I think you may mistake your friend's point. He wrote: "OK, so my kid can identify a Renoir and a Rembrandt. So what. That act values two ideals: the artist as an individual, and the work of art as an individual piece of creativity. And I wonder if these two values are true, or manifestations of modernism." He then asked the reader to considert the Bayeux Tapestry, or Chartres Cathedral.
What I believe he is talking about is the work of art qua art as opposed to the work of art as the effect of a personality. It is a distinct feature of modernity to be preoccupied with personality in art whether the artist's or the critic's -- and thus with the "individual"; hence, his use of the term. He contrast Renoir et al with the Bayeux Tapestry and Chartres because in them there is no personality to discern and be distracted by. Art is something other than the artist who creates it. When he creates something, it comes into being -- a new thing -- no longer an idea in the artist's mind. It becomes something truely independent of him. So, to attend to the artist -- still less anyone else -- as though he were the key or window to his art is to confuse two very different things, making one likely to misunderstand or ignore the thing of real importance (so far as the appreciation of art is concerned). The commercial use of art is particularly guilty of this as are many educators who suppose that to know something about artists and the history of art is know art, which, I thnk, is equally bourgois. Hence, your friend's disparagement of his child's bare recognition of a Renoir.
Your friend also identifies the "individual piece of creativity" as a "manifestation of modernism". In this I think he is mistaken (if I do not mistake him). Based upon what I have said above, the individual work of art is the primary and fundamental thing, which all other matters, e.g., personality, historical milieu, and formal classifications, etc. are ancillary. This is not reduce the value and meaning of art to whether or not one likes it and understands it. Rather, the principle I have in mind is that a work of art must be first and foremost taken on its own.
----------------------
KP: More of this, please. This is what I wanted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
The commentator makes much sense here. Certainly it is first and foremost the consideration of the good as intelligible that the artist conveys. I do think, however, that when the vision conveyed by the art is unclear or confusing, knowledge of the artist may be of assistance in determining the worth of the art. The art clearly does exist free of the artist, but not entirely independent of the vision the artist has of reality. If the artist has a false view of the good, or its intelligibility, that at the lease can weaken the intelligibility of the art, if not destroy it. I would say, with John Senior, who really got it from Aristotle (to the good man, the good is attractive), that to appreciate art, as well as to discern its worth, one must be a well-formed individual, and of virtuous life.
Yes, but how is the catalogueing coming, Amator? Just kidding. Hope things are going well, staying healthy. Thanks for the comments. I will say a prayer for you at the Tomb of the Unknown Chorister.
Kurt Poterack
Post a Comment