"a work of art dies the moment you understand it" (Oscar Wilde)

iliafarniev · January 5, 2009

Art.

Hog-was and above. Thanks for explanation. I do not see your OP as a rubbish, actually I think I understand your point which IMO is erronious simply. I can also explain why I think so. I do agree with your following posting and see our exchange here as creative, liberal and intertaining but not as a coherent discussion pointed at collective discovery of certain truth we all need or have to be agreed upon.

Fred

I would agree with your notion that my statements are somewhat rtetorical. The ones you mention I can also describe as a fun pocking, partly anyway. I also assume you are aware of literal meaning of word "rhetoric" as well as its derrogations.

I have not given any specifics or examples of my own basically because nobody asked. Please understand, I were interested in opinions, asked your and Art and others, got the onswers, considered, learned, compared. Expressed my gratitude actually. If it was a little sharp in some corners, hope for you pardone.

I have not said human beings should not use mentioned faculty approaching an art works, merely pointed out that imo art works can not be understud rationally and are not made for such understanding originaly. All in context of very original posting Art made which is concerned with effects of understanding on functions of AW.

Well. If you or anybody realy want discussion I would be interested to take part.

I do not agrre with the last sentence in your op.

Norma Desmond · January 5, 2009

"Expressed my gratitude actually."

Yes. I referred to that. ("You have acknowledged my own explanations but really haven't discussed them in any depth and you have not really said why all these examples people have offered don't undercut your beliefs.")

"I have not given any specifics or examples of my own basically because nobody asked."

I did. ("Can you explain in more detail why a human being (one of whose salient features is "understanding") shouldn't use that faculty in approaching a work of art. What about "understanding" scares you or is at odds with your emotional or spontaneous reaction? Is there not room for both, in varying degrees, depending on the artwork and situation?")

"I have not said human beings should not use mentioned faculty approaching an art works, merely pointed out that imo art works can not be understud rationally and are not made for such understanding originaly."

The first part and the second seem to contradict each other. If you aren't saying humans shouldn't use understanding in approaching art works, how, in your opinion, can you say art works cannot be understood rationally? More interestingly, if they are not made for such understanding originally (a premise worth considering, even though I wouldn't generalize it to all works of art), why would that preclude the viewer or listener from using his understanding in experiencing the work of art nevertheless?

As for generalizing that works of art are not made for understanding, how would that work with art films, for example, or poems or novels? If there were no understanding, could the emotions ever respond? What would stimulate them and would the experience be complete? Perhaps we could respond purely visually to films, the colors, rhythms, composition, light, etc. but usually there is a story being told, worth comprehending and worth associating with the other more sensual elements such as light and color. We might respond to the meter of the poem, its rhythms, but without understanding there would be no symbolism, no meaning that would allow the words to paint a picture. It feels as though you are abstracting all the sensual elements of art and assuming that is the only artistic intention and experience. If you understood nothing about war, peace, love, celebration, what exactly would move you about the famous Times Square Kiss photo taken at the end of World War II, the play of lights and darks?

If it's a matter of emphasis, I'm with you, but a total rejection of understanding a work of art makes no sense to me.

"I do not agree with the last sentence in your op."

OK. Then fill out your ideas with explanations and examples.

saskphotog · January 5, 2009

Is this discussion lost in an endless search through "levels of meaning"? Is language and its sometimes ambiguous nature causing confusion?

Maybe "understanding" has been misunderstood. I can rationally discuss the plot and historical accuracy, or perhaps the political intent of "Apocalypse Now", but is that its only meaning? I can say, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning" is an important line, but the truth is we all have different reactions to that line that come out of ourselves, not out of the film at all. Those reactions may not be rationally or consciously understood. I bet a real Vietnam veteran would have a very different response than an old Canadian too.

So, in a way, we do not understand our understanding of art, any more than we understand our own consciousness. We cannot see our own faces. One hand cannot clap.

To return to my dislike for the quote: I dislike it because understanding art is impossible, except on the superficial level of historical context, or meter of a poem, or plot. Students of all types of art always resent the deconstruction that goes on, but, if they are good students, eventually they learn to do it too, and start to think it is important. Art critics engage in constant contests of deconstruction and obscure analysis as proof they are better critics than others. The extent to which they do so is a measure of how little they understand about art, and the number of times they have been victimized by hoaxes like chimpanzese painting cricically acclaimed art, is proof that understanding can be a mistake if it works on only that level.

