When I was growing up, I was led to believe that the first baseman for the Baltimore Orioles, Eddie Murray, was a jerk. Not a fan of the Orioles, I had no reason to disagree. Later, I learned why I had been told this: he didn’t like talking to the Media. And who told me this? The Media.
How we position ourselves between the lives of others is significant and I think important to consider. What are our intentions?
A very close friend wrote this recently about Art and Criticism:
“Just as a painter must paint, a writer must write. Art critics must write. This has a powerful influence on what they choose to write about. An artwork that produces an emotional response may provoke few coherent words. How can one write from surges of feeling? One needs surges of thought to write, word thoughts.
An experienced professional critic most likely learns even to prefer art where the response comes flowingly in words – the delightful, useful response. Curators often work in similar habitats – forest and prairies and streams and glaciers of words about art.
And so art that has a story, art with a rationale, art with a plot, art that bears re-telling well is art that is great, absolutely great art to write about. And what writer would not write about that great art?”
(And by the way, for those feeling overlooked: Eddie Murray is in the Hall of Fame, voted in by the Media. He did hit 504 home runs.)
Good timing, D (David?)
I’ve been reading about what William Pfaff considers to be important to consider with respect to aesthetics, namely, politics and war. Here is a sample:
This book (I haven’t finished reading it yet) seems to say that if we ignore the aesthetic component of politics and war, we fail to understand the underlying forces. Writing about history then is writing about art, or at least that which is essential to art. This idea (I hope I have characterized it correctly) is alien to many people who are interested in politics, as I recently discovered on a popular political blog (before I started reading Pfaff’s book). Here is a comment that illustrates this point:
Is thinking about art and war together essential to understanding the latter, or is it an insult? I don’t have the experience to know which viewpoint is correct. That there could be such a fundamental disagreement on such important topics fascinates me. Are important political leaders really artists whose actions are governed by aesthetic perceptions and imperatives? If so, it is really something we should know about and analyze explicitly. That would be an art topic that could be written about at length.
Karl,
My belief is that art, at its best, can reveal our experiences (I have no idea who Eddie Murray really is).
Artists can embrace our uncertainties (a doubting line, peripheries, abstraction, etc.); such thinking for politicians is too often considered a sign of weakness, and thus their decisions to change palette, add contrast, crop, etc.
Is there a better argument for visual literacy?
Art and War?
http://www.harrellfletcher.com/theamericanwar/index.html
D.,
In your post you seem to be saying, true art is that about which there is nothing to write. Critics choose instead to write about what is easier to write, that which is lesser art. This seems to be aligned with the “art for art’s sake” notion, which I am not fond of and don’t believe in (because I am Karl, not Art, and I want art for my own sake, not for the sake of a quasi-religious abstraction).
Here is something I don’t like about your friend’s argument: it is not possible to contradict it. In science, a hypothesis which cannot be proven false also cannot be proven true, and therefore has no value. This is why Freud was pure nonsense. I am reminded of his Interpretation of Dreams — he said dreams are wish fulfillments. Freud relates that a patient told him with delight of a horrible dream she had, a clear illustration that his hypothesis was false. To the contrary, Freud said, the dream was horrible in order to fulfill the wish to prove Freud wrong.
According to your friend’s line of reasoning, the moment I point to something about which anyone has written coherent words, he can argue that it must not be art, because if it were it would produce an emotional response that would be indescribable. It seems to me that it is just another attempt to bash critics and take over the definition of art. Nothing wrong with that, I guess, except that he got the answer wrong. I have the real answer; one day I will post it.
[So who is D. really?]
Yes, lets conspire to out D., shall we KZ?
And so art that has a story, art with a rationale, art with a plot, art that bears re-telling well is art that is great, absolutely great art to write about. And what writer would not write about that great art?
Such art is often easier or more fun to write about, but that doesn’t make it better art or great art. (It doesn’t exclude it either.) Often art that comes with a prepackaged story comes with story thats boring or irrelevant to the other aspects of the art.
I take it that this is the point behind bookending your quote with a story about Murray.
But Karl, it would seem that art critics themselves make unfalsifiable statements all the time. If I say that a work of art is about x, who are you to say that I’m really and truly wrong? You would find the explanation more or less plausible, thats all.
I think Freud is pretty interesting, even the “nonsense”.
In your post you seem to be saying, true art is that about which there is nothing to write.
I didn’t get that impression at all. I thought what D was saying is that art that’s easy to write about will get written about more. Makes sense to me.
David,
You’re reading the text. Click the link to the subtext.
Arthur,
I wouldn’t know what the critics write, because I don’t read them (except you, of course).
