Concerning Art

A Reality Show About Art?: Oh good God in Heaven no!

2010-06-09T10:47:00.000-07:00

Weegee (Arthur Fellig), The Critic, November 22, 1943

It's happened and it's not a good thing. The evil that is reality television has finally figured out a way to quantify the value of art. Allegedly.

Trying to explain why and how this particular type of reality show is morally reprehensible and a sign that we're devolving into and "Idiocracy" would require a doctoral thesis, not a mere blog post. It can be said that art is not food or fashion, and an artist is not a horse meant to run a race. Unfortunately the ethical implications of presenting art as something that can be measured in inches, pounds or speed seem to have gone unnoticed by the good folks at Bravo TV. I hope the artists who've signed on to appear on this travesty of a show know what they've gotten themselves into. If they think they're using the show to their advantage they need to make a thorough reassessment of their own intelligence, and check their self respect at the door. Andy Warhol and Salvador Dali knew how to use the media and make it a part of their art. But Warhols and Dalis happen only a few times in a century.

It's taken centuries for artists to shed the role of picture painting slaves. One TV show, in one fell swoop will undo all of that work. It's an unnecessary setback, and very sad.

My view on the matter might seem a little convoluted or trite, so take a look at what a real journalist, Linda Holmes at NPR, has to say about it:

Bravo's 'Work Of Art': Can You Explain The Thing About The Judges Again?

From Holmes' Article:

"How do you get a panel of judges to judge pieces of art competitively?"

"And while getting too "it's all subjective" about evaluation of art tends to downplay the importance of technique that can be learned and taught, when a panel of judges and the people backstage agree "99 percent of the time" about what was good and what was bad, it raises the question of whether the art is very interesting"

"the confidence the judges have in the infallibility and ease of their judgments suggest that they're not giving the art a whole lot of thought"

Johnny Depp reads Hunter S. Thompson

2010-06-07T22:20:00.000-07:00

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

I Love L.A.

2010-06-07T22:04:00.000-07:00

Los Angeles, The Early Days

Los Angeles, California 1937. A Street of Memory, Olvera Street

Los Angeles late 40's

Downtown Los Angeles at night (1988)

Art in America Article

2010-05-25T21:49:00.000-07:00

Purple Craze for Warhol

By Mary Lapides

Last night Sotheby's demonstrated the enduring ability for the auction houses to sell high-powered art, and sell it well. Sotheby's had a tightly edited 53-lot sale; only three lots failed to sell. Several lots were hotly contested.

Full Article: http://www.artinamericamagazine.com/news-opinion/the-market/2010-05-13/post-war-contemporary-sothebys-auction/

Cindy Sherman, Transformations: The Making of a Documentary

2010-05-25T16:25:00.002-07:00

From Youtube description:

As an undergraduate, Paul Tschinkel studied painting at the Yale School of Art and Architecture, then, as a member of the New York art scene, pursued video as an art form early in its conception. Since then, he has trained his camera on friends and colleagues in the art world and produced documentaries that have become important accounts of contemporary art and valuable resources for scholars and students of recent art. His video studies capture defining and cutting-edge works by such iconic names as Warhol, Lichtenstein, Basquiat, Koons, Sherman, and many others. CINDY SHERMAN (1954- ) creates innovative work that explores the place of women in society. With photographs she takes of herself, in which she impersonates various fictitious characters, she challenges us to think about our perceptions as she shows us numerous roles women can have in our world, such as house wife, sex symbol, lover, victim. Over the past 25 years, she has produced a much acclaimed body of work that depicts the female persona as seen through the filter of the media. In his lecture, Professor Tschinkel will screen his documentary that covers Sherman's first show of color photographs at Metro Pictures in 1981 and a 2000 show, also at Metro Pictures. Included is a rare 1981 interview with Sherman and recent interviews with Helene Winer, her dealer, and Peter Schjeldahl, art critic for the The New Yorker magazine. He will then discuss the art of making documentaries as well as his passion for art and artist.

Jacques Lacan - A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment

2010-05-25T00:33:00.000-07:00

'Television': Repression, Family, & Society

'Television': La Jouissance

'Television': What Freud Discovered in the Unconscious

'Television': Le Versant De L'Analyse

'Television': Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy

"Television": Lacan on the unconscious.

'Television': Lacan on La Guerison (the Cure)

2010-05-23T14:54:00.000-07:00

Pablo Picasso. Portrait of Françoise.

1946. Drawing. Musée Picasso, Paris, France.

From the Website Olga's Gallery

Artist as Celebrity

2010-05-23T14:42:00.000-07:00

A new exhibition at London's Tate Modern later this year will explore Andy Warhol's legacy through artists like Jeff Koons and Damien Hirst, who embody the notion of artist as celebrity and commercial brand.

Source: Reuters

First Photo Interview - 1886

2010-05-22T23:05:00.000-07:00

From Youtube Film Description:
French chemist Michel Eugene Chevreul (1786 - 1889) was 100 years old when he became the subject of the first photo interview.

Such a large number of photographs taken in a brief period of time creates the impression of a movie. A movie starring a man born BEFORE the French Revolution!

(The first known film, "Roundhay Garden Scene" was shot 2 years after this photo interview took place.)

