Posted on 04/04/2006 7:36:28 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Why would well-heeled folks dress up to attend a fancy gathering where they could admire a urinal? Because it’s art, of course! Or, at least, so they think.
This spring’s Dada exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., celebrates what the Washington Post describes as “the most radical, irreverent, rule-breaking movement in the history of Western art.”
In case you’re unfamiliar, the term dada means exactly what it sounds like: nonsense. As H. R. Rookmaaker described it, Dada “was a nihilistic creed of disintegration, showing the meaninglessness of all Western thought, art, morals, traditions.” It raises the common to the level of the revered. Hence, Marcel Duchamp sticks a urinal on a wall and titles it “Fountain.”
It’s odd that the movement’s fans laud it as great art, because Dada by definition seeks the demise of art. Echoing Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, Nathanael Blake writes at Townhall.com, “to abolish art, you declare a manufactured urinal to be a masterpiece.”
Some say the Dada movement continued the destruction of art that began with cubism, which preceded it. German Dada artist Kurt Schwitters said he built “new things . . . out of fragments.” Post writer Michael O’Sullivan describes Dada as “a putting back together of a broken, senseless world [after World War I], only not with the glue of logic, and not in any sense back to the way things were.”
And there, you see, is the problem. Dada sees the fragmentation of the world—and celebrates that brokenness. But true artists “do not merely reflect the world’s brokenness,” writes Erik Lokkesmoe in BreakPoint WorldView magazine. “The truth-telling artists, rather, also remind us there is more to the story . . . and call us to rise from our defensive crouch to again pursue the faith, hope, and love that abide even in the valley of death.”
“In every time and place and in every culture,” writes Jerry Eisley, founder of the Washington Arts Group, “art has ultimately flowed from worship.” However, artists since the early twentieth century have abandoned the “idea of an ideal measure of goodness and truth linked with beauty.” The splintering and extreme individualism that characterize modern art are indicative of the spirit of the postmodern age. Yes, this world is broken, but the role of the artist is to point us toward wholeness.
Art is not dead, however, nor has the Church abandoned it, as illustrated by the resurgence of Christians in the arts—people like Lokkesmoe and Eisley. And another believer whose art flows from her worship of God is Kim Daus-Edwards. Kim’s latest work is her book of photographs, Force of the Spirit, that “represents a surrender to the idea of the holy through the medium of photography.” These black-and-white images are coupled with Scripture and draw in the viewer to meditate on universal truths. “Even though we may turn away from it, the Spirit’s power is ever-present and emerges regularly in our lives,” she says.
The world may be broken and seem random, but that is not the end of truth. And true art points toward the ultimate restoration of our fallen existence. Too bad the National Gallery of Art doesn’t realize that.
Interesting.
Is that really so? Feet don't seem like such a problem. However you are right, those feet look way too small.
Yep. The sad thing is that Dada should have fed art by poking a finger into its pretensions. Art got its revenge by killing Dada by taking it seriously. Nobody won.
Sam & Repub
Please add turbocat and Katya to our ArtPing list
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
turbocat and Katya
Here is your private Art Ping
OK, turbocat and Katya are added, thanks.
bimp
Great skill can produce beautifully rendered, representational illustrations of trivial, empty, and banal art bereft of worthwhile ideas or thought. Just because it's "pretty" doesn't mean it's any good in the long run.
Great art usually transcends itself and becomes difficult to explain easily. Things easily explained are usually banal or mundane. Not to say that simplicity or "common sense" are bad.
Many ideas are abstract and difficult to understand but that doesn't mean that they are not "real".
Music can be abstract. For some people JS Bach or Bartok is too difficult to listen to or "understand" if you really need to "understand" music to be moved or affected by it. If some people don't "get it", does that mean it's all invalid? Does it have to be explained that JS Bach is better than Lawrence Welk, Yanni or John Tesh?
Much of so called "realistic" or "representational" art or painting can also be a bunch of treacly, sentimental rubbish in the same way that some so called modern, avant-garde or "new" art can also be pretentious, condescending rubbish.
The Marcel Duchamp urinal can be art as idea when it was making fun of the idea of art itself.
What's wrong with thinking or being challenged?
You can always buy a Thomas Kincade "painting".
Not much art is purely abstract, most of it, even that labeled abstract, is "representational" to some degree or another. Although, so far, no one has been able to convince me that any of the purely abstract art is "great art," though I do recognize some of it as good art, in the way that fabric patterns or package designs are good art.
