David Hendley on sun 13 jun 99
Hi Ray,
Thanks for your comments, this is an interesting discussion.
I completely agree with your statement:
>I guess what I'm saying here is that artists should draw no conclusions
>about the validity of their work from the fact that the masses fail to
>appreciate that work.
And I also say the opposite - draw no conclusions from the fact that
the masses DO appreciate your work.
There is plenty of great art that appeals to the masses,
some that used to appeal to the masses but does not any more
(your Mozart example),
and others that were not appreciated at the time they were created
but now are (perhaps George Ohr, to use a ceramics example?).
My comment that art is not generally entertainment for the masses,
was directed to Donn's unequivocal statement:
>For any art to work it has to be able to talk to the lamen. The non
>ceramics trained person, if it doesn't, then it fails as a work of fine art.
which I still believe is a sweeping and untrue generalization.
David Hendley
At 09:15 AM 6/12/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>At 07:01 PM 6/11/99 EDT, you wrote:
>>
>>Nonsense. Art is not generally entertainment for the masses, but
>>requires an educated viewer.
>
>I have to disagree with you to some extent. The most powerful art
>transcends education.
>
>>In fact, art is often a reaction to our
>>'lowest common denominator' culture.
>
>It often is, but just as often, this art-as-protest-against-Philistinism is
>unimpressive.
>
>>If art has to connect with the uneducated layman to be successful then:
>>Motzart and Bach are dismal failures, and ALL opera is a failure,
>>the newest 'Dilbert' book is the greatest literary achievement of the year,
>>and that painting of the bluebonnets by the stream on my calendar
>>is an example of great artistic success.
>
>Well, opera *is* largely an orphaned art form now, as is classical music,
>which now requires the assistance of an educated ear to be considered
>"good" by the listener. But it was not always so. In their own time,
>Mozart and Bach were popular with the rabble, as was opera. Shakespeare
>was a playwright to the masses, not the intelligentsia. The climax art
>form of pre-industrial Europe, the cathedral, was deeply appreciated by all
>classes of people. There was a time when the unveiling of a well-known
>painter's newest painting caused viewers to literally swoon in a frenzy of
>excitement-- paintings which now are admired only by the well-educated. On
>the other hand, the masses are sometimes eccentric in their devotion...
>take _Uncle Tom's Cabin_ for example, or Baywatch.
>
>Many serious thinkers about art claim that the climax art form of the 20th
>century is the film. I'm a Fellini fan, but does the greater acceptance of
>Kubrick's work by the masses mean that it's less valuable than Fellini's?
>I suspect not. The fact that a painting appears on a calendar is no
>barometer of its importance-- though I'd venture to say that Norman
>Rockwell will be known long after Andy Warhol becomes Andy Who.
>
>I guess what I'm saying here is that artists should draw no conclusions
>about the validity of their work from the fact that the masses fail to
>appreciate that work. Unpopularity is no red badge of artistic merit, and
>popularity is only slightly more meaningful.
>
>The publishers of an anthology of new writers once asked me for an essay on
>succeeding as a writer, and it was published under the title "My Advice To
>the Undiscovered." Among the things I said was: "When a book sells a
>million copies, there's always a reason. If you can't figure out what that
>reason is, then there's something important you don't know about a million
>of your fellow human beings."
>
>My own personal feeling is that artists ought to strive to produce work
>which is so piercingly wonderful that it can melt the heart of a Baywatch
>fan. It is almost always, I think, a mistake to produce only for the
>educated taste, and to be content with that degree of acceptance. This
>frequently turns into artistic incest. Mine may be an unfashionable view,
>but I think art is less about expression than it is about communicating
>that expression. Every person is Picasso in her own head. Every person's
>insights are blinding, to him.
>
>Ray
>
Ray Aldridge on mon 14 jun 99
At 12:58 PM 6/13/99 EDT, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Hi Ray,
>Thanks for your comments, this is an interesting discussion.
>I completely agree with your statement:
>
>>I guess what I'm saying here is that artists should draw no conclusions
>>about the validity of their work from the fact that the masses fail to
>>appreciate that work.
>
>And I also say the opposite - draw no conclusions from the fact that
>the masses DO appreciate your work.
Absolutely true. I suppose this is one of the great pitfalls for the
successful artist-- one that I would someday love to try to tippytoe
around....
Though to be completely honest, I would have to give the nod to an artist
whose work moves millions over an artist whose work is only admired by his
mother. My opinion wouldn't mean much, of course, nor should it.
>My comment that art is not generally entertainment for the masses,
>was directed to Donn's unequivocal statement:
>
>>For any art to work it has to be able to talk to the lamen. The non
>>ceramics trained person, if it doesn't, then it fails as a work of fine
art.
>
>which I still believe is a sweeping and untrue generalization.
>
I agree, but you answered him with another sweeping and untrue generalization:
>>>Nonsense. Art is not generally entertainment for the masses, but
>>>requires an educated viewer.
Actually, you both are right-- or so I believe. Certainly there is art
that appeals to a broad range of people, and art that appeals to a narrower
range of people. We've all had the experience of reading a book or seeing
a movie that was ignored by the masses, and thinking: "This great! Why
didn't more people love this?" We liked it because something in our lives
prepared us to like it-- "education," in effect.
On the other hand, some art is so powerful that no education is required to
appreciate it. The youngest child will be moved by a brilliant fireworks
display, as will the most jaded of art critics.
This really is an interesting discussion, and I appreciate you and Donn
letting me horn in. It's probably the sort of thing we ought to sit down
and wrangle cheerfully over, while eating a good dinner and getting a
little tipsy. I doubt it means a hill of beans when it gets time for us to
decide what to make, but it's probably good exercise for the critical
muscle, long as we don't overdo it and no one bleeds.
Ray
| |
|