But a vitally important effect of art on our awareness is mostly unconscious, and not understood by the observer or the artist. Art operates at levels of awareness of which we are unaware. I would argue that it is the unconscious effects that are most important in making it art, so that understanding art becomes an oxymoron. We experience art, and, like much of our experience, we do not analyse it to understand it, we just live it. And therein lies the real joy.

iliafarniev · January 5, 2009

Fred. If you want meaningful answers you have to put meaningful questions in rational and systematic way. And in reasonable quontity.

1.2 "I did. ("Can you explain in more detail why a human being (one of whose salient features is "understanding") shouldn't use that faculty in approaching a work of art. What about "understanding" scares you or is at odds with your emotional or spontaneous reaction? Is there not room for both, in varying degrees, depending on the artwork and situation?")"

The first sentence need a question mark and a bracket,I presume, and it imply I maintain it shouldn't. But I do not. Understanding does not sacare me and I do not think it is at odds with anything. There is room for both IMO.

1.2 "I have not said human beings should not use mentioned faculty approaching an art works, merely pointed out that imo art works can not be understud rationally and are not made for such understanding originaly."

The first part and the second seem to contradict each other. If you aren't saying humans shouldn't use understanding in approaching art works, how, in your opinion, can you say art works cannot be understood rationally? More interestingly, if they are not made for such understanding originally (a premise worth considering, even though I wouldn't generalize it to all works of art), why would that preclude the viewer or listener from using his understanding in experiencing the work of art nevertheless?"

I see no contradiction here. One IMO can understand certain aspects of AW, like social, historical or personal implications but the AW as such is produced for emotional consumation with purpose of acieving catarsis. Being such it is issentially irrational and does not yeld to understanding. I does not preclude anybody from anything else.

<h2>1.3 "If there were no understanding, could the emotions ever respond?"</h2>

<h2>Emotional response require no understanding apparently and there is story to be told and hopefully understud.</h2>

1.4 "It feels as though you are abstracting.." I have no idea as why does it feel this way to you.

1.5 "If you understood nothing about war, peace, love, celebration, what exactly would move you about the famous Times Square Kiss photo taken at the end of World War II, the play of lights and darks?"

Well. I understand a thing or two and that mentioned picture does not move me at all. Again, Fred, you construct your question on some kind assumption implying "it does move me", why?

1.5 "If it's a matter of emphasis, I'm with you, but a total rejection of understanding a work of art makes no sense to me."

A total rejection? What you mean by that?

*1.3 in bold large text is not my intention, came out somehow...

Art X Photography · January 6, 2009

Larry: "To return to my dislike for the quote: I dislike it because understanding art is impossible, except on the superficial level of historical context, or meter of a poem, or plot."

I agree with you Larry only if you take that as being Wilde's meaning of 'understanding'. As you yourself suggest " Maybe "understanding" has been misunderstood." Your subsequent example of "apocalypse now' is perfect in reflecting what 'understanding' means for each individual (great movie btw). If you are familiar with Wilde's theme in his writing you will notice he is very much a non-conformist against society norms. Sarcasms is very much his most valuable tool.

"that understanding art becomes an oxymoron"

I agree with you here too. In fact I think Wilde would as well and that is his meaning behind the quote . The quote is actually a sarcastic way of him suggesting "art" is not to be understood. "Art" is created for reasons other than it's understanding. "Art" can be about everything that results from the process of trying to understand it. Wilde never suggests "art" can be understood (refer to the quote) If everyone here actually reads the quote they will see it as a suggestion that IF 'art' ever could be understood, then it would die, not WHEN. Everyone, who has posted on this forum, has been working on the basis that Wilde suggests 'art' can be understood at some point. The fact is he doesn't say this nor does he assume that. What he is inadvertently suggesting with this quote is merely that 'those so called critics' who claim to understand art are dead to it before they ever begin to interpret it for themselves, perhaps he is even suggesting they are 'oxymorons' Larry:) Wilde uses the phrase "...the moment you..." to suggest 'as soon as' you try to analyse "art" the viewer is dead to it, not the art itself.