World's Oldest Photographs

2010-05-22T23:04:00.000-07:00

Song:"Liberty Bell March" by John Philip Sousa, better known as the theme to Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Edvard Munch: Gothic Maiden

2010-05-22T22:26:00.000-07:00

Gothic Maiden (Birgitte Prestøe), 1931, Woodcut, 59.6 x 32.1 cm.

From: http://www.edvardmunch.info

Artist Profile: Geoffrey Bay

2010-05-22T22:16:00.001-07:00

Geoffrey Bay: Holy Grail

http://www.geoffreybay.com

Artist Biography:

At the age of 14 Swiss born Geoffrey Bay was accepted to the royal conservatoire for arts in the Hague where he learned the use of colors and illustration. In the following years he travelled to Switzerland, England, Curacao and Japan. Back in Switzerland he devoted himself to painting. The MYSTERY park in Interlaken offered a gallery to the artist. where the exhibition of his works continues and is complemented with new work by Geoffrey Bay constantly.

Video: Jack Kerouac on The Steve Allen Show, 1959

2010-05-22T21:39:00.000-07:00

The Man With the Beautiful Eyes

2010-05-22T11:43:00.000-07:00

W. Eugene Smith

the man with the beautiful eyes - charles bukowski

when we were kids
there was a strange house
all the shades were
always
drawn
and we never heard voices
in there
and the yard was full of
bamboo
and we liked to play in
the bamboo
pretend we were
Tarzan
(although there was no
Jane).
and there was a
fish pond
a large one
full of the
fattest goldfish
you ever saw
and they were
tame.
they came to the
surface of the water
and took pieces of
bread
from our hands.
Our parents had
told us:
“never go near that
house.”
so, of course,
we went.
we wondered if anybody
liveed there.
weeks went by and we
never saw
anybody.
then one day
we heard
a voice
from the house
“YOU GOD DAMNED
WHORE!”
it was a man’s
voice.
then the screen
door
of the house was
flung open
and the man
walked
out.
he was holding a
fifth of whiskey
in his right
hand.
he was about
30.
he had a cigar
in his
mouth,
needed a shave.
his hair was
wild and
and uncombed
and he was
barefoot
in undershirt
and pants.
but his eyes
were
bright.
they blazed
with
brightness
and he said,
“hey, little
gentlemen,
having a good
time, I
hope?”
then he gave a
little laugh
and walked
back into the
house.
we left,
went back to my
parents’ yard
and thought
about it.
our parents,
we decided,
had wanted us
to stay away
from there
because they
never wanted us
to see a man
like
that,
a strong natural
man
with
beautiful
eyes.
our parents
were ashamed
that they were
not
like that
man,
that’s why they
wanted us
to stay
away.
but
we went back
to that house
and the bamboo
and the tame
goldfish.
we went back
many times
for many weeks
but we never
saw
or heard
the man
again.
the shades were
down
as always
and it was
quiet.
then one day
as we came back from
school
we saw the
house.
it had burned
down,
there was nothing
left,
just a smouldering
twisted black
foundation
and we went to
the fish pond
and there was
no water
in it
and the fat
orange goldfish
were dead
there,
drying out.
we went back to
my parents’ yard
and talked about
it
and decided that
our parents had
burned their
house down,
had killed
them
had killed the
goldfish
because it was
all too
beautiful,
even the bamboo
forest had
burned.
they had been
afraid of
the man with the
beautiful
eyes.
and
we were afraid
then
that
all throughout our lives
things like that
would
happen,
that nobody
wanted
anybody
to be
strong and
beautiful
like that,
that
others would never
allow it,
and that
many people
would have to
die.

Kurt Schwitters Poem

2010-05-21T20:49:00.000-07:00

Merz Picture 25A: The Star Picture, 1920

Montage, collage and oil on cardboard, 104.5 x 79 cm

Kurt Schwitters Poem

Getting Around

"Inspiration," the false artist says,
"it just comes to me." And it shows.
His pictures are as like as the four walls of his room
-- morning, evening, midnight, noon.

For myself, I have to search for it.
The whole world is your palate,
but only if you reach,
take hold of what you need and pocket it.

I've walked every street of this town,
know every crumbling curb,
old bullets' pockmarks in the brick,
the unsifted rubbish piles where treasures
sometimes rise from the ashes.

In getting around, the first thing
is to be able to stop.
That's why I rely on my bicycle --
a sturdy old clunker, no gears or gadgets
to let me down far from home,
but a basket of course,
to carry pockets' overflow.

If you must take the train
go fourth class, ride the local.
Avoid motor cars and express trains.

Get to know your travelling companions
and don't dwell on your destination.
Remember, at any station you may step down
stay the night or the morning
rummage in a flea market or listen to gossip.

