No Subject

[Rod Sage <rsage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oh My!
>From Al Razutis' post:
>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.)

If you read carefully, I never said that the modern and contemporary art
in question, was not art or was bad art. On the contrary, I found most
of it quite intriguing. I must have stared at the black tar piece over 5
minutes, admiring the glossy texture and form. The electronic display, I
admit, lost my interest after about 30 sec.. I guess I felt apathy
towards it. However it was memorable.

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

Yes they are art. I never said anything negative. In fact I said "I
found them interesting, intriguing, baffling etc."
They may not be the type of art I would hang on my wall at home, but I
would enjoy many of these pieces in someone else's space. Then again, if
I move into a loft with 20 ft. ceilings, I could stack those 2 huge
panels of cold pressed steel.

>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?').

They were quite fascinating though.

>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,

Who derided what?

>if he doesn't care to give us their names, perhaps their
>biographical and historical contexts, that is his business.

Next time I'll carry a notepad.

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

True.

>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...

Life was tough a century ago. It still is for many today. Does that mean
that a homeless person with a spray can is an artist? Possibly. Can't a
happy, will-adjusted person be an artist?

>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".

Modern art doesn't upset me. I am simply trying to make sense out of it
all. I believe everyone on this list is artistic. We may not be
professional Artists, but we all are creative if we are photographers.
And creativity evokes art. Frank LLoyd Wright is best known as an
architect. But before he got out his slide rule and T-square he would
draw sketches. Beautiful sketches of walls, chairs, stained glass
windows etc. That is the creative process. So Mr. Wright is first an
artist, then an architect. So why can't bricks on a building be art, if
the architect went through a creative process to produce a sturdy wall
with the correct brick pattern and color. Why can't I cut off the pant
leg with the hole, sew it to a 3 1/3 ft. x 5 1/8 ft. piece of orange
shag carpet, stick it in a rusty tin frame, and call it art? I think I
can. Nobody may enjoy it or buy it, but I can call it art, because I
went through a creative process.
No, I will not hang my dog. Until I come up with a comfortable harness
for him. Just kidding. He does take a good picture though.

>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'.

If I did hang my dog, it would be because I thought it would look cool.
However, Ozzy would never put up with it, and my neighbors would
probably call for a padded wagon.

>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'.

I may have some morals, but I am as liberal as they come.

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

Did I say I was irritated or disgusted?

>Well, my fellow Americans:

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

For some reason I got this message "Directory Listing Denied."

>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.

Yikes!

>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.

I'll agree.

>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

And I'm sure I will head back to the Modern and Contemporary Hall next
time I visit the Museum. One thing I enjoyed was a large photograph of
what first reminded me of Marilyn Monroes lips. As I got closer the
image began to break up into many little dots. Then I noticed a small
photo next to it. In the small photo were several people standing around
in a room. One man was looking at a framed photograph on the wall. The
picture was of a lake with trees and the trees were reflecting in the
lake. However when this little 1 in. framed photo in a photo was blown
up to 3 ft. x5 ft. it looked like lips. Cool!
Have you ever thought a rock or a flower is a piece of art? Maybe the
earth is a piece of art? Did someone mention a Creator?
Sorry this got so long and hope I haven't ruffled any feathers.
RDS