Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 15, 2008
Paul Greenberg :: Townhall.com Columnist
Art for the Artist's Sake?
by Paul Greenberg
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Walking by the U.S. courthouse here in Little Rock, a flash of metal outside impinged on my vision, though not much on my consciousness. From a distance, it looked like a pile of leftover construction materials. And indeed the courthouse had just acquired a spiffy new addition.

Not until I saw the story in the paper ("Harsh judgment passed on courthouse fountain") did I realize what that pile of shiny stuff was: a water fountain.

Excuse me, a Water Feature. It has a name, as befits a work of art: Echo Dynamics.

Well, sure. That fits right in with Greenberg's Rule No. 17: The more pretentious the name, the less satisfying the product.

Echo Dynamics. It would make a fine name for a corporation that makes steel tubing, or maybe recording equipment. But by any name, the new fountain hasn't been getting many rave reviews.

To quote Her Honor Susan Webber Wright, the judge who served as liaison between her colleagues on the bench and the committee that chose the artist: "I'm just horrified by it. It wasn't what we ordered."

In the diagram she was shown, the judge recalls, there were benches and trees, and the end result "didn't look like structural steel." It was supposed to be "an oasis, a soothing place for the public to come by and enjoy the spot, and it certainly has none of those attributes."

Her Honor was also horrified by the cost: $391,000. Her verdict: "That is shocking." Well, Your Honor, maybe not so shocking. This was, after all, a federal project.

All the critical reviews sent me back to the courthouse to see what the fuss was about. Just to check out Echo Dynamics in the ferrous flesh.

How describe it? A series of banked troughs, it bears a vague resemblance to a urinal, though without as clear a function.

Viewing it up close, you can see what Echo Dynamics was intended to be: a kind of low-slung, metallic waterfall. But the sound of the water, once you can hear it above the traffic, is more a sanitary gurgle than that of a natural spring.

The fountain's shape may have been intended to reflect the Romanesque curve of the courthouse's new addition, only it doesn't curve. It's jagged, like a brittle metal W set down in a concrete cul-de-sac. Its straight lines jab at each other instead of melding. It kind of hurts to look at it.

It isn't the fountain/water feature/steel trough that offends so much as the leaky prose used to describe it. Note the wince-inducing language produced by Ms. Tye DeBerry, a senior adviser somewhere within the U.S. General Services Administration's Arts in Architecture program.

The agency's purpose: "to facilitate a meaningful cultural dialogue between the American people and their government." Facilitate. Meaningful. Dialogue. Certain words are a sure sign that atrocious prose is being committed. And here they were all lined up in a single phrase.

To quote Senior Adviser DeBerry on Echo Dynamics, "the work shapes and is shaped by its surroundings." Actually, it just sort of lies there like a big old, forgotten pair of pliers left off to the side of some completed project. I didn't see it shape its surroundings or anything else while I was there. Or be shaped by them, more's the pity.

There's more of this kind of language from Ms. DeBerry, if you can stand it: "Thin sheets of water moving through the stainless steel channels animate the plaza both visually and aurally." I think she means we're supposed to see and hear the fountain/trough.

What we have here is another sad example of the widespread artistic exhibitionism that doesn't serve the public so much as the artist's need to make a statement. Or money. (Why not both? It's the land of opportunity.)

The new fountain is one (debatable) thing. But whoever is responsible for the words used to justify it shouldn't be let near the English language. It's not language so much as wordage. This kind of verbal assault on the mother tongue - no mod art show seems complete without it - would make ordinary profanity come as a relief. It brings to mind a passage from "Pictures from an Institution," Randall Jarrell's still relevant, and still delightful, little satire on the academic life:

"Some of what she said was technical, and you would have had to be a welder to appreciate it; the rest was aesthetic or generally philosophical, and to appreciate it you would have had to be an imbecile."

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
I cant find any pictures of the thing
Any ideas where?
thx

So, what does it LOOK like?
Why no photos? All I could find in googling was the artist's concept drawing, which is hidden behind several layers in her sleepy web site:

http://www.mikyoungkim.com/

WHO ASKS
the American people what represents ART, after all, we are the ones paying for it? NOBODY! The majority of Americans also had no say when the courts ruled to remove the artful beauty of 'The 10 Commandments' from public places.
Throughout our Nation government does need to be reformed and given back to the people, allowing us decide on 'how and on what' our tax dollars are spent. And go
'Back to the Future' of Conservative values and government.

