William: Tnanks for a well-reasoned analysis of the last century or so in
art history. I bemoan that irony so rules the stage that there is no room
for anything implying warmth or sentiment whatsoever, be it Christmas
carols, comedy routines or painting. I suspect I may not be around when the
next "big thing" comes around, though I agree something is on the way.
On a whole other theme: I've read a couple of Damasio's books. He's surely a
skilled writer and neuroscientist. He makes an excellent case for the
pre-frontal cortex (and other sructures) role in the experience of emotion
and for the place of that experience in emotional health (or just general
health). I didn't feel any closer to a neurological understanding of
aesthetics than I did before. Parts of the brain and associated processes
are surely essential in our perceiving and expressing the aesthetic. As your
note pointed out, time and fashion dictate what may be expressed; the
anatomy and physiology of the brain don't change with that fashion; will
dictates what is expressed artistically and how it's appreciated.
Geoff C
From: William Conger <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:39:26 -0800 (PST)
Taste is always largely a product of social norms. One learns the taste of
particular social groups and adheres to them as a signal of belonging to
those groups. We can think of tastes it as rules of the game. In learning
about art one is always subjected to subtle and overt influences
exemplifying such and such rules of the game. Those rules constitute the
aesthetic outlook. In the West, those rules are represented by a refinement
of formal means (form) and symbolism (content) that withstand superficial
alterations (like the gradual moves from simplicity to complexity and back
again)
Modernism is a period in which those rules of the game are continually
tweaked, stretched, bent, cut, replaced. It is a period of continuing
revisionism, deconstruction, reconstruction. The central element of the
"life" of modernism is the perceived relationship between the rules being
"attacked" and the adversarial novelty of what is proposed to replace them.
Thus, for example, Fauvism is understoood in relation to Impressionism
and the earlier landscape tradition. It adds the element of subjective
"emotional" color and paint handling that cannot be accounted for in nature
alone.
Today, the modernist adversarial attacks obliterated any residual evidence
of the rules of the game. It is like a military attack against an enemy
that has long ago left the field. It is theater. It is an example of the
fake criticality that Marcuse wrote about in his One Dimensional Man. That
is why post modernism relies so much on irony. Irony in contemporary art
is the insider's joke that the proposed revision of the rules of the game
are not real because the rules are themselves long vanished. Again,
theater. This is not a purely negative situation. It may be the ultimate
reality of the "rules" undergoing a clearing of the scene, as it were to
prepare for a "re-birth" (as has happened several times since antiquity).
We say today that art is anything and no rules apply. That is perhaps the
case as new artists keep trying to see if there is anything at all that
still falls beyond the pale of art -- if so, then that's a rule to break!
When it is truly clear that nothing whatsoever is NOT art then it is
equally clear that nothing IS art (subjectively, of course). Then taste
will have been eliminated. Then rules of the game -- some taste, perhaps
all new, perhaps all old, probably both, will re-emerge (it's a human
impulse)and the same dynamic tensions between such rules and antagonistic
attacks on them will recur. Civilization -- and art -- will endure!
We may say we have our personal tastes, but we really only imitate some
social group taste and nobody can truly explicate all of its aspects, its
rules, except by testing them, through affirmation or rejection,
continually. Nowadays the rejection is nearly complete...or redundantly
repeated for theatrical irony.
WC
--- On Mon, 12/22/08, GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: GEOFF CREALOCK <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Monday, December 22, 2008, 8:49 AM
> Boris: I infer from your note that all that is
> "art" is always respected to
> a degree. Fauvism is respected now by many critics or
> persons. There
> certainly was a time when that wasn't true. I suspect
> that there are still
> persons who would object to it. Tastes differ among
> critics, persons and I
> suspect, artists, although I know less about that. Public
> and critical taste
> also differ over time. Bouguerau is no longer as respected
> as he was. I'm
> allowing that what one person considers "art" may
> be far from another
> person's liking. It might be true among artists or
> critics of a particular
> time period that their tastes would all be the same.
> Geoff C
>
>
> >From: "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>
> >Reply-To: [email protected]
> >To: [email protected]
> >CC: [email protected]
> >Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
> >Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:11:43 GMT
> >
> >If something is noxious for any-body's cells it is
> not Art. You might found
> >answer to what is art:).
> >But seriously, some work, if it is a real thing, could
> be not in one's
> >taste
> >but it is always respected to a degree.
> >Boris Shoshensky
> >
> >
> >-- "Geoff" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >Boris: I would tend to agree that art is good for our
> cells. I understand
> >that art however did not humanize the Nazi brass. I
> also assume that the
> >art
> >to which you might refer might be rather different for
> different persons.
> >And that someone else's choice of art choice of art
> might be noxious for my
> >cells. And then, is it all my cells and if not, which
> ones wouldn't
> >benefit?
> >Geoff C
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <[email protected]>
> >To: <[email protected]>
> >Cc: <[email protected]>
> >Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 9:02 PM
> >Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
> >
> >
> > > If you admit you understand an elegance of
> mechanism of the evolutionary
> > > process, than it is obvious that art is one of
> the physiological and
> > > psychological tools for adaptation of humans.
> > > Art is good for our cells. Sorry, but I said it
> before and I say it
> >again.
> > > Boris Shoshensky
> > >
> > > -- "Geoff"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > I guess someone would have to change my beliefs.
> > > Geoff C
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "William Conger"
> <[email protected]>
> > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 5:55 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Geoff, Neurology and "Art"
> > >
> > >
> > >> If you admit you know little of
> art/aesthetics how can you be persuaded
> > >> that something is relevant to it?
> > >> WC
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ____________________________________________________________
> > > Click here for free information on how to reduce
