tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post9212914101669372435..comments2023-08-04T05:27:33.432-07:00Comments on Neverland Revisited: Palmam Qui Meruit Ferat: A Rebuttal to Ars Gratia Artis (Let Whoever Earns the Palm Bear it: A Rebuttal to Art for Art’s Sake)Lauren Perez Hoogkamerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04471823870060764567noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-40625920540961790852009-08-13T00:41:53.790-07:002009-08-13T00:41:53.790-07:00haha, it is and we don'thaha, it is and we don'tLauren Perez Hoogkamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04471823870060764567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-69452615038457484272009-08-13T00:38:03.556-07:002009-08-13T00:38:03.556-07:00I agree on flowers (have you read Zukofsky's 8...I agree on flowers (have you read Zukofsky's 80 FLOWERS? good good good). I don't disagree with anything else you said either (I would say though that I think an artist can "throw things together"--but such an occasion, if I were to "allow it", would have to be done with a very worked out, "crafted" kind of process, as with Brakhage and Pollack). <br /><br />There's also the question of whether or not ANYTHING doesn't carry a message--if a flower does, I think it could be assumed that EVERY phenomenon carries with it, for human brains at least, endless messages (what Robert Duncan means maybe when he say you can find bad bad writing interesting also if you just FOCUS on it). <br /><br />But then we get back to does any piece of art not have a "message" if all phenomena do? But we really don't have to go there as it's a philosophical maze.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-86150105308971989782009-08-12T18:43:16.473-07:002009-08-12T18:43:16.473-07:00You are probably right, in a few hundred years whe...You are probably right, in a few hundred years when we have enough context for some of these works/artists we will probably regard them in the same light as Dante and the like. <br /><br />You also keep pointing out good examples of avant-garde work to prove that it has value and is not overrated, however, I never said that it didn't or that it was all overrated. And, yes, many people are lazy or imperceptive. My objective was simply to point out that even the supposedly most forward thinking artists can be guilty of arrogance/ignorance when it comes to more mainstream or simple art (they, too, can be lazy and imperceptive). When people claim something is cutting edge or brilliant, it is important to ask ourselves why? And the fact that it's new is not always good enough-that's what I'm trying to get people to think about. That's what I meant by saying "more than the physical presence of the art." You're right that everything doesn't always have to have a message, however, I think most beautiful/interesting things do. Even flowers are not simple if you think about it and they can hold messages about nature. Reworking the message is what art is about, I think. To simply throw something together and then see what people think about it isn't being an artist in my opinion, but I know there are others who disagree.Lauren Perez Hoogkamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04471823870060764567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-415742549817251632009-08-12T12:48:59.937-07:002009-08-12T12:48:59.937-07:00"I think context is very important to having ..."I think context is very important to having a deeper understanding of a work or artist. But as you said, when you read the Iliad, even though people might not understand it, they can tell that there's something there and you can understand it on many levels. The same with Dante. I think this is key to being "high" art. But what I think is a problem is that avant-garde artists don't give the viewers enough to begin with. They're all about the exclusive language of their art. Often it seems that they would rather people not understand so that they, the artist, can feel superior. For me, art is about communication. Maybe everyone doesn't always get the message, but they should no that there is a message beyond the physical presence of the art."<br /><br /><br />I find it hard to believe that someone could look, say, at a de Kooning or Ashbery's Tennis Court or listen to Lou Harrison without thinking "there's something there." If so, I must admit my own reaction is: wow, you're either imperceptive or lazy. <br /><br />The exclusive language of their art--there's some of this. This is an annoying aspect of the avant-garde. People like Ronald Johnson and Jonathan Williams--two poets of a very non-militant, very Sam Palmer esque vanguard--are the antidote. <br /><br />I think you may be psychoanalyzing the artist a little ("feel superior") too much. <br /><br />Art is about communication. It's also about a lot of other things--including the artist becoming deeply interested in the form of his art and making complicated works as a result (as did poets before Dante, those he read with very great interest: trobar clus, Arnaut Daniel, etc.). <br /><br />I also disagree on "there is a message beyond the physical presence of the art." I don't agree that this is a universal fact or requirement of any work. I doubt anyone in the 1890s interested in Walter Pater would have agreed either. Aesthetic objects are meant to please, move, teach, as the old saying goes. Would you require that the beauty of a certain flower have "a message beyond the physical presence of the art" (here, the artist being nature)? I don't like moving away from the physical object--I don't like metaphysics... why even require the object? why not just say "well, the message is _____" and be done with it?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-51548513909126630332009-08-12T12:48:35.598-07:002009-08-12T12:48:35.598-07:00"However, It think that the piece I mentioned..."However, It think that the piece I mentioned wouldn't have been taken seriously if had come from anyone else, that's what I think is unfair. The only reason that we value it is because we know who Cage is."<br /><br />Well, I don't know. He wasn't particularly well-known before this work. I see it as valuable only as a sign of "shaking things up", shaking people out of their normal habits...you also have to take it in with respect to all of his other works. I see no particular reason to single it out as "bad"--it does not attack good art.