• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Art & Conflicts

#21
I like both, the critical approach as the advantage of seeing the market, politic and economic side of things. The downside is that being too critic makes them frown upon and disregard many aspects of culture that should not be.

Cultural approach on the other hand looks at those aspects; relations and modes of interactions, urban scenes and so on. But tends to be a little to idealistic and democratic as far as "value" is concerned.

Imo.

And yeah, Adorno wrote some great stuff.
 
#22
Adorno definitely had an axe to grind when he wrote about the culture industry. That, of course, doesn't necessarily invalidate his work. But critical theory as an extension of a lot of Marxist thinking has always had a normative connotation to it about what is versus what ought to be, which is one of the biggest things that differentiates it from postmodernism. Adorno really did see the commodification of culture as something that cheapened the origin from which the art derived. Of course, some people unapologetically embraced hyper commercialization of art. *coughWarholcough* And a few have even turned conscious commercialization itself into an art form (e.g., post-Joshua Tree U2).

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of commodifying culture as something that cheapens culture. I'm currently playing in a country band and the "commodification" of rural culture that is in the average modern country song is almost satirical to me (see my Modern Country Lyrics thread that I made about a month and a half ago). But at the end of the day, where a buck is to be made, a buck will be made. I'm not necessarily opposed to people making said bucks, particuarly if they originate from the culture that they are commodifying. There will always be more complex art, and I'm cynical that the general population will embrace it on a mainstream level. I don't say that as an elitist - I like a lot of pop culture and art - but rather as just a general observation of how these things go.

Me personally? I'm very much a Foucauldian.
 
#24
LiquidMidnight said:
Adorno definitely had an axe to grind when he wrote about the culture industry. That, of course, doesn't necessarily invalidate his work. But critical theory as an extension of a lot of Marxist thinking has always had a normative connotation to it about what is versus what ought to be, which is one of the biggest things that differentiates it from postmodernism. Adorno really did see the commodification of culture as something that cheapened the origin from which the art derived. Of course, some people unapologetically embraced hyper commercialization of art. *coughWarholcough* And a few have even turned conscious commercialization itself into an art form (e.g., post-Joshua Tree U2).

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of commodifying culture as something that cheapens culture. I'm currently playing in a country band and the "commodification" of rural culture that is in the average modern country song is almost satirical to me (see my Modern Country Lyrics thread that I made about a month and a half ago). But at the end of the day, where a buck is to be made, a buck will be made. I'm not necessarily opposed to people making said bucks, particuarly if they originate from the culture that they are commodifying. There will always be more complex art, and I'm cynical that the general population will embrace it on a mainstream level. I don't say that as an elitist - I like a lot of pop culture and art - but rather as just a general observation of how these things go.

Me personally? I'm very much a Foucauldian.
Click to expand...

I can't say I'm familiar with Foucault's take on art. Stirring of modernity followed by a rupture which lead to absence of meaning or something along those lines?
 
#25
bongomania said:
My guiding light: Does it inspire the viewer to think or feel something more beyond just shocked or bothered? Or does the shock/bother achieve an important sociopolitical goal? If yes to either of those, then I'm a huge fan and supporter. If "no" though, I write the art off as childish attention-seeking unworthy of adult consideration.
Click to expand...
+1 Well said.

A lot of contemporary art and theater (not all of it, but a lot) strikes me just that way - an attempt to be shocking without having anything to say. I also find a lot of it to be less shocking (and much less original) than it's probably intended to be. Is "Family Guy" or "South Park" shocking? Not if you read R. Crumb comics in the 60s.

Finally, I can't help but think that some of this stuff is a great big joke at the expense of the audience. Someone hangs a urinal on a museum wall, and people pay the entrance fee and stand there looking at it, speaking in hushed tones, like it's something meaningful. It's not meaningful. It's a joke, and you fell for it.
 
#26
I kind of enjoy the whole "pushing the limits" trend, mainly because I like to observe the reactions of people to it, more than the art itself, but some of it is actually neat.

I'm subscribed to museums anyways, student price, 40$ for two years or so. :ninja:
 
#27
recently i got a way from the more decorative pop stuff i'd been making the last 6 or 7 years and i began making some gothic melancholy drawings inspired by my students who have ptsd, they must have some quality about them that makes commercial galleries avoid them completely, numbness, alienation, and loss seem to not be good selling points for work right now, the current trend in LA is abstract painting infused with cultural content by way of lengthy press releases
 
#28
banksy-9.jpg

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQwBLvuNFUs9KBcP5Mjz9XteyxXotF0c-B7qYlDqWfBc4EqY-nukbsxpHtluw.jpg
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRId3vn9DMXelfMTIavfrm1PWcm2779ev9quuWbHsQ9QejWUqSLMRQrWaEs.jpg
images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTzQ2Al3STfh-umpdnPmcRhHugVPMTbroM6uMxkIRd1mYlE-e6HYqOqlpaBCA.jpg
 
#29
mpdd said:
recently i got a way from the more decorative pop stuff i'd been making the last 6 or 7 years and i began making some gothic melancholy drawings inspired by my students who have ptsd, they must have some quality about them that makes commercial galleries avoid them completely, numbness, alienation, and loss seem to not be good selling points for work right now, the current trend in LA is abstract painting infused with cultural content by way of lengthy press releases
Click to expand...

