Re: ART: What Art Is

Date: Sun May 28 2000 - 18:07:20 MDT

In a message dated 28/05/00 16:15:56 GMT Standard Time,

> Her ideals were as square as you can get. Unhip, uncool, out of it.. very
> germanic/idealistic/super-uber-stiffo. At a secular humanist meeting an
> guy called her an intellectual bimbo. When it came to modern art, she had
> talent herself, nor an art education. Yet she felt utterly qualified to
> vilify with great passion, the greatest names of the day, simply because
> understandin gof it was limited. She trashed a whole genre simply because
> she
> couldn't see the vlaue of it.
> Her entire outlook was sneering, venomous, self-important and smug. If
> instead of spending so much time on self absorbtion she had gone to the
> trouble to educate herself on the current artscene, I'd have had more
> respect.

    should I take that as a "no" vote ?.

    As a bit of an artist myself (i'm not sure which bit) I have always taken
the "...I know what I like" train of thought. IMHO Vangough couldn't paint
for toffee, his pictures belong in a school corridor somewhere with a label
saying "1st year art class". On the other hand the work of Picasso amuzes me
greatly and I like it. This is my taste and I don't feel have to defend it.
If someone thinks its worth hanging in a gallery and putting a multimillion
price tag on it, thats fine by me and I respect their taste.
    Nothing winds me up more than some jumped up "insert expletive here" who
thinks they have the right to tell me what is and what isn't good art. I have
never read any of Rand's opinions and don't intend to. Like wise my view on
most critics is that can stick them, I have my own mind and my own opinion.
    As for modern art, I can take it or leave it. I know one thing, I don't
have room for half a picked Cow in my front room.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:50 MDT