I believe most "realistic" artists agree with you that more is needed than just virtuosity to create good or great art. Most of the good ones warn of the dangers of concentration on just technique. One often hears it said, for instance, that technique will take care of itself, provided the concept is there. However, IMO, the gaining of real skill takes real time, and chances are good that the shallow among us will not take the time, while those who do take the time will learn to express a worthwhile reality as they gain skill.
The irony in this is that those who lack skill will struggle to express their concept, and thus it is they who are apt to be stuck on technique.
I'm not so sure that great art cannot be explained simply - my experience is that it is the self important crap that no one knows what it is that they're looking at that requires a wordy and academic sounding treatise pinned on the wall next to it.
I agree that music, at least the melody part, is pure abstraction, and thus makes a convincing argument that abstract art can be beautiful.
I personally, while liking much abstract art, am really a lover of the more representational stuff. But it does seem fairly obvious that it is the abstract elements within realistic art that makes some of it great, so I guess I have to admit to being a lover of the abstract. 'Course, that makes the great "realists" great abstract artists. IMO, there's some truth in that idea.
Thanks for a very literate response.
I do love Caravaggio, De la Tour, Michaelangelo, but also de Kooning, Rothko, Twombly and Judd, just to name a few.
don't confuse Dali with Dada... Dali has talent, and, while dealing with the horrors of war and social dislocation, he never losthim empathy for humanity, or desire to achieve greatness...
I think part of the bitterness towards modern art is that so much of it follows from Dada, which was intended to be pointless, meaningless, often offensive, and yet the public gets told they "just don't get it" by art critics.
The joke's on you, art critics... We get it. We've been kicked in the shins, and we're angry.
Not my intent to confuse Dali with dadaism. I was merely replying to a post on surrealism.
Even though my preference is realism, I treasure the abstract art too, it's hard to imagine how much smaller and probably even more shallow (I imagine) the art world would be without it.
BTW, I'm not much of a fan of the photorealists. To me, imitating a photograph with a painting is pointless. I don't mind if artists use a photograph as a reference, but they need to bring a different reality to the thing. I'm probably making an ignorant comment here, but that's my current perception.
Ahh, yes, "the Wall."
How many volumes can be said about what THAT movie says about art?
IMHO, that album and fils single-handedly brought an end to "art rock."
As Buffy the Vampire Slayer asked, after being possessed and liberated by a demon of artistic expression, "Where do we go from here?"
[* If you like rock musicals, you simply must get your hands on "Once More With Feeling," a season 6 episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with the preposetrous premise that the, through a demonic spell, the entire town can't help expressing their feelings through purposely corny, yet actually quite well done, showtunes. It was called by several critics of diverse opinion, "the best episode in the history of television," but it also got significant votes as the shark-jumper episode. And some warning: Significant lesbian content. Oh, and the in-joke is that Enya, a demon who got a human soul, is terrified of bunnies... It seems bunnies witnessed something -- and hence are a symbol of that something -- which is the ultimate horror for demons. (She's gone "good" but still has some habitual odd feelings.)]
SOME modern artists have great natural skills. Andy Warhol is one artist who had such talent. But decades of neglecting craft led to a decline in his technical abilities.
Accidental wonder: The Warhol displey in Washington just happened to be in a corner of the museum where there were some stained-glasses windows that were part of the museum building, not a display. Yet it was fascinating to see that Warhol's art was heavily influenced by iconography. (He was actually a very devout, although seriously morally flawed, Eastern Christian. Some of his most uncomfortable works are early ones where the conflict between his religion and his lifestyle is displayed.)
Oops, I forgot my special-purpose tag
Im running out the door so I just glanced at this, but it looks like a great post and thread
I disagree. These types do not worship man as god, they view man as worthless and comptemptable.
There is quite a bit of good romantic realist art being produced today by those who arguably do see man as god. Certainly the artists I reference view man at his best as heroic and worthy of praise.
"There is quite a bit of good romantic realist art being produced today by those who arguably do see man as god."
What kind of art is it? Are the painters athiests?
The term used for what I was speaking of is romantic realism. I suppose that there are plenty of artists engaged in this genre who are religious and plenty who are atheists. What they share is a view of man, when depicted, as admirable when it his best.
The gallery with which I am most familiar that specializes in this type of art is the Cordair Gallery in California. Most of the artists diplayed there tend to be individualists though mostly atheistic.
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.