Jonathan

Newbsie

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Either an artist (postmodern, or not) strongly desires to have an influence on a large number of people through his works, or he doesn't. Either he believes each work he painstakingly produces is "important", or it is not. He can't have them both ways.

Specifically who, other than imaginary people in your head, wants to have it both ways?

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Except, because of a ready audience and market which highly regard postmodern art, he can in fact get away with his contradictions. "I didn't mean it, my work is a joke, please don't take me seriously - but yes, I mean it, I am a serious artist - because *they* believe me". I think the basic criteria of pomo is when an artwork 1). can't begin to be identified by a rational (visually sane) viewer and/or 2). shows low to non-value in the art itself, holding to self-ridicule and ultimately ridiculing any human endeavor. Saying overall, if you can't see what it is, it's your disability and you must learn a ~different~ reality; and if you can't giggle at the art you take your life too importantly.

You're off to the races again analyzing imaginary people who have taken imaginary positions. Crazy town.

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

The first task of an artist isn't moralism, and shouldn't be - that usually results in weak and prescriptive art, when tried -  he achieves plenty, more than enough, when he's true and honest to his personal vision, whichever it may be. However, the effects (and he must recognise, also) don't stop with just completion and people's viewing of his work, they cumulatively knock-on into other art, general media, movies, popular music, intellectualism, the way people see themselves and existence, think, value, emote and behave, and finally, into politics and mass political beliefs. Who could think it surprising that the pomo phenomenon coincides with and preceded this period, maybe the most sensationalist, cynical, anti-reason and anti-individualist? "You asked for it..."

Thanks for telling us all about art and the imaginary people who live in your head, Tony.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all the art produced speaks for itself. Connect the dots. Just look at the prolific amounts of post-modern art made, in two broad categories: contra-identification, and contra-value - are they "imaginary"? Are their creators "imaginary"? Did they or did they not make their art with foresight and deliberation? Do they (too) not seek fame, approval and wealth and often to affect people's minds? So what conclusions can one generally infer about these p-m artists' mindset and vision of existence? (in defiance of a long tradition of quality art). You appear always too keen to distance the artwork from the artist's mind, as if he can't take full responsibility for what he makes, as if one shouldn't ever deduce anything about his views of life from his works. When I see art I see someone's mind at work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, anthony said:

Well, all the art produced speaks for itself. Connect the dots. Just look at the prolific amounts of post-modern art made, in two broad categories: contra-identification, and contra-value - are they "imaginary"? Are their creators "imaginary"? Did they or did they not make their art with foresight and deliberation? Do they (too) not seek fame, approval and wealth and often to affect people's minds? So what conclusions can one generally infer about these p-m artists' mindset and vision of existence? (in defiance of a long tradition of quality art). You appear always too keen to distance the artwork from the artist's mind, as if he can't take full responsibility for what he makes, as if one shouldn't ever deduce anything about his views of life from his works. When I see art I see someone's mind at work.

Tony, before going off, like in the above, you should transcribe and post the arguments that the imaginary people in your head have made, and to which you're responding.

Thanks,

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

J. The arguments ring a bell in your mind or they don't. You may compare them to your abstracted understandings from experience, of real works and real artists (and you, of course) and critics and buyers in the art industry you have known, or not. As you wish. The device of "Imaginary people" you have ~imagined~ of me shows concrete thinking, that of wanting to be shown example upon example, without which, it 'follows', my argument *must* be invalid.  A way to avoid considering/debating my quite unoriginal proposition about artists ultimately 'affecting' society with their works. (Also, "society" in turn creating a demand for types of art, which can be taken as an indicator of that society). Relax, this is not all about you anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, anthony said:

J. The arguments ring a bell in your mind or they don't. You may compare them to your abstracted understandings from experience, of real works and real artists (and you, of course) and critics and buyers in the art industry you have known, or not. As you wish. The device of "Imaginary people" you have ~imagined~ of me shows concrete thinking, that of wanting to be shown example upon example, without which, it 'follows', my argument *must* be invalid.  A way to avoid considering/debating my quite unoriginal proposition about artists ultimately 'affecting' society with their works. (Also, "society" in turn creating a demand for types of art, which can be taken as an indicator of that society). Relax, this is not all about you anyway.

Keep arguing with your imaginary opponents.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 7:57 PM, Jonathan said:

Keep arguing with your imaginary opponents.

J

Ah, the "opponents", in other words, "sides". Your raison d'etre, not mine. I like arguing ideas instead of ad hominems at opponents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, anthony said:

Ah, the "opponents", in other words, "sides". Your raison d'etre, not mine. I like arguing ideas instead of ad hominems at opponents.

I think you started it.

---Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, anthony said:

Ah, the "opponents", in other words, "sides". Your raison d'etre, not mine. I like arguing ideas instead of ad hominems at opponents.

Really? You had claimed that certain people have certain beliefs and desires. Go to the top of this page, and read the post in which I quoted you making the claims. I challenged you to specifically identify who -- what real person, not imaginary ones in your head -- has taken the position that you claim.

No one has. You're inventing opponents, sides, and enemies. You're assigning beliefs to imaginary people, and then attacking them. You seem to be wanting something from me? Do you expect me to agree with the mindsets that you've assigned the imaginary people, and to defend them? Or do you expect me to join you in condemning imaginary people for the imaginary beliefs that you've given them? What?

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 1:37 AM, Brant Gaede said:

I think you started it.

---Brant

Yes? For ad hominem, look at the thread title. The topic began respectfully, reverted to a personal hit piece of MN. Michael left in disgust at being tricked by the initial pleasantries, supposedly.  Easier to try take apart a personality than debate his ideas. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 2:00 PM, Jonathan said:

Really? You had claimed that certain people have certain beliefs and desires. Go to the top of this page, and read the post in which I quoted you making the claims. I challenged you to specifically identify who -- what real person, not imaginary ones in your head -- has taken the position that you claim.

No one has. You're inventing opponents, sides, and enemies. You're assigning beliefs to imaginary people, and then attacking them. You seem to be wanting something from me? Do you expect me to agree with the mindsets that you've assigned the imaginary people, and to defend them? Or do you expect me to join you in condemning imaginary people for the imaginary beliefs that you've given them? What?

J

And I repeat, that for every effect there is a cause. A painting does not exist without a maker. They are connected. There's nothing "imaginary" about postmodern artworks, we've all seen them, and nothing imaginary about the artists. Nothing imaginary about the acclaim their work is often received with. It is redundant to name some or any personalities. I don't "expect" more than discussion about the intentions of artists, the affective power of a pictoral 'idea' and the final effect art has on culture, but you've succeeded in shutting that down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, anthony said:

And I repeat, that for every effect there is a cause. A painting does not exist without a maker. They are connected. There's nothing "imaginary" about postmodern artworks, we've all seen them, and nothing imaginary about the artists. Nothing imaginary about the acclaim their work is often received with. It is redundant to name some or any personalities. I don't "expect" more than discussion about the intentions of artists, the affective power of a pictoral 'idea' and the final effect art has on culture, but you've succeeded in shutting that down. 

Tony, you don't have the ability to distinguish between what's imaginary and what's not.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...