The whole world is your palate.
But only if you touch it -- take hold! A note on airplanes, airships, dirigibles:
As already stated, in getting around
the first thing is to be able to stop.

from the Contemporary American Poetry Archive

http://capa.concoll.edu

SERGEI EISENSTEIN'S BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN 1925 Part 1 & 2

2010-05-21T13:53:00.000-07:00

D'ohm

2010-05-02T00:22:00.000-07:00

Homer Simpson as Bodhisattva

Inspiration sometimes hides in the most unassuming places, where it is least expected. In this modern world that place just might be television. If we are to believe Eric Bronson in The Simpsons & Philosophy, there are a number of indications that the show’s writers take inspiration from Asian culture and religion. If, as Bronson says, baby Maggie is the Eastern sound of silence, then Homer Simpson can be seen as Springfield’s resident bodhisattva.1 Provided as a vehicle for the purpose of critiquing pop culture, Homer can serve to teach on how to seek enlightenment in American contemporary culture. While appearing as a walking, talking blooper, Homer is the embodiment of the solution to the problem of human suffering, the cessation of desire.

Homer displays behavior in several instances that shows his blatant disregard for the material world. Feeling no need to justify his own existence, simply enjoying it, he negates suffering. Occasions when he does feel remorse are reserved for when he bungles something for a loved one. Certainly not money-driven, he does not seem to worry much when he loses his job, finding an alternative source of livelihood almost immediately and without great effort or thought. He cares not for his own health or well being, but only for that of his family. The idiom “out of sight, out of mind” can apply to Homer as he does not desire things he cannot see. He is tempted by the rival figure in his life, friendly-neighbor Christian stereotype Ned Flanders. Homer’s antithesis both in spirit and body, Ned is the Mara that tempts him almost daily. Homer’s strength lies in his ambiguity toward absolutes, especially Christian ones. In this way Ned provides temptations, seeking to lure Homer away from his chosen path. Ned is the embodiment of everything that exemplifies Christianity, an obsession with sin, seemingly the only frame of reference through which Ned views the world. Ned does not take responsibility for being tempted or having urges, blaming the devil instead. In similar circumstances Homer blames his “stupid brain.” Another problem with Homer and Ned’s relationship is the discrepancy of lifestyles between them. Forever barely making ends meet, the quality of Homer’s living conditions seem inferior to Ned’s, who attributes his success to a strict adherence to an ascetic lifestyle that is based on his warped, self-flagellating interpretation of Christian doctrine. It seems that, because Homer does not follow the rules of self-centered Western culture, he is made to feel that his way of life is subpar by the judgmental environment that surrounds him. In reference to Robert Thurman, Homer completes the task of transcending the distracting influence of his environment. Unafraid of the consequences of non-acquiescence to the dogma of desire for material things, Homer’s consciousness has the opportunity to expand to the point where he is capable of feeling pure empathy with the individuals that surround him.
While this interpretation might seem to go against what is usually presupposed about Homer from conventional viewings that understand him at mere face value as nothing more than a bumbling glutton, where all of his actions are supposedly rooted in pure selfishness, there is a different way to perceive his deeds in terms of Buddhist thought. Homer uses his perceptions to better understand his environment in a way where he can more fully take advantage of it. What is usually mistaken as selfishness is actually an attempt by Homer to experience life totally in the moment, where he incorporates a meditative aspect into the mundane elements of his existence.
In his The Emptiness That Is Compassion: An Essay on Buddhist Ethics, Thurman describes the proper way for a bodhisattva to conduct himself by listing the “Tenfold Path of Unrighteous Acts”. That path states that a bodhisattva must not “take a life,” that which “is not given,” or “commit adultery.”2 These first three rules “restrain physical unrighteous acts.”3 The next four that instruct bodhisattvas “not to lie,” “cause dissention,” “speak harshly” or “chatter foolishly,” restraining verbal acts, while the last three that prohibit coveting, harboring of malice and holding “wrong views” speak of mental acts.4 Additionally, according to Thurman, the Buddhist concept of “selflessness” is defined as “the absence of an absolute self in the empirical self.”5 This knowledge coupled with an idea of how the average resident of Springfield behaves, makes Homer the closest unaware follower of Buddhist ideas on The Simpsons, where he could even serve as their resident Buddhist teacher. Lisa Simpson, Springfield’s youngest Buddhist, while outwardly professing a desire to follow Buddhist philosophy is simultaneously hampered in her efforts by a judgmental, holier-than thou-attitude that provides an example of hubris rather than of how to mindfully empathize or express compassion for other human beings. She seems to have chosen Buddhism in order to use it as one of the ways she can publicly demonstrate her superiority to the people who surround her, showing a disregard for the feelings of others in a quest for intellectual self satisfaction.

As stated, Homer’s actions are usually viewed through a tainted lens of Western selfishness and greed in contrast to a character like Ned Flanders. This could be erroneous, particularly when considering the fact that bodhisattvas are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than ordinary people at “exceptional times.”6 As Thurman describes through an explanation of the “Sila chapter of the Bodhisattvabhuni,” a bodhisattva can “kill, or steal, commit adultery, or lie” if these acts are accompanied by a “motivation” that desires the “benefit of sentient beings,” and that “this the bodhisattva may do, volunteering as it were to go himself into the hells in retributive effect of his sin.”7
This description is reminiscent of Homer’s motivations, especially at times when he’s acting on behalf of his wife and children. He is often shown putting his body through terrible pain in order to help the people he loves. Homer’s gluttony and sloth can be viewed as the necessary evils, a variation on those in the Sila chapter described by Thurman, that he must engage in to better help the “sentient beings” of Springfield, a town depicted as containing a vast surfeit of corruption, hypocrisy and what the Buddha himself would refer to as the “universal disease” of “humanity.”8 Homer can in this respect be viewed as the least intentionally corrupt character on the show, observing his environment with what Thurman might call an empty compassion where his actions do not add to the disease, but rather provide an example of how to mindfully live in a place as part of a culture that ignores a consideration of such higher ideals, or an avoidance of desire that is required to transcend suffering.

