In Reply to: Re: Absolutes posted by Jeff Starrs on July 27, 2000 at 02:05:45:
***If Warhol as trash was an absolute, then everybody would think it's trash. It's not the case.Ah, but the mere existence of some absulute scale doesn't mean we can always place things on it easily or reliably. Things don't come with tags attached. For instance, if it was a popular vote, I am not sure whe Warhol would end up (probably VERY low, I don't see anyone except the 5th Ave "elite" (elite, right!) falling for that self-centered jerk). But having seen what they would buy I am not surprised of much anymore. What if the vote was limited to those with formal art education? Intellectual elite? Junkies?
***I'd have to verify the sources before I believed or knew about the 9.8m/se*sec. Anyway, one less ignorance, maybe ;0)
I enjoyed American Beauty mainly because, as an outsider to the US, I found it refreshingly, self critical for a US film. But I probably got it all wrong.OK, that is the story again. Subject, in other words, not means. As I mentioned before, I often don't even notice the subject. What was the subject of Chardin's paintings? Ah, the servant girl... Dutch? Servant girls (many of them) washing the endless tiled floors. Few trees... those funny tiny figures on the frozen lakes. A flower.
***Sorry, but I think 'provoking effect' has everything to do with art (AND trivial facts, you're right).
Art...enjoyable...yes, maybe I'm usingit differently.
Last point? That's good 'cos I hate 'What is Art? discussions.No time for it now, anyway, as much as I would love it. Difficult discussion usually, up there with "Who was worse - Stalin or Hitler?"
Have a nice day.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Absolutes - Victor Khomenko 05:38:13 07/27/00 (1)
- Re: Absolutes - Jeff Starrs 06:14:23 07/27/00 (0)