<br /><br />"However, I think some of his works, like the one I quoted, is more of a statement about how far you can push the boundaries of what is considered poetry, more to do with inferences and sound, than actual literary poetry."<br /><br />I think to read Coolidge you have to first look at Ashbery's "Europe" and then read what Coolidge got from it (there's something somewhere online where he talks about this at Naropa audio). <br /><br />I think part of the disconnect for most people is that they are not willing to read deeply/widely in order to get the point someone like Coolidge is coming from--whereas Dante's background is all prepared in little introductions for them by 800 years of scholarship (people reading deeply/widely in order to get the point Dante was coming from and then explaining it to everyone else).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-7858545260972194972009-08-11T22:37:46.101-07:002009-08-11T22:37:46.101-07:00I'm glad that we can find some grounds to agre...I'm glad that we can find some grounds to agree on, I don't write just to be contrary :)<br /><br />Regarding who belongs in the second category, I'm not exactly calling out specific individuals but I think that among the society of "high" artists and avant-garde artists there is an attitude of disdain towards mainstream art or art that doesn't push boundaries, for instance art that's simply pretty or pleasing or entertaining. I think that avant-garde is valuable to society but it's not necessarily "higher" than other forms of art-that is my point. I used these artists/works as examples because they are what these types of people usually use for examples of "high" art.<br /><br />As for Cage, I know that he does different types of works which are very skillful. However, It think that the piece I mentioned wouldn't have been taken seriously if had come from anyone else, that's what I think is unfair. The only reason that we value it is because we know who Cage is.<br /><br />And as for Coolidge, I like some of his other works and I think he is a great artist. However, I think some of his works, like the one I quoted, is more of a statement about how far you can push the boundaries of what is considered poetry, more to do with inferences and sound, than actual literary poetry.<br /><br />I think context is very important to having a deeper understanding of a work or artist. But as you said, when you read the Iliad, even though people might not understand it, they can tell that there's something there and you can understand it on many levels. The same with Dante. I think this is key to being "high" art. But what I think is a problem is that avant-garde artists don't give the viewers enough to begin with. They're all about the exclusive language of their art. Often it seems that they would rather people not understand so that they, the artist, can feel superior. For me, art is about communication. Maybe everyone doesn't always get the message, but they should no that there is a message beyond the physical presence of the art.Lauren Perez Hoogkamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04471823870060764567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-23090526848754410742009-08-11T10:39:11.307-07:002009-08-11T10:39:11.307-07:00Who do you think belongs in that second category? ...Who do you think belongs in that second category? (I know that Silliman and Cage for instance don't reject "good art". Also, you have to look at Cage's work in the context of his Buddhist philosophy.) <br /><br />I'd also disagree that Coolidge is writing without craft--have you ever read anything by him other than that excerpt? <br /><br />You might say you can't understand it without explanation (the WHY he wrote that), but don't you think that context is always very important to understanding what an artist is doing? (you'd have to read Dante's critical works and writings on government and religion (and prosody) to understand the Divine Comedy, having as it does complex symbolism--which might seem arbitrary without context) (I don't like the equation of old with simple; one can read the Helen scenes in the Iliad alone to realize the Greeks had a very complex understanding of symbolism and psychology)<br /><br />That said I don't think what you describe is non-existent. Silliman has an annoying tendency to section off those who "innovate" from those who don't. Brakhage called a lot of these people "neoDadaists", which he reminded was an anti-art movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-60721479452807642072009-08-11T01:03:05.995-07:002009-08-11T01:03:05.995-07:00Actually, I think there are two types of Avant-gar...Actually, I think there are two types of Avant-garde artists. I think there are some that actually care about pushing the art with new concepts and new skills (such as some of the people you mentioned) and there are some that just like to push the boundaries for the sake of pushing the boundaries. The second type of artist (the random boundary pusher)often rejects good art based only on the grounds that it doesn't push the boundaries. This is what I think is dangerous.Lauren Perez Hoogkamerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04471823870060764567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8126182545118302303.post-42836786521761012732009-08-10T21:43:59.266-07:002009-08-10T21:43:59.266-07:00"suggests that artists don’t care enough to p..."suggests that artists don’t care enough to put in the skill that, in turn, makes us, the beholders, care "<br /><br />See Silliman's ALPHABET and tell me he isn't concerned with skill (craft). <br /><br />"Avant-garde artists and art critics, desirous of the new and different, often overlook the use of skill in their artistic endeavors"<br /><br />This is more than likely wrong in most cases. See: Pound, Zukofsky, Bunting, Brakhage, Ronald Johnson, Harry Partch (and a whole batch of avant-garde composers), so on so on (look around those names and you'll find a lot more). I think your statement is more like what people who don't spend time with "avant-garde" work think of it as.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com