I may not understand art, but...
I have pretty solid criteria for judging literature, but with art it's completely subjective and/or political. Therefore it doesn't interest me, any more than, say, diving or figure skating.
By the way, have a look at the Young Hitler movie to get a taste of how artists talk while seeking power.

Art?
Nihilism rules the arts today.

Where does the Constitution allow for federal expenditures of art?

pic?
Would be nice on a column about a piece of "art" to see a picture or two.

Question,
If the piece delivered didn't match the design that was approved why did the "artist" get paid?

Artists can "transgress" on their own time. When they're doing work for hire they need to do what every other worker has to do -- deliver the work specified in the contract or take a hit in the wallet.

Better yet, instead of hiring these "artists" its time for people to start hiring competent craftsmen who understand that their job is to please their client, not to make political statements.

mother 0' 4
Bravo, madame.

I am an amatuer woodworker, and I have had to 'eat' a project or two because I got creative on the customer's dime. The time for creativity is in the design before approval.

Or maybe I should see about doing woodworking for the government...

Egad, you Philistines!
You .....just....don't....understand!!!!Booohooohoooo......
Charles LeTuna, Artiste.

1udagudguys,
Thanks you.

I have great respect for both craftsmen and artists but no respect whatsoever for those who call themselves "artists" but who aim to destroy and offend rather than create and raise up.

This is why I refuse to watch "Trading Spaces", which is all about how much the designers can get away with in pursuit of their "vision" but love "Holmes on Homes" where teams of skilled craftsmen create beautiful, livable spaces without a designer in sight.

I think that the plumber (or was it an electrician? I haven't seen that episode in a while), Holmes had who talked about the beauty of a really efficient installation was far closer to art than the "artists" who spill trash, filth, and intentional visual/cultural insults into our public spaces.

IMO, the world needs more amateur woodcarvers are fewer "artists" with an inflated sense of their own importance in the world. :)

the emperors clothes
Modern art is very much like the short story on the emperors clothes. There is nothing there. But since some high society types claim there is something there you would feel like a fool if you said otherwise. In the emperors clothes, a child screams out in front of the emperor "the emperor is naked". When two tailors fooled the emperor into wearing invisible clothes.

But art has always gotten this response, even by the best standards of 19th century art. Beautiful sculptures of Joan of Arc, Napoleon have raised shouts and caused alot of angry feelings. Even back then they were considered not art.

Its all relative.

But im glad people are supporting arts anyway, they need more.

Waste
Another waste (no pun intended) of tax payer's money.

Criminal
Art is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and i feel great about individual people commissioning what i consider to be bad/ugly art. Even the plan for this water "feature" was ugly, I cannot wait to see a photograph of the final product! However, using federal dollars to pay for such a monstrosity is criminal, and we, who pay for such clownishness of course have no say. Terrible.

Bethie
The Municiple Art Scene is one of the biggest scams since LBJ made it a priority to spruce up our public spaces. No talent hacks make millions in goverment subsidized art work. The key for any neophyte artist is to ingraciate him or herself into the political funnel known as Betlway Politics. The artist must have credentials that open the gates, which means they must be far left anarchists. Once the artist finds a parton (usually a wealthy Leftist who has made a name for himself partonizing the arts), the parton intimidates the local County Commisioner or Federal bureaucrat into funding a monstrosity that would appall the citizenery. In this case, the key is to get a 1 or 2 million dollar earmark, of which half goes to the artist's billfold. Once the monstrosity is complete, some effette euro-trash critic writes a glowing review in the New Yorker or Archetechtual Digest. Of course, the citizens of fly-over country don't like it; but, most people are too intimidated to actually get the junk off public property. So the monstrosity just sits there and rusts.




A BROKEN-CISTERN -IN CHROME!
PAUL,LOVE THE ARTICLE,THIN-SHEETS OF WATER,MOVING THROUGH THE NON-SENSE,OF THE CHROME-PIPES,THAT NO ONE WOULD DARE DRINK FROM,BYOB-BRING YOUR OWN BOTTLED WATER WHEN WALKING IN PARK.IS B.HUSSEINS,NAME ON THE PARK BENCH??IS THERE A METAL PLAQUE,IN HONOR OF ALL GORE??