Norma Desmond · January 6, 2009

Larry/Art-- I'm not arguing that historical accuracy or political intent or rationality is art's "only" meaning. I argue that understanding is a key feature. This discussion reminds me of discussions about religion and faith. Religion is not rational. It must be taken on faith. I think there is a misguided tendency to make art into a sort of religion. The great thing about art is that, in so many ways, it is down to earth. (Art . . . artificial . . . man-made.) Art is transcendent but only because it utilizes material things, craft, imagination, and understanding to get there and to be experienced. Understanding is part of that process. Larry's Apocalypse Now description can be applied to everything, not just art. A Vietnam Vet will have a perspective on politics, on seeing a barren field, on watching the evening news. He will likely feel differently from a non-vet on waking up in the morning. That establishes that we are each unique individuals who understand things differently. It doesn't establish anything unique about art. (I think art is unique but not in the way you're coming at it.) You've used Coppola's film as an example but you could use one's reaction to a sunset, a flower, a baby crying, a crack in the pavement. OK, yes, we all understand differently . . . everything. Now let's talk about art. Why do you think the historical context of art is superficial? Do you think Van Gogh didn't analyze the Impressionists in order to further his own vision? (That's in addition to reacting emotionally to their paintings.) Do you think he didn't understand the historical context of genres of painting. He didn't come up with his style and voice in a vacuum. He was an artist, not a magician. Look at French New Wave film directors (Truffaut, Godard, Rohmer, Chabrol). Didn't they exhaust themselves analyzing and understanding previous decades of filmmaking and react to it? Doesn't their art, (like Apocalypse Now, by the way) foster in the public a certain political/social understanding? Yes, of course, everyone who sees these films will understand (and feel) them differently but that doesn't negate the fact that understanding has more than a superficial role. In much art, a deeper understanding of socio-political matters is the point. Sometimes through art one is made to better understand. Emphasis is often put on the "subjective" nature of art, but just as often we forget the objective factors. Symbolism, for example, something Wilde knew a bit about, requires objective understanding. It requires more than a personal attachment to meaning, demanding universal application of signs. Ironically, that universal nature allows symbols to function as well on an individual level. Good painters understand that certain colors are scientifically and objectively shown to elicit responses in humans, they know how the eye follows and reacts to light. These are fact-in-the-world considerations important to art and the artist. Art has its personal and subjective side. But it is also significantly communal, objective, and cultural. Rather than say art is subjective or art is not something to be understood, I'd simply say art is human, because "human" encompasses the rational and the emotional, the individual and the universal. Art goes beyond me, my feelings, and my tastes.

saskphotog · January 6, 2009

Art: If Wilde was thinking as you describe, then I guess I do agree with him.

Fred: "OK, yes, we all understand differently . . . everything. Now let's talk about art." Why do you think you weren't already?

"Why do you think the historical context of art is superficial" Because it is. Anything at all, fashion, public health, nutrition, can be discussed in that context. Understanding such things is a ligitimate process, but it is not anything essential to experiencing art. To be art it must transcend those "superficial" understandings; I am aguing that it must, in fact, be able to produce an impact on an observer who knows nothing about the socio-political context of its creation, or it is just historical comment.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that knowledge, but art lives (to keep the metaphor alive) somewhere else. Way too much effort is made by people who love to "talk art" to place importance on such analysis precisely because it is so superficial that it is easy to discuss. I have listened to people discussing such things in galleries and exhibits to the point where it is obviously a competition (as I mentioned earlier) of pretentious souls intent on showing the world they are "members of the art community". They even seem to do it all unnecessarily loudly so we peasants can hear easily.

I do not deny the "objective factors" exist, or that they can sometimes explain why the art is structured the way it was by the artist, but the art itself exists only because it has that "subjective nature" with which you seem to be uncomfortable. It is not "religious"; it is, however, experiential. It is very difficult to articulate, as is most experience. In fact, to articulate the experiential aspects of art probably requires some kind of artistic expression. Perhaps, as an example, the best articulation of the art in a painting would be a poem or a symphony. That is why art critics and art historians like to talk about the socio-political-historical aspects of art so much. They can do it much easier than they can write a poem, and that is what makes such discussion of art "superficial".

Norma Desmond · January 6, 2009

" 'Why do you think the historical context of art is superficial' Because it is."

Ahhh. Now I see.

Seriously, though, in order to transcend those "superficial" [poor word choice] understandings, it must also deal with them. That's the point. Understanding is part of the process. It's not a sideshow. Transcendence implies not just the place transcended to but the thing or place transcended from. Transcendence is not just a destination, it is a two-way street. Two dimensions play off each other. Transcendence is often dependent on a complete and utter grounding for it to take place and/or for it to be effective. One can take LSD and zone out, perhaps even jump out a window. Or one can do it mindfully. Mindfulness does not mean being trapped by the mind. It is a process, as is understanding, as is art.

