From: IN%"[email protected]" "Art Criticism Discussion Forum" 29-JUL-1994
01:47:00.55
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: class, elitism
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: [email protected]
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HF9F13HESK8ZDV18@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:46 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 7792 for HRL@PSUARCH; Fri,
29 Jul 1994 01:46 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6171; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:54:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:33:46 -0500
From: lugo0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: class, elitism
In-reply-to: (null)
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HF9F13HESK8ZDV18@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: Art Criticism Discussion Forum
<ARTCRIT%YORKVM1.bitnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A certain segment of the art world is elitist and everyone knows it. It
is ridiculous to argue otherwise. This does not imply that all art is
elite. As for specialized knowledge, perhaps some art is about this, but
not all art is about specialized knowledge, nor requires specialized
knowledge.
While I am on my soapbox. I think a good many artists sell out. They are
interested in their art form and they are also interested in money.
Nothing is wrong with money except that it doesn't really exist.
Everything we think about money is false. It is an illusion based on an
underlying set of priniciples about priorities of work, industry,
commerce, trade, agriculture and education. Money does not exist but
these things do, and money is simply a pass, a ticket, if you will, to
various levels of participation in culture.
There are many aspects to art. First, and foremost, there are aesthetics.
This is what distinguishes are from say rolling in the mud or operating a
lawn mower (although these are art forms too). Second, there is the idea.
I separate the idea from aesthetics although perhaps some people might
not. This for me is the distinction between say, the subject of a
portrait and the technical aspects of it, such as line and color. Third,
there is the actual artist. These three factors work in a unique
combination to produce what we call art.
I think artists have a responsibility to present revolutionary ideas and
revolutionary thoughts to the public at large. This is not necessarily
the function of art, but it is part of the history. This going out on a
limb inevitably puts the artist at odds with the general mechanics of
culture mentioned earlier, such as industry and commerce, and the general
"collective mind" engendered in such forms as television. This means that
many artists will never make a living at their art, many artists will
simply create and not prosper in a financial sense. This is a limit of a
market economy. To base an entire economic system on the prinicple of a
market, is inherently exclusive of art, since many art forms and ideas
have no place in a market, just like a living tree may not have much use
in a market. The tree only becomes useful when you kill it by chopping it
down and cutting it up and then selling it as board or pulp or chips.
These are some of my thoughts on the nature of art in a market economy,
a market economy which inevitably aesthetics, ideas, and the actual lives
of artists.
chris lugo
01:47:00.55
To: IN%"HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx" "Howard Lawrence"
CC:
Subj: RE: class, elitism
Return-path: <[email protected]>
Return-path: [email protected]
Received: from Jnet-DAEMON by ARCH.PSU.EDU (PMDF #12866) id
<01HF9F13HESK8ZDV18@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:46 EDT
Received: From PSUVM(MAILER) by PSUARCH with Jnet id 7792 for HRL@PSUARCH; Fri,
29 Jul 1994 01:46 EST
Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU
(LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6171; Fri, 29 Jul 1994 01:54:24 -0400
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 00:33:46 -0500
From: lugo0001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: class, elitism
In-reply-to: (null)
Sender: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
To: Howard Lawrence <HRL@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Art Criticism Discussion Forum <[email protected]>
Message-id: <01HF9F13HESK8ZDV18@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-To: Art Criticism Discussion Forum
<ARTCRIT%YORKVM1.bitnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
A certain segment of the art world is elitist and everyone knows it. It
is ridiculous to argue otherwise. This does not imply that all art is
elite. As for specialized knowledge, perhaps some art is about this, but
not all art is about specialized knowledge, nor requires specialized
knowledge.
While I am on my soapbox. I think a good many artists sell out. They are
interested in their art form and they are also interested in money.
Nothing is wrong with money except that it doesn't really exist.
Everything we think about money is false. It is an illusion based on an
underlying set of priniciples about priorities of work, industry,
commerce, trade, agriculture and education. Money does not exist but
these things do, and money is simply a pass, a ticket, if you will, to
various levels of participation in culture.
There are many aspects to art. First, and foremost, there are aesthetics.
This is what distinguishes are from say rolling in the mud or operating a
lawn mower (although these are art forms too). Second, there is the idea.
I separate the idea from aesthetics although perhaps some people might
not. This for me is the distinction between say, the subject of a
portrait and the technical aspects of it, such as line and color. Third,
there is the actual artist. These three factors work in a unique
combination to produce what we call art.
I think artists have a responsibility to present revolutionary ideas and
revolutionary thoughts to the public at large. This is not necessarily
the function of art, but it is part of the history. This going out on a
limb inevitably puts the artist at odds with the general mechanics of
culture mentioned earlier, such as industry and commerce, and the general
"collective mind" engendered in such forms as television. This means that
many artists will never make a living at their art, many artists will
simply create and not prosper in a financial sense. This is a limit of a
market economy. To base an entire economic system on the prinicple of a
market, is inherently exclusive of art, since many art forms and ideas
have no place in a market, just like a living tree may not have much use
in a market. The tree only becomes useful when you kill it by chopping it
down and cutting it up and then selling it as board or pulp or chips.
These are some of my thoughts on the nature of art in a market economy,
a market economy which inevitably aesthetics, ideas, and the actual lives
of artists.
chris lugo