@Ionus,
Quote: why not criticise the excessive end of art ? It is far better for a person to experience a sunset in the bush or to teach themselves painting then it is to stand around in a gallery arguing about the "artists" view of reality as demonstrated by a train smash when all they were really demonstrating was a love of money and a sick personality.
I would expect nothing less from you. For some reason youve managed to state rules that are simple , easily understood, and totally full of it.
Artists have no duty to "bring beauty" to your world. If thats all you look for then theres a whole new world of introspection and reflection that I challenge you to observe or hear in the arts.Your attempts at ascription to an artists meaning is a bit of our own Frank Rizzos opinion of the giant clothes pin sculpture outside the stock center in Philadeplphia. (He didnt get it either)
I personaaly cant stand musicals because I get bored when plot conflicts must be resolved in song (I dont get it, its not a problem of the genre, its ME, and maybe I am a bit homophobic but Im trying to understand why I get turned off at musicals).
When you missed the political cartoon that is Guernica or structural shorthand of Brancussi, then it is YOU(my fear of musicals may transfer to your fear of modern art--is it too metrosexual anus?).
s far as your other statement, I doubt that any real artists spend a lot of time expecting to "fool the art loving world". Those that do (And I admit they exist) are usually outed as frauds within a few years. Emir de Hory, Han Van Meegeren, Otto Whacker,Victor Lustig,Claude SChuffenecker,Ernst Durig all can give you pleasant hours of reading enjoyment of how they first concieved their frauds and what spurred them on (hint: it was the age old pursuit of an easy life). Only Han van Meegeren thought that he was a great artist and he was merely trying to "stick it" to the world of critics.
Real art is troubled over and produced in stages of an artists growth (or decline in the case of Pollock). To me, all good work is worth at least consideration. Making an honest effort to seek out and understand such work (like osso says) embodies what someone once said that
"The next greatest thing to genius is the appreciation of it"
I may not fully understanding (or even liking) everything done by Matisse, but I must understand that , with his work, there is something important going on.
Artists like Mark Rothko or Cody Norman have each attempted to adress one aspect (ONE) of the world of art appreciation. They worked on their responses to mass culture or mass production , each in their own way. I, when I can, try to get the "libretto" of someones work rather than just walking by with some dismissive comment.
Art appreciation never was for everyone, that why the world of really passionate collectors has always been folks with means and a different sense of taste than yours and mine.
Ive seen showings of Steve Martins art collection and theres a theme that surrounds his own passion of collecting. It isnt mine, and isnt yours probably, but each artist responds to a stimulus in their own unique way and each viewer responds in their own way.Martins collection picks up on this quite well.
My biggest response in viewing much abstract art is how it fits its environment of dsiplay. Thats a little like "picking a sofa to match a painting" but, Im sensitive to how the WPA muralists and the Mexican muralists of the 40's and guys like Rothko and Johns all work to fit their own idea to fit a space and display either a worldview , or, (as you said) display some beauty in a drab area like a public building.
There are so many levels in which we can appreiate or at least validate art of many workers . Its not a matter of
"I know what I like ism", its really a matter of dialogue among the viewer, the artist, and the context (space, time of production, topic etc).
The works that MAtisse and Picasso were always doing to "Out art" each other was, in many cases collaborative. Matisse would have an idea and then Picasso would trump him with going one level better,(and vice versa). Not lknowing this takes some of the richness of experience of someones appreciation of the works that Matisse (and the other fauves) were working. Matisse said it himself that "All Im trying to do is play with expression in shape and color" He was searching for his own shorthand, like the writing of ELmore Leonard,("If it looks to much like writing, then remove half of it till it just talks to you") Matisse was looking to remove as much as he could yet still retain the essence of his view. For this he gets a lot of flack from people whove never even known what his message was about. Art appreciation is the display of ignorance in its many forms, especially abstract art.
In closing, I dont believe we can view modern art from a stnadpoint of a "tabula rossa", theres too much baggage in time ever since the invention of the camera. Giving up with a proclamation of "its crap" or just being dismissive is kind of sad. Especially when one claims to follow intellectual pursuits with passion.
'Science is a discipline pursued with passion, Art is a passion pursued with discipline"
Im on record to have NEVER liked the works of Helen Frankenthaler. However, at my advanced age I can finally say that "I get it", Now, at least my dismissive attitude is built on a muh higher level of scholarship, and (I have to admit) there are several works of Frankenthaler that I actually do like.
