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.
To: 351 Cleveland; AFPhys; agenda_express; almcbean; ambrose; Amos the Prophet; AnalogReigns; ...
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
2 posted on
04/04/2006 7:37:00 AM PDT by
Mr. Silverback
("I was in such a hurry to climb that tree, I punched a squirrel.")
To: Mr. Silverback
Singing: "And my heart belongs to Dada."
3 posted on
04/04/2006 7:39:09 AM PDT by
NaughtiusMaximus
(Join me! Every night I pray for Global Warming . (And I think it's beginning to work.))
To: Mr. Silverback
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.
5 posted on
04/04/2006 7:44:33 AM PDT by
Killborn
(Pres. Bush isn't Pres. Reagan. Then again, Pres. Regan isn't Pres. Washington. God bless them all.)
To: Mr. Silverback
6 posted on
04/04/2006 7:44:47 AM PDT by
Mr. Jeeves
("When the government is invasive, the people are wanting." -- Tao Te Ching)
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."
7 posted on
04/04/2006 7:45:09 AM PDT by
Milhous
(Sarcasm - the last refuge of an empty mind.)
To: Mr. Silverback
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.
8 posted on
04/04/2006 7:59:46 AM PDT by
Desron13
(If you constantly vote between the lesser of two evils then evil is your ultimate destination.)
To: wagglebee
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.
9 posted on
04/04/2006 8:05:35 AM PDT by
little jeremiah
(Tolerating evil IS evil.)
To: Mr. Silverback
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.
11 posted on
04/04/2006 8:20:11 AM PDT by
BadAndy
(Islam is a religion of submission. YOUR submission.)
To: Mr. Silverback
Thanks for posting the article. This is a serious interest of mine.
To: Mr. Silverback
For those curious: Tada...! Dadaism
![](http://www.dadart.com/dada-media/galaxie-dada-p.jpg)
21 posted on
04/04/2006 10:04:10 AM PDT by
sully777
(wWBBD: What would Brian Boitano do?)
To: Mr. Silverback
I think the art elites are easily entertained.
To: Mr. Silverback
28 posted on
04/04/2006 8:31:46 PM PDT by
kanawa
(My dog ate my tagline)
To: Mr. Silverback
To: Mr. Silverback
![](http://i7.ebayimg.com/04/i/05/e1/8d/10_12.JPG)
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"
35 posted on
04/05/2006 7:07:10 AM PDT by
Utah Binger
(Southern Utah, where the world comes to see America!)
To: Mr. Silverback
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.
36 posted on
04/05/2006 8:35:30 AM PDT by
pa_dweller
(South of the border - a phrase fast losing its meaning)
To: Mr. Silverback
41 posted on
04/05/2006 9:01:03 AM PDT by
Dante3
To: Mr. Silverback
46 posted on
04/05/2006 9:13:54 AM PDT by
Liberty Valance
(Gene Pitney is dead and i'm not feelin' so good myself)
To: Mr. Silverback
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".
47 posted on
04/05/2006 9:36:51 AM PDT by
garyhope
(Simplicity is best in everything)
To: Mr. Silverback
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson