The City Council is on the verge of passing an ordinance that is bad for Chicago, bad for its citizens and particularly bad for the art community.
We have proposed an alternative ordinance that will not be considered unless you act. We are the following groups: Bad at Sports, the Chicago Artists Coalition, Lumpen, Sharkforum, ArtLetter and others to be named soon.
Short Story:
Mayor Daley and the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCA) have proposed a terrible ordinance to modify the Public Art Program. The stated reason makes no sense: that the meetings were open to the public was cumbersome and unnecessary in their judgment. That the previous ordinance existed for 25 years and that the City has an exemplary art collection they deemed irrelevant.
-
It “privatizes” the the selection of public art by eliminating all Open Meetings.
-
It means the DCA does not have to post thorough information on their website about upcoming commissions.
-
It will remove transparency and accessibility from the Public Art program and art commissions.
-
It eliminates voting, democracy and public recourse.
Unless the art community acts the City Council will approve their proposed ordinance on the 13th of June. The best way to prevent this from happening is for artists to
stage a large rally at 5:30 PM Monday, June 11th at the Picasso Sculpture
and a letter writing campaign to make the Mayor and the Aldermen aware of what Chicago artists think and want.
Full Story:
-
Visualize 100’s of Chicago artists rallying around a single cause – Artists’ Rights.
-
Have you ever read about a large group of artists speaking out publicly with one voice?
-
Think about the media coverage.
-
To a large extent the events of the next ten days stand to significantly affect the future of Chicago artists (and Chicago galleries that care about their
Chicago artists).
Here’s the deal:
In mid-May at the request of the Commissioner of Cultural Affairs (Lois Weisberg), Mayor Daley proposed an ordinance to revamp the Public Art Program.
This proposed ordinance is bad government, bad for Chicagoans and particularly bad for the Chicago art community and artists.
Shortly after the ordinance sailed through committee (despite us “winning” the discussion) a few of us succeeded in having the measure postponed by the City
Council.
WELL, the issue is coming back up for a City Council vote on June 13th. We’ve spoken to a number of aldermen. Most aldermen think: If the artists don’t care, we don’t care.
It is possible to change the system and it is not going to be easy.
It is time to step up or get stepped on.
As an artist or a member of the art community in Chicago, or elsewhere, if you ever want to able to apply for a commission, or give a damn about your peers
being able to, now is the time to act:
-
Appear at a RALLY FOR ARTISTS’ RIGHTS on the Monday the 11th at 5:30 at the Picasso
– 2 days before the City Council meets to vote on the 13th. -
Write letters to the Tribune & Sun Times editorial page.
-
Write a letter to the Mayor
-
Write a letter to your alderman. Speak to your alderman.
-
Speak in favor of Our New (alternative) Ordinance supporting Artist’s Rights
-
Send an email to me or a member of our team telling us what you think. We’ll count them, print them and share them where they’ll hopefully make a difference.
-
Under the pretense of streamlining the selection process, the DCA’s proposed ordinance means the DCA does not have to have “open meeting” to give or get any information to artists about upcoming commissions, nor answer to anyone about selected commissions.
-
They do not have to put information on their website anymore (they’ve been doing a horrible job putting out information so far.)
-
They do not have to allow artists to apply for specific projects.
-
They do not have to respond to the community.
-
They do not have to be responsible for their actions.
-
They do get to keep their inbred selection process whereby they dip into their archaic database, pick whoever they want, sometimes repeatedly, and not have to tell artists why or how they chose or choose.
If you are going to write a letter, here are some key points. -
No fair, honest or open consideration of Chicago artists
-
No Open Meetings.
-
No useful listings of commission possibilities
-
No applying for a specific commission
-
No knowing why you weren’t considered
-
Under their proposed new ordinance, the finger-pointing will shift from the DCA to the aldermen because alderman will be asked to have ward forums to discuss art commissions in their ward. This will be an added logistical and financial responsibility for the alderman they may not want. The aldermen will be responsible to post notice of the forums (many don’t have web sites). They will have to pay for postage out of their own pockets. They will have to host and attend art meetings in their wards. They will have to put up with the potential for dividing their community over art issues. These selfish reasons may be sufficient reason aldermen will defeat this ordinance June 13th – if they are informed.
-
If the aldermen think you care, you will be heard.