Philistines!!!
You guys just don't understand. "ART" now occupies the place in society that religion used to have. If you question it, you're a philistine, or worse, you're committing sacrilege. What a great racket.

A BROKEN CISTERN FROM CHICAGO
NANCY POLISI HAS SAME TYPE FOUNTAIN IN HER FRONT YARD.

Thats not how it works

You are too biased to provide an accurate rendition on why this art gets put up in public spaces. It has more to do with the RIGHT in politics than the left.

The right decided to practically destroy figurative art because nudity is seen as disgusting and not to be put on a public square. So figurative artists don't make money.. They dont get commissions..

But you are right, it is who you know. I am an artist, and if you do classical figurative work you are out of luck. And if you don't know anyone, you are broke. But thats always been the case.

Ricardo; let me get this straight
OK, Ricardo the artist; you're saying that the reason we get big ugly piles of scrap metal as expensive municipal "art" is because "the right" opposes nudity in "figurative art?" So the few dingbats who scream at the exposed genitals on DaVinci's statue of David have forced you tortured geniuses to produce abstractions with no discernible connection to talent in order to keep from starving? Give me a hammer and some aluminum siding scraps, and I'll bang out the story of Western Civilzation for, say, $100K. You doubt me. I think I'm an artist; therefore, I am!

Here it is:
Here is the photo:

http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?Article ID=e8a65644-ebf6-4ba3-9d2a-6c39c76a9a8f

Here is the website to find the original design. Go to "environmental art" and click on "echo dynamics."

http://www.mikyoungkim.com/

The design is, IMO, rather beautiful. The execution is, IMO, dreadful.


Thanks, Bonnie
Thanks for finding the photo.

Its even worse than described. I'm not sure if it looks like the kids from a high school auto shop class dumped a failed project there to get rid of it or if the kids from a high school auto shop class could have done more attractive art metalwork with their eyes closed.

The author's comparison to construction waste is incredibly apt. Better to have given the steel girders and diamondplate to a competent civil engineer and gotten a functional, possibly even beautiful, bridge out of it.

Bonnie
I liked some of the art this person had displayed on thier leasurely website, but I am sorry. I can't agree that the design was beautiful... In my own biased opinion... It was a hash of sweeping lines with blue swaths of color, probably to represent the water.
I could not make out exactly what it was suposed to be, and if I had not already seen the train wreck that was up in the middle of that sidewalk, I would not have been able to connect the design with the actual execution of said project.
I am certain that there was a breakdown of communication somewhere between the idea, the purchase, and the execution of the project.
The fault lies with both the artist and the customer in this instance.
Lack of clear communication.

Yes, You ARE Philistines
There is a lengthy list of works that we now consider great art which were originally tagged with the same epithets we read here.

Van Gogh died a pauper and his work was reviled. Now, Sunflowers sells for over 200 million dollars. The entire impressionist movement was was considered a travesty. Try to pick up a Cezanne at a garage sale somewhere. Rodin's figure of Victor Hugo caused a riot in the town that commissioned it: today it is a French national treasure. Stravinsky had to fight off an enraged audience at the Premier of Le Sacre du Printemps.

More recently, I heard the same exact complaints about the Viet Nam Veterans War Memorial. Now you can't walk past it without weeping.


Paul, this is among your best in.......
.
.......recent years.

Now tell me why "" Terry Paulson:
Strong Republican Women Make a Difference? Pit Bulls with Lipstick!
Cannot be reached since early this morning and though I dare not criticize your excellent piece, I find it unjust that it is inserted above Terry's piece and his piece is not available to us.

Has TownHall lost it. If you don't want us to read - Strong Republican Women Make a Difference? Pit Bulls with Lipstick!
then just pull the piece.
.
.

ricardo, people should support art, but
the government has no business stealing our money to support art! The NEA is unConstitutional, the Education Dept. is unConstitutional, same with way too much of the government.

This piece of excrement could not draw a dollar at an auction, yet it cost the taxpayers $391K!! I want a refund!

Jack
If Van Gogh hadn't cut his ear off and offered it to a prostitute I think he would have remained obscure. The Fin de Siecle Art World was very Freudian, and the bourgeois world was titelated by the mix of art, sex, and insanity. Van Gogh's technique was nothing that any 10 year old could not replicate. But Art by 1910 evlolved into theories and abstractions. Impressionism was the last time Art had any connection to people.

