Can Anyone Learn How to Appreciate Art?
He assumes if he can’t understand what she writes, then the “proverbial common folk” certainly can’t. He misses that he is just the sort of hip cog Paglia writes about, not to.
In addition to the scare quotes and the intellectual name dropping, he launches highbrow broadsides at the geographic scope,
“Why “Glittering Images” would confine itself almost exclusively to Europe and North America is as inexplicable as it is inexcusable,” and at her inclusion of Star Wars, which “ponders the mystery of our existence at the level of a toddler.”
He is so wedded to the notion of esoteric art that he can’t see Paglia’s strategy. She chose more recent but lesser known Western works to pique readers’ interest with something almost familiar. And while I don’t think she conveniently imagined Revenge of the Sith‘s visual artistry, she crowned George Lucas deliberately. I doubt Glittering Images: A Journey Through Art from Egypt to Blue Dawn would have generated as much curiosity. She knows that to influence culture, one must engage it.
Paglia wrote her book to rescue art from the ideal of the unattainable. It isn’t as intimidating as science. We need not slog through Russell on relativity to understand it. We simply need to learn a little history and a bit about the artist’s technique to see what the artist has rendered.
****
Previously from Leslie Loftis at PJ Lifestyle:
Best piece of advice I got from my first Art History professor was to LOOK at it, LOOK at line and color and composition, really SEE why it is art.
Probably helped that we did get excellent lectures on the historical context (my alma mater is still one of the top U.S. colleges in Art History), but learning how to SEE art is priceless.
My dictum is that good stuff is where you find it.
The fine art crowd feels otherwise. Get a gander of this empty blathering about an exhibition by photographer Cindy Sherman.
http://www.mnartists.org/article.do?rid=328762
Like the novel “Ender’s Game” in science-fiction, Sherman is mostly famous for being famous. Like Card’s novel, her photos are empty and poorly thought out and shouldn’t have to have 10,000 word essays to explain them. Predictably, once the fine art crowd latched on to Sherman they provided the “talent” she so obviously lacks, either as a thinker or photographer.
The fine art crowd are hillbillies, convinced everyone else is.
Those who elevate the fine arts above pop culture media, especially movies, have the art world upside down. The Italian Renaissance uplifted sculpture as popular medium. Michelangelo’s David was a piece of Florentine patriotism. Our art is storytelling. Mostly through movies, novels, and even video games.
Movies are our purposeful and meaningful art. Most of fine art is devoid of purpose (decoration) or is nihilistic. Art historians will think of American movies when they think of 20th and 21st century art like we think of Italian sculpture when we think of the renaissance.
People confuse elite with creativity. I once asked a friend if he liked a certain musician. His response was that too many people listened to her. I was stunned at the ignorance of that response, because it had absolutely nothing to do with the music, but did affect his enjoyment of music. No wonder so much of our pop music has been turned over to faddism and people get angry when their faves get too popular. Whether everyone likes a movie or no one, it doesn’t affect my appreciation or ability to think for myself. Being cool and having trends has always been there; it’s part and parcel of the music scene. I understand that, but there’s a limit.
I love the irony of those plaques on the wall next to the artwork telling you what you’re supposed to think about the work. I can just about guarantee that I’m looking at an NEA-funded exhibit when I see those. It’s a tacit admission of failure on the artist’s part — “my artwork fails to convey the intended meaning, so here it is”. It’s also an assertion of power over the audience: “Here is the opinion you are allowed to have about my artwork; don’t you dare think anything else”.
Paglia was not writing a book aimed at the art world, she was writing it for the regular Joe and Josephine. The NYT spent half the article criticizing her apparent love of Star Wars, but ordinary folk can relate to that. And if that’s the stepping stone to a greater interest in art, so be it.
The review reeks of snobbery. For instance, he says Paglia confuses great reach with great depth- as if such popularity itself is evidence that the work is not good. Which means only one thing- the masses aren’t capable of appreciating art.
I’m grateful for my liberal arts education exposing me, a kid from the sticks, to art. I wouldn’t have heard a symphony had I not been required to study it and attend (Beethoven’s Pastoral Symphony Number 6, as a matter of fact). One of the things I learned is that there are many definitions of what constitutes “art”- the silliest being the institutional definition- that is, because someone in authority says it is so. That’s how we get a toilet in a museum being called a work of art.
Well, guess what. That works both ways. People should decide for themselves what’s art, and if the NYT doesn’t like it, that’s just too bad.
Long, long time ago, I can still remember how I was completing my master’s in art history, and finally got to speak to my so-called advisor (after queuing up obediently outside his door during his rare office hours – four weeks running). He expressed some dissatisfaction with the simplicity of my papers in his course. I explained that I aspired someday to write for the general public. He responded, “Then you don’t belong here!” I realized that he was right, ditched the doctoral program, got a normal career, then raised a family, then got another normal career. Never looked back, either.
I hope your advisor wasn’t teaching at a public institution, in which case his salary was being paid by the general public! It’s puzzling that he wouldn’t want to encourage you in order to increase the number of people interested in the arts.
My daughter is currently taking art history, and she loves it. Like me, she’s more scientifically inclined, but unlike me, she would have sought that type of thing out on her own. Either way, it’s helps to keep us from being the most boring people at the party.
The more people there are who appreciate art, the less “special” and “gifted” are the experts.
I think you are exactly right.
Put simply, a work of art must be truthful. The creator of a work of art must be truthful with him or herself and must have respect for those who will eventually be exposed to the work. Sadly, we live in an age where the truth is considered an encumbrance to be discarded at will and respect for others is a boring nuisance. Art, real art, is very difficult to find in such an environment.
It seems to me that too many modern artists are trying to shock rather than lift the viewer. That’s little more advanced intellectually than the young child who shouts a forbidden profanity in a crowd.
You’re absolutely right. The tragedy is that the more outrageous the art the more money the artists and dealers make.
Art snobs are completely hilarious. They have zero self-awareness yet are completely self-absorbed at the same. Their buffoonery over some piece of crap they’ve been told is “art” is the best unintentional comedy you’ll ever see. You should enjoy watching art snobs the same way you’d enjoy watching the monkey display at the zoo.
99.999% of art is complete crap. .001% (probably even less) of art is genius. I try to appreciate the genius and make fun of the rest.
You can see Camille interviewed by Glenn Reynolds (Instavision) here:
http://youtu.be/HBaahsD9qIA
Personally, I love the woman. I first encountered in a C-SPAN interview ten years ago and I found her fascinating and insightful.
Much more in depth (one hour): http://youtu.be/_FBpZT1eewo
Attention All Art Critics:
To appreciate “Art”, try creating some yourself, in various forms…..camera, oils, water colors, textiles…go ahead, try it….go out there a chip away at a good big ol’ piece o’ granite….save that marble for much later……
….operators are standing by.
Damn the smug critics.