Do you have a website or something? I'd be curious to see your work. I think I recall seeing pieces you did with melted plastic somewhere on talkbass. Which were very cool by the way.
 
#30
#32
How about movies? (I'm not a sophisticate who studied art, so I can't really get in on all the smart people talk way up above ^ ;))

Has anyone here ever seen Lars von Trier's film Antichrist? Very very provocative and disturbing film starring Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg.

Some like it, some hate it. I'm still not sure which camp I fall into, but I was definitely impressed. It's about grief, pain and despair, both literally and personified.

Here's a clip: Chaos Reigns
 
#33
I have not watched the Antichrist, I'll look into it. I like disturbing movies.

The Holy Mountain by Jodorowsky is quite something, so is Enter the Void by Noé and 99 Francs. Edit: Noé also made Irresversible which is... something.

Other movies like Das experiment (there's an American remake to) and Die welle are also shocking in a very different way, especially once you know they're based on true stories (71's standford experiment, and the third wave). I think there's a french documentary that was a bit of a remake of Milgram's experiment to.

I don't know much about movies, music or art for that matter. It's just bits of classes I've had here and there and authors I've given attention to. I'm very far from an art or art history major :p
 
#35
doing clouds now, kind of like rounder stars hanging from the ceiling

i teach in LA and when it comes to surreal movies i like el topo, santa sangre, la jetee', baxter, and heidi by paul mcarthy and mike kelley

when i get my sh*t together for the mexical biannual at the vincent price art museum i'll post some pics of the stuff i've been working on and the sculpture i'm making with my L2k

this is a fun thread, i like it a lot more than arguing about jazz pickups or 15 cabs
 
#36
I think when artists who really get into art go nuts for a piece that's "out there", fine. But I also think there are a lot of people who look at something and think to THEMSELVES "That's pure crap." But they say OUT LOUD "My, what an impressive piece" so they don't come across as stupid. In other words, I think most people are dishonest about what they really think about modern art. Most of it is crap. And most people THINK it's crap. But everyone is afraid to say it's crap. I went into an art museum in Richmond once. In the main lobby was a piece that looked exactly like a huge old school wheel type eraser. It was similar to the piece of junk below (only about 30 feet tall). But it was called "Cat Howls at the Moon at Midnight" or some other such horse crap. People were gathered around it amazed at the sheer talent of the artist. Give me a break. Every one of them was THINKING, "Why in the hell did this museum pay a quarter mill for a huge eraser?" But none of them would say it out loud. As long as something really takes talent to pull off, I can respect it. But as one of the first posts said, much of it is crap intended just to get attention..... ANY kind of attention.
 

Attachments

  • oldeneraser.jpg
    oldeneraser.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 37
#37
you need to conceptualize the sculpture, you need to draw the sculpture, you need to make a model of the sculpture, you need to make the sculpture, you need to photograph the sculpture, you need to store the sculpture, you need to insure the sculpture, you need to ship the sculpture, you need to receive the sculpture, you need to condition the sculpture, you need to install the sculpture, this is expensive stuff
 
#38
The title can often be... weird to say the least. I really don't like it when people name their piece to look "profound and mysterious" and that the apparent meaning doesn't stick to the piece. But then again, the title is such a detail to me.

At the last photo contest I entered I gave my 3 pictures ironic title such as: "Profound title that will touch your emotions". It was funny seeing my ******** titles next to one that was if I recall correctly (and translate) : "The crossroad of life, shed of light on the possibilities of the paths". I won anyways but the prize was barely enough to get my two pictures printed and framed.

I think some artist used to name his stuff at random, titles like "fork", "chair" and so on. I forgot who.
 
#39
I would speculate that the more worthwhile "shock" art is intended to be critical of its subject in a satirical way. It requires the viewer to follow the satiric path and understand that presentation of an extreme or offensive idea in order to illustrate a more subtle viewpoint. I think it puts a lot of demand on the artist because there seems to be a fine line that separates good satire from crass name-calling or vulgar mockery.

Many of the most popular shock art subjects are of specific religions or subcategories of particular religions (as opposed to religion, in general). It's interesting to see the reaction among the different targets and from the public at large to different shock art, whatever its form. Notice the widely different reactions to an image of the founder/prophet of one religion dipped in urine to the image of the founder/prophet of another religion depicted with a bomb on his head.
 
#40
There's also the dilemma between politics and artist that often gets heated. Quebec has two good examples of that, both time taxpayers moneys funded the followings:

Grand Theatre mural at the opening in 1971:
l-artiste-jordi-bonet-a-refuse-d-enlever-l-inscription-controversee-de-la-murale.jpg


It reads: You are not tired of dying bunch of fool! It's enough!

At at the anniversary (2011) of the same theater two artists did this with their subvention:
Link Removed

Which reads: FREEDOM!

It was erased shortly after.

There's definitely a message behind both, the message being that politics, by their funding and the control they have over formal art institutions have way to much control over art which should be control free. A bit of a reenactment of Arend't politic vs. culture...
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back