References
1. Irwin, William, Mark T. Conrad & Aeon J. Skoble (Eds.). 2001. The Simpsons and
Philosophy: The D’Oh! Of Homer. Peru, Illinois.
2. Thurman, Robert. 1980. The Emptiness That Is Compassion: An Essay on Buddhist Ethics.
Retrieved December 4, 2009 from http://www.bobthurman.com/apex/essays.

Notes
1. Eric Bronson’s essay in Irwin, William, Mark T. Conrad & Aeon J. Skoble (Eds.). 2001. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’Oh! Of Homer. Peru, Illinois: pp. 34-45
2. Thurman, Robert. 1980. The Emptiness That Is Compassion: An Essay on Buddhist Ethics.
Retrieved December 4, 2009 from http://www.bobthurman.com/apex/essays.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. The Buddha as quoted in Irwin, William, Mark T. Conrad & Aeon J. Skoble (Eds.). 2001.
The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’Oh! Of Homer. Peru, Illinois, p. 290

Artist Profile: Jorge Cruz Untitled

2010-04-16T12:57:00.000-07:00

Here's the first of my artist profile installments.

His name is Jorge Cruz and he works for URB magazine. His latest series of work in art photography is called "Untitled" and is an intriguing exploration of the meaning of femininity in a blatant, unadorned way. In his own words he feels that his work is the "reverse Cindy Sherman" where his motivation and his goals are rooted in "both fashion and the idea of maintaining my individuality but at the same time having the conflict of trying to attract a romantic partner. The work itself speaks dimensions of different ideas, feeling and emotions that I hope more people can relate to."

From the writing of Tempestt Hazel:

Jorge Cruz’s Untitled series is a collection of portraits that explore the space between social and individual standards of beauty. Untitled poetically investigates what can happen when a person transitions from one culture’s conventions and ideologies to another. Through intimate portraits of a single subject, Cruz puts the widely recognized triggers of American standards of beauty, blond hair, make-up and distinct style, at the forefront. Together, the works feel like a fashion photo shoot of sorts, with dramatic, unnatural lighting that highlights and mimics the unnatural nature of these beauty cues when imposed on those it was never meant for, but at the same time feel the need to conform to it. In relation to the entire body of photographs, my favorite depicts our star in an introspective state, minus the flashy clothes and accessories, make-up removed, eyes closed, with an expression that appears to be asking “why” to her attempt to live up to this impossible socially imposed image while staying true to her own self-image. While this issue is an ugly truth that many struggle with daily, Cruz has found a way to make the tragic and painful quite beautiful.

His website address is http://monamiejorge.com/ and contains many of his other photographic works.

Deborah Butterfield at Leslie Sacks: Exhibition Closing Saturday, March 13

2010-03-12T20:42:00.000-08:00

Deborah Butterfield Reclining Horse

Deborah Butterfield is one of America’s premier sculptors. The work pictured above, Reclining Horse, 1990, is a life size bronze. The illusion that it’s constructed of wood is heightened by the artist’s inclusion of angle irons, which appear to support a rickety assemblage of driftwood. The message here would seem to be that things are not always as they seem.

The carefully cast and assembled bronze “branches, limbs and scraps of construction lumber” give the impression that the form of the horse is largely happenstance, as though driftwood had simply piled up on a beach and was minimally rearranged to create an equine fantasy, though this and all of Butterfield’s horses have an elegance and unassuming importance that belies their rustic style. Still more ironic, Butterfield’s horses are primarily about stillness, rather than seeking to romanticize galloping steeds with flowing manes and tails.

Butterfield speaks to this point in the following quote:

My work is not so overtly about movement. My horses' gestures are really quite quiet, because real horses move so much better than I could pretend to make things move. For the pieces I make, the gesture is really more within the body, it's like an internalized gesture, which is more about the content, the state of mind or of being at a given instant…

Perhaps the overarching message here is that if things are not always what they appear to be, one is well advised to cultivate the stillness of one’s innermost consciousness, i.e. awareness of feelings and intuition, and in so doing pay attention to the essential nature rather than mere appearances of people, places and things.

Deborah Butterfield’s work is held in the collections of the Frederick R. Weisman Foundation, Los Angeles; the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.; the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; the Museum of Contemporary Art, Los Angeles; the University of California, Berkeley, Davis and Los Angeles campuses; the Whitney Museum of Art, New York; and the Yale University Art Gallery, among many other institutional collections.

Reclining Horse is on view at Leslie Sacks Fine Art through Saturday, March 13, 2010. Please contact the gallery at (310) 820-9448 with any questions.
This work is not for sale.