And please try not to put today's artists into the same boat as the Impressionists; today's artists are bored, upper crust bourgeoisie with a bad attitude -that, and they lack talent. The majority of them are on the make, looking for a federally subsidized project, or a patron who would fall for the latest gimmick (remember, the "artist" earlier this year who purported to paint her aborted child's blood on canvas?). They are no different from the lawyers and conmen who surround our capital begging for taxpayer's money.

art
people that pay millions for a so called piece of art simply prove they have more money than brains.

Whoops!
If I were building a building and was required by law to spend X percent of the building's cost on "art", I would surely have my grandchildren do some crayon pictures and use them in the building after duly paying the grandchildren the required fee.

JPK
Your apparent opinion of Van Gogh is a strong indication of how little you know about both Van Gogh and this topic. (In other topics you have shown yourself to be equally ignorant; doesn't that get old?)

The art community has always been riddled with dilettantes: it didn't start in 1910. Your opinion of contemporary art has been echoed whenever any new development in artistic expression came along. When the impressionist movement developed, critics and the public hated its first manifestations. Cezanne was called a beast. Monet ridiculed. Van Gogh ignored. Gaugin reviled.

The conversation here actually reminds me of the Soviet attitude toward art.



Tax $$$ 4 A Hunk of Iron
The next time a Demmie congresscritter dares start yapping about the "deficit" as was so fashionable in the late '80's/early '90's, start showing & reading a list of this stuff.

I agree, it's about giving fat sinecures to leftist "artists." The message of such "art" is: Our buddies can make you cough up big $$$ for this stuff, nyah nyah.

I'm reminded of a column by the late Lewis Grizzard from the Carter Admin. when this kind of silliness was just starting & the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit was building its 1st subway lines. They were over budget, yet had to fork fat $$$ out for '70's style outdoor sculpture "art." The "sculpture" for 1 station, for which taxpayers were to cough up 6 figures, was called 'a hunk of iron' by 1 MARTA board member anonymously, while another had the nerve to get up at a board meeting and declare, "We shouldn't be spending any more money on such as this until we get the railroad built." Grizzard reported that this caused fainting & nausea among the more "liberal" board members.

Not bad compared to Chicago
It's difficult to walk into a public space in downtown Chicago without the visual assault of some welded scrap metal monstrosity of postmodern randomness assaulting the word "art" the way Fred Phelps assaults the word "religion".
A couple years ago you could walk past a 20 foot high mess in a federal building, walk a few blocks to the lawn of the Sears Tower, and see random tubes of scrap metal squiggling around and embedded in the dirt. The nameplates on these works of taxpayer theft were far more an assault on "how much BS can I expect a SunTimes reader to swallow?" than anything you've described.
At least Stainless Steel is inherently valuable - you could always melt the thing down. Also, it appears someone actually bothered to craft it and mould it rather than just dig the melted remains of the Mir space station out of the Pacific and claim it's art. As for art meant to hurt the eye, I would suggest you look up "Earthquake Architecture" and a particular trend around Schaumburg, IL for some examples of that, and why drinking and drafting laws should be enacted.

BTW,
Those who despair of the state of art in today's world might want to check out fantasy and gaming art.

Gallery artists may sneer at mere commercial work, but in fantasy and gaming art there's a lot more going on than just distorted anime figures and much of it is stunningly beautiful.

Here's a sample from one artist whose name I can remember: http://www.epilogue.net/cgi/database/art/list.pl?gallery=2 27

Some of the current computer games are artistically stunning as well.

Obama/Narcissist/Dangerous!!


The following quote was from an essay written by Ben Shapiro speaking of Obama's handling of negative campaign ads that as perceived by Obama as an attack on his ego.


"The common thread is this: when attacked substantively, Obama counters personally. He gets angry, and he gets mean. He has read his own press clippings, and he believes them. He is The One. No one is allowed to attack him."

This is exactly the reaction that a narcissist has when he feels that anyone is dissing him or otherwise ridiculing him. Most Serial Killers are narcissists who get started on their killing sprees when it is believed by them that someone has affronted or ridiculed them, and the one thing they will never tolerate is to allow anybody to get by with insulting them. When a narcissist feels that he has been humiliated, he will go on a killing spree, but of course will be very clever in doing it, and will pretend that he is not really angry.

