Mr. Davis needs to go back to class. When one says aristocratic one means privilege by birthright. No one has a birthright to art. And all art is made for some audience and is therefore selective, even when the selection is made by the audience and not the artist or the work.
I'd say it's a peculiarly American longing or hatred for class distinctions to employ the word aristocratic. There are no Lords, Earls, Dukes, Dutchesses, Princes, Princesses, Kings or Queens or landed aristocrats in America...at least not yet. And no art exclusively for them either. As for mass art, popular art, or the imagery of material culture, it does indeed have a long life. It's the best way --often the only way-- to gain access to the ideals and values of a previous society, and it's usually far more accurate in that regard than so-called high art. Nevertheless, ultimately all art has an audience of just one person because its quality is uniquely constituted in the mind of each beholder. It matters not what titles that person claims. WC --- On Mon, 11/3/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Comment? > To: [email protected] > Date: Monday, November 3, 2008, 11:28 AM > Robertson Davies: "What I mean when I say art is > aristocratic is that it is > selective. It's not a mass thing. There never is a mass > art that lasts very > long or explains very much. But I don't mean > aristocratic in the sense that > it's produced by high-born people for high-born people. > I just mean it's > produced by special people for people who can > understand." > Geoff C > > > >From: "Chris Miller" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: "Free Market Art" and otherwise > >Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 16:51:24 GMT > > > >Most undervalued American art today? > > > >I would have said bronze figures from any period -- > most of which sell for > >less than the current cost of casting them - but I > really have no idea > >whether > >the auction value of this stuff will improve in > anyone's lifetime. That's > >something for a professional dealer to answer -- and > none of them seem to > >promoting this kind of product. > > > >On the other hand -- I have recently seen dealers > promoting the reputations > >of > >selected artists from the 1930s American Scene and > 1950s non-expressionist > >abstraction -- so it looks William is right. The > prices on these things > >are > >still rather low (hardly enough to support a living > artist) -so maybe these > >genres are currently a good buy. > > > >But dare we ask what kings of things are aesthetically, > rather than > >monetarily > >undervalued ? > > > >Is such a question possible ? And who would be > qualified to answer it? > > > >Wouldn't this be one of the jobs of the art critic? > > > >And yet -- here is how the art critic of the Chicago > Tribune answered the > >question : "What now constitutes quality in > contemporary art?" > > > >"the dominant institution of our time, the > financial institution, defines > >artistic quality more practically and nakedly than any > institution > >concerned > >with a life of the spirit or mind: In the 21st Century > the finest > >contemporary > >art is the art that makes the most money" > > > > > >So whatever happened to those institutions > "concerned with a life of the > >spirit or mind" ? They seem to have had some > importance in the past. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_____________________________________________________________ > >Save for the future with great IRA Funds. Click now! > >http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2211/fc/Ioyw6ijmdWTzr0HW7Wxv63w2YFY2qo > >gbdfKVZGOIJcNXLU7eL0NSCo/?count=1234567890