Patrick Pietropoli at Axelle Fine Arts, Thursday, March 18, 2010

2010-03-12T20:03:00.000-08:00

On Thursday, March 18, 2010 Axelle Fine Arts will showcase the urban landscapes of Patrick Pietropoli which features the shifting perspectives of Paris, New York, Venice, and Florence. Pietropoli's canvases are extremely detailed, large-scale works that characterize the city as an entity. Each painting utilizes color to convey tone, meaning and mood where Pietropoli's devotion to detail and lighting make his seemingly-still images come alive. The gallery will also feature a small collection of the artist's evocative figure paintings. Pietropoli recently moved from Paris to Brooklyn and will be attending the opening reception.

The show will be on display from on March 18, 2010 through April 17, 2010 at Axelle Fine Arts, 535 West 25th Street, NY, NY. The reception is from 6pm to 9pm and is by RSVP only. Please make reservations by calling 212-226-2262. For more information on Axelle Fine Arts Gallery and Patrick Pietropoli, please visit www.axelle.com

The Twilight Zone - The Bard

2010-02-27T22:42:00.000-08:00

Original Air Date: 23 May 1963 (Season 4, Episode 18)

The Secret of Marcel Duchamp

2010-02-27T14:49:00.001-08:00

Ovation TV - Jackson Pollock

2010-02-27T14:46:00.000-08:00

Free E-Cards from the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

2010-02-24T11:52:00.000-08:00

I couldn't believe this when I saw it, but here it is. During the holiday season this past year I was desperatley looking for a free service where I could send reasonably attractive e-cards to all of the many people on my list. I had looked all over the internet when I finally found The Museum of Fine Art, Boston. Containing what appears to be a limitless number of images to choose from, seemingly their entire collection of art, this totally free/no strings attached e-card service makes all the other ones I've seen look silly and pitiful.

From the museum's website:

Make Your Own E-card! You can mail any MFA artwork as an electronic postcard. Whether you want to use a cooking image for a reminder about an upcoming dinner party or a picture of a golfer to schedule your next tee time with a friend, our encyclopedic collection has a wide range of images to choose from.

With breathtakingly lovely fine art images that correspond with every holiday imageinable, these e-cards surely will not dissappoint. Fine art made available to anyone who wishes to use it for non-commercial purposes. Very punk.

And no, I am not being payed to write this recommendation. All of the reviews and recommendations found on Concerning Art are placed here for the simple reason that I think they're interesting and/or valuable.

Happy E-Card writing!

Here is the museum's website: http://www.mfa.org/index.asp
And a link specifically to their free e-cards: http://www.mfa.org/collections/index.asp?key=36

Now Accepting Artist Submissions

2010-02-24T11:43:00.001-08:00

Dear Artists,

Writing to let you all know that Concerning Art is very happy to take your submissions for artwork. I'm interested in showcasing any original art: paintings, drawings, photography, sculpture, etc. Also, if you have an upcoming show or event that features your work please include that in the info that you send to me.

Please make sure your submission includes this information as follows:

Artist Name
Title
Medium
Size
Year
Website Address (or blog)
Information for any upcoming showings, such as dates, times, locations, etc. (optional)

Please send the above info along with a picture to concerningart (at) aol (dot) com. If you don't want to go to the fuss of emailing me an image, simply indicate in your email which image from your website you would like me to use, provided that I won't have trouble pasting it. I should be able to copy the above listed information and paste it when I publish your work in my blog post.

Can't wait to see whatever it is that I'll see.

Respectfully Yours,
Concerned About Art.

P.S. Did I mention that it's free?

Abe's Penny: A Micro-Magazine

2010-02-24T11:23:00.001-08:00

This is one of the most amazing ideas I've seen in a long time. It's called "Abe's Penny" and it's basically a very small art magazine that's delivered in postcard form. An interesting and innovative take on the "words and images" idea. To subscribe to this publication please follow the link below.

http://www.abespenny.com

Dada Manifesto by Tristan Tzara, March 23 1918 & Marcel Duchamp

2010-02-24T11:09:00.000-08:00

Artist: Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968)
The Bride Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors, Even (The Large Glass). (1915-23).
Oil, varnish, lead foil, lead wire, and dust on two glass panels. 109 1/4" x 69 1/4".
Philadelphia Museum of Art.

Dada Manifesto by Tristan Tzara, March 23 1918

The magic of a word - DADA - which for journalists has opened the door to an unforeseen world, has for us not the slightest importance.

To launch a manifesto you have to want: A.B. & C., and fulminate against 1, 2, & 3,

work yourself up and sharpen your wings to conquer and circulate lower and upper case As, Bs & Cs, sign, shout, swear, organise prose into a form that is absolutely and irrefutably obvious, prove its ne plus ultra and maintain that novelty resembles life in the same way as the latest apparition of a harlot proves the essence of God. His existence had already been proved by the accordion, the landscape and soft words. * To impose one's A.B.C. is only natural - and therefore regrettable. Everyone does it in the form of a crystalbluff-madonna, or a monetary system, or pharmaceutical preparations, a naked leg being the invitation to an ardent and sterile Spring. The love of novelty is a pleasant sort of cross, it's evidence of a naive don't-give-a-damn attitude, a passing, positive, sign without rhyme or reason. But this need is out of date, too. By giving art the impetus of supreme simplicity - novelty - we are being human and true in relation to innocent pleasures; impulsive and vibrant in order to crucify boredom. At the lighted crossroads, alert, attentive, lying in wait for years, in the forest. * I am writing a manifesto and there's nothing I want, and yet I'm saying certain things, and in principle I am against manifestos, as I am against principles (quantifying measures of the moral value of every phrase - too easy; approximation was invested by the impressionists). *

I'm writing this manifesto to show that you can perform contrary actions at the same time, in one single, fresh breath; I am against action; as for continual contradiction, and affirmation too, I am neither for nor against them, and I won't explain myself because I hate common sense.

