Andreas Gurskey's heavily post processed Rhine II went for some $4.3 million dollars. He said that he wanted to show the state of the heavily constrained once free rivers of the world.
Posted on 03/24/2013 7:43:42 AM PDT by BenLurkin
“It is only by understanding the neural laws that dictate human activity in all spheres — in law, morality, religion and even economics and politics, no less than in art — that we can ever hope to achieve a more proper understanding of the nature of man.”
to suggest that the human brain responds in a particular way to art risks creating criteria of right or wrong, either in the art itself or in individual reactions to it. .... experience suggests that scientists studying art find it hard to resist drawing up rules for critical judgements. The chemist and Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald, a competent amateur painter, devised an influential theory of colour in the early twentieth century that led him to declare that Titian had once used the ‘wrong’ blue. Paul Klee, whose intuitive handling of colour was impeccable, spoke for many artists in his response to such hubris
But the problem runs deeper, because equating an appreciation of art with an appreciation of beauty is misleading. A concept of beauty (not necessarily ours today) was certainly important for, say, Renaissance artists, but until recently it had almost vanished from the discourse of contemporary art. Those who like the works of Marcel Duchamp, Joseph Beuys or Robert Rauschenberg generally do not appreciate them for their beauty. Scientists as a whole have always had conservative artistic tastes; a quest for beauty betrays that little has changed.
Even the narrower matter of aesthetics is not only about beauty. It has conventionally also concerned taste and judgement. Egalitarian scientists have a healthy scepticism of such potentially elitist ideas, and it is true that arbiters of taste may be blinkered and dogmatic: witness, for example, the blanket dismissal of jazz by Theodor Adorno, a champion of modernism.
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...
No thanks. Keep it to yourselves.
Show me the art you like, and I'll tell you about your soul.
My only criteria for art is that it should be 1) pretty and 2) not sweet. If I like it, it’s art.
That thing needs two identical Ikea lamps flanking it.
Up until I entered Art College in 1970, I labored under the discarded but quaint notion that the purpose of creating art and music was to create beauty, inspire people, and even to stimulate thinking and discussion.
I was quickly disabused of this avuncular “nonsense” and lectured about dissonance and ugliness for its own sake.
I realize now that this was preparation to prepare our culture to accept mediocrity and propaganda as the norm.
The messianic image of obama that was peddled as “high Art” which echoed the Socialist realism of the Stalin Era is a perfect illustration of the elevation of mediocrity in service to the State.
The Coarsening of Our Civilization, evidenced by high-tech filth that passes for movies, debased language, pop music that is devoid of melody and looped around one electronic measure, the sexual exploitation of children, and “political correctness” are all symptoms of a deeper sickness which has infected all aspects of our culture.
Maybe I am just an old crank, but I have a hard time finding any contemporary art, music, or literature that will be taken seriously one hundred years from now.
Just my opinion.
ping
Response: Agreed, and the root cause is egalitarianism which intuitively seeks the lowest level.
Sounds like what they are saying is we can be as disgusting as we want in art.
” The Coarsening of Our Civilization, evidenced by high-tech filth that passes for movies, debased language, pop music that is devoid of melody and looped around one electronic measure, the sexual exploitation of children, and “political correctness” are all symptoms of a deeper sickness which has infected all aspects of our culture.”
You’ve got it, its called evil.
This speaks to the humanist psychology piece you posted. It’s part of humans “knowing good and evil” without God’s help. Very depressing.
I've never heard it expressed this way. It's elegant and rings true.
And it raises questions, for example:
Where does craft-- of the woodworker or the ceramicist-- fit in this formula?
When we admire Michelangelo's ceiling, don't we admire the skill of the man as well as the subject?
One of the things about craft is that it "says itself." It does not mimic nature; some would say it is analogous to music in this way. This was one of the arguments extended in defense of abstract art-- that it sought the sublime and transcendent, not the outward appearance of things.
Yes. It is called “The Lowest Common Denominator”.
Yes. That “Manifesto” keeps coming up, as the leftists are right on schedule.
That is exactly right!
Are we ALLOWED to say “evil” anymore?
Eyew....
That is REALLY bad ‘art”.
Not to mention a LIE!
Once I had collected the photos and patterns I wanted to use, I could have slapped it together in about 20 minutes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.