Another thing about the mental disease of narcissism is that they generally are sociopaths who have no conscience, and therefore are masterful liars. They learn how to appear to be happy, sad, remorseful, angry, etc., but every emotiong that they show is fake, except the rage and anger they can barely hide when they feel they have been insulted.

Knowing Obama's particular mental illness, the McCain-Palin campaign only need to make Obama think he has been insulted, and he will come unglued and self destruct.

He has his campaign doing his dirty work for him now, since he cannot personally strangle Sarah Palin and John McCain for stealing his spotilight, he has his hired thugs and the main stream media trying to do a back door character assassination of Palin.

Obama is truly a sick man, and this alone, makes him unfit to be president. And, by the way, all his records and public documents have been lost, sealed or otherwise disappeared. What's up. We would like to know what the Messiah was up to before now.

Obama/Narcissist/Danger!!


The following quote was from an essay written by Ben Shapiro speaking of Obama's handling of negative campaign ads that as perceived by Obama as an attack on his ego.


"The common thread is this: when attacked substantively, Obama counters personally. He gets angry, and he gets mean. He has read his own press clippings, and he believes them. He is The One. No one is allowed to attack him."

This is exactly the reaction that a narcissist has when he feels that anyone is dissing him or otherwise ridiculing him. Most Serial Killers are narcissists who get started on their killing sprees when it is believed by them that someone has affronted or ridiculed them, and the one thing they will never tolerate is to allow anybody to get by with insulting them. When a narcissist feels that he has been humiliated, he will go on a killing spree, but of course will be very clever in doing it, and will pretend that he is not really angry.

Another thing about the mental disease of narcissism is that they generally are sociopaths who have no conscience, and therefore are masterful liars. They learn how to appear to be happy, sad, remorseful, angry, etc., but every emotiong that they show is fake, except the rage and anger they can barely hide when they feel they have been insulted.

Knowing Obama's particular mental illness, the McCain-Palin campaign only need to make Obama think he has been insulted, and he will come unglued and self destruct.

He has his campaign doing his dirty work for him now, since he cannot personally strangle Sarah Palin and John McCain for stealing his spotilight, he has his hired thugs and the main stream media trying to do a back door character assassination of Palin.

Obama is truly a sick man, and this alone, makes him unfit to be president. And, by the way, all his records and public documents have been lost, sealed or otherwise disappeared. What's up. We would like to know what the Messiah was up to before now.

The Know-Nothings
One can appreciate this fine article for its simple and direct style among other fine attributes.

Still, I've developed a taste for certain so-called "intellectuals," never popular in America.
*******************************************

I've been sitting here for five minutes...can't think of a single one!

you're all so credible...
Thank Goddesses there are REAL websites and magazines dedicated to REAL art because TH and Paul Greenberg should stick to what it does well: The Art of Propaganda and "Party First - Country Second".

Leave the critical commentary about art to those with an understanding of it. You all look tremendously idiotic when you try to discuss things over your pay scale.


"The Crap Movement"
When I was in my second year of art school, it became quite clear that my painting teacher had no clue what she was doing. I proceded to created my own artistic movement, known to all except that teacher as "The Crap Movement".

I put little effort into any of my paintings, but a great deal of effort into my explanations for them. I got straight-A's, even though my terrible paintings often evoked laughter when I dispayed them to the class.

Many of those responsible for making decisions about art have been "educated into imbecility", in an Orwellian universe where ugly is beautiful.

Jack, Shale, et al
Fine, you are refined and wonderful, superior to the ignorant American masses in every way.

But a PUBLIC work of art bought with PUBLIC money ought to appeal to... the PUBLIC. It ought not be repulsive to those who paid for and are subjected to the work.

This is another example of the contempt liberals have for America, its culture, and values.

Why Paint?
The art of the 20th century was largely based on the philosophies of its time. Art was once a search for beauty and truth. Then the philosphers explained that there is no such thing as either.

As such, we see a lot of ugly, pointless paintings being lauded for displaying the values of the elite.

Whenever you look at modern art, you are looking at the visual depiction of left-wing thought. Scary, isn't it?

Personal Taste
On the left, morality is a matter of personal taste. As such, personal taste has become a sort of morality.

You want to kill your unborn child? Personal choice, nobody can criticize you.