Pretentious art critics or egotistic patrons at galleries are not representative of the type of understanding I'm talking about. Art criticism and art understanding are two different things and shouldn't be conflated. Hyperbolic and over-the-top "interpretations" of art are a different matter from a thoughtful understanding of it.

I'm not uncomfortable with the subjective nature of art or life. I'm uncomfortable with its deification and/or when it means excluding significant non-subjective aspects.

kristina_kraft · January 6, 2009

Larry: "We experience art, and, like much of our experience, we do not analyse it to understand it, we just live it. And therein lies the real joy."

Yes, that's true for me too. Analyzing diminish the experience. IMO, when art work is analised, say, in the eye of the art historian, he actually can't enjoy on emotional level as might an ordinary viewer. Instead, he might see an art work from rather broader angles of perception because he has a knowledge, and his enjoyment is shown differently. He can be dedicated...,etc.

Norma Desmond · January 6, 2009

I think the shallowness of a lack of thought, intention, historical context, knowledge of predecessors, concern with exactly what one is doing, is evidenced by the poor, unexciting, uncreative, pedestrian photographs of many who loosely bandy about the terms "art" and "artist" and claim it as an excuse for anything they do, which is so personal in many cases that it appeals only to themselves. Look through the pages of PN and then tell me that some understanding of craft and history, motivations and intention of expression wouldn't make the quality of photographs a lot better. That might help create art that will actually reach somewhere other than the ego of the artist.

AJHingel · January 6, 2009

Fred, I agree with you. Well said.

Art X Photography · January 6, 2009

Fred, I accept that history and political intent are evident in works of 'art', right from the time of the ancient Greeks (and before), through the Byzantium era, all the way through WWII, in civil governments of communism, democracy, totalitarianism etc... and so on. Art can have many meanings and intentions both collectively and subjectively. Often I associate this with propaganda rather than "art" in the "artistic" sense or a documentary of historical events. That said, I understand and agree, to some extent, with your reference to the meaning of art and it's 'understanding' in the context with which you refer to it.

As you have alluded to, this thread is very much a discussion similar to that of religion, where IMO there is no right or wrong, just interpretations of subjective meanings (correct me if I've read into your suggestions anything more or less than I have written here)

AJHingel · January 7, 2009

I think Art that what is going on is that some try desperately to discuss art in society and the production of art and others insist in discussion subjective appreciations of art. One could discuss the subject of cars or cameras in the same way and still conclude that it is a discussion "similar to that of religion".

don_e · January 7, 2009

First, my best wishes to you all for this new year.

I was about to post when the taxi showed up and we were off out of town for a family wedding. Now I'm trying to get caught up on this interesting discussion, so I may not have absorbed the recent posts...

I find discussing art to be frustrating because of the high level of abstraction. One can discuss art, and then less abstractly, the art of photography; even less, the art of the photograph, and more concretely, the art of this specific photographer, and then, finally, the art of this specific photograph.

How does the directionality flow for you? From the highly abstract art, or from the concrete specific instance of this specific photograph?

Ok...continuing reading, but the above was the thought on my mind as I got in the taxi last week.

Norma Desmond · January 7, 2009

Art,

Anders and I seem to be thinking alike. I mentioned religion because I thought deification of art and subjectivity was taking place, not because I thought the entire discussion was like one on religion. I actually thought only one side of the dialogue sounded religious.

As for right and wrong, to a great extent that's what (organized) religion is all about . . . sin and telling us what we should and shouldn't do. In my mind, religion is one of the least subjective things going. You don't get to create your own morality, it's plastered on the wall in front of you, handed down from the mountaintop.

The "religious" aspect of the discussion to me was not that this stuff is a matter of opinion or that there is no right and wrong when it comes to art (and, as Anders points out, when it comes to so many topics for discussion), but that understanding was being thrown overboard. The word "subjectivity," especially when it is used in conjunction with the phrase "understanding art is an oxymoron" starts sounding a lot like "faith" (about which you can't be rational), a lot like picking up your crayons and checking your brain at the door. To me, it's a romanticized or mythologized view of art.

