Sure, lets talk about evidence for a moment...
My problem was how you could go on for 4 posts hating on the guys work, with only a culturally relative blanket statement of high and low art.
Right, you do mention objective criteria, but how meaningful is this?
Quote:
Rembrandt - you can learn basically all there is about painting from Rembrandt, his main contribution to the painting world was a myriad of various work, all with sensitive touch and a clear treatment of paint ( not in appearance necessarily, but certainly in technique )
Leonardo DaVinci - father of so many things, he laid down a structure of combining the analytical and geometric aspects of painting with room for intuition throughout the piece.
Velasquez - His handling of paint is revered by many Abstract Expressionists for its solidity throughout. Add to this his constant (subtle) use of symbolism and uncanny ability to give life to painting.
Vermeer - Super analytical, his vision of light is unique and among, if not the most, refined.
WORDS. I could just as easily say some nice things about Dali's technique, couldn't I? You seem to have some experience, but I am at least experienced enough to know what you are essentially saying, and this is how you bring it all together. You wrap it all up by saying these guys have had cultural influence. While I don't have a background in visual art, I can at least smell bullshit when it is near.
This so called cultural mimesis is just an excuse to say what ever the hell you please about a piece of art. Its the simultaneous appeal to substance or objective criteria (i.e. the culture that is a blob on a petri dish, studied under a microscope), and to relativism (Such that I would not wish to discriminate, prejudice myself to the sacred cultures of the world).
In art, it is a criteria of bad faith, and this is no more apparent than its place in the surrealism. I said that surrealism paradoxically exists between nothingness and reality, and this is the exact opposite of cultural studies. In this case, the line isn't blurred for the sake of deeper insights, it vacillates in bad faith between substance and relativity, to whatever fits a persons subjective fancy. However it pleases the goal of criticism, cultural interpretations will emphasize either objective, or relativism at the sublimated illusion that it is both. Its criticism for the sake of criticizing. Salvador Dali's work is about bringing these sublimations to the surface.
Of course I can't be sure, but the way you came out with it makes it really seem like this nonsense is what you were trying to pull. Are these criteria really the meat and potatoes of your criticism, or is it actually the formal recognition that these other painters have attained that is supposed to impress us?
You didn't even post a real example, but we are supposed to be impressed by these supposedly objective words? Or how comfortable would you be in pointing out these qualities in an unrecognized artist? What is this evidence, really?
While I don't agree, at least your last post says something meaningful to me.
I don't think surrealism is very much concerned with creating something beautiful or powerful. Surrealism is about being and nothingness. Maybe there is beauty, but its power is in the retraction of this. Its about eroding culture, not creating it.
I would say that Dali wasn't blatantly expressive, only because he was in this way, taboo. If you can risk being uncomfortable with yourself, and question what you think is real and substantial, Dali can be very expressive. He was hallucinogenic, and this should explain everything to someone who frequents these forums. Im not saying its proof of mastery, but you can at least understand what I am getting at.
If you think mastery is evident, why don't you start a substantial thread about this, rather than appealing to it in negation? I hope this doesn't sound mean, I just strongly disagree with your critical method here, and this is very personal to me. I spend a lot of my effort over time trying to reconnect the academic world and the subsequent political world with the hallucinogenic realm, and these cultures and "isms" are the illusions I typically face.
Edited by daytripper23 (12/14/08 03:02 PM)
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Certified Organic All-In-One Grow Bags by Magic Bag 
Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
vampirism 
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
Bardo_being
Papaver
Murex
shwowsh
ivi
stefan