You prefer Norman Rockwell to Kandinsky? You are lower than dirt!

cleverless of you
Your banal reference that art belongs in elitist circles tells me you have no understanding of artists at all. Elitism is coded words for "if I don't understand it, blame those who know more - that way I can accuse them of being out of touch".

I'm in no way superior to you, that's classic "victim" thinking. I ain't biting.

You at least own up to the fact that art is something of which you aren't knowledgeable, but you insist on saying what art "ought" to be. That it's there says the public agreed to its existence. That people are displeased with it, is the artist's problem and will likely be redesigned until all parties are happy. That's the way it works.

Nothing will ever get done if everyone HAS to be pleased. That's why none of YOU were asked and never will be, thank gods and goddesses.

Face it, this article was written because of its anticipated effect on its readership. You played right into the 'faux indignation' routine you have all perfected into (ahem) an artform.

BTW: thanks Bonnie for finding the photos of the danged thing. Way to be thorough, Greenberg. (sigh)

Shale
It is like what Reagan said about Marxism: Communists are people who read Marx, anti-Communists are people who understand Marx. I thoroughly understand modern art, which is why I despise it.

As to your notion that I have no understanding of artists at all, I have been an artist for 30 years.

This displays another aspect of liberal hubris: disagreement must mean ignorance. It does not occur to them that an intelligent, educated person can disagree with them, even in an area as subjective as art.

Shale
I just reread your post. You open with a straw-man.

I did not say that art belongs in elitist circles. I actually said the opposite, that publicly funded art should be publicly oriented. To create works that only appeal to the elite furthers the notion that art is only for the educated.

If you need a degree in art in order to enjoy a painting, how good is it really?

Conservatives and Art
I made my first real political decision when I was a much, much younger person. After reading a good bit about different philosophies, I determined that Communism was an inevitable failure because it misunderstood the nature of human beings. The genesis of that thought was not originally related to economics, it was related to art.

The Socialist Realism idea was absurd. The impulse to create stuff is a human built-in, and requiring art to perform a particular purpose or meet a certain standard runs counter to human nature.

When conservatives talk about art, they generally do so with a very weak grasp of the history, process and purpose of art. There will always be crappy art. There always has been crappy art. And there will always be great art that is considered crappy art, until enough time passes. Give me a number and I will find that many examples.

Art actually runs counter to the conservative mind and mental process. A core purpose of art is to re-arrange perception, to re-arrange the brain. Art isn't there to be familiar or to make you feel comfortable. It absolutely requires change! It is no surprise that conservatives feel uncomfortable with art that doesn't hearken back to the past or match their pre-set perceptions.

Conservatives want art to be familiar and non-threatening. It's just decoration to them: they don't grasp the nature of art any more than Stalinist Russia grasped the nature of art.




what price are we willing to pay
just wondering how many homeless people or hungry children walk by or will ever see or care to see this piece of...art. sorry can not see it officals ay no money for poor, for healthcare, for needed programs. if the wanted art why not hire some real talented kids pay them, have beautiful art and be some help for the neighborhoods. or is that not an artful way of thinking.over 300k shameful,how many that would have helped. sleep well officals, others can not.

Reply to Jack in Pa
Jack, you either intentionally or inadvertently, made a direct correlation to Obama, socialism, Communism, and the reason we do not need to federally or otherwise fund arts.

An artist is an artist due to his or her own God-Given or Natural-Occurring talents, depending on how you view it.

For example, I am not an artist, but I could probably receive some instruction on how to do art and given some lessons to practice, and eventually, I probably could draw or paint a human likeness beyond my stick figure natural talents.

An artist is born with his or her ability, and through training and instruction on technique, etc. can improve on a natural talent or gift.

But, some of the crap that gets passed off as art these days is just some stuff that a technician compiles. The difference between an artist is an artist is born a person with artistic abilities and talents, and a technician would be me who has no artistic talent, but could be trained to do some drawing.

True artists with true abilities will maybe produce works that will pay for themselves or maybe an artist will have to do what others do, and that is pursue a real job and do their art on their own time because they love to do it.

It is kind of like reading a good book. I work for a living, but nobody pays me to read books in my liesure time.

Maybe, we should create a foundation, then hire some lobbyists to go to Washington D..C. and get some funding to pay guys like me who have a real and natural talent, art maybe, of reading books for fun. Then, I could stay home from work and read books and get paid for doing it.