-
If the aldermen don’t think you care they will automatically vote with the Mayor and pass this ordinance assuring a closed doors, patronage system where those who are favored will get the most commissions. It will not be based on quality, or a competent committee considering your work. Instead of a democracy we’ll have the Department of Cultural Affairs acting like a country club, picking who they want, why they want, without opening up the selection process and broadening the amount of art they can consider.
-
The artists suffer. The City suffers. The community suffers. The DCA gets a free ride.
-
Think about Chicago’s reputation in the rest of the country.
-
We are already being discussed by National Public Art Administrators
-
We will be a topic of discussion at the National Public Art Conference in Las Vegas.
-
Is this going to look good for Chicago in the rest of the country?
-
-
How about internationally?
-
How about the Olympics?
-
Every Olympics has a large Cultural Olympics held concurrently.
-
Do you think the Olympic Committee is going to be favorably impressed with this ordinance?
-
-
You and the Olympics
-
Hidden in the bowels of their ordinance is a distinction between Percent for Art and Public Art. The DCA has succeeded in keeping this totally vague. All Percent for Art (a specific term) is part of Public Art (a general term). Only the Percent for Art must have public forums.(Percent for Art applies to money spent in City government buildings and land. But Public Art also includes money for art not for city property yet still administered by DCA – like housing to be constructed for Olympic athletes – which could be billions of dollars.) Can you say cronyism?
-
Well get this: According to their proposed ordinance they only have to have forums (namby-pamby discussions with not binding authority and no vote) with Percent for Art. Okay, but for Public Art they don’t even have to have any forums at all.
-
-
Who do you think they are trying to take care of?
-
Actions speak louder than words.
Do
you understand why the Mayor doesn’t care about you – the Chicago artist? Or why the Alderman don’t, or the rest of the world for that matter? Because you haven’t made yourself seen and you haven’t made yourself heard enough.
It is time again to assume responsibility for your career, to take a stance.
Can you visualize the impact just 500 artists showing up at a rally could have globally?
Do you realize the publicity Chicago artists can get?
Do you grasp the impact the discussion of this ordinance will have?
You can either shape your future constructively or get screwed.
It is up to you.
Paul Klein
- Episode 886: Scott Speh on 20 Years of Western Exhibitions & Chicago Art Scene Reflections - November 29, 2024
- Episode 885: Betsy Odom - November 26, 2024
- Episode 884: Pete and Jake Fagundo - November 12, 2024
johncurrin
Fred Rutherford = Clarence “Lumpy” Rutherford’s father.
He (Fred) was an obnoxious, overbearing, grandiloquent, pompous, pontifical, self-absorbed, jerk.
Maybe that is the connection between our resident wordsmith and his use of this particular word. Life DOES imitate art !
However, something tells me this Brandl fellow is, with his insistence on typing with his dictionary by his side, overcompensating for something.
Kinda like the 50 year old guy that buys the red corvette or the phallic-ly challenged (size-wise) male who does not quite m who drives a big honkin’ SUV.
yawn
I am not surprised that something over your head would bore you.
Oh yes, I’m sure that’s quite so Mr. Currin. I’m not very smart.
stretch….yawn….
We are often bored with what we do not understand.
If you say so.
I don’t know how you all see it, but when it comes to the children, Wu-Tang is for the children. We teach the children. Puffy is good, but Wu-Tang is the best. I want you all to know that this is ODB, and I love you all, peace.
JC —- yawn yawn yawn. Get a life. Then you can stop projecting all your childish, thick-witted sexual fantasies onto others. Seek therapy for your strange half-baked, babbling and perverted imagination.
Hmmmm, the lady doth protest too much methinks……
Look how fixated — the coward can’t let anyone use her/his words against her. Why that might actually resemble an ability to think.
I have tried to follow the advice of Proverbs, “Argue with a fool, lest he feel wise in his folly.” But now I shall give up; it is simply mean to debate with the mentally deficient.
To put it in the style of word usage for which the cowardly JC seems to keep clamoring, those on her/his level:
“You are, like, stupid, bitch (or dude), get it? And a sicko scaredy-cat too. So I quit.â€
Let’s have real discussion here again.
Have we lost the ability to have an argument without calling each other expletive based names? C’mon ladies and gents pull it together. Beat each other up with argument instead of the sad base sniping.
R
Richard –
I agree with you, but how can you have a civil arguement with a troll? I use the term in it’s internet usage – an individual, almost always posting under the protection of a pseudonym, who seems to have the singular goal of creating disagreement.
