P3D Re: What is not Art? (Sage)

["Xal razutis" <razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mr. Sage has given us a seemingly well-intentioned warning about the 
fallacies of 'modern art'.  He indulged us with classic rhetoric (invoke the 
acceptably famous and warn us of common vulgarity), and denigrated nameless 
artists on the basis of the MATERIAL that they used ('black tar', 'cold 
pressed steel', etc.)

And after a litany of dismissive remarks about the 'Modern and Contemporary 
Art' he then asks: 'And are they art?'

Well, rhetoric has a way of setting us up (for the 'obvious answer' or 
forced agreement).  I wonder what a description of Van Gogh would read like 
if limited to materials ('small grotesque portraits' 'wild brushstrokes' 
'thick jabs of paint, colors piled on top of one another, smelling like oil 
paint and excrement?').

To a reader interested in ART, 'intention' makes a whole world of 
difference.  If Mr. Sage is uninterested in the intentions of those modern 
artists he derides, if he doesn't care to give us their names, perhaps their 
biographical and historical contexts, that is his business.

However, let's remember that Impressionists were once loudly derided by the 
Salon academics who termed their work 'disgusting', 'vulgar', 'grotesque'.

Read the biographies of these artists, read what it took for this art to get 
accepted, read about poverty and pain, madness and suicide, read about the 
condemnation of these artists for choosing (then) forbidden subjects 
('prostitutes', 'landscapes', 'common people') instead of painting the LORD 
sitting on his arse on his HORSE in a very noble posture, with the 
'background' done by apprentices...


And before we all jump on the 'I can do it too!' bandwagon, let's remember 
who did what and why. Like Marcel Duchamp's 'Ready Mades' (Urinal, Bicycle, 
etc.), or Andy Warhol's brand names and popular (kitch) vulgarities.  Let's 
remember where 'found objects as art' came from, when and why.

Let's also remember what our (already acceptable) Abstract Impressionists 
(Gottlieb and Rothko) wrote:

"Consequently...our work...must insult anyone who is spiritually attuned to 
interior decoration; pictures for the home; pictures for over the mantle; 
pictures of the American scene; social pictures; purity in art; 
prize-winning potboilers; the National Academy; the Whitney Academy; the 
Corn Belt Academy; buckeyes; trite tripe; etc. " -- Gottlieb and Rothko

I wonder what those two would have to say about the typical NSA showings of 
acceptable content?  (Some on this list might have some comments on this...)


And Mr. Sage is upset (at this modern art stuff) when he diclaims:

>If all those pieces are art, then the brick on any
>building is art. A pile of dirt and weeds in my yard is art. The ever
>changing image on my computer screen is art. The hole in my jeans is
>art. etc. etc. I could wrap my dog in aluminum foil, throw some green
>paint on him, hang him in a tree, and call him art. "Space Dog in Tree".

Yes, Mr. Sage you could WRAP YOUR DOG IN ALUMINUM FOIL, but according to 
your description you'd do it to insult those who call that 'other stuff' you 
despise 'art'.  Your intentions appear to be those of a moralist, and a few 
vague dictionary definitions invoking 'aesthetics' won't clear that 
stiffling air of 'respectability'.

It's clear that to some the term 'modern art' is an irritant or a term 
without meaning.

Well, my fellow Americans:

Check out the artists (mostly American beat and expressionist) at:
http://www.beatmuseum.org

I'd like to hear more railing about that worthless Jackson Pollock, that 
Franz Klein who paints with BLACK, that Keinholtz that puts together JUNK, 
those so and so's that don't have the quality of those IMPRESSIONISTS(!) who 
once were also 'worthless' to some.

I think it is abundantly clear that ART has a lot to do with intention.  It 
has something to do with expressing ideas, perceptions, contexts, 
inspirations, and expressing these in contradictory (even ugly!) manners, 
and that which upsets the norm.

Neither Gottlieb or Rothko wanted to be 'famous' or 'rich'.  They wanted to 
be true to their vision, however depressing or 'black' that vision was (for 
Rothko, in his last years).

I look forward to galleries of 'art depicting backyard contents' (as 
posited) from Mr. Sage.  Maybe someone in this varied group can re-educate 
us about 'modern art'.  Hopefully be examples, signed.


Al Razutis


Visual Alchemy
e-mail: razutis@xxxxxxxxxxx
NEW WEB ADDRESS:
http://www.holonet.khm.de/visual_alchemy/index.html
avant-garde film - 3D-video - holography

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com