On Tuesday, September 12, 2000 7:11 AM QueeneMUSE@aol.com wrote:
> > (Only
> > abstract painting does not to this, but this type of "painting" only
came
> > about recently and remains hotly contested as being painting at all.)
>
> The argument about whether abstract painting is art is a hot topic?
>
> Sorry, Technotrasncendance, you have a cool sounding name,
Transcend rhetorical attempts to persuade people!:)
> but what century are you talking about?
Now.
> Actually.... remains *is* a good word for this particular word game, but
only
> if your definition of remains is a noun. This argument is so far removed
from
> day to day discussions about art as to be a mouldering corpse in the
basement
> of critique.
Only among people who think they've won over all to their side. In fact,
much the opposite has happened. The common people everywhere like
non-Modern and non-Postmodern art. The most popular "serious" painters,
e.g., are van Gogh, Monet, Cezanne, and Renoir -- not Pollock, Mondrian, and
Rothko. (I'm not saying that whatever is popular is art. Not so! Instead,
I'm underscoring that abstract painting really does not serve the function
of painting as an art form and hence has a limited audience, many of whom
are just into it to be different. From this, I would argue it is not
painting and not even art.) Surely, those who now control the major art
institutions get to have it their way and push abstract painting and the
like, but even now their reign draws to a close.
But let's say it doesn't. Let's say I'm wrong here. I've been wrong
before. Would this make it art? Only if you believe that whoever wins in
history is right. If so, then the Medieval Christian view of life, the
universe, and everything must have been right for like a thousand years.
I.e., error can live a long time. I would like to say the truth will win
out in the end, but, well, history is not over yet.:)
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:48 MDT