This individual has demonstrated an unwillingness, or an inability, to engage any real debate in a meaningful way. The ad hominem attacks, refusal to respond with specificity to any remark which serves to rebut their statement, suggesting small penis size and the like. Come on – it’s just cowardly and childish.
Are you defending the poster, or the principle?
At this point, to use the churlish vernacular of the wise Sage Mr. Brandl – eat feces and die.
The ordinance has passed.
All of you can cry in your beer.
Good triumphs over evil.
And yes, the opposition has been truly noted and will be remembered.
My work is done here.
I will leave you to go back to the circle-jerk that usually defines the discussions here.
Thanks for playing. Shame on us for caring about accountability.
I honestly can’t imagine how good has triumphed over evil.
Somehow I don’t imagine you expounding on that.
Funny how you’d likely be more cogent and accountable if you didn’t hide behind a pseudonym.
David,
My position is neutral, I am defending no one. I don’t want this forum to turn into some that consists only of name calling and baiting. I’d like to keep the anonymous posting option available but won’t be able to if people keep posting under the names of others, and if the discussion devolves to pointless stupidity. So, once again, because it didn’t work the last five times, I am asking the people who use this service, that we produce, at our own expense, for no reward, to be respectful enough to not act like assholes while in our house so-to-speak.
R
OK, as a part of the BAS staff, I’ve had about enough. I was a forum administrator for 3 years and I have seen about a million yahoos like johncurrin. Let me tell you everything you need to know about johncurrin.
Paul, JC does not work for the DOC. He is 17 and lives with his parents. He posts to about 50 forums a day under 20 names. He’s been blacklisted from another 20 sites and just moves onto a new one with a new handle name. See how short his posts are? The johncurrin nut jobs of this planet get the greatest satisfaction by seeing how many and how lengthy a response they can get with as few words as possible. They don’t even read the response, they just come up with something new to get a rise out of people. 99.9% of the time they make gay inferences.
Trust me, everyone, this guy is a dime-a-dozen-forum loser. FOR YOUR OWN SANITY JUST IGNORE JACKASS POSTS. I PROMISE THERE WILL BE OTHERS, AND THERE WILL BE MORE POSTS. But the more you respond, the more they stick around, and they more they are ignored, the more they go away.
Remember, no one ever reads the blog a month after it’s posted. We could yank down the archives of comments and no one would notice, so don’t worry if someone says something crappy about you and you don’t respond. No one is reading it. Forums are not for posterity.
All my love,
Kathryn
P.S, SO WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED WITH THE CITY COUNCIL VOTE? I CAN’T FIND ANY INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET.
The vote was 39-11 on the side of right, Katie my self righteous board operator. If it will not matter in 6 months, I might add, what difference does it make whether or not you find it on the internet?
Anyway, I must go now, I have 49 other sites to post to yet today and another 19 nom de plumes to create. But first I must finish my milk and cookies, after all, a growing boy needs his nourishment.
I haven’t commented much on this particular issue -and though I support Tony in particular and do agree that there is a need for transparency and for some public in public art, I also feel a certain degree of ambivalence about all of this -hence my declining to speak the other day at Daley Plaza. Probably my attitude is self serving in the sense that I know I have been blacklisted by the little fiefdom that runs things down at the Cultural Center for years- (not that I really care-I mean, I think Bill er… William Congers work looks fabulous and couldn’t be more appropriately seen than festooning the walls of the Cabrini Green Police Station – I just don’t happen to think its…….ME!) so none of this really concerns me. And also, I understand from people whose knowledge on this particular issue I respect, people who have been involved on selection committees, how overwhelming the bureaucracy has become.
Having said this, Mr Currin, for the sake only of argument, why do you think that ‘right’ prevailed today?….I’m just wanting to hear your reasoning behind all the vitriol- why you believe what you believe- I think in articulating your position, you would do everyone, yourself included, a favor.
It is pretty straightforward:
I read the ordinance and read the opposition communiques and was puzzled because the opposition points did not address the ordinance. The ordinance increases public input in the process.
-through our respective aldermen, yea, I took note of that as well -though given your average artist’s basic complacency, I wonder how well it will all work…….I thought a quarterly open meeting -and a revamped, comprehensive website might be far less cumbersome way of doing business, more fluid/viral hence effective…also it would allow for much flexibility in the messiness of decision making posting information but sparing all, or at least some of the gory details…-not everything should be public!…what about when the conversation is about rejecting an artist? -does anyone want that out there for mass consumption?
