They're out there Derek. You just have to read them. Why not begin with Wollheim. Nuance is important to art so why shouldn't it be important to art analysis? After all, what separates a Michelangelo sculpure from one of those Nazi pieces of junk that Miller likes if not just a few millimeters of stone here and there. Of course it's not just that but also knowing which millimeters to leave and which to cut away, plus the mental mystery guiding it.
The good prof is no Moses who has just had tea with God. . More likely he's protecting some defunct, widely attacked thesis in his books. Remember that hall in the Louvre with the Delacroix and Gros? All of them ridiculed in their day. I'm sure the good prof would've been first in line to condemn them. You know better than most that an art museum is a place where one is invited to experience, compare and contrast art values and ideas. It's not simply a place where declarations are made. A good museum actually respects its publics and invites them to engage in the same dialogues that artists carry on through their work, across time and regions. Every museum has far more stuff relegated to the basements than are on display -- much of it is art that used to be on display and may come back. The dialogue is what matters. You want a Ten Commandments of Art. The good prof is not Moses and there is no promised land of fixed art standards. WC --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
