Art & Society

» mimi804 - another opinion

Mary,
Your article is really about the definition of art. I, an art lover but by no means an art neophyte, define art by the standard of Leo, Count Tolstoy: "Art is a human activity having for its purpose the transmission to others of the highest and best feelings to which men have risen". By this meaning Cage's 4'33" of musical silence and Pollack's drip paintings are not art simply because they do not inspire and require little effort or talent to execute. Art should be more than just what ordinary people could do every day. It should convey thought, effort, talent, discipline and skill that rises above the ordinary. People realize this instinctively, as your mother did, when they look at modern or non-representational art. Whether art expert, art appreciator, or art neophyte, we are all capable of deciding for ourselves what pleases us in art.
A composer begins with silence and produces a symphony of sounds that delights and uplifts us. Ambient silence or sounds surround us and can be appreciated at whim. To purchase a ticket and transport oneself to a venue to hear the sounds of silence is to me an inanity to be avoided. I plan to soon attend a performance of Handel's Messiah where I expect to be delighted by a thrilling spectacle that typifies the accomplishment of western art. Why would anyone prefer ambient silence to such a tour de force?
Shape and color can be interesting and pleasing to look at and Pollock's "Autumn Rhythm", an energenic work, would no doubt enhance someone's living room. Compare this work with the intricate lace, soft velvet, crisp taffeta and delicate features rendered in works by Titian or Crivelli. In my opinion, these works of art inspire awe in the onlooker for the talent, training, and effort by the artist which rises above the ordinary. That Pollock's drip paintings sometimes have cigarettes embedded in them degrades them, in my humble opinion, to non-art.
Realize that when some people regard modern art with disdain it because they have well-formed and well-considered opinions. We do not like it, not all of us are art neophytes, and in our judgment, it is not art. Why is this? Because it doesn't offer us the pleasure of "the highest and best feelings to which men have risen". This is, in my humble opinion, the hallmark of art.
Mimi, an art lover

-- posted by mimi804

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds

» Mary Rayme - another opinion

In response to another opinion posted by mimi804:
Hi Mimi--

Thank you for your opinions and thoughtful response to my writing. I appreciate your point of view entirely.

I, personally, would rather attend a "silent symphony" than a full performance of Handel's Messiah. I think this has to do with preference, or taste, sort of like someone preferring vanilla over chocolate.

I was raised in Baltimore and attended more symphony & opera performances than I care to recall because I did not particularly enjoy them. Perhaps I also enjoy the idea of having my imagination be a more active creator in the "silent symphony" process? There is also a contextual element in that in my life right now, I need more quiet, less symphony. So my choice also becomes personal. I know it's unusual and weird. Most people would indeed go for Handel's Messiah. ;-)

And perhaps Pollock is poor example since I'm not a huge Pollock fan. (I think it does in some ways denigrate his art to have cigarette butts embedded in them, but also provides a record or document of his life and work.) But I will say that I can look at the abstract work of Mark Rothko (particularly the lovely Rothko room at the Phillips Collection in Washington DC) and feel as moved as looking at a Rembrandt or Titian....even Vermeer.

Thank you again for making me think about these issues more carefully and from a different point of view. Cheers to you from a fellow art lover,

Mary Rayme

Permalink Print Discussion Email Discussion How to subscribe to feeds