I’m a big proponent of creating more infrastructure for the art world here via cyberspace…I really think that doing so is the key to giving Chicago the international presence you would think it would have…a way to make our local doings available to the world -like they do in NYC -via more traditional media- I urge the city to embrace the idea of helping to create the most cyber-forward looking art scene anywhere- we have the perfect situation here to implement such a solution.
You’ve got me there, I have yet to read the ordinance. And me an f-ing lawyer.
Is there a link?
I’d like to hear someone explain how the McCormick Place isn’t a public building.
If you read the history of McCormick Place (http://www.mccormickplace.com/about_us/History.html ) you will learn that from the outset, the building has been financed and refinanced many times, with public bonds and public monies, including this one: earmarks of “$4.8 million a year in cigarette taxes”
Smoke ’em if you got ’em! But first, tell me how this building isn’t public property?
Paul Klein, we await your response to G. Russo.
We’ve got two issues here that warrant a response.
The ordinance which just passed City Council just might increase public participation. It says there will be two forums. One needs to understand the difference between a “forum†and a “meeting.†Meetings have to have notices posted about their timing, and have to have minutes. This gives the public the ability to see a record of what transpired and a means of holding the committee responsible. A forum is a discussion with no vote, no minutes and no ability to scrutinize what went on. As such, though public involvement may be increased, the public loses all the “power†it formerly had. (Richard, here is a link to the ordinances: http://www.artletter.com/html/ordinances.html.)
Secondly, I agree that McCormick is a public building, paid for with taxpayer dollars. However, it is rarely, if ever, open to the public. It exists for those attending a convention. In my mind the goals for the art in McCormick are different than the goals for art in a public location. McCormick was created by an act of the State government. The art in McCormick is not a percent for art and they didn’t have to include any. The MPEA board chose to include art because it augments the building. Essentially, the public won’t get to see the art in McCormick as much as I would like. How much I don’t know yet. Yet one million convention attendees per year will. It seems appropriate to me that the art selected for inclusion there conforms to the wishes of those who own the building – that would be the Metropolitan Pier and Exhibition Authority (MPEA). I was hired as an art consultant to provide suggestions to an Art Review Committee. That committee made the selections. That committee reported to the MPEA Board in a public meeting, with minutes, etc.
Conversely, when art is placed in a building that is open to the public, or exists outdoors in a public place, the wishes of those that use the building or see the art outdoors in a public place, or live in that neighborhood should be considered. And their opinion should count.
NICE BACK-PEDDLE AND DOUBLE TALK.
YOU HAVE A FUTURE AS A LAWYER.
Thank you John. I accept your apology.
Pardon us for jumping in here, but how exactly do these two statements square with each other?
“McCormick is NOT a public building.” – Paul Klein – Jun 11th, 2007 at 10:58 am
“Secondly, I agree that McCormick is a public building, paid for with taxpayer dollars.” – Paul Klein – Jun 14th, 2007 at 6:24 pm
Maybe the “In my mind” qualifier following the latter statement provides the wiggle room here, but that seems a bit shaky as a foundation for coherent discussion.
Well, they sure don’t appear to square very well.
in the first statement, I was focusing on the fact that the building isn’t “public†because the public doesn’t have unrestricted access.
In the second I agreed that the building is public because it is paid for by taxpayer dollars.
I do think there should be a relationship between how a building (or public space) is used, who has access to it and how it impacts the neighborhood it exists in and who should have input and a say in the art that goes there.
Regardless, if the project is paid for with taxpayer dollars the public should be entitled to review and pass judgment on how their money was spent. This review process can take various forms depending on the nature of the project. Two that come to mind are an independent review panel appointed to protect the public interest or a public meeting where the public can participate in and/or observe the decision making process
The new ordinance provides for neither of those two.
I apologize for the confusion and will try to be more clear.
Who does MPEA get their authority from? “The Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority (MPEA) is a municipal corporation created by the Illinois General Assembly. Its Board of Directors is appointed by the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of Chicago.” They may ‘own’ the building, but it still sounds public to me.