Maybe, I am on to something. I am sure that I could find some liberal democrat to buy this idea.

Jack
Pleeeze,
Without wealthy patrons who can shake down a few million here and there, the post-modern artist would definitely be starving. There isn't one scrap of art made in the last half century that will be in anyone's memory in 2050. Not one. The crap in the MoMo will be long forgotten, and the iroon monstrosities that plague our urban landscapes will have long ago been sold as scrap.

Today's art scene has no connection to anyone save 4 or 5 dozen patrons and critics in Manhatten and Rodeo Drive. Meaningless abstractions are served up so often that people do not even notice them anymore. What was suppose to be "Epater les bourgeois" has become one giant snore. Even worse, it has become grist for the commericial beast, which the true artiste is suppose to abhor.

If you do not believe what I say, go to Paris and the 8 or 9 dozen warehouses full of state subsidized art. Yes, the French goverment has for decades bought art in order to promte the arts. Instead, the artist produces forgettable garbage that only the goverment will buy.

JPK
You write:

"There isn't one scrap of art made in the last half century that will be in anyone's memory in 2050. Not one."

I mentioned before that you tend to say really, really stupid stuff. This is just one of those things.

First, you have no idea what will be or won't be remembered by 2050. But I can claim, with some great history as support, that some great art emerges from every period.

For example, I suggest that the Viet Nam War Memorial will be an effective and enduring work of art by then, but I suppose it might not. I definitely think the Marc Chagall stained glass windows in the Cathedral of Reims will still be held in awe by 2050. And the Vatican has an enormous and awe inspiring collection of contemporary works of religious art.

In other words, you have no idea what the hell you are talking about. But I know that won't stop you.

Reply to JPK
First, ignore Jack. He is a liberal, and we all know that liberalism is a mental disorder, and their drivel is to be ignored. Probably thinks himself a great artist too. Delusional thoughts an narcissims are two of the characteristics of the mental illeness called Liberalism.

If you want to see a good flick showing where we are in about the year 2500 and how far down the tubes we go, see Idiocracy. It is a telling spoof, but exactly right on, given the state of decay in morality, decency, intellectual pursuits, etc. that we have gone in the past 40 years. In fact, I believe we will reach the rate of decay depicted in this movie much sooner than 2500. In fact, at the rate we are going, I doubt we will make it until 2025 in tact as a sovereign nation.

In this movie, the folks had become so obsessed and corrupt, that a basketball jock was president and was promoting Gatorade or some such sports drink and the corrupt government was buying the sports drink and trying to grow food with it. Of course, the people were starving. A regular mediocre army guy and a hooker who had been suspended in time in some Cryogenic projec come to in this mess and save the world. The way they did it was he Reminded Them that it Took Water To Grow Crops.

Yeah, the way these liberals in our government have taken us down the yellow brick road to hell, we want make it much further. We have to stop the Bungling Obama, the DNC stooge this time around, and then we have to take our country back while we still can. The Lunatics have taken over the Asylums

Cleverness: Differing Opinions are great
cleverness: "Whenever you look at modern art, you are looking at the visual depiction of left-wing thought. Scary, isn't it?"

*Pretty sweeping notion, there "artist for 30 years"...Art doesn't scare me. It's the people who want to relegate it that are more Orwellian than the artist creating ugly because beauty doesn't go far enough for them.

cleverness: "I put little effort into any of my paintings, but a great deal of effort into my explanations for them. I got straight-A's, even though my terrible paintings often evoked laughter when I dispayed (sic) them to the class."

*so you understand, then, why it was you got A's, right? Being able to explain your art (even if it's B.S.) is a large part of being an artist, which I assume was the reason for going to school to learn art, yeah? You at least dropped your pretense of art. Are you still immersed in your "Crap Movement?"

You can't let a discombobulated teacher be the sweeping example of the art world. Many teachers are struggling artists who got their MFA just so they could teach basics and not starve while they work on their struggling art.

Cleverness: "This is another example of the contempt liberals have for America, its culture, and values."

simply. not. true. America's culture and values are as diverse as art. There is no ONE culture to have contempt for! It's when someone thinks they can dictate what Culture is that you run into trouble. Being an artist, surely you understand the difference between black & white and grissaille, don't you?


Art For Artist's Sake
When I lived in Manhatten we called those things: "Robot Droppings".

