|
Post by Billy on Nov 30, 2009 13:14:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Evilluke on Nov 30, 2009 17:48:09 GMT -5
Very interesting indeed. I agree with the majority of the argument presented here, but I felt that because it so blatantly set out to prove a point (which in fairness was admitted at the start) it came across a little one-sided. I'm a big fan of poetry, 'old school' art and the like. Interesting that he didn't really touch on music.
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Dec 1, 2009 3:55:18 GMT -5
I think the reason for that is that it's much harder in many ways to have an objective view of beauty in music; most people, even those involved in modern art (apparently other than Tracey Emin) would be able to agree on what was beautiful, and agree that a lot of modern art was ugly (even if they thought it had value for some other reason).
From reading his books however he has written an awful lot (and quite complexly) about beauty in music haha.
|
|
|
Post by Evilluke on Dec 1, 2009 7:54:46 GMT -5
Sage words dude. I'd quite like to read some of his stuff. The most interesting thing there was the comment the Sculptor made about conceptual art - that once the concept is 'out there' as an idea its already done.
On a slightly related note, Tracey Emin makes my skin crawl!
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Dec 1, 2009 8:40:23 GMT -5
I would like to bathe her in acid.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Dec 1, 2009 10:37:32 GMT -5
I haven't watched it but I'd be be wary when espousing a purely aesthetic viewpoint for art. It depends on how you define art, really - there's an opinion that in order to call something art, it has to be utterly useless. But in reality, very few things conform to such a notion and more to the point, does true beauty not occur when there is a perfect marriage of form and function?
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Dec 2, 2009 4:43:40 GMT -5
Disagree on that last point. The fact that great pieces of classical music were commissioned, or the same for the statue of David doesn't have any impact on the actual content on the piece. You can't see the artist's intention in a piece of art; great art communicates powerfully when you don't know anything about it.
I do see your point though, and it's something I've given a lot of thought to. I think it's a comparable debate to whether something like Venom for example has value even though they weren't being serious about their beliefs, or whether the works of the early black metal bands lose some value because the members of the bands have completely changed and/or disassociated themselves from those ideals.
What you say about architecture is pretty valid I think; nevertheless his point that people don't want to live in these structures is true. When people don't enjoy or value their surroundings it also notably influences their behaviour. I think making any kind of political point would have taken him too far away from his central thesis.
Regarding ugliness being 'necessary', his point in the program was that great beautiful art manages to capture something ugly and express something about it with great power while still being beautiful. Mantegna's Calvary painting is a prime example of this in my opinion; absolutely stunning painting.
I don't want to start a eugenics debate again, but I can see both sides of the point in this case. Ironically enough society right now is very beauty obsessed, but I'm not sure that it's actual beauty.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Dec 2, 2009 15:20:23 GMT -5
I'd quite like to read some of his stuff. Agreed. A very interesting watch. Sometimes challenging, but more often insightful.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Dec 2, 2009 15:43:22 GMT -5
Disagree on that last point. The fact that great pieces of classical music were commissioned, or the same for the statue of David doesn't have any impact on the actual content on the piece. You can't see the artist's intention in a piece of art; great art communicates powerfully when you don't know anything about it. You don't think that the reason behind their creation may have had at least some overt influence on their composition? On the other hand, I think there's certainly value in considering art quite apart from its creator may have consciously intended. Crudely paraphrasing Rolande Barthes, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder - the reader or the viewer has a defining shaping role in the perception of art. But I think that in order to form a full critique, both sides need to be considered.
|
|
|
Post by Billy on Dec 2, 2009 15:47:28 GMT -5
When you see Michaelangelo's David for the first time you (probably) don't know that it's commissioned, so that doesn't have any impact on your aesthetic opinion of it. It's the same when you hear a lot of classical music, walk round an art gallery, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Nickyboi on Dec 2, 2009 18:14:25 GMT -5
I agree but what I'm saying is that the fact that it was commissioned will inevitably have had an impact on it. So you can appreciate art whilst blind to any historical context, you can look at almost solely in it's historical context, or you can consider both aspects which, whilst different, allow for a more complete view of the piece.
I know I've said this before but you need to read Barthes - The Death of the Author. It's a short essay but it deals with whether the author has any authority over the text he's created. It's very interesting, and certainly empowering, but I think foolhardy to entirely disregard the wider context of a work of art.
|
|