Posted on 09/16/2006 8:22:05 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
A very good point. I think it is part of the politicaly correct, anti-achievement mentality where art has to be deconstructed until it is non-art. Any pseudo-art that is permitted must have an anti-social, anti-Western meaning. There is also a strong element of moral relativism. Some axe murderer or child molester is shown to be "sensitive" -- maybe even a superior being -- if he can doodle a drawing or write some incoherent prose. As an added bonus, normal people who don't appreciate the monster's "art" can be denounced as being insensitive, maybe even evil.
I disagree strongly. The little black boy for example, shows a unique and artistic perception of depth and shadow that did not come from a photograph. However, this is the point where we should both adults and admit that art truly is in the eye of the beholder. Some people didn't get Dahli or Picaso
The problem there is you're looking at the qualities of the artist, and not the art itself. When you devalue art because of the artist, you unintentionally elevate lesser art from less talented artists who just happen to be better human beings. The end result is that good art is pushed aside for the mediocre. I'll stop here before I go off on a rant against Kincaid.
Art is in the eyes of the beholder.,and I cannot argue whether Manning copied from photographs etc, that is not the point I am going for as explained beforehand.
I agree, the guy's art sucks. Colors badly conceived, poorly drawn, no understanding of value or edge...the negro boy does manage to evoke some feeling in the viewer IMO, but the distortion is probably not intentional.
I'd say that there may actually be ability present, but it's pretty deeply buried for the moment.
RE, your previous post, lowering the light source to increase contrast makes sense, thank you. I don't know what "contrasty" film is, but have switched to digital, 5 megapix, anyhow. Is there a way to increase contrast with that? I better read the book, there probably is a way.
I judge the good among us by their qualities whether they do art or not. I am not judging the art for its composition etc, I am judging the merits and intentions of those that were pimping Manning's message in the name of art and the University which foremostly allowed it to take place.
Again, I say why was Manning chosen in the first place? Remember, this is in the State of Maine where there are artists galore of every medium.
Manning just happens to be a cause for bringing attention to Political Prisoners..these painting are just probably whipped up to fit the Apatheid-type display, ironic as the artist took part in his own form of Apatheid.
A good part of the definition of art is skill, which is not in the eye of the beholder. The other part, vision or whatever one wishes to call it, but what the artist personally brings to the work, that part is the "eye of the beholder part, IMO. Good art needs both, I think. I got majorly flamed for not mentioning the vision part during that Kincaide thread, so am being careful to include it here.
Art is NOT entirely "in the eye of the beholder". That's how we get all sorts of junk masquerading as art, with the support of the grant jurors who fill their prose with babble about "unique vision" etc. There is a basic technical facility that must be mastered, otherwise art is just whatever you can get away with.
It's Dali, BTW. Dahlia was a murder victim.
My husband has had a lot of fun messing with all the controls on his. Naturally, he got one with as many buttons and dials as possible, darn thing looks like a jet cockpit. I am just a point and shoot type photog, although occasionally I'll get all artsy . . .
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Kinkade is a totally rotten artist, I'll happily join in a hymn of hate against his horrid kitsch any time. He also is a con man, judging from recent news reports, so as far as him being a better human being, it ain't happening, apparently.
There are so many GOOD artists around, why waste time with the bad ones? You don't have to pay a long price, go to any good size university's art department student show and pick up some really quality work for a song. Then when they get famous you can say, "I knew him when . . . "
(BTW, Dali had real technical ability although he chose to fool around. I have one of his (probably fake - that's another whole story) lithographs hanging on my wall. Picasso ditto, although when he discovered people would pay phenomenal sums for any trash with his signature on it, he succumbed to temptation . . .)
...and reviewed as not a very good film.
The autopsy photos are really awful though. Poor girl, nobody deserves to wind up like that.
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.