I dearly hope this doesn't give away my identity, but as I was reading I came across something I thought was really interesting. In the post about Camus's quotes, there was one that was commented on a couple of times dealing with abstract art. Ironically, while I was reading yesterday I came across another view of abstract art. It has to do with the idea of the Argument from Intimidation. Simply put, this is when someone sidesteps an argument by bringing the moral character of the other person into question. It would go something like this:
"You believe that? Well, only the immoral could fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false."
Or: "Only cowards can fail to agree that life is a sewer."
Or: "Only the most primitive mind could not see that THAT idea is severely outdated."
And of course, all of these sayings would be accompanied by eye rolls, sighs, and looks of unbelief at your stupidity. With this kind of arguing, the person utilizing the Argument from Intimidation is not refuting the claim that's being made, but merely attacking the person that's making the claim. It's a shallow form of argument, and only practiced by those who really don't know what they're talking about.
That said, here's an excerpt from my book:
"As an example of an entire field of activity based on nothing but the Argument from Intimidation, I give you modern art -- where, in order to prove that they do possess the special insight only possessed by the mystic "elite," the populace are trying to surpass one another in loud exclamations on the splendor of some bare (but smudged) piece of canvas."
So this might be off topic, but I was wondering what people thought of this idea. Is modern art all it's cracked up to be? Or is it just a scam of people trying to convince both themselves and others that they're more intelligent than they truly are?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Woah. I had no idea how long that was going to be. Sorry guys.
unless i am severely mistaken, this seems to be aimed at the comment that i left concerning Camus' quote on abstract art.
if i'm correct in this assumption, i highly disagree with the accusation that my statement of "it's not for everyone, especially not anyone who is not willing to open their mind to something beyond what they can grasp." is bringing anyone's moral character into question. being ignorant to a type of artistic expression has nothing to do with moral integrity.
as i said before, the abstract allows for the expression of thoughts and emotion that can't come from simply painting a landscape or portrait. how could a branch of art that is left to the eye of the beholder exist solely to prove one's knowledge? the idea of the abstract is to take from a piece what you wish. it's about respecting a piece for what it is and recognizing the beauty of the simplistic detail.
frankly, i think it's a bit silly that a high school student could stoop to presume they could question the merit of a globally popular and accepted form of art.
i'm terribly sorry if this seems rude, but i was a bit offended. if this was not aimed at my response to the previous post concerning this, then i apologize for my mistake.
A few years ago I went to the Art Museum with two fellow teachers who were rather scornful of people who can't articulate their insights about art works. This year, I conversed with a teacher who told me about an episode of "Madmen" in which a character asks another character how a piece painted by Rothko (who painted Red, Orange, Orange on Red in the Action/Abstraction Exhibit) makes him feel. I suppose what I'm getting at is this: if you go to an exhibit to impress other people with your knowledge of abstract art, you're probably being shallow. If you go to an exhibit to think and feel, motivated by your sense of aesthetics and wonder, then who cares if anyone thinks you're shallow. I don't purport to know all about it, but I think appreciation for art is tied up in one's aesthetic and intuition as well as one's knowledge of the times in which the art was created (and also what went before). And last, but certainly not least, the artist's vision. What art dealers and critics and the general populace thinks is interesting, but in the end, the work of art stands alone.
plato makes an excellent point that was one i was perhaps trying to reach (unsuccessfully, due to my flustered demeanor at the time of my last comment). i'm sure there are those out there who pretend to be interested in abstract artwork. maybe to give themselves an intellectual boost, but who really knows? at the same time, i'm sure there are just as many, if not more, whose interest in said art is genuine.
be careful in how you group people together. a blanket assumption about motives of interest only makes you sound ignorant. (no bombilla, i do not find you ignorant in any way :] )
This is an interesting discussion, I think. I always feel that when I understand the importance of something that the general public doesn't seem to value (e.g. abstract art, The Stranger, existentialism), I feel sort of alone and isolated. That's depressing enough, but when others begin to mock said topic (see: monkey painting abstract art), it becomes very tempting to argue with intimidation, just out of frustration. Sometimes it's hard to remember (especially if you are largely emotionally driven) that learning only occurs when opposing viewpoints meet and discuss. Having "yes men" around you feels good, but you don't learn much.
Boo, I wasn't in ANY WAY trying single you out or imply that you were wrong! Of course, the discussion of Camus's abstract art quote that I mentioned involved you, but by the post I made I was not trying to refute you. I actually really like abstract art. Seriously. I don't believe I understand it all of the time, but I still really enjoy trying. My entire post was simply to get conversation starting, partly by playing devil's advocate. So I really apologize for offending you because it was unintentionally done.
Let's be friends.
Boo, there are plenty of things that are "accepted" or globally popular that don't necessarily deserve or acount for the acclaimation they garner. I recently had a family member visit outside the country (continent, actually), and guess what harmonious, "my life is perfect but there are SO many crossroads at 17" high school advertisements he saw EVERYWHERE?
