I personally, love modern art for the very reason that a huge part of the entire point is to make fun of the viewers and consumers of it.
Why does that appeal to you? Would it be better to try to uplift people than just to mock them because they are naive enough to believe that you're work is serious? And for that matter, why is your own work so devoid of contemptuous mockery?
I was actually thinking of you when I wrote the piece(s), as an example of a current artists who seems to be more interested in craft and expression than in playing mind-games with her audience.
(Honestly, I am not intending to use flattery as a way of silencing you; I hope the above didn't come across that way.)
It also tends to have a sort of cynic humor that I can rarely find in other places...
I'll grant you the humour, but an awful lot of it nevertheless mean-spirited and, maybe worse, lazy. The mockery is mostly aimed at a very easy target — an audience that has been trained to believe they are too stupid to use their own judgement when they come across a piece of "art".
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this entry since I haven't exactly seen the exhibit myself...
It's stuff like Warhol's Campbell's soup cans which really kind of exemplify the sort of thing I'm talking about, if that's of any help.
While I may not be an academic or have any actually academic friends, I tend to come out with opinions on things such as this and would have greatly liked to go there if not just to discuss it with you.
I'm no academic, either, in part because this sort of stuff is taken so seriously by so many academics. (But mostly, to be honest, I think because I don't have the sort of mind that likes the kind of detail-work that good scholarship requires.) But I digress.
Note here that discussing the banality of it is still discussing.
True enough. But I'd rather be discussing either Van Gogh's techniques in Starry Night or else the complex emotional response I had to it; not why I think the National Gallery of Canada is being run by a bunch of suckers with degrees. (Of course, this probably allows for considerably more discussion than "Starry night is just ... wow," doesn't it?)
Thanks for reading both versions and commenting on them, by the way.
I think I agree with you, though the editing was awfully hard, in part because I really enjoyed some of the more, er, colourful writing in the first version. But after a couple of days away, I think the old adage that a writer should usually delete his favourite lines proved to be true.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Then we *really* disagree (finally!)
Date: 2010-06-20 04:35 pm (UTC)Why does that appeal to you? Would it be better to try to uplift people than just to mock them because they are naive enough to believe that you're work is serious? And for that matter, why is your own work so devoid of contemptuous mockery?
I was actually thinking of you when I wrote the piece(s), as an example of a current artists who seems to be more interested in craft and expression than in playing mind-games with her audience.
(Honestly, I am not intending to use flattery as a way of silencing you; I hope the above didn't come across that way.)
It also tends to have a sort of cynic humor that I can rarely find in other places...
I'll grant you the humour, but an awful lot of it nevertheless mean-spirited and, maybe worse, lazy. The mockery is mostly aimed at a very easy target — an audience that has been trained to believe they are too stupid to use their own judgement when they come across a piece of "art".
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this entry since I haven't exactly seen the exhibit myself...
It's stuff like Warhol's Campbell's soup cans which really kind of exemplify the sort of thing I'm talking about, if that's of any help.
While I may not be an academic or have any actually academic friends, I tend to come out with opinions on things such as this and would have greatly liked to go there if not just to discuss it with you.
I'm no academic, either, in part because this sort of stuff is taken so seriously by so many academics. (But mostly, to be honest, I think because I don't have the sort of mind that likes the kind of detail-work that good scholarship requires.) But I digress.
Note here that discussing the banality of it is still discussing.
True enough. But I'd rather be discussing either Van Gogh's techniques in Starry Night or else the complex emotional response I had to it; not why I think the National Gallery of Canada is being run by a bunch of suckers with degrees. (Of course, this probably allows for considerably more discussion than "Starry night is just ... wow," doesn't it?)
Thanks for reading both versions and commenting on them, by the way.
I think I agree with you, though the editing was awfully hard, in part because I really enjoyed some of the more, er, colourful writing in the first version. But after a couple of days away, I think the old adage that a writer should usually delete his favourite lines proved to be true.