If your argument is that “when art is placed in a building that is open to the public, or exists outdoors in a public place, the wishes of those that use the building or see the art outdoors in a public place, or live in that neighborhood should be considered. And their opinion should count” you should have framed your Call to Arms around the public having say over art they are going to see in the public spaces they frequent, as opposed to giving artists a say in the process. This whole argument against the council resolution is without a line of consistent reasoning.
I’m for transparent democracy, but I am also against bureacracy. And public art can’t be any more transparent, since it is public. If you don’t like the art they buy and install, vote for someone else.
G. Russo, – There were at least 2 main points in objection to the new ordinance.
1. was that there should be transparency. The public should have a say. It needn’t be overbearing but the public should have recourse. With the new ordinance the public is powerless.
2. artists should have thorough information about upcoming commissions – and an extension is that artists should be able to apply for a specific commission and not just have to submit their images to a database from which the DCA would choose. With the new ordinance this is up to the discretion of the department and I’m cautiously optimistic.
I don’t believe there was anyone who suggested artists should have a say in the selection process, though they have heretofore served on the Public Art Committee which passed final judgment on who got a commission. There is no longer such a committee. All decision making resides with the Department of Cultural Affairs.
Just a side-note, rather non-partisan, but many of these arguements are starting to mirror the conservative beef against the NEA.
The salient question, I believe (not discounting the value of gov’t. transparency and accountability) is this:
When taxpayer dollars are being spent on art, what is the most fair process in the selection of that art?
To my way of weighing it there are 3 main groups in question:
1. The taxpayers
2. Those who will see the art
3. The artists
I’m not being snide, but I really want to know – should all artists have the right to apply for these commissions? It’s a genuine question, and not meant to be leading.
As an artist I’m inclined to say yes, but as a fan of efficient government and a patron of the arts (who feels pretty strongly that there have been some AWFUL choices in both pieces and placements) I wonder.
THIS, I think, is where the rubber meets the road. It’s not about Paul, and whether or not his interest in this matter is personal, public or some hybrid. I’m willing to bet that he’d agree, and those of you out there who want to attack this issue by tearing down Klein are missing the point, IMO.
I’d like to see this question argued – what is the method which gets the best art selected, thus supporting those artists who really need the support and by extension enriching the public environs?
A side note on the meaning of “public,” which has been pretty much covered perhaps – there’s a difference between public access and public funding.
The problem with this whole thing is that, any way you slice it, you must end up with a smallish group of elites who are left to make the call. In the end someone’s getting picked last for the kick-ball team.
One of the interesting things about the McCormick Place situation is the jury; I understand Greg Knight was on that jury -but that it mostly consisted of businessmen who knew nothing about art. Which, goes a long way in explaining why the three largest commissions went to a. the Brittany Spears of the Chicago Art World -aka ‘Dzine’….to b. Bill Conger and, c. Dan Ramierez -and though the later two are obviously a cut above the Peter Max meets Judy Legerwood ripped off speciousness of Dzine, nonetheless, the work is all pretty corporate ‘office art’ looking stuff…..
when I saw the contract, dolling out payments in these idiotic, small, increments -only, when condition after condition were met, (stretcher bar built, inspected 1,500.00, canvas attached to support 500.00 -etc!) with -specifically concerning me the addendum -that I keep my work ‘uplifting’, I felt bad for the other artists involved who couldn’t afford to do what I did -which was to crumple the thing up and toss it in the trash.
btw -thanks Currin for finally getting on point with some specifics…. a way more interesting discussion happening now in part due to your doing so-
The Shark’s slamming of the artists chosen for the McCormick Place prove that selecting art with public monies or for public consumption is a difficult task, which is why I feel the DCA did this and Daley supprted it. Doing so by committee, whether composed of business or art people, will undoubtedly end up with either the blandest, middle of the road shit; or the most popular, less challenging work. I’d rather have a few professionals, namely the DCA, chose the work.
If people don’t like the work they choose, or for that matter the process, vote for someone else. Hell, just vote. Less than one third of the city voted last election, I think that gives Daley a free ticket to do whatever the hell he wants.
I’ll take Roth’s question: “what is the method which gets the best art selected, thus supporting those artists who really need the support and by extension enriching the public environs?”
I don’t feel public work should be used mainly as some sort of welfare support for artists. Roth might be generalizing, but if we used these commissions primarily as a means of support we’d have no Picasso, Calder, and many other big names that make our city’s public art so great.