It might be helpful to distinguish here between "art" and some artistic experiences. I have been so moved by some works of art, paintings, films, music, that I have gotten absolutely immersed in them to where all reason and logic was lost in favor of a close-to-pure emotional experience. It's happened both as a viewer and as a creator. That's certainly a factor here, and an important one, and I don't mean to make light of those kinds of experiences (and I fear I may have in wanting to point out the other aspects of art) but I can't see reducing "art" to only that, leaving out (or making oxymoronic) other things like of craft, history, context, understanding, thoughtfulness, influence on and homage to one artist from another.

Symbolism, for example, is an important part of art. If you don't "understand," you can't work with or appreciate symbols.

To get back to Wilde's quote, many such quotes are intentionally hyperbolic, merely to make a point or stimulate others. That's, I believe, what Wilde was doing as opposed to defining or limiting art.

Art X Photography · January 7, 2009

I see. I guess what I thought you were suggesting is that this discussion was like that of religion in that people have various, even conflicting opinions, because of individual interpretations of both (I use the terms 'right' or 'wrong' loosely) I think both can be agreed to be disagreed upon. I'm glad you refer to religion as 'organised' btw. Because for me thats all it is (as opposed to spirituality which for me is subjective)

Anders, I agree with your posting.

Welcome back Don. Your thoughts are welcomed (although I had to read them a few times to 'visualise' the flow of your thoughts).

Norma Desmond · January 7, 2009

Art--

Agreed. Big difference between organized religion and spirituality or even faith. When talking about religion, I try to choose my words carefully because there are so many nuances at play.

saskphotog · January 7, 2009

Fred, at one point you said," I'm not uncomfortable with the subjective nature of art or life. I'm uncomfortable with its deification and/or when it means excluding significant non-subjective aspects," and you have used "religion" and "deification" repeatedly.

It seems to me that you are revealing that you are, in fact, very uncomfortable with the subjective nature of art or life. Where do you get "deification" from the idea that unless art has a subjective effect on observers, it just isn't art, or that it is the subjective experience that makes art enjoyable to anyone except perhaps art historians? That has nothing to do with "deification" or "religion" or anything else. It is just the necessary subjective side of art.

If we were talking about tables, we can deconstruct it to its type of wood and joinery, or it's historical period, and that is not meaningless or uninteresting, but unless it has a big flat part, it isn't a table. Unless something has a subjective effect on observers it is not art. I'm not deifying flat parts or subjective parts, just stating what I believe about art and tables. You injection of religion into this discussion is revealing, but not about art.

It is the subjective experiences that art produces that makes it "really neat stuff" for the observer, and that is also the basis for those people who "Don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I believe that one of the criteria for declaring something to be good art is that it have those subjective effects on many people (and I think you would agree with that), sometimes from many cultures, and I find it unfortunate that we seem to lack the language to discuss those effects without starting to toss around labels like "spiritual" or "religious" which I find completely inappropriate and quite intellectually stifling. It's art, not religion.

All the rest of the "understanding of art" that includes historical contexts, and cultural impacts on artists is just fine, and those things are easy to discuss and learn because we do have lots of language for that, and that knowledge can add to the appreciation of art. It can also, as I suggested, become a kind of p***ing contest for those who like to do that, to the detriment of art of all kinds.

Art can live, but only as long as it is capable of stirring metaphor and symbol, emotion, and meaning in the mind of an observer, and it is those stirrings that give it significance beyond any history, or technique, or structure. That is what makes it art.

What on earth does that have to do with religion, and why do you insist it does?

AJHingel · January 7, 2009

Art, I try to come back to this discussion now that it has become somewhat civic again.

Larry, it is exactly the understanding of art that makes "it .. capable of stirring metaphor and symbol, emotion, and meaning in the mind of an observer, and it is those stirrings that give it significance ".

My cat reacts strongly (gets frightened) by a big reproduction of a painting of Rothko - does that make my cat an art connoisseurs and Rothko a great artist? The difference between animals and humans is that we are supposed to be able to at least make to effort to try to explain our reactions and appreciations. Understanding works of art, their origin and historical context, their symbols and signs, is an important step towards that. Such understanding in some countries is called general culture that comes with education and hard work in view of achieving knowledge and experience. The representation of Madonna and Child of the 13th century in the catacomb of Priscilla in Rome (supposed to be the first in history) can be sweet to look at, but is divine if you put it into its religious historical context, as millions of worshippers and admirers have done throughout centuries.

This discussion has not in my eyes much to do with religion, but is a question of societal values and culture.

