Posted on 05/01/2006 12:06:29 PM PDT by A. Pole
Maybe, but it is put in the centuries old Main Market Square of Krakow in the middle of beautiful and historical architecture. Would you put this sculpture in front of United States Capitol?
Wouldn't be the first lost or swelled head in the Capitol
You gave me that straight line.
"Eros Bound" depicts a man’s lying head.
IT DOES look like Bill Clinton....!
To replace the sculpture of U.S. Grant that stands there now or in addition to it?
(......haven't had an invitation like that for thirty years, sigh).
Leni
Next to it? This head of "Bound Eros" is next to the plaque marking the place where Kosciusko swore the "Act of Insurrection" on 24/3/1794 and where the Austrian eagles were piled up as a symbol of independence in 1918.
The plaque is discreet so the huge "Eros" head located a few yards away is ruining the impression.
I just hate what some people PRETEND is art.
The chocolate bunnies are definitely more artistic than some of the things in the quiz, which doesn't recognize them as art for intellectual rather than artistic reasons.
To put it another way, the inspiration is deeper than the object itself. So not to belittle those pieces, but no... to me they are "only" transcendental signals (not to be confused with the movement of the same term). They are evidence that something greater than man was at work in their creation.
Naturally artists themselves can be inspiring, in their work, dedication, and truthfulness.
But to state simply "this piece is inspiring, because it's just so pretty!" - that's "iPod"... it's MTV, sensationalist, fleeting nonsense.
Admittedly this all depends on certain whims of faith that I practice, and a belief that things which exist once, exist forever. If the Mona Lisa burned tomorrow -- nothing lost! The work was done, God observed it, and that is all that ever mattered.
Anything you can tell me which AIDS me in guessing your implication would be helpful.
Socialites (of assumed or self-declared intellect and authority - and who are generally by no coincidence socialists) one day collectively scream: "We stink! Somebody slap us!"
Their cry is actually an expression of classic "liberal guilt"... this notion that privilege can only exist if there are un-seen victims who must be compensated, as no reward is really "earned" and no success is right when others fail. (Let's disregard the true damage that they inflict in other ways... because they just don't care about that anyhow, ironically violating their supposed highest values of "good intentions", and committing life's greatest crime - to them only - of not caaaring....)
Thoroughly annoyed, one good man obliges their request, in the main interest of restoring order, but also to satisfy their prone, pseudo-sexual "asking for it". Onlookers are horrified by his cruelty, however right and richly deserved his actions.
Liberals and compassionate conservatives (who are really the same group) won't stand for what this man has done. "ULTRA-violence!" they scream, in the lexicon of Clockwork Orange, and condemn the man as fascist and immoral.
The slapees, themselves, are extremely happy that their point has been proven: ie. how greatly they deserved their small punishment... though the only crime in evidence, it would seem, was opening their big mouths.
Actually, I was refering to Manzoni's timely death, but I do find your analysis spot on and quite witty.
Oh, I meant UNTIMELY death. honestly. i swear. And no you cannot check my fingers behind my back.
Art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I use a very narrow definition. "Would it look good over the sofa" (for paintings) or "Would I display that in my house" (for sculpture).
Most of the stuff produced today fails the test. Anything involving bodily waste or excretions will always be merely bodily waste or excretions no matter what the 'artist' calls it or sells it for. In the case of the canned stuff from the article it may be social commentary but it is not art.
Public funding of art (in any way) only produces trash. If the 'art' is really art then someone will buy it with their own money. Else it's just expensive trash
Strongly disagree. Appearance is the only true measure of art. Art has no meaning except to the person who thinks it's so pretty that they will buy it, and even then it may mean nothing. As long as it looks good over the sofa it's art.
Artsy types get so wrapped up in the supposed 'meaning' behind things. Cristos (hope I have the name right) did a couple works that were supposedly meaningful (Gates and Wrapped Coast) but were in reality just pollution. (I'll give him credit though for not using taxpayer money and for cleaning up his own mess).
Any 'artist' who tries to use the 'meaning' of the work to sell it (or justify spending taxpayer dollars on it) is merely saying that he's too inept to produce something that looks good enough for people to buy. An 'artist' who relies on 'meaning' outs himself as inept.
If the 'artist', or anyone else, has to explain the 'meaning' then obviously the 'art' failed even to be meaningful.
If it aint pretty, it aint art
Do you know your Dada from your Moma?
Would you value the examples I gave as art - namely MTV or mass-produced items, which are pleasing for a moment but soon become utterly empty in their material existence?
I believe their "emptiness" was the result of their being material in the first place. Whatever masterpiece you think is superior - the works of Michelangelo or anybody - will become similarly dull over time; stare at them long enough, tell the same story over and over, and we get bored with it. Since we take nothing with us to our grave, it seems better, I think, to seek only this intangible "meaning" I speak of... something that God may then bless as eternal.
I do loath the "types" you describe as well, as far as artists go, and I'd even bet you and I would generally agree on what is tasteful or hideous. I only feel that lasting value is attained in the exclusive act of creation, not the product, which is something that no observer (but a divine one) has the ability to accurately judge.
Here, I've mis-spoken terribly... originally I said that art must be the "end product" of culture, but now I've defined more clearly - for myself anyway - that the art, if any, is within a culture itself. "Products" are mere transient reflections of this - things that will turn to dust one day while their creative moments live forever.
I appreciate your differing view, if you think this is all nonsense. This is certainly based on my own faith, for one thing, and even with that I have little basis to sell my view.
Art by it's very nature is a something temporary. With time it will decay. And that's no big deal. It doesn't make the art any less useful (pretty, encouraging etc).
I agree with you that in reality only the permanent things of God are truly worthwhile. However, God has given us an eye to appreciate the beauty He has created, as well as to create beauty of our own. The problem is so many 'artists' can find no beauty within themselves (apparently their hearts are full of blackness) that they can only see ugliness in the world and therefore everything they do is also ugly. Somewhat like most democrats, the evil within shines through.
As to masterpieces becomming dull over time, I can sit and stare at Rodin's the kiss for hours without it being any less pretty than it started. If something looks good over the sofa or in the house, then it looks good. (But then I've been known to eat the same lunch for three years without getting bored with that either. If it works why change it? :^) )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
