from my chapter on recipes ...
5/23/08
8:24 AM
read an article by robert c. morgan in the brooklyn rail -
thoughtful, considerate, and kind -
kinder than i usually am about the subjects of intent and perception regarding art ...
part of my irritability stems from just being plain tired of the spin people put on things for their own aggrandizement or disregard with which they relate to art - all of which has to do with a lack of fluency on the subject ...
elevating something to the stature of art has become disgustingly relative ...
most of the time a little knowledge is dangerous to discourse and none at all is what i expect, along with the occasional idiot’s tendency toward argument that dismisses fact for feeling ...
[the fact that someone feels creates pertinence - trumps objective knowledge - what?]
beyond the individuals’, institutions’, or publics’ own self interest,
there seems to be little discernment regarding the expertise, pertinence, method, influence, level of accomplishment or thought behind an artist’s work - all of which become the criteria for understanding ...
[nothing’s created in a vacuum] ...
or the role that art plays in epistemology, ontology, cultural identity, decoration, and entertainment ...
exposure to pluralism, diversity, and excess have blurred the distinctions between standards of competency and excellence ...
[‘glut’ says rauschenberg]
no child left behind, political correctness, acceptable behavior, the price of freedom, deviations, permutations, litigations, letters of law, fast food, throw away, fair and balanced, 24/7 ...
inundation of mediocrity [art objects, discourse, opinions, venues ...] create complacency in our ability to discriminate ...
[rabinowitch calls passive processing]
even some of the knowledgeable that practice ‘closet elitism’ in their own fields of expertise apply leniency when it comes to evaluating what is called art in our culture with a laissez-faire - ‘anything goes’ attitude - something most are apt to vehemently oppose when it comes to their own professions ...
or the bar is set so low it includes the ‘wannabes’ and ‘posers’ [what rothko terms morons]
that proliferate banality resulting in the publics’ substandard exposure and education of what art is or could be - hence the insidious nature of warholism and the descent to ‘popular’ wisdom ...
[like george ‘w’ having the support of troops he trains and pays because he’s taken away most of their other opportunities, or teenage fixations with brittany, paris, gangsta’s, cutting, and crack, because that’s the story of the day or way to be all that you can be, etc.] ...
i’ve always appreciated the spanish culture’s ability to apply standards to the flamenco arts by breaking it down into four categories:
popular - public entertainment, effect
chico - light flamenco; somewhat accomplished, student
intermedio - accomplished understanding of traditions and skills
jondo or grande - profound or deep, master level ...
something worth considering when evaluating the distinctions between jackson pollocks ‘blue poles’ and a sixty minutes’ segment on a monkey’s ability to throw paint on canvas and have it sold in galleries - or when you turn your back on a twombly in favor of some sophomoric representation of something that reminds you of something that reminds you of something that you really know nothing about ...
the problem is: more people know about the monkey than jackson pollock - and most that do know about pollock haven’t a clue about why he did what he did ... and that’s gettin to be ancient history already ...
