Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (
More info?)
Colin D wrote:
>
> Mike Henley wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>"Taste" on the other hand, is whether you like a
>>thing or not, and too often people mistake it for "art". A piece of
>>"art", if you've trained yourself or had been formally trained, can be
>>admired regardless of taste, and in fact, that should be the case. The
>>more you learn about "art", the more your tastes develop, and become
>>aligned to what "art" actually is, hence an "artistic taste"; a little
>>akin to wine, but not to confuse here, the more you learn about it, the
>>more you appreciate a "fine wine" and its subtleties.
>>
>
> As an person untrained in 'art', but as a long-time photographer, I have
> some difficulty in accepting that statement, at least at its face value.
>
> I have seen a number of 'art' exhibitions, some of them controversial in
> their content. One springs to mind immediately - a piece in an
> international touring exhibition that came to New Zealand some years
> ago.
>
> This piece was a small statue of the virgin Mary, encased in a condom.
>
> Myself, I am an agnostic, I follow no particular religion, but to me in
> my untrained plebian state, that piece was an entirely distasteful
> juxtaposition of components, designed purely to shock and revolt
> viewers. The curator of the gallery that exhibited this display was
> inundated with demands to withdraw the item, but he refused, defending
> the "artist's" right to exhibit what he wanted. People tried to destroy
> the piece, and the gallery had guards on duty to prevent people from
> getting too close.
>
> I infer from your remarks above that you would have admired it because
> of your formal art training, your appreciation of its subtleties. In my
> artistically uneducated state, what I saw in that piece was grossly
> insulting even to me, let alone the Catholic believers in the
> population.
>
> I cannot believe that a fine art educated person can view such a piece,
> with their 'artistic appreciation', and not experience the disgust and
> revulsion evoked in ordinary people.
>
> This sort of thing is typical of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' syndrome
> displayed by 'artistic' types - expounding all sorts of nonsense about
> artistic merit etc., and ignoring the plain fact that the piece is not
> art; it is junk. Insulting, demeaning junk. Wannabe artists know that
> their work 'should evoke a viewer reaction'. The easiest reaction to
> evoke is revulsion, so that's what they do.
>
> In my plebian mediocrity, It seems to me that the word 'fine' in fine
> art applies not only to the degree of expertise of the artist, but also
> to the quality of the intended response to his art. 'Fine art' should
> not evoke dislike or revulsion in the majority of viewers.
>
> 'Fine art' that does not please is an oxymoron.
>
> Colin
I don't claim to be an art expert, although I did have a course in 'art
appreciation' in college. However, I do know that much of what goes as
'art' is as phony as a 9 dollar bill. Some 'great' artists even admit
to passing some works that were only for their amusement at the expense
of art critics. Many of these artists are really talented people who
could do much better work, but were disillusioned by the pretentiousness
of 'art critics', and just sought to embarrass them. Unfortunately,
their works were highly praised, even though they resemble something
from a third grade art class, and people spent hugh sums of money on them.
Also, not all art is 'enjoyable'. I saw a painting many years ago that
was an abstract, labeled 'crucifiction'. Looking at the painting was
literally painful. Almost everyone who looked at it seemed repulsed,
and uncomfortable. I sincerely hope I NEVER lay eyes on it again, but I
am grateful for the experience. That was ART.
--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
/temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/c1c.htm
Facebook
Twitter