But it's not just me being 'black and white' is it? The Louvre apparently thinks they are all art (otherwise why would it admit them?) and the good prof thinks they are all junk.
Anyway what's the difference? I'm happy if someone can give me the much vaunted 'standards' that would decide the fate of just a few of them. We might be able to get the Louvre and the prof to agree on that basis. But we need those standards (you know, the ones I am always being told I should have ready at hand...) Any takers? DA ----- Original Message ----- From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Junking the Louvre? Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:10:50 -0700 (PDT) > What's there to say? This "either all black or white" > argument is always pointless. Any sleepy > undergraduate could figure out that the (good?) > professor may be right with respect to some items and > the Louvre curators may be right with respect to some > items. Why does Derek bring up red herrings as if > they were worthy issues while all the time he remains > vague or suddenly absent when pressed to think beyond > the superficial? > > WC > > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Completely new subject. (I feel I have said my > > piece on > > jazz...) > > > > In todays 'Le Figaro' there is piece by a certain > > Jean-Louis Harouel who apparently wrote a book > > called > > 'Culture et Contre-Cultures' and who teaches at > > Paris II. > > Prof Harouel rails against the contemporary art > > which has > > recently been installed in various galleries in the > > Louvre > > to 'dialogue' (thats the Louvres official term) > > with > > the existing art. E.g. in the Rubens Henri IV room > > there is > > what Harouel describes as 'a chaotic heap of rocks > > looking > > like the backyard of some untidy tombstone maker.' > > (I have > > seen photos; it does look a bit like that). > > > > The good professor takes the opportunity to have a > > large > > side swipe at contemporary art in general, which he > > describes as imposture and farce propped up by > > 'sociological, philosophical or spiritual > > propositions > > which, assuming one can work them out, are generally > > rubbish'. Only people who know nothing about art, > > Prof > > Harouel says, will be fooled by this stuff. And so > > on. > > > > It struck me that this situation might pose an > > interesting > > dilemma for some on our list. On the one hand we > > have the > > Louvre the very prestigious Louvre - saying > > (presumably): this stuff is art and it deserves to > > be in our > > galleries alongside Rubens, Rembrandt etc. On the > > other > > hand, we have a distinguished professor at one of > > Frances > > prestigious universities saying in no uncertain > > terms that > > it is junk. > > > > What do we do? Could Frances's 'learned experts' be > > called > > in to help perhaps? And what about those on the > > list who > > upbraid me from time to time for not being able to > > produce > > explicit standards to judge art by, and not being > > able to > > give chapter and verse on why I say something is or > > is not > > art? How might they proceed in this case? Do they > > have > > their standards ready at hand now to roll out and > > give to > > the Louvre and to the good professor to settle the > > argument? > > Now would be an ideal moment... > > > > DA