DADA - this is a word that throws up ideas so that they can be shot down; every bourgeois is a little playwright, who invents different subjects and who, instead of situating suitable characters on the level of his own intelligence, like chrysalises on chairs, tries to find causes or objects (according to whichever psychoanalytic method he practices) to give weight to his plot, a talking and self-defining story. *

Every spectator is a plotter, if he tries to explain a word (to know!) From his padded refuge of serpentine complications, he allows his instincts to be manipulated. Whence the sorrows of conjugal life.

To be plain: The amusement of redbellies in the mills of empty skulls.

image of a hand pointing to the right DADA DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING

If we consider it futile, and if we don't waste our time over a word that doesn't mean anything... The first thought that comes to these minds is of a bacteriological order: at least to discover its etymological, historical or psychological meaning. We read in the papers that the negroes of the Kroo race call the tail of a sacred cow: DADA. A cube, and a mother, in a certain region of Italy, are called: DADA. The word for a hobby horse, a children's nurse, a double affirmative in Russian and Romanian, is also: DADA. Some learned journalists see it as an art for babies, other Jesuscallingthelittlechildrenuntohim saints see it as a return to an unemotional and noisy primitivism - noise and monotonous. A sensitivity cannot be built on the basis of a word; every sort of construction converges into a boring sort of perfection, a stagnant idea of a golden swamp, a relative human product. A work of art shouldn't be beauty per se, because it is dead; neither gay nor sad, neither light nor dark; it is to rejoice or maltreat individualities to serve them up the cakes of sainted haloes or the sweat of a meandering chase through the atmosphere. A work of art is never beautiful, by decree, objectively, for everyone. Criticism is, therefore, useless; it only exists subjectively, for every individual, and without the slightest general characteristic. Do people imagine they have found the psychic basis common to all humanity? The attempt of Jesus, and the Bible, conceal, under their ample, benevolent wings: shit, animals and days. How can anyone hope to order the chaos that constitutes that infinite, formless variation: man? The principle: "Love thy neighbour" is hypocrisy. "Know thyself" is utopian, but more acceptable because it includes malice. No pity. After the carnage we are left with the hope of a purified humanity. I always speak about myself because I don't want to convince, and I have no right to drag others in my wake, I'm not compelling anyone to follow me, because everyone makes his art in his own way, if he knows anything about the joy that rises like an arrow up to the astral strata, or that which descends into the mines stewn with the flowers of corpses and fertile spasms. Stalactites: look everywhere for them, in creches magnified by pain, eyes as white as angels' hares. Thus DADA was born* , out of a need for independence, out of mistrust for the community. People who join us keep their freedom. We don't accept any theories. We've had enough of the cubist and futurist academies: laboratories of formal ideas. Do we make art in order to earn money and keep the dear bourgeoisie happy? Rhymes have the smack of money, and inflexion slides along the line of the stomach in profile. Every group of artists has ended up at this bank, straddling various comets. Leaving the door open to the possibility of wallowing in comfort and food.

Here we are dropping our anchor in fertile ground.

Here we really know what we are talking about, because we have experienced the trembling and the awakening. Drunk with energy, we are revenants thrusting the trident into heedless flesh. We are streams of curses in the tropical abundance of vertiginous

a line image of a squiggle consisting of overlapping curves and zigazags

vegetation, resin and rain is our sweat, we bleed and burn with thirst, our blood is strength.

Cubism was born out of a simple manner of looking at objects: Cezanne painted a cup twenty centimetres lower than his eyes, the cubists look at it from above, others complicate it appearance by cutting a vertical section through it and soberly placing it to one side (I'm not forgetting the creators, nor the seminal reasons of unformed matter that they rendered definitive). * The futurist sees the same cup in movement, a succession of objects side by side, mischievously embellished by a few guide-lines. This doesn't stop the canvas being either a good or a bad painting destined to form an investment for intellectual capital. The new painter creates a world whose elements are also its means, a sober, definitive, irrefutable work. The new artist protests: he no longer paints (symbolic and illusionistic reproduction) but creates directly in stone, wood, iron, tin, rocks, or locomotive structures capable of being spun in all directions by the limpid wind of the momentary sensation. * Every pictorial or plastic work is unnecessary , even if it is a monster which terrifies servile minds, and not a sickly-sweet object to adorn the refectories of animals in human garb, those illustrations of the sad fable of humanity. - A painting is the art of making two lines, which have been geometrically observed to be parallel, meet on a canvas, before our eyes, in the reality of a world that has been transposed according to new conditions and possibilities. This world is neither specified nor defined in the work, it belongs, in its innumerable variations, to the spectator. For its creator it has neither case nor theory. Order = disorder; ego = non-ego; affirmation - negation: the supreme radiations of an absolute art. Absolute in the purity of its cosmic and regulated chaos, eternal in that globule that is a second which has no duration, no breath, no light and no control. * I appreciate an old work for its novelty. It is only contrast that links us to the past. * Writers who like to moralise and discuss or ameliorate psychological bases have, apart from a secret wish to win, a ridiculous knowledge of life, which they may have classified, parcelled out, canalised; they are determined to see its categories dance when they beat time. Their readers laugh derisively, but carry on: what's the use?