Picasso sucks
Russo -actually we are on the periphery of an even more interesting topic -with even larger societal implications: how have we gone from things like the Picasso -or looking back a few centuries -Jacques Louise David -or, Gericault….or, Michaelangelo……how have we gone from substantive and bold to innocuous and bland eye candy/office/corporate art that seems to be all we as a society can tolerate in public spaces?…..and why is that? -its certainly not true in other mediums -film for instance…
-it was interestng when I did the Aon Tower -the art committee was young and fairly sophisticated -they wanted the work I do with figuration -which I did for them along with some completely non-objective biomorphic forms..(they all thought I was mad to make backup work….at first that is!)….needless to say after a few hysterical secretaries and clerks screamed 9/11!…the non-objective went up…..funny I just sold one the initial figurative paintings I did for them this week -its headed to LA, now the Aon people (-particularly I hear, the founders of the company) love my paintings…..I wonder if they even are aware they got the lesser works?
Before critiquing artwork it is usually a good idea to see it.
Excuse me Paul, I am all too familiar with the work of which I speak, having seen numerous examples of the work of each artist I mention over a period of years, even decades-
Hopefully, some of the photography and smaller scale paintings (which includes some excellent artists) will redeem the dreary, corporate safeness and sameness, and/or specious eye candy of the large scale painting chosen.
G. Russo –
For the record, I don’t think public art should be a device to provide welfare for artists. My point is that some artists are WAY more deserving of support than others.
I think my question remains, coupled with Wesley’s – we have become pretty ignorant and intollerant as a culture.
Oh, and “May” – thanks for th incisive observation. Did you get a toy with that Happy Meal?
I disagree, our culture has always been intolerant, and I would argue it is even less so. It took Janet Jackson’s tit to make people rethink, for a moment at least, what indecency is. As for painting, sculpture, et al, I might agree we have become slightly less daring, but I don’t think that is dependent upon taste. The Picasso was panned when it was unveiled; Cloud Gate less so. Granted, Cloud Gate is ‘interactive’ and a lot more ‘fun’, but it is an easy target for the conservatives to question why the public is paying or allowing a giant glob of mercury to sit in a park. it was critiqued to this end in small amounts, but overall, was quickly accepted. Same with Crown Fountain and the Gehry bandshell. I already anticipate Shark’s response, that all these works are shit, blah blah blah. But that is taste.
Nor do I think we have become any more ignorant that we already were. Just different tastes.
G Russo …huh? -what are you talking about?…….I think Gehry is daring and, terrific -in fact what we should ask ourselves is why the MCA wasn’t designed by him -as he was one of the competitors- if you know anything about Gehry, you would know how deeply influenced by painting he is -and as a matter of fact -he is very much part of the whole Venice Beach art scene that I am more than acquainted with and have at times been part of….
“we have become slightly less daring “..is that so:!? are you kidding? might I remind you of the iconography to be found inside the Sistine Chapel as one example?
-the fact is, film, architecture and even furniture design exercise far greater aesthetic push than most visual art today…figuration/violence/love/death -all the big subjects that are fine in literature or filmmaking today, and are essentially banned from public art outside of the museum. I see it as a way in which the underlying puritanism of American culture which Robert Hughes discusses in American Vision -manifests itself.
Comparing the Picasso sculpture with its “enemy of the people” aesthetic position with some piece of decorative fluff is, inane.
I like Annish Kapoor – I think the piece is beautiful not, decorative -like the works I criticize……. I do think Jaunme Plensa is a little trite..as a fountain, it certainly fall way short of Buckingham now doesn’t it? -I share the first floor lobby with him next door at the Aon Tower…..check it out -he really mailed that one in….all said, this is work. Plensa and Kapoor, on another level from the decorative pattern painting/office style minimalism I was discussing.
The goal of a work of art is never about taste. Which is not to say its not about beauty -because it is! I guarantee you that when Gericault painted the Raft of the Medusa -or Rembrandt painted his final self portraits -they weren’t all hunkered down worrying about creating a ‘tasteful object’….sheeeesh….I’m talking about that branch of philosophy known as aesthetics…and what is art….I’m not talking interior design…good god! Its about aesthetics: clarification of conciousness/ a war on decadence, allowing us to see what we mean -and where it bows to public demand and becomes mere entertainment or eye candy, it enters the realm of craft -where creating tasteful objects to please is the primary goal.
lets talk about this some more….Crime and Punishment -the novel: a matter of taste, or a study of categorical imperatives?…..
