Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (80630)	6/2/2000 7:24:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Good morning/evening, Steven. If Caravaggio, say, were alive today, do you think he'd give a damn about apperception or fauvism? I doubt it. I suspect that he'd be too busy painting, getting in fights, and getting laid to give a damn. The only thing you left out was spending altogether too damned much time in prison! I suspect he'd still be in jail a lot, don't you?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (80630)	6/2/2000 8:08:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There is some truth to that. Scholarship can get side- tracked. At the Cezanne exhibit in Philadelphia a few years ago, for example, the focus was too "developmental" for a blockbuster show, and they sacrificed the quality of the paintings shown for somewhat thin surmises about his artistic biography. On the other hand, I think that connoisseurship is still preferable to the "oh wow" style of art appreciation. Only someone who has looked at a lot of paintings and done some background reading can begin to appreciate nuance. Otherwise, things are a bit of a blur, and looking at paintings is less a matter of admiration than a Rorschach test.........

To: Dayuhan who wrote (80630)	6/2/2000 8:32:00 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

I wanted to mention an experience I had at the Guggenheim a few years ago. There was a small show in one of the side rooms of works by Josef Albers. Tom Wolfe, a writer I generally admire, ridicules Albers quite a bit for his obsession with juxtaposing colored squares, in "The Painted Word". It seemed reasonable, but I see this exhibit, and Wolfe was quite wrong. Albers, in experimenting with the nuances of playing colors off of one another, or even shades of the same color, had created a beautiful, arresting, and useful body of work. It was fascinating to me to see it, how much more so to an artist who might learn from viewing it? And yet, I admit, it would have been a bore, or even weird, to the average person who visits a museum once in a blue moon when he cannot think of what to do with visiting relatives.........

To: Dayuhan who wrote (80630)	6/2/2000 9:10:00 AM
From: epicure	Respond to of 108807

I think that if an idea stays isolated in an intellectual elite it really doesn't usually have much power- although that is not ALWAYS the case. But most really powerful ideas trickle out and find their way into the main marketplace of ideas. So even if one doesn't understand the elitist ideas behind modern art when one looks at a piece of art one gets an idea looking at it. People who (for example) did not understand Maplethorpe got ideas about him EVEN if they had never seen his work. Ideas really don't have to have anything to do with truth, or intelligence or education- the WORTH of ideas (imo- and that is in my relativist opinion) has something to do with those things- but the strength and variety of ideas has nothing at all to do with those things (alas).