[Mr. Silverback]

There are links to further information at the source document.

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[Mr. Silverback]

BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!

If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Singing: "And my heart belongs to Dada."

[Killborn]

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.

[Mr. Jeeves]

ARC International has the best examples of "real" art.

[Milhous]

Communist Goals (1963)

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."

[Desron13]

You don't need an advanced degree in the humanities to know that most of the so called artists of today are nothing more than CON artists.

[little jeremiah]

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.

[BadAndy]

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.

[conservativepoet]

Thanks for posting the article. This is a serious interest of mine.

[sully777]

For those curious: Tada...! Dadaism

[TexanToTheCore]

I think the art elites are easily entertained.

[kanawa]

Storm Warning to the Art World: Everything is going to Change!

[Captainpaintball]

Then: dada

Now: doo doo

[Utah Binger]

In 1925 an American painter made the most significant statement of his own "ism". Working without the benefit of copying the "masters", this painter made compositions from his ideas about the great American western landscape.

MAYNARD DIXON "CLOUD WORLD"

[pa_dweller]

I was there yesterday. We got there just in time to 'experience' an electronic piano concert. What a waste of seven or eight baby grands! They (he?) could have done Rhapsody in Blue but, no. I escaped this cacophony by heading into the exhibit area. I have a $20 landscape painting over the monitor which holds more interest for me than anything I saw in there.

Thankfully, there's also a French Impressionist exhibit which salvaged this foray into the arts.

[Dante3]

Interesting.

[Liberty Valance]

bimp

[garyhope]

Art is ideas sometimes represented by objects or experiences.

Art is not just, and doesn't have to be "realistic" representations of people, nature or events. We have photography for that. Yes, some "realistic" art can be great, but it's not just about photographic representionalism or how tightly someone can paint.

Great skill can produce beautifully rendered, representational illustrations of trivial, empty, and banal art bereft of worthwhile ideas or thought. Just because it's "pretty" doesn't mean it's any good in the long run.

Great art usually transcends itself and becomes difficult to explain easily. Things easily explained are usually banal or mundane. Not to say that simplicity or "common sense" are bad.

Many ideas are abstract and difficult to understand but that doesn't mean that they are not "real".

Music can be abstract. For some people JS Bach or Bartok is too difficult to listen to or "understand" if you really need to "understand" music to be moved or affected by it. If some people don't "get it", does that mean it's all invalid? Does it have to be explained that JS Bach is better than Lawrence Welk, Yanni or John Tesh?

Much of so called "realistic" or "representational" art or painting can also be a bunch of treacly, sentimental rubbish in the same way that some so called modern, avant-garde or "new" art can also be pretentious, condescending rubbish.

The Marcel Duchamp urinal can be art as idea when it was making fun of the idea of art itself.

What's wrong with thinking or being challenged?

You can always buy a Thomas Kincade "painting".

[Blind Eye Jones]

If the post moderns have their way art will be pushed even farther into the absurd, for example, art can only be viewed by scientific equipment (a merger of science and art) or art can only be done by the genetically cloned, hence there will be no art until the future, or shocking art can done but only if it can also be undone (mantling and dismantling a bomb)...

OK, I'm making this up but my point is that this approach goes nowhere fast and has make a mockery of itself for almost the last hundred years. I think that 'creativity' and 'artist' are now distinctions that are accessible to everyone so that anyone can be an artist and partake in the activity, an activity generally believed to be a good thing. But these distinctions have now been leveled to the point where they are meaningless: there is no content, everyone feels included and it only encourages self satisfaction. Equality in the arts means a flattery of the public and its tastes: the bourgeois don't want to believe that they are bourgeois. Thus equality has no place for real genius and it rather proclaim what isn't art (whateveryone can do) is now art.