Guernica -the painting: a matter of taste, or a an embodiment of the dehumanization of war?
what is art? what is entertainment? and how are they different?
Here; I’ll give you a clue: what is art? what is craft? what is intentionality? And in this way, how do these two respective disciplines vary? -think about it.
-you owe me for the What is, and What is not Art? aesthetics 101 moment Russo……sheeeesh!
gosh, thanks oh wise Shark.
“the fact is, film, architecture and even furniture design exercise far greater aesthetic push than most visual art today…”
I agree, so we are only less daring, perhaps, in visual art.
Now please enlighten me, oh wise one, the difference, or the relationship between taste and aesthetics? You seem to have a problem with my use of the word ‘taste’. Funny thing, for a Shark. Perhaps aesthetic preference would be, um, more palatable?
And, I don’t think art is chosen based solely on content without consideration of the form, which is determinned by personal taste, erm, sorry Sharky…’aesthetic appeal’.
since when is ‘form’ and the realization of form predicated on taste?…..do you think for instance that the form The Death of Ivan Illych takes….the short novels formal qualities are about taste? -I thought it was about artistic expression concerning the differentiation between truth and fact, how to live, how to die and Tolstoys best ideas on how to provoke and unpack and fleshout -imagine, these conditions and write about them……I doubt he was involved in making something ‘tasteful’…..sheesh!
-I think the pared down form, his employment of metonomy and synecdoche is in itself a precursor to modernist ideas of essential form- technique is for later Tolstoy, contingent upon, derives from and is conflated with and subservient to expression-
we could discuss and compare for instance The Death of Ivan Illych with say Pollock’s Autumn Rhythm -or one of Serra’s tilted arcs…yes they are all elegant constructs -are all supremely psychological and existential in how their respective forms are arrived at……is there an element of ‘taste’……one could say so as an afterthought perhaps -but not as intent -simply because these works of art have much bigger fish to fry -whale shark size fish! and their formal qualities derive from their aesthetic trajectory – not, from a preconditioned allegiance to a craft based goal -to make something ‘look good and tasteful’ or, ‘read well’…..not to say they lack craft….but where either works ultimate mastery resides is quite beyond ‘taste’……
-rather than me giving you a course in basic aesthetics on the BAS blog, the idealist philosopher RG Collingwood has interesting comparisons to make in The Principles of Art or try reading what Tolstoy had to say concerning his own work or, what Richard Serra has to say…I don’t see ‘taste’ in his list of verbs…….
and sorry aesthetic appeal? what do you mean by that?….would you discuss a great piece of writing with the sentence ‘it appealed to my taste?’…..thats retarded-….discussing art -either its formal concerns/ its existential conceits, its relationship to subject matter or to perception itself…is not about being entertained, formally or otherwise. Its more than that.
btw perhaps the most influencal approach to conciousness and being -and the forms apprehended and expressed to be found in modern literature is the work of TS Eliot…-deeply influenced by the philosopher FH Bradley……not unlike in its arrival and placement of conciousness/the forms evoked and inhabited, to the vision of Mondrian for instance-
once again, not, a matter of taste, but of being….
“of being”?!
wtf?
“Mr. Chariman, I propose the council purchase the painting by Mr. Wesley Kimler, as it best expresses our…being.”
How the fuck is this in any way related to Klein’s Call to Arms?
No, of course not -but it would- just as Serra recently noted, speaking of the artist who was seminal to him, Pollock -and how he made us greater by our coming to understand and value his definition of ‘what’ painting is; – how he made it neccessary for us to rise to the occaison, thus through form, expanding our sense of self-….just as Tolstoy or Kafka or Mondrian are good because they speak to, and unpack what it is to be human -(we men and women, in a state of being,) as in human being; expanding how we perceive ourselves, thus allowing us the opportunity to live with a greater sense of who we are, of truth …which is why people like Picasso for instance have described art as a form of war -a war against decadence -and by that I mean collapse of meaning, the idea being that an aesthetic experience involves clarification of conciousness, that the more successfully it accomplishes this fundamnetal aspect of being human, the better, more profound is its form -duh….!
and how does this relate? How about trying to get a plebian to have a slightly more sophisticated sense of aesthetics, so that we can have a halfway intelligent conversation-