Lili Krakowski on wed 29 jun 11
Let me say first that Cannonball was furious that Randall spoke =3D
disparagingly of hairballs! No,they are not what Rembrandt did, but =3D
Cannonball puts as much heart and soul into hairballs as he did into =3D
paintings, and, as now all cultures, and cultural manifestations are on =
=3D
a par, and intention is the equivalent of Art, she'll have you know =3D
that , among cats, hairballs are treasured works of self-expression,
"Art" is impossible to pin down because the definition is elusive , and =
=3D
so refracted through cultural bias. Inuits may consider a work one of =3D
high Art, a Watusi might consider the same thing junk, and a Japanese =3D
might be just in between. Cultural bias. I stick to the old definition =3D
that Art simply is the highest quality of achievement in any area.
Today the definition has been changed, in part because "we" are so =3D
pussy footed about cultural criticism. "We" dare not say ghastly sounds =
=3D
do not qualify as music, obscene gyrations are not dance, daubs and =3D
slaps of paint are not painting and so on.
In the search for tolerance, we have become bigots. We do not "attack" =3D
those who produce all this garbage and gibberish, we are afraid to =3D
"diss" them and so on. We only attack those who ask hard questions.=3D20
If pushed to a definition I would go along with Ivor's idea of great =3D
emotion. Years and years ago a young colleague asked me to define a =3D
great novel. And my definition began that a great novel guts you like a =3D
fish....It rips your insides out, and returns them to you in a new =3D
arrangement. Three pots I have seen have reduced me to tears. I have =3D
mentioned them before: A tiny Egyptian vase shaped like a young woman's =3D
full breasts and throat. In the Royal Ontario in Toronto. A small vase =
=3D
of Hamada's seen at a show in NYC. And a square Japanese plate dark =3D
brooding celadon, with a white slip bamboo stem decoration. In Boston =3D
Museum. I have recognized many other pots as Art...but none has moved =3D
me as much as those three did.
So to answer our Katie's question " Can you come up with one set of =3D
qualities that
apply to EVERY piece of good art ever made? And how would you define =3D
those
qualities?" I brashly would say "YES! Blend of highest perfected =3D
skill, imagination, and intelligence."
And let me point out that, interestingly, "we" do not excuse the singer =3D
who sings off key, the lead footed dancer , and so on....Only in the =3D
visual arts is this absence of standards permitted.
Katie. Good to see you back.
Lili Krakowski
Be of good courage
paul gerhold on thu 30 jun 11
"Art is the highest quality of achievement in any area" merely substitutes
the question of " what is quality" for the question of "what is art"
By this type of definition the bombing of the world trade center could be
considered Art since it is probably the highest quality of achievement in
the commission of a terrorist act.
Paul
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Lili Krakowski wr=
ote:
> Let me say first that Cannonball was furious that Randall spoke
> disparagingly of hairballs! No,they are not what Rembrandt did, but
> Cannonball puts as much heart and soul into hairballs as he did into
> paintings, and, as now all cultures, and cultural manifestations are on =
a
> par, and intention is the equivalent of Art, she'll have you know that ,
> among cats, hairballs are treasured works of self-expression,
>
> "Art" is impossible to pin down because the definition is elusive , and =
so
> refracted through cultural bias. Inuits may consider a work one of high A=
rt,
> a Watusi might consider the same thing junk, and a Japanese might be just=
in
> between. Cultural bias. I stick to the old definition that Art simply i=
s
> the highest quality of achievement in any area.
>
> Today the definition has been changed, in part because "we" are so pussy
> footed about cultural criticism. "We" dare not say ghastly sounds do not
> qualify as music, obscene gyrations are not dance, daubs and slaps of pai=
nt
> are not painting and so on.
> In the search for tolerance, we have become bigots. We do not "attack"
> those who produce all this garbage and gibberish, we are afraid to "diss"
> them and so on. We only attack those who ask hard questions.
>
> If pushed to a definition I would go along with Ivor's idea of great
> emotion. Years and years ago a young colleague asked me to define a grea=
t
> novel. And my definition began that a great novel guts you like a fish...=
.It
> rips your insides out, and returns them to you in a new arrangement. Thr=
ee
> pots I have seen have reduced me to tears. I have mentioned them before:=
A
> tiny Egyptian vase shaped like a young woman's full breasts and throat. =
In
> the Royal Ontario in Toronto. A small vase of Hamada's seen at a show in
> NYC. And a square Japanese plate dark brooding celadon, with a white sli=
p
> bamboo stem decoration. In Boston Museum. I have recognized many other p=
ots
> as Art...but none has moved me as much as those three did.
>
> So to answer our Katie's question " Can you come up with one set of
> qualities that
> apply to EVERY piece of good art ever made? And how would you define thos=
e
> qualities?" I brashly would say "YES! Blend of highest perfected skill=
,
> imagination, and intelligence."
>
> And let me point out that, interestingly, "we" do not excuse the singer w=
ho
> sings off key, the lead footed dancer , and so on....Only in the visual a=
rts
> is this absence of standards permitted.
>
> Katie. Good to see you back.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Lili Krakowski
> Be of good courage
>
| |
|