I will repeat a "PS" I put in one of my earlier contributions to this thread that Don seemed to agreed on: I find it very intriguing that most Americans (?) here on PN so often seem to distrust the need for education and knowledge when we speak about "understanding" cultural aspects of life such as arts. The US has one of the highest educational attainment levels in the World, I would have thought that they should know better.

Norma Desmond · January 7, 2009

Larry--

As I've said, I'm not uncomfortable with the subjective nature of art. I'm uncomfortable with excluding or maligning other factors, like understanding. I'm uncomfortable with statements like "understanding art becomes an oxymoron."

Saying "understanding art becomes an oxymoron" is very different from saying "unless art has a subjective effect on observers, it just isn't art," which is what you've said in your latest post and with which I have much less of an argument.

The first quote suggests that understanding is incompatible with art, with which I disagree. The second asserts that art has a subjective effect, which I very much relate to and don't have a problem with. (I'm not keen on the formulation "Unless such and such, it isn't art," but let's skip that for now.)

Let's also set aside the religion analogy and deification idea. Perhaps that could be fleshed out in another forum, because there are interesting comparisons to be made. I'm not the only one who's ever suggested that some people's approach to art bears a similarity to faith or religion, but it was imprudent of me to bring it up here, as it only serves as a distraction. Religion is a loaded concept that's hard to discuss without agendas coming through and taking over more fruitful exchanges of ideas. Sorry for that.

The subjectivity of art is profound. No doubt. Subjectivity may well be necessary for art, but my claim -- the one I hope to have been making all along -- is that it is not sufficient . . . there is more to art than subjectivity. Lots more. I know there is much subjectivity to art. I feel it much of the time. But I also know there are nuts and bolts. There's science to how light and color work and react and how the human brain perceives them. There are cultural contexts and history's effects. I believe these things are part of the making, part of the experiencing, and part of the enjoyment of art. Sometimes understanding gets in the way and sometimes it enhances. I can live with that.

saskphotog · January 8, 2009

I can live with it too.

But I refuse to back away from the idea that the subjectivity is the defining quality of art, and that even if that is all you can "understand" about a piece of art, that is sufficient to be aware of art, and that awareness is what separates us from the animals as Anders would put it. It may not be a complete "grok" of the art (haven't used that term in at least 25 years, but it fits), but it is a profound part of the experience of a piece of art because, without the subjective consequences, the thing is just a historical artifact. (And I understand the linguistic derivations involved in that too)

I will also not back away from the idea that since we can never really comprehend our own subjective reactions to art, understanding art becomes, at least partly, an oxymoron. We can try. We can learn as much as we can about the piece itself, the artist, the historical and cultural contexts, metaphor and symbol, and all that other stuff. And it will all help. It is even fun. But any true work of art will always hold some aspect of mystery (not religious experience, but unexplained, personal, experiential consequences) that make it profound even if not understood.

And that, Anders, is what makes your reaction to the Rothko hopefully different from your cat's.

Norma Desmond · January 8, 2009

Understanding art only becomes an oxymoron when you begin with a false premise such as "since we can never really comprehend our own subjective reactions to art . . ."

don_e · January 8, 2009

I have no subjective reactions to art. I do have subjective reactions to photographs, paintings, concertos...

Once upon a time I was enthralled by a book with reproductions of Rothko's paintings. When I had the opportunity to see some in a museum, I was not impressed. First and only time I preferred reproductions to originals.

Norma Desmond · January 8, 2009

"I have no subjective reactions to art. I do have subjective reactions to photographs, paintings, concertos..."

If that formulation helps demystify art . . . or subjectivity . . . I'm all for it. The statement, and your story about Rothko, seem grounded.

don_e · January 8, 2009

Thanks, Fred. Art isn't just about understanding works of art, but is a subject itself. I call it an intellectual subject because it has no concrete referents itself; it is abstract and intellectual. Taking the defensive position of subjectivity against it might be due to a simple lack of waypoints or guidance; it is what makes Anders wonder about education, I think. If one's education (whether university or self-taught) doesn't provide that grounding, then the seeming free-floating abstraction appears to be just "taste" or subjective reaction. Lacking the grounding or education, expressing an opinion on art can land one in a "camp" quite unsuspectingly, part of a history of argument that has gone on for generations 8-)

Among US Americans here, who has studied Clement Greenberg or his opponents?

Sign In

"a work of art dies the moment you understand it" (Oscar Wilde)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in