Posted on 04/04/2006 7:36:28 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Why would well-heeled folks dress up to attend a fancy gathering where they could admire a urinal? Because it’s art, of course! Or, at least, so they think.
This spring’s Dada exhibit at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., celebrates what the Washington Post describes as “the most radical, irreverent, rule-breaking movement in the history of Western art.”
In case you’re unfamiliar, the term dada means exactly what it sounds like: nonsense. As H. R. Rookmaaker described it, Dada “was a nihilistic creed of disintegration, showing the meaninglessness of all Western thought, art, morals, traditions.” It raises the common to the level of the revered. Hence, Marcel Duchamp sticks a urinal on a wall and titles it “Fountain.”
It’s odd that the movement’s fans laud it as great art, because Dada by definition seeks the demise of art. Echoing Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead, Nathanael Blake writes at Townhall.com, “to abolish art, you declare a manufactured urinal to be a masterpiece.”
Some say the Dada movement continued the destruction of art that began with cubism, which preceded it. German Dada artist Kurt Schwitters said he built “new things . . . out of fragments.” Post writer Michael O’Sullivan describes Dada as “a putting back together of a broken, senseless world [after World War I], only not with the glue of logic, and not in any sense back to the way things were.”
And there, you see, is the problem. Dada sees the fragmentation of the world—and celebrates that brokenness. But true artists “do not merely reflect the world’s brokenness,” writes Erik Lokkesmoe in BreakPoint WorldView magazine. “The truth-telling artists, rather, also remind us there is more to the story . . . and call us to rise from our defensive crouch to again pursue the faith, hope, and love that abide even in the valley of death.”
“In every time and place and in every culture,” writes Jerry Eisley, founder of the Washington Arts Group, “art has ultimately flowed from worship.” However, artists since the early twentieth century have abandoned the “idea of an ideal measure of goodness and truth linked with beauty.” The splintering and extreme individualism that characterize modern art are indicative of the spirit of the postmodern age. Yes, this world is broken, but the role of the artist is to point us toward wholeness.
Art is not dead, however, nor has the Church abandoned it, as illustrated by the resurgence of Christians in the arts—people like Lokkesmoe and Eisley. And another believer whose art flows from her worship of God is Kim Daus-Edwards. Kim’s latest work is her book of photographs, Force of the Spirit, that “represents a surrender to the idea of the holy through the medium of photography.” These black-and-white images are coupled with Scripture and draw in the viewer to meditate on universal truths. “Even though we may turn away from it, the Spirit’s power is ever-present and emerges regularly in our lives,” she says.
The world may be broken and seem random, but that is not the end of truth. And true art points toward the ultimate restoration of our fallen existence. Too bad the National Gallery of Art doesn’t realize that.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Singing: "And my heart belongs to Dada."
Ping!
Oh I beg to differ. Art still flows from worship even with these cretins.
It is the worship of man as god, as embodied by a Communist state they so desire to bring forth.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
Modern "art" is one of my peeves. Actually more than a peeve, since tax payers are often involved, and it signals and promotes a general coarsening and demeaning of the public consciousness.
Just remember, in artspeak, "ugly" is now "challenging", "evil" is now "provocative", and "obscene" is now "edgy". The art elite want to undermine any notion of beauty or idealism among the mainstream and convince us that we simply have to accept their notions of what art is. The next step is to make art a tool of indoctrination and propaganda.
My theory on art is that modern "artists" realizing they can never equal or surpass the works of the ancient masters, had to redefine art to mean "whatever crap I am capable of producing". The same theory applies to classical music.
I was always a big fan of the Dada movement. But strictly for it's sillyness! I also was crazy about DEVO, for pretty much the same reason. So many contemporary artists are just totally anti-social fools. Here in Cleveland we had (was it Oldenberg's?) Free Stamp foisted upon us. What cr@p! And don't get me started on so-called "performance artists!
Exactly. This is designed as "anti-art" but now for the better part of a century "antiart" has been considered the leading "artform".
If it is only art on the basis of hanging in a gallery or museum, it isn't art (even if it may be a "design classic").
No one goes to the hardware store to admire the "collection" of urinal fixtures. But seeing a urinal fixture in a museum gallery with accented lighting "makes a statement". A taxpaying critic should make a statement too and USE that high falutin' urinal. And do it with people watching. Call it peformance art. And be prepared to give interviews when you are arrested. Milk that "controversy" for all it is work. You too can become a highly paid BS Artist.
I disagree. There are undoubtedly plenty of artists who have the raw talent to do art of the same quality.
The difference is in their outlook: modern artists reflect our narcissistic culture.
Most great art was the result of collaboration between an enlightened patron and skilled artisans. Painters need not have great thoughts. Today, even comissioned art reflects the patron, usually a committee.
They're doing that already. I gave up on "modern art" around 1967, when I went to a gallery and saw piles of what looked exactly like dogs**t made of white vinyl or plastic scattered about the floor.
That was the end.
ROTFLOL!
Great one, wag! Performace art, indeed.
Thanks for posting the article. This is a serious interest of mine.
I'm really laughing right now. I am an interior design student and for a history of furniture class we were asked to design our own, and also find existing photos of furniture as art. Because no one else did a Dada piece and I thought I'd be unique, I put up a photo of a table that was actually a bicycle (totally unusable). My professor was less than overwhelmed, "And you chose this junk...why?" she said. LOL!
I pretty much agree with you, but with a caveat. Much so-called "modern" art makes sense to those studying design. Certain colors mix well, certain shapes balance well, etc. Good design is not easy, even in modern art. There is method to the madness in well-designed modern art.
But yeah, the bulk of it is junk.
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.