From the American Thinker:
Looking out across our society and its recent development, one can no longer pretend that we are not in a state of severe decline. On virtually all fronts, Western civilization has arrived at its most dismal cultural and intellectual output. One need only compare the accomplishments of a mere century ago with our latter-day creations to see the enormity of the change. At art galleries and museums, one sees old masters alongside monstrosities that resemble elaborate displays of childish anger.
...There is yet another problem with our "artists." They believe that all prior rules can be tossed into the dustheap. What they do not realize is that no area of human endeavor, be it medical research, fine art, or football, can exist without a foundation of rules. These rules are the result of characteristics inherent in the material, and of the interaction between the material and man. For instance, in the visual arts, certain proportions are more pleasing to the eye than others. If the rules are rejected, the domain ceases to be what it was. A person submerging a cross into a beaker of urine is no longer an artist, just as a group of people running aimlessly around a field is not a football team.Of course, this line of argument presupposes that the artist wants to produce something that is gratifying, that contributes to humanity, that enriches people's lives. But when the goal is to devastate, the whole scene shifts.
5 comments:
What about Dadaism?
Quite relevant for this article, eh?
Well, you could argue that dadaism reflected a certain disillusionment with the state of the world and the status quo of the time, in the same way that modern versions of "non-art" do the same. Perhaps it is the artists themselves, who, by placing a cross in a jar of urine, are lamenting the slow rotting collapse of society rather than celebrating it(How quaintly reactionary). I don't think the dadaists were particularily happy about the state of the world that was conducive to the horrors of WWI. If the purpose of art is to speak truth, don't you think that a cross in a jar of urine bears some reflection of the (perpetual)state of humanity?
My point being that the dadaism movement was a little less than a "mere century ago" in an era of such cultural output as The Birth of a Nation.
I vaguely recall a lecture in one of my art history courses that included the "Piss Christ" piece of "art", and that the guy who did it was himself a Catholic and didn't mean it as an insult.
I think that "anti-art" art has made a lot of art students lazy, only paying attention to their feelings on concepts and not enough on craft. It's like Picasso said, you can't break the rules if you don't know them.
Post a Comment