt, Leonardo da Vinci was a rare
talent (and unwittingly, through his art, overthrew or inspired a host of
societal innovations, such as paving the way for Western Europeans, at
least, to be able to study of the human body). In da Vinci's case, his art
deserved to be called capital-A "Art." But Picasso? What a pipsqueak!
Guernica notwithstanding (it is fine, if you like cartoons), Picasso was a
slob of a man, and his art reflected all that he was "inside" ... i.e., he
was one of the world's greatest scam artists!
>
> I think you're cardstacking here. It's sort of like saying Mozart vs.
> Eminem. Yeah, Mozart wins, hands down, but music isn't just these two
> guys and their imitators. What of Brahms? Mahler? Shostakovich? In
> painting, what about Rembrandt, van Gogh, etc.?
I gave two examples of artists, and what their art has done for us - aside
from the decorative element, that's at the bottom line of how important I
think a particular's artist's work is: what has it done for society? In Da
Vinci's case, he helped the cause of knowledge. In Picasso's case, uhm,
let's see: he helped us ... eh ... better understand what the term
"battering syndrome" means?
.
I love the works of many painters. Winslow Homer (who put
watercoloring-as-art on the map almost singlehandedly) was a beautiful,
subtle painter of the heroic "spirit" in humans. I love many Russian
classical painters, as well as Russian constructionist artists (Malevitch,
especially) - the latter for no particular reason other than the joyful
colors. There are many other artists whose works I love. But art is
decorative (it was more useful in the past, as when painting portraits was
the only way of preserving an image of what someone looked like). I'm nuts
about decorating, too, but don't pretend it's anything but frou-frou.
> > IMHO, art is a wonderful way of expressing one's creativity. It's fun.
It's great and relaxing therapy - great for unwinding. But mostly it's a
playtime activity - no more and no less.
>
> I don't agree. I think the fact that art is found in all cultures seems
> to go against it as merely a playtime activity.
But don't all cultures play? Nothing wrong with playing. And playing is
wonderful for creativity (via the "alpha" state it sometimes induces).
> Also, that people generally prefer the art of a few over their own tends
to go against this view.
I worked in an art gallery for a couple of years. That doesn't make me an
expert, by any means, but in so many ways that experience helped me open my
eyes (and what I saw was not a pretty picture). Marketing is behind a lot
of what people prefer. Of course, among the hoi-polloi art taste is
supposedly more "refined" ... (marketeers make certain to hit the
nouveau-riche-wannabes with the "exclusivity" angle). From my own
observation of what most "people" prefer, however, I think it's those
"Franklin Mint" thingies (in the last couple of decades),
sad-plum-size-eyed-children (1960s - I think those artists were named
Moore? - a husband and ex-wife team), and velvet-Elvis paintings (1970s),
and Holley Hobby schlockorama (in the 1980s) ... you get the picture. I was
traveling in Portugal a few years ago, when I found one of the schlokiest
things I've ever seen - in Fatima (wouldn't you know?). It was a little
piece of tourist art: a
Virgin-Mary-with-a-built-in-thermometer-and-two-dimensional-shimmering-halo-
on-her-head (I'm not done yet) refrigerator magnet! .... Some things are SO
AWFULLY BAD that they become desirable - and I just HAD TO HAVE THAT because
my husband (who did not take the trip with me) would never have believed it.
We've had it for years, now, and it's still hard to believe.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:15 MST