Shale
I do NOT advocate regulating art; I advocate demanding that public money not be spent on art that is offensive to the public.

As to the rest of it, your view of art is too narrow, shaped by the ethos of the 20th Century.

Like many other artists before me, I am rejecting what I was taught in school, and the values of the elite.

Jack
While you may be able to argue that some of the posters here are "Philistines" I DO know what I am talking about.

The reason that today's art is offensive to conservatives is because it was specifically designed to be offensive by the artists. We are taught that to be good art it must be bold, avant garde, and subversive. So they create work for the express purpose of undermining our culture, and then get angry when someone points out that it undermines our culture.

As such, conservatives tend not to be as interested in the arts (to their detriment, I agree), because people tell them that art is not for them. I myself have had people question how someone with my politics can be an artist, as if wanting lower taxes and to protect the unborn makes one unable to express themselves creatively.

In my view, the radical is the one with no reason to create; they have no beauty, no truth, and no God. At this point in history, it is the more conservative person (from a cultural perspective) who really has something of meaning to say, because he believes that meaning exists.

C of M
What a load of crap.

Your field may be art. My field is logic and rhetoric and your capacity in that doesn't seem to be any better than your skill as an artist.

The existence of SOME art that you don't like does not say anything in particular about art in general for two reasons.

First, there is a vast amount of art being created under any number of auspices. I went to Philly First Friday for September and saw a lot of really great stuff, including a very, very nice portait exhibition. I have seen a great deal of modern and contemporary art that I thought was terrific. It's simply an intellectual and logical mistake to extrapolate too widely based on limited information.

Secondly, the only legitimate judge of art is time. What lasts is, by definition, good. What doesn't is, by definition, crap. And even then what one era considers terrific in can be crap in the next. We simply have too many cases where the status quo derides some work and the next generation think is fantastic.

And, as an artist, don't you think its presumptuous to think YOU can define beauty? That YOU can define truth. That YOU get to define God and inspiration?

I think your response proves my point exactly. A conservative mind has a really hard time with art because much of art entails finding new and challenging ways to express the creative impulse. And if its new and challenging, conservatives don't like it.



ART???
A few years ago, also in Little Rock, I think, there was a statue erected. All I can remember of it was that it was made of junk - and looked like a big pile of it.

The city paid about $50,000 for it, sight unseen. After it was up for a few months the city council voted to remove it and store it in a warehouse somewhere. The "artist" sued on the grounds that they had no right to hide his "art". It turned out that this was the first big sale he had ever made and was using it to advertise his other art for sale.

This sounds as if the city bought another piece of art sight-unseen. Don't they ever learn?

The "BEST" Art
Back when I was in college many many years ago, there was an art contest at the University of Oklahoma. The first, second, and third places were won by the same artist - a chimpanse. There was a big laugh and the judges made the lame excuse that the chimp had a good ability for modern art.

A student in New York heard about it and entered a contest there. He also won first, second, and third places although I think they only gave him the first prize - $150,000. Then he announced that he had a chimp do those too. The sponsors sued the judges for not being able to tell the difference between true art ability and the random colors of a monkey.

About the same time I had a teacher who insisted that modern art was the only true form of art. All others were fakes. We decided the real reason for her comment was that she considered herself a "true artist". But the only thing she could do was smear some paint on a canvas since she lacked any talent.

Too many of our modern artists fall into the same ranks. They don't have the ability to actually come up with any sort of real art but they are convinced they are real artists - who you should pay thousands to for a piece of junk.

Jack
As a logician you should know the difference between a soft generalization (dogs usually make good pets) and a hard generalization (all dogs are mammals). In art one can only make soft generalizations.

The dominant ethos of contemporary philosophy is that there is no such thing as beauty or truth. They are merely illusions created by chemical and electrical impulses in our brains. The dominant philosophy of our time says that meaning is entirely subjective, and that nothing has inherent, objective meaning.

Art reflects philosophy, and as such we have art that rejects notions of beauty, truth, and meaning. It is not that I consider myself the sole arbiter of these notions, but rather that the contemporary artist rejects their existence entirely.

Conservatives reject that philosophy, so naturally they reject the art which expresses it.

BTW, was it really necessary to take at shot at my ability as an artist, given that you have never seen my work? Perhaps because you know that a person with my philosophical bent is not likely to produce the sort of art you like. Do you get my point now?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.