RE: [Leica] [drifting ot] art stuff

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Guy - I must equally respectfully disagree with your disagreement. :-)

I believe there is a difference between something that the viewer doesn't
like, in terms of subject, style, or media, and something that is
inaccessible - which to me means something that can only be understood by
the artist. Too often these days we see "art" whose meaning is perfectly
clear in the mind of the artist, but that mind is so muddled that the artist
doesn't realize that he or she has not made the meaning clear.

As to Wm S and the high school students - the failure is, as you note, that
of the viewer's. Unfortunately, too many of today's kids are unable to
relate to anything they haven't either seen on MTV or read in a comic book.

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Guy Bennett
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2000 8:06 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] [drifting ot] art stuff


>And B. D. Responds -
>
>...Calling something inaccessible does NOT say something about the viewer -
>it says the artist has failed if his or her mission was to make a public
>statement. If the work was meant only for the edification of the artist and
>three of his/her best friends, it belongs in a private home, not a public
>venue.
>
>This thread reminds me of a beloved high school English teacher who once
>made the statement that if a poem's meaning is "hidden," the poem is a
>failure. Same thing goes for "inaccessible" works of visual art.
>"Inaccessible" is, in this case, a synonym for "crap."


b.d.,

here i must respectfully disagree. the fact that some folks find some art
inaccessible does not mean that the artist failed; that would be too easy.
however, nor does it mean that the public failed. historically, it has
tended to mean that the artist was working in a mode that did not resemble
what the public had come to expect from art. and of course, the public's
definition of art is changing all the time. it inevitably expands to absorb
art that previously was judged unacceptable. in fact, a list of 20th
century 'masterpieces' and 'seminal artists' would undoubtedly include many
artists and works that most people didn't 'understand' (whatever that might
mean), and in many cases reacted violently to, when they first came to
public attention. i'm not trying to say that just anything is good, rather
i'm saying that we can't be so hasty as to condemn artwork and artists that
have not yet found acceptance among the public. in many cases, they will,
and those that don't will be forgotten.

guy

p.s. re your high school teacher, i must woefully chime in with my own
experience teaching literature to teenagers and young (and not so young)
adults who find shakespeare inaccessible. in this case, the public has
failed.