A corollary to that movie maxim (which Hollywood has obviously discarded) is that, in terms of art, the message (whatever it may be) is not the principal issue, but rather how well the artist handles it.
As for Serra, I'm afraid his views on art have no bearing on mine and do not concern me.
Early in chapter one, “A sudden Explosive Event”, Martel speaks at length about Werner Herzog’s “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”, a documentary about the paintings of the Chauvet Cave, some of the oldest know art works. The question is why make them? Generally speaking, Martel states (page 13): “We do not know why we make art, and yet we cannot subtract it from our self-image as a species without losing the thing that makes us what we are.” Is it possible to imagine a world without art?
A taste of an artless world comes from Oscar Wilde on page 46: “In his essay "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," Wilde says, "Art is Individualism, and Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. Therein lies its immense value. For what it seeks to disturb is monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine." Art cannot play to the demand because it inheres precisely in bringing forth the unexpected, the New. It unearths what normality buries away. No wonder so many people are afraid of it.”
What has become ubiquitous and has a suffocating effect on art is societies ability, at large, to co-opt art for it’s own purposes as stated here by Solzhenitsyn (page26): “It may also have something to do with the fact that art, as Solzhenitsyn said so eloquently, is constantly being put to uses that are at odds with its essence. Indeed, the moment a work of art appears, all kinds of other factors come into play. Cultural institutions, social pressures, laws, customs, fashions, and trends pull it in every direction. Fame, money, conformism, attention-seeking, and knee-jerk rebellion can lure artists to abandon their own vision in order to emulate those of others, to adhere to formulas and paint by numbers, or to value external convention over inner vision.” This reminds me of the title of Fairfield Porter’s book of criticism and essays: “Art in It’s Own Terms”.
Lastly, as a representational painter, I had to add this quote (page 44): “Twentieth-century art delivered beauty from the prison of representation, the so-called "imitation of nature" that had dominated previous centuries. Aesthetic thought turned from a view of the artist as an impregnable subject who reproduces things in the manner of a mirror, to one in which she is perceived as an inextricable part of the natural order that she observes.” OUCH, really, prison?
"Prison" was a little careless. I think if he did all the qualification that was called for ("not that there's anything wrong with mimetic figuration," for example) the text would become tiresome.
A corollary to that movie maxim (which Hollywood has obviously discarded) is that, in terms of art, the message (whatever it may be) is not the principal issue, but rather how well the artist handles it.
As for Serra, I'm afraid his views on art have no bearing on mine and do not concern me.
…” Proper art moves us while artifice tries to make us move.” Yes. Very good.
Early in chapter one, “A sudden Explosive Event”, Martel speaks at length about Werner Herzog’s “Cave of Forgotten Dreams”, a documentary about the paintings of the Chauvet Cave, some of the oldest know art works. The question is why make them? Generally speaking, Martel states (page 13): “We do not know why we make art, and yet we cannot subtract it from our self-image as a species without losing the thing that makes us what we are.” Is it possible to imagine a world without art?
A taste of an artless world comes from Oscar Wilde on page 46: “In his essay "The Soul of Man Under Socialism," Wilde says, "Art is Individualism, and Individualism is a disturbing and disintegrating force. Therein lies its immense value. For what it seeks to disturb is monotony of type, slavery of custom, tyranny of habit, and the reduction of man to the level of a machine." Art cannot play to the demand because it inheres precisely in bringing forth the unexpected, the New. It unearths what normality buries away. No wonder so many people are afraid of it.”
What has become ubiquitous and has a suffocating effect on art is societies ability, at large, to co-opt art for it’s own purposes as stated here by Solzhenitsyn (page26): “It may also have something to do with the fact that art, as Solzhenitsyn said so eloquently, is constantly being put to uses that are at odds with its essence. Indeed, the moment a work of art appears, all kinds of other factors come into play. Cultural institutions, social pressures, laws, customs, fashions, and trends pull it in every direction. Fame, money, conformism, attention-seeking, and knee-jerk rebellion can lure artists to abandon their own vision in order to emulate those of others, to adhere to formulas and paint by numbers, or to value external convention over inner vision.” This reminds me of the title of Fairfield Porter’s book of criticism and essays: “Art in It’s Own Terms”.
Lastly, as a representational painter, I had to add this quote (page 44): “Twentieth-century art delivered beauty from the prison of representation, the so-called "imitation of nature" that had dominated previous centuries. Aesthetic thought turned from a view of the artist as an impregnable subject who reproduces things in the manner of a mirror, to one in which she is perceived as an inextricable part of the natural order that she observes.” OUCH, really, prison?
"Prison" was a little careless. I think if he did all the qualification that was called for ("not that there's anything wrong with mimetic figuration," for example) the text would become tiresome.
Show us, don’t tell us
Sounds like a present reading of the text & world around you.
Beautiful pic ... YES, recognized.
(Q) Is the frame of the painting slightly parabolic, or is your techno-recorder subtly registering the curvature of space around its lenspoint?
Or... whatever the opposite of fisheyeing is.
Yeah, that's what caught my eye as fishy... It's OVER-compensating the close-up curvilinear perspective & bringing the corners closer! Intriguing.
Yeah, the camera is fisheyeing a perfectly rectangular canvas.