There is one kind of literature which never reaches the voracious masses. The work of creative writers, written out of the author's real necessity, and for his own benefit. The awareness of a supreme egoism, wherein laws become significant. * Every page should explode, either because of its profound gravity, or its vortex, vertigo, newness, eternity, or because of its staggering absurdity, the enthusiasm of its principles, or its typography. On the one hand there is a world tottering in its flight, linked to the resounding tinkle of the infernal gamut; on the other hand, there are: the new men. Uncouth, galloping, riding astride on hiccups. And there is a mutilated world and literary medicasters in desperate need of amelioration.

I assure you: there is no beginning, and we are not afraid; we aren't sentimental. We are like a raging wind that rips up the clothes of clouds and prayers, we are preparing the great spectacle of disaster, conflagration and decomposition. Preparing to put an end to mourning, and to replace tears by sirens spreading from one continent to another. Clarions of intense joy, bereft of that poisonous sadness. * DADA is the mark of abstraction; publicity and business are also poetic elements.

I destroy the drawers of the brain, and those of social organisation: to sow demoralisation everywhere, and throw heaven's hand into hell, hell's eyes into heaven, to reinstate the fertile wheel of a universal circus in the Powers of reality, and the fantasy of every individual.

A philosophical questions: from which angle to start looking at life, god, ideas, or anything else. Everything we look at is false. I don't think the relative result is any more important than the choice of patisserie or cherries for dessert. The way people have of looking hurriedly at things from the opposite point of view, so as to impose their opinions indirectly, is called dialectic, in other words, heads I win and tails you lose, dressed up to look scholarly.

If I shout:

Ideal, Ideal, Ideal

Knowledge, Knowledge, Knowledge

Boomboom, Boomboom, Boomboom

I have recorded fairly accurately Progress, Law, Morals, and all the other magnificent qualities that various very intelligent people have discussed in so many books in order, finally, to say that even so everyone has danced according to his own personal boomboom, and that he's right about his boomboom: the satisfaction of unhealthy curiosity; private bell-ringing for inexplicable needs; bath; pecuniary difficulties; a stomach with repercussions on to life; the authority of the mystical baton formulated as the grand finale of a phantom orchestra with mute bows, lubricated by philtres with a basis of animal ammonia. With the blue monocle of an angel they have dug out its interior for twenty sous worth of unanimous gratitude. * If all of them are right, and if all pills are only Pink, let's try for once not to be right. * People think they can explain rationally, by means of thought, what they write. But it's very relative. Thought is a fine thing for philosophy, but it's relative. Psychoanalysis is a dangerous disease, it deadens man's anti-real inclinations and systematises the bourgeoisie. There is no ultimate Truth. Dialectics is an amusing machine that leads us (in banal fashion) to the opinions which we would have held in any case. Do people really think that, by the meticulous subtlety of logic, they have demonstrated the truth and established the accuracy of their opinions? Even if logic were confined by the senses it would still be an organic disease. To this element, philosophers like to add: The power of observation. But this magnificent quality of the mind is precisely the proof of its impotence. People observe, they look at things from one or several points of view, they choose them from amongst the millions that exist. Experience too is the result of chance and of individual abilities. * Science revolts me when it becomes a speculative system and loses its utilitarian character - which is so useless - but is at least individual. I hate slimy objectivity, and harmony, the science that considers that everything is always in order. Carry on, children, humanity ... Science says that we are nature's servants: everything is in order, make both love and war. Carry on, children, humanity, nice kind bourgeois and virgin journalists... * I am against systems; the most acceptable system is that of have none on no principle. * To complete oneself, to perfect oneself in one's own pettiness to the point of filling the little vase of oneself with oneself, even the courage to fight for and against thought, all this can suddenly infernally propel us into the mystery of daily bread and the lilies of the economic field.

DADAIST SPONTANEITY

What I call the I-don't-give-a-damn attitude of life is when everyone minds his own business, at the same time as he knows how to respect other individualities, and even how to stand up for himself, the two-step becoming a national anthem, a junk shop, the wireless (the wire-less telephone) transmitting Bach fugues, illuminated advertisements for placards for brothels, the organ broadcasting carnations for God, all this at the same time, and in real terms, replacing photography and unilateral catechism.

Active simplicity.

