No, Spengler, I won't admit it
Spengler's column on why you really hate modern art is pretty funny, and probably sort of accurate for a lot of folks, but I can't say that I'm one of them. I actually do like the stuff, just as I actually like atonal experimental music (though I'm not particularly into atonal orchestral music). Of course, neither can I say that I'm exactly "a decent, sensible sort of person without a chip on [my] shoulder against the world." (I'm working on it though. Honest.)
Really, I think the difference for the modern/abstract art and music lover, or at least for me anyway, is that while most people experience art and music in a fairly surface, sensory manner, and therefore gravitate, quite reasonably, toward art that's comfortable and pleasant feeling, I tend to experience art from a far more argumentative, analytical perspective. Most people prefer stuff that calms the senses; I, and a minority of other cantankerous folks (many of whom tend to be critic-types) prefer material that riles the mind. This is often a source of frustration for critic types who feel that everyone should follow their experience, and although I don't propose a solution, it does seem to me that critics and others of similar disposition should generally refrain from castigating general audiences for not getting something. (Other critics, however, are fair game.)
posted by Peter @ 2/01/2007 10:16:00 PM
2 Comments:
You are right, Spengler is funny, and his point about the differences between formal pictorial and auditory representations of art is perceptive.
I love the last line in his article -- so malicious and so deservedly so. But, really, his main targets -- the insanity of the art markets and the arbitrariness of taste -- are too easy. Fish in a barrel.
Your point about the disputative nature of critics is also well-taken, but it might better be used as a point from which to undertake some self-criticism and reflection on the functionalism of critical standards, many of which (however intellectualized) are merely arbitrary delineators of community boundaries.
It is far too easy to say that critics should not be critical of people outside the community of critics -- and it is patronizing to boot. What is more, it trivializes the critical community itself.
All communities are, by definition, exclusionary and draw invidious distinctions between "us" and "them." That's a given. The important question is whether the critical standards applied within the community do anything else. Do they tell us anything important or even useful about the world beyond those narrow bounds.
If the critical community is going to be anything other than a circle jerk, it is going to have to engage and comment usefully on the broader world. Dispute with other critics by all means -- but don't refrain from criticism of cinematic comfort food or what its conventions tell us about ourselves.
ps: If you want the experience of being Pollock, you might try downing a couple of tumblers of scotch, taking a few wild swings at your long-suffering spouse or companion, and accessing this site.
http://www.jacksonpollock.org/
Who knows, you might get lucky, find people willing to pay for your product, and get Ed Harris to do a movie about you.
(Other critics, however, are fair game.)
I'll drink to that!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home