Thursday, March 29, 2007
Menguados al descubierto
Una de las cosas que menos tolero son los aprovechados y los caraduras. Y cuando estas lacras se llevan al mundo del arte, la cosa todavía me enciende más. Creo que a muchos de vosotros os he regalado ya con lo que pienso sobre el "arte" moderno y los espabilados sinvergüenzas -ni habilidades- que pueblan el citado campo. Por no hablar de los insoportables intelectuales que piensan ser lo más sofisticado desde El coche fantástico, cuando en realidad no son más que fantoches cantamañanas. Por eso no sólo me he alegrado sobremanera sino que me he reído a mandíbula batiente al ver este vídeo que mi querido Molo me ha mandado por correo. Está sacado de un programa de la televisión española, con lo que tal vez ya lo hayáis visto. Pero, si no es el caso, prestadle cinco minutos de vuestro tiempo, y decidme después si no os parece soberbio.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
My friend finn5fel, I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you on this one.
In my opinion, the people who pulled this stunt naïvely believe that the only value of a work of art (or literature, or music, etc.) is the specific intention of the artist (or writer, or composition), the "author" of the work.
There is a whole other school of thought, though, that holds that the interpretation of the spectator/reader/listener is equally valid as the plan of the author, or perhaps even more so.
Don't get me wrong here - I'm not saying that a group of kids has the same talent as an experienced, interested, dedicated "author." All I'm saying is that the feelings that their creation could evoke in someone observing it are not illegitimate simply because it was created by children.
I remember when I was in junior high and my friends and I laughed hard and heavy at what we thought were ridiculous interpretations of literature (really, just because we were too unschooled to know how to read it yet). My friend Hollie claimed that one day she was going to write a novel that was going to meet enthusiastic critical acclaim, and after everyone published their critiques, she was going to say, "ha! I never meant any of that!" Yeah, we laughed a lot and thought it was clever. Until nearly ten years later, when I began to read philosophy and theory, and I came across a translation of Roland Barthes' "La mort de l'auteur."
I didn't feel so smart then.
In other words, while I can understand how someone with genuine artistic talent (such as yourself) could feel cheated by the fact that artists who have created something as simple as concentric circles on a canvas or (even just splatters of color) have received accolades galore, I do also comprehend those who feel that much of a work's value (indeed, some would argue, ALL of it) begins when it leaves the hands of its creator.
In other words, beauty and meaning don't have to be intentionally created in order to exist.
My dear Huitzilin,
Of course you can disagree with me on this and on every other topic, especially when you present your musings in such a wonderful way.
I understand one of the things you criticize is the fact that some people (the TV show guys in this case) think the intention of the artist is what gives a work of art value. You think this is not true, and therefore you conclude by saying that beauty or meaning don’t need to be intentional to exist. As it happens, I agree with you, but in the opposite way, if that is not a contradiction. Let me explain. I think that yes, beauty doesn’t need to be intentional to exist, for two reasons: one, some things just are (pretty flowers, say); and two, beauty is highly subjective (as my widely criticized taste in women seems to prove). Therefore, some things could be beautiful even when the intention wasn’t to create beauty (for example, a painting by a bunch of kids –even though I think this particular one is nothing short of awful). However, I also believe the opposite is true: just because somebody intends to create beauty, it doesn’t mean he achieves his goal. Put it another way: just because somebody intends to create a work of art, it doesn’t mean he achieves his goal.
I also agree with your statement that the feelings arisen by a work of art are not illegitimate even if they’re not the feelings the creator wanted to evoke. Again, I come from the opposite side: I sincerely doubt that all the repulse and dismay modern art arises in me was what the creators intended to provoke (well, maybe in some cases yes, but you know what I mean). Said feelings might be legitimate (you like it, you don’t, it strikes you as wistful or melancholy, or you think it’s lively and frantic), but a further “let me show you how cool I am” analysis seems to usually be wrong. I think the opinions and conclusions the clip presents are, for the most part, unequivocally wrong (this guy has a lot of experience, he’s pulsing with sexual tension, he’s trying to find a new way to express himself, etc). I think those comments show people trying to rationalize what makes no sense so, when asked, instead of saying “that makes no sense” and being seen as ignoramuses, they will then be seen as perceptive thinkers that understand what less schooled morons (like yours truly) fail to realize.
All that, I think, fits perfectly with the story about your friend Hollie. She would write something, and then send it to the world, where it’d be scrutinized and analyzed. The feelings it might arise would be legitimate, but the conclusions would be wrong.
Regarding the idea that the spectator confers all (or most) of the value to a work of art, I don’t think I agree. I guess it’s true to some extent (when I, for example, give zero value to many alleged works of art, I guess I’m doing just that), but I think it mostly depends on the artist. And here I should clarify that by this I mean that the work of art depends on the artist and his skills, not the artist’s intentions (which means I’m being coherent, based on what I said on the first paragraph). That is to say, if an artist has no skills, it doesn’t matter how badly he wants to create a work of art: he just won’t be able to. And I will be the first one to admit that, despite your kind words (I love you too), I don’t think I am anywhere near being an artist. Every time somebody says that I am an artist, I honestly chuckle and shake my head. And this is no fake modesty or humbleness: I truly think I’m not skilled enough. To the question “Are you really an artist?” I invariably answer “No. I just like to draw.” This would then lead to the debate of “who is an artist?”