Just because something is of pop culture (and art is no stranger to such reference) it does not mean it is know all-end all (not the EXTREME I got from what you were saying).
So while bombilla! came out and said "he" was a fan of abstract art, I like the quote that was pulled out. I'm not a fan in the least of it. I am completely open for that opinion to be swayed, but I simply have not seen anything of the style that would do so. And while a four-year-old may not mean for this color to mean this, and that splatter to mean that, is it soley the intent of a piece that makes it art? No. Even still, with intent, why does one person's red splatter of anger or devouted passion considered more "artistic" than if any other person were to do the same, for the same reasons?
Don't mistake me for ignorant, I'm trying to be blunt. Like I said, I am completely open to seeing abstract art in a different light, but as of now, it is "too much." Too much digging, explaining, searching, reaching--almost to the point of desperation at times--for me to fully appreciate it.
adam levvy, you openly admit to not liking this branch of art and also admit that it is simply "too much". these facts alone make whatever argument you have against me not worth dragging out.
but on the other hand i'm not one to quit while i'm ahead...
"there are plenty of things that are "accepted" or globally popular that don't necessarily deserve or acount for the acclaimation they garner."
- this is very true, and i completely agree, but is it also not true that there are plenty of things that do deserve said acclamation? your argument is moot, since abstract is whatever one takes from it and i believe it does deserve praise. i also question this simply because you have no evidence or even opinion other than the account of a traveling relative (i had trouble understanding what point you were attempting to make with that example).
"is it soley the intent of a piece that makes it art? No."
- did i ever say that intent was all that made anything art? no, but in abstract artwork, it is a huge part of it. there's no clear cut imagery or definite picture as there would be in a landscape or portrait. the purpose of abstract is to create emotion, making the intent the sole reason for creation. without intent of feeling, abstract art wouldn't exist.
"Don't mistake me for ignorant, I'm trying to be blunt."
(dictionary.com definitions)
blunt- slow in perception or understanding
ignorant-lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact
there seems to be a rather fine line.
and yes bombilla, we should be friends haha. i am sorry for misunderstanding!
:]
You misunderstood what i said (and I like the selective definition there, and that isn't sarcastic, I enjoyed that). And just because you disagree with me, it does not make my point "moot."
One, blunt cheifly means "abrupt in adress or manner" (when not applied to an object; and since you seem to be keen for "evidence" here's my source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blunt). The definition you gave applies to detachment, or a disconnection.
Secondly, my comment about "too much" meant stretching, overreaching--exaggeration may be a bit too literal, but there.
The third part of my comment you pulled out went along with what followed it--it wasn't exactly meant to stand on its own and never did I imply that was what you were saying. The question was, if it is majorly intent, what makes one person's colors better, more sophisticated or deeper than the next Joe? And when you said "intent of feeling" did you mean that of the artist or viewers, because I thought the beauty of abstract was "whatever one takes from it"? I would also think artists of any other style would take offense to that, implying their works are beautiful only on a surface value.
I'm sorry if I offended (which it looks like happens if it appears anyone is going against abstract), I told you I didn't mean to. You mistook my candid statement for disrespect, and that was not my intent. I'm open to change, so if you know any "saving-grace" absract works that really do the branch justice I would be happy to look at them with an open mind.
Oh, and that comment about my family member was seeing HSM3 stuff eeeeeeverywhere they went.
I think Modern art lets you view in different ways that maybe you would not see in other art work like what booradley said. I agree with that when we went to the art museum I would get a different view of a painting then someone else. I also would be looking at a piece and think what in the heck is this. Then after a while I saw a different view of what they we trying to get out.
My own emotions in the exhibit did in fact range from confusion to insight. One particular piece I think made it all easier for me to understand modern art was a canvas streaked with blues, greens and browns. I could see behind it a portrait but registered not with the eyes but the other senses.
Modern art for me is about bringing different senses into a visual spectrum.
i think my style of response may be off putting. i don't intend to sound so offended. on the contrary, i enjoy this feedback. adam levvy, no need for apology.
the definitions i pulled weren't meant to be "fightin words", it was meant to be humorous since i knew that's not the blunt you were referring to.
i have several other things i do wish to respond to but i'd rather stop now before this becomes heated.
So I am going to comment on this one not so much on the view of abstact art but the more general idea of intimidation.
First, I don't think that relating to a moral compass is always a cop out. Your morals drive your decisions so if you claim that your morals are one thing and then also claim to agree on things that go against them, naturally you will be questioned on it. But maybe I don't understand exactly where you're going with that.
That being said, I also think that people become very narrow minded on what they feel is right or wrong and what people are allowed to base opinions on when morals come in.
I think when people make judgments based on what their morals tell them and then other people dispute that, despite claiming the have the same morals, it makes them question themselves. Thus their insecurities result in negativity, cue eye rolls and such.
Post a Comment