Quote:
Originally posted by ARTelevision
My previous paragraph:
-quote:
Apparently many, if not most, of the people responding don?t accept this explanation of things artistic. That?s because the academic tradition of art galleries, museums, art critics, and the modern and contemporary artists who mine that vein haven?t been particularly successful at involving the majority of the population in their version of ?art.?
-end quote
?is intended as a condemnation of the elitist and, in my opinion, irrelevant arguments you have been proffering here. It tends to push this thread toward having the overall feel of a high-brow browbeating and it does invite flaming. I commend the other posters for not turning it into a flame-fest.
|
Firstly, I'm a little shocked at the implication I was flaming anyone. Or that my posts invited flaming from others.
At all times in this thread I have tried to be courteous. I can't see where I have not. Indeed, I have specifically mentioned how much I was enjoying the lively debate.
In essence my argument has consistently been that it not really a justifiable statement or argument to simply say "that's not art". Especially when debating one of the world's most famous minimalists and one whose work is exhibited all around the globe. Of course it's art.
One may not like it.
One may not "appreciate" it (with no projorative implication).
One may consider it rubbish.
But I think it's a bit pompous (to be honest) for someone to say "that's not art" or "that took no effort".
That's all. My opinion. And one which I debated courteously.
How is that flaming?
I'm insulted by your contention.
Quote:
|
Any art which fails to engage viewers and audiences is a failed art. The artistic expressions which you are instistent upon foisting upon us here are some of the consumate failures of Modernism.
|
And Klein's work patently
does engage its audience. Myself included. And, I maintain, everyone here. As it has certainly engaged a lively debate.
Quote:
|
You are veering toward accusatory remarks ? the implication being the audience for these works is somehow at fault for having zero appreciation of them. The simple fact is that it is the artists who have failed their audience. They have committed the sin of hubris and sold out their connection to their audience to the highest bidder. This art is elitist. It?s no wonder that most people abhor it.
|
I have implied nothing. You simply said "most people" when referring to this thread. I replied that, in my opinion, that was an unsafe statement.
I have accused no one of anything. I am a fan of art. I like Klein's work. Am I at fault for trying to convince others of the intrinsic beauty I see in it?
To help me try others to see it like this,
- I have specifically gone out of my way to quote the artist.
- I have recommended books on the subject, and linked to the relevant Amazon pages
- I have referred to other artists who also suffered public scorn at times, to support my argument.
- I have included direct links to several of the world's most famous artists.
I did all this in an attempt to be helpful, to show others why I feel like I do.
And you now accuse me of being arrogant, flame-baiting and elitist?
Actually, not only am I insulted but I'm also disappointed. I would have expected more from you, judging from your other posts in different threads.
I have now quite simply lost all interest in this thread or debate. If by trying to "proselytize" my love of art to others is welcomed with accusations of flame-baiting and elitism etc, then it's not worth the effort.
Mr Mephisto