As I said before, just wanting to be an artist doesn’t make you one, sorry. This, of course, could be seen as just so much elitist bullshit (we’re all special, no child left behind, yadda, yadda), but let’s keep in mind that I’m not including myself in this small group of geniuses. I think that in order for you to be an artist you need to possess a set of skills that you rarely come across anymore because they’re not taught in schools. And the reason why this is so is probably because the teachers working in such wonderful institutions lack them and are therefore unable to pass them on to their students. I am, of course, talking about being able to sculpt like Michelangelo, paint like David, and draw like Leonardo. People don’t do that anymore, arguing that it’s not interesting, because mechanical devices can achieve that perfection nowadays, and therefore, they’re left to explore other fields. I think it’s key to point out that yes, that is perfection, and of course nobody is interested: trying to achieve perfection would require decades of study and dedication, and maybe just to come short. I honestly think that it’s not a matter of not being interested, but rather knowing they wouldn’t be able to even come close to such greatness, so why bother. Let’s just say I’m not interested, and that way I won’t make a fool of myself when I fail miserably.
I obviously realize this is my opinion and my point of view, and most –if not all- artists (true and fake) would disagree with such ludicrous (naïve, maybe) view of the world. I also realize that I’m halfway through my second page of this Word document (I’m of course making sure I’m not losing all this typing), and it might be a good idea to stop this rambling. At least, I think I’m coherent, so I’ll keep being outraged every time I see splatters of color on a canvas. Bastards…
I suppose I could say that I, on some degree, agree with you both. I haven’t even seen the video, but it’s not very difficult, judging from your comments, to guess what it’s about.
I’ll start saying that I’m not an artist, nor I consider myself a keen art-appreciative eye. I know what I like and I know what I don’t. And, from my point of view, nowadays there’s a very narrow line between art and rubbish.
I agree with you, huitzilin, on that there’s a lot of possible interpretations behind any work of art, all of them valid enough, even if they weren’t the author’s original intention. I try really hard to understand and appreciate modern art, but there are some (a few) cases that I don’t buy. I CAN’T buy. What good possible conclusion (except, “the author’s cheating on us”) could anyone draw from a big canvas painted in red, except for a vertical black strip? And that is an original painting I saw on London’s Tate Modern museum.
The worst part of it is, as always, the excessive importance some artists (some of them so-called artists) receive sometimes. I mean, while a lot of paintings and sculptures I really can’t help thinking of as “waste of my time” were occupying huge spacious rooms, Rodin’s The Kiss or even Picasso’s Girl in a Chemise were confined to what maybe is the smallest hall in the whole building.
This video is probably naïve, I don’t know. I haven't seen it. But I bet is a good laugh. And, to me, that’s what in the end is all about. Having fun.
Without having changed my mind, finn5fel, I can say that I see your point. And, halagan, you are right, maybe just getting a good laugh is enough. I guess what bothered me about the whole thing was basically just that: who is getting laughed at.
See, I felt like the people who set up the stunt were laughing at the people in the museum like, "Oooh, those museum visitors think they're so smart!" When really, I got the impression that the makers of the video thought that they were pretty smart themselves.
In other words, the group that is laughing at the other for feeling (or feigning) intellectual superiority is doing that very laughing from (yep!) a perspective of supposed intellectual superiority. And I just don't think they're totally right.
I also wonder just how many people they had to go through to get enough footage for this short video. I bet it was a lot.
Either way one looks at it, though, we've gotten some good, mutually respectful conversation out of it. I love that!
That's true: it's been a fun debate. And I agree with you about the footage. I bet they got a lot of answers they couldn't use in the final montage (probably just like Borat) because they weren't what they were expecting. Thus, they're showing us a biased documentary. I understand this, but since I happen to agree with the TV show guys (damn! Am I feeling intellectually superior?), I'm willing to let it go just to get, like Hal said, a good laugh. Plus, you know how easily entertained I am :)
Thanks everyone for participating!
Well, huitzilin, I can't talk about the moral superiority issue you so wonderfully have pointed, because I still haven't seen the video! Well, seeing it I've done, but I haven't been able to heard the sound track, so, whatever.
A good debate is always good for the mind & soul. An I'm not referring to Joss Stone's amazing album.
Joss Stone is HOT! HOT! HOT!
(So much for scholar debate)
Stone was the ONLY good thing about that pathetic movie called Eragon, and she's only on screen for like two minutes. Anyway, I knew she had just released her third CD, and I was curious about it. So you think it's good, Hal?
Yeah, I think it's good. Not my favourite CD ever, though. Maybe I'll talk about it some day.
And now for sure I'm not watching Eragon.
Post a Comment