GOYA
Posted on 12/27/2008 12:54:23 PM PST by mojito
Nearly everyone cares—or says he cares—about art. After all, art ennobles the spirit, elevates the mind, and educates the emotions. Or does it? In fact, tremendous irony attends our culture’s continuing investment—emotional, financial, and social—in art. We behave as if art were something special, something important, something spiritually refreshing; but, when we canvas the roster of distinguished artists today, what we generally find is far from spiritual, and certainly far from refreshing.
It is a curious situation. Traditionally, the goal of fine art was to make beautiful objects. The idea of beauty came with a lot of Platonic and Christian metaphysical baggage, some of it indifferent or even hostile to art. But art without beauty was, if not exactly a contradiction in terms, at least a description of failed art.
Nevertheless, if large precincts of the art world have jettisoned the traditional link between art and beauty, they have done nothing to disown the social prerogatives of art. Indeed, we suffer today from a peculiar form of moral anesthesia—as if being art automatically rendered all moral considerations gratuitous. The list of atrocities is long, familiar, and laughable. In the end, though, the effect has been anything but amusing; it has been a cultural disaster.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
I think the boy’s obsessed.
GOYA
Ahhh, you beat me to it.
This can’t be repeated enough.
you haven’t been here long enough to have earned the right to be such a menace, kiddo.
Two peas in a pod.
one last time: piss off, dipshit.
More Freepers need to read OC.
Only mature folks such as yourself, who joke about shootings and refer to other posters as morons can be 'menaces', huh?
If you look at post #30 you will see that we are not alone in posting Clinton related items.
helen thomas fantasia.
bump for later
This was the same sort of example of ‘liberal art’ that I posted in #10. But ‘someone’ here must have whined to the mods to have it removed. One was from a controversial exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, called ‘Sensation’.
Awesome. I must check this book out.
Thanks so much for posting.
Maybe you could just give us a description of the piece, since posting a picture of it has been deemed offensive.
The story of Pablo Picasso probably says it best of all.
Yahoo search results for "Picasso" + "Communist":
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Picasso+communist&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz2
Fantastic taste. I absolutely agree with your post. I chuckled to as you are an atheist, I am a deeply dedicated Christian and we both feel exactly the same about art, as well as share similar tastes in film. :)
Dung Deal - Brooklyn Museum of Art's "Sensation" exhibition
National Review, Oct 25, 1999, by Cristopher Rapp:
"At first glance Ofili's work seems relatively unobjectionable-simply a stylized black Madonna, set off against a slightly trippy golden background. But the devil is in the details, specifically the clump of elephant dung at her right breast. Two more clumps, labeled virgin and mary, serve as supports for the painting. (Yes, it smelled.) And surrounding the figure are dozens of cut-outs from pornographic magazines- women's backsides and vaginas-a fact all but ignored by the mainstream press (and omitted entirely by the New York Times review of the exhibit)."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_20_51/ai_56220691
See the Serra Sculpture, St. Louis, Missouri, between 10th and 11th Streets, Market and Chestnut Streets - and yes, it is an entire block. The first time I saw it, I said, "What are they building?" Rusty metal slabs will evoke that question.
I forgot to add, the photo that I posted didn’t show any of the details described. I never would have posted it if it did.
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.