Dee Period,
I think Freud was a lot more than pretty interesting. He was an artist posing as a doctor.
David, You’re reading the text. Click the link to the subtext.
No time for subtext today. I’m at work. If it’s not in the post itself I’m afraid I’ll have to skip it for now.
I took the friend as implying that some art, possibly great, would not be written about or curated because it doesn’t seem to provoke a response in words. Probably true for some art + critic combinations, but I suspect that to every art there are critics that can write about it, like “horses for courses.”
Karl,
Interesting line of thought, but I don’t see much connection to the post??! Do you and Arthur really not know who D is? You haven’t been paying attention…
In the past I would have agreed with you about Freud, not so much now. For sure he was no rigorous scientist, as he tried to claim, but he was not without insight. Think of him more as an artist (writer), and he can be of some value.
Sometimes eerie to have posts cross and see them come out nearly identical. David of comments 8 and 10, are you my long-lost twin?
…are you my long-lost twin?
Yes, but don’t tell our parents. They don’t know that we know.
Do you and Arthur really not know who D is? You haven’t been paying attention…
Arthur most certainly knows. Karl maybe is pretending not to be paying attention.
Subtext: Eddie Murray was a good teammate and led by example.
(And by the way, my friend and I are often referred to as Twins).
D, if you play for the Twins, it’s very gracious of you to write about the Orioles :)
D.,
This is the part in the conversation where you get us back on track . . .
Steve,
That’s the whole point. Pfaff says there is a connection, but everyone ignores it. Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps people should look for the connection. D. is talking about writing about art. Pfaff is saying that the concept of art refers to something, aesthetic forces, which are of far wider significance or relevance than what is normally thought of as art. He writes elsewhere that “The effort to deny tragedy was among the fundamental factors responsible for what happened in the twentieth century.” Tragedy, as art, he sees as an alternative, and in some ways more powerful, method to study human nature than science. In other words, trying to understand art in the broadest sense actually matters, it’s not just about decorating the living room.
No Karl, thats up to you.
Getting us back on track, or decorating the living room? First I’ve got to do something about these walls…
My Dad, commenting on the recent trends in art, said: it really wasn’t so long ago that all one did was look at the art.
I agree: the art experience should start with the art.
it really wasn’t so long ago that all one did was look at the art.
That was before art was taken over by academia.
it really wasn’t so long ago that all one did was look at the art.
Who is making it then?
It was long ago when the viewer had some say not only in what he or she would look at, but how that artwork should be made. The artist-patron relationship puts “one” in a more active position with respect to art. It is when the viewer, the buyer, gave up an essential decision-making role that a lot of confusing mumbo-jumbo could be interposed between the viewer and the artist.
Karl,
Tell me if the following represents your thinking or makes sense. I agree that it is important to not ignore tragedy, to write about tragedy, and to try by so doing to understand it and inform about it. What you seem to be saying is that it should be written about from the perspective of art. Well, I suppose it should be written about from all perspectives, not excluding art. To the extent that artists or art critics have some special expertise, that would be useful. For example, if images play a special role in the way we learn of and relate to tragedy, and those art types have an understanding of how people respond to images, then they can make a particular contribution to the discussion.
Karl and all,
I am not at all familiar with Pfaff so this Tragedy line is a bit confusing to me. But as for Art and Tragedy, did you check out Harrell’s work about the American War in comment 2.?
it really wasn’t so long ago that all one did was look at the art.
I agree: the art experience should start with the art.
Art experience should indeed start with the art, but I don’t see why it needs to end there. And really, when was this mythical time when art stood on its own? Art has always stood in service of broader cultural goals: religious, philosophical, political, social, etcetera. It may very well be that art today subordinates itself too much to extrinsic things. But even the notion that art should stand on its own is a culture-specific idea, I believe.
Do you and Arthur really not know who D is? You haven’t been paying attention…
I do know who D. is, although not through reading A & P, I’ll admit. (Good luck keeping your anonymity). Incidentally, it appears that his/her post is a veiled self-portrait as Murray. And I fear that I may be the dreaded Media, although I have no desire to speak ill of Dee.
Arthur,
“… but I don’t see why it needs to end there.”
I entirely agree. It is a terrible thought to imagine the art experience as simply bearing witness.
Myself as Murray? As you know, I do like being someone else, a bit of a free agent.
(And on a personal note, I am happy that you are pursuing your interests and doing so well.)
D.,
I only started reading Pfaff’s column in the International Herald Tribune after I moved to Europe. That rag is published by the New York Times, but Pfaff doesn’t get into the parent paper. He describes his trade as “intellectual journalism, a moribund trade, at least in the United States.”
The link in comment 2 is a perfect illustration of the point we are discussing.