| | Whoa. There are some very interesting aesthetic ideas going on in this thread and also on the other thread on Contemplation. Tim thanks for your comments on "God". About the other stuff I am really pressed for time but I would still like to throw in a few comments.
1. Tim, something we try to do here is use reason in our arguments or point of views and try to use words with their real meanings. I don't know how you can define an art movement by a date and time--that doesn't make any sense. You would have to define it by the style or manner of the works. You hit on a good definition of PM art when you say that it is anything. In my case I define postmodern art as anything but representational painting or sculpture and/or its main themes are disgusting or senseless. Many examples of which you have cited. BTW, good luck with your studies!
2. Picasso! I love Picasso, he rates for me just under Rembrandt and Michelangelo. But I do find many of his works to have a pathetic philosophical message, that life is a fragmented mess. What I love is his brilliance of execution as a painter, incredible use of color, composition, movement…and his realistic works are brilliant. Discussing him brings me to a few related aesthetic points:
3. Art criticism should be based on HOW well does the artist express their theme. This is all about the technical stuff: composition, form, etc. Rand made a very clear statement about this in Romantic Manifesto with regards to Tolstoy being an excellent writer. In the Art of Fiction Writing she even praise a writer who wrote about unicorns! But if one were to look at meaning or philosophical content of an artwork you would look at the ethical perspective: if the content is positive or negative for a healthy humanity. In the same way philosophy makes ethical judgements on politics, medical ethics, etc. But I stress the philosophical elements have nothing to do with the artwork is good or not.
4. Also the issue of influence comes up which is also debated on the Contemplation thread. Everything an artist experiences can find its way into an artwork: their background, their visual environment, their studies, teachers, artists they like, their knowledge of art history, etc. In my work if I find that something I am doing looks strongly like a other artist's work I will reject that idea, even if it looks too much like something I have already done I will think of rejecting it. Because of the inevitability of influences I think it is crucial for an artist to be constantly in-touch directly with reality. I mean if you are painting a portrait of someone not to rely on photos or only your mind's eye but do your visual research of a living breathing person--it is inevitably that you will see unique nuances that you could not have imagined or seen in a photograph--and these nuances from real life imbue the work with uniqueness, freshness, and nuance.
5. And SHOCK! I think that "shock" plays a vital role in art! Think of the size of the David. The Blinding of Samson by Rembrandt, it is explicit! In Tchaikovsky's Pathetique symphony in the first movement there is a lyrical part that quietly winds down to lulling silence and then, BLAST, a huge explosion of sound takes off at breakneck speed. Every ten minutes in the Opera Tosca is shocking including the homicidal villain's aria declaring is lust for murder, rape, and deceit INSIDE a church with a choir singing in the background. Think of the train wreck in the tunnel in Atlas or the torture of Galt. Shock is very important in art and can startle people out of their apathy. But shock the use of shock as an AESTHETIC and PRIMARY criteria is a dead end street and ultimately dictated by audience reaction not the genuine expression of the artist. This is what we have now, a PM audience that is no longer shocked by anything, hence murder in the guise of art is the next step for postmodern artists.
6. Oh god, about "God Releasing Stars into the Universe"…hmmm, all paintings are spiritual self-portraits! No I was not the model, there was a real living person who was the model for that painting. I do think that artistic creation is what it feels like to be a god--as the artist you re-create the world the way you would like to see it. I think Matthew said it perfectly: "that each man, with his ability to understand and manipulate the world around him, possesses the potential to be a god." Oh…and I have/am painting women goddesses too!
|
|