The incapacity to distinguish between degrees of light: licking the twilight and floating in the huge mouth filled with honey and excrement. Measured against the scale of Eternity, every action is vain - (if we allow thought to have an adventure whose result would be infinitely grotesque - an important factor in the awareness of human incapacity). But if life is a bad joke, with neither goal nor initial accouchement, and because we believe we ought, like clean chrysanthemums, to make the best of a bad bargain, we have declared that the only basis of understanding is: art. It hasn't the importance that we, old hands at the spiritual, have been lavishing on it for centuries. Art does nobody any harm, and those who are capable of taking an interest in it will not only receive caresses, but also a marvellous chance to people the country of their conversation. Art is a private thing, the artist makes it for himself; a comprehensible work is the product of a journalist, and because at this moment I enjoy mixing this monster in oil paints: a paper tube imitating the metal that you press and automatically squeeze out hatred, cowardice and villainy. The artist, or the poet, rejoices in the venom of this mass condensed into one shopwalker of this trade, he is glad to be insulted, it proves his immutability. The author or the artist praised by the papers observes that his work has been understood: a miserable lining to a collaborating with the heat of an animal incubating the baser instincts. Flabby, insipid flesh multiplying itself with the aid of typographical microbes.

We have done violence to the snivelling tendencies in our natures. Every infiltration of this sort is macerated diarrhoea. To encourage this sort of art is to digest it. What we need are strong straightforward, precise works which will be forever misunderstood. Logic is a complication. Logic is always false. It draws the superficial threads of concepts and words towards illusory conclusions and centres. Its chains kill, an enormous myriapod that asphyxiates independence. If it were married to logic, art would be living in incest, engulfing, swallowing its own tail, which still belongs to its body, fornicating in itself, and temperament would become a nightmare tarred and feathered with protestantism, a monument, a mass of heavy, greyish intestines.

But suppleness, enthusiasm and even the joy of injustice, that little truth that we practise as innocents and that makes us beautiful: we are cunning, and our fingers are malleable and glide like the

line image of loops with a few "x"s along their length

branches of that insidious and almost liquid plant; this injustice is the indication of our soul, say the cynics. This is also a point of view; but all flowers aren't saints, luckily, and what is divine in us is the awakening of anti-human action. What we are talking about here is a paper flower for the buttonhole of gentlemen who frequent the ball of masked life, the kitchen of grace, our white, lithe or fleshy girl cousins. They make a profit out of what we have selected. The contradiction and unity of opposing poles at the same time may be true. IF we are absolutely determined to utter this platitude, the appendix of alibidinous, evil-smelling morality. Morals have an atrophying effect, like every other pestilential product of the intelligence. Being governed by morals and logic has made it impossible for us to be anything other than impassive towards policemen - the cause of slavery - putrid rats with whom the bourgeois are fed up to the teeth, and who have infected the only corridors of clear and clean glass that remained open to artists.

Every man must shout: there is great destructive, negative work to be done. To sweep, to clean. The cleanliness of the individual materialises after we've gone through folly, the aggressive, complete folly of a world left in the hands of bandits who have demolished and destroyed the centuries. With neither aim nor plan, without organisation: uncontrollable folly, decomposition. Those who are strong in word or in strength will survive, because they are quick to defend themselves; the agility of their limbs and feelings flames on their faceted flanks.

Morals have given rise to charity and pity, two dumplings that have grown like elephants, planets, which people call good. There is nothing good about them. Goodness is lucid, clear and resolute, and ruthless towards compromise and politics. Morality infuses chocolate into every man's veins. This task is not ordained by a supernatural force, but by a trust of ideas-merchants and academic monopolists. Sentimentality: seeing a group of bored and quarrelling men, they invented the calendar and wisdom as a remedy. By sticking labels on to things, the battle of the philosophers we let loose (money-grubbing, mean and meticulous weights and measures) and one understood once again that pity is a feeling, like diarrhoea in relation to disgust, that undermines health, the filthy carrion job of jeopardising the sun. I proclaim the opposition of all the cosmic faculties to that blennorrhoea of a putrid sun that issues from the factories of philosophical thought, the fight to the death, with all the resources of

DADAIST DISGUST

Every product of disgust that is capable of becoming a negation of the family is dada; DADA; acquaintance with all the means hitherto rejected by the sexual prudishness of easy compromise and good manners: DADA; abolition of logic, dance of those who are incapable of creation: DADA; every hierarchy and social equation established for values by our valets: DADA; every object, all objects, feelings and obscurities, every apparition and the precise shock of parallel lines, are means for the battle of: DADA; the abolition of memory: DADA; the abolition of archaeology: DADA the abolition of prophets: DADA; the abolition of the future: DADA; the absolute and indiscutable belief in every god that is an immediate product of spontaneity: DADA; the elegant and unprejudiced leap from on harmony to another sphere; the trajectory of a word, a cry, thrown into the air like an acoustic disc; to respect all individualities in their folly of the moment, whether serious, fearful, timid, ardent, vigorous, decided or enthusiastic; to strip one's church of every useless and unwieldy accessory; to spew out like a luminous cascade any offensive or loving thought, or to cherish it - with the lively satisfaction that it's all precisely the same thing - with the same intensity in the bush, which is free of insects for the blue-blooded, and gilded with the bodies of archangels, with one's soul. Liberty: DADA DADA DADA; - the roar of contorted pains, the interweaving of contraries and all contradictions, freaks and irrelevancies: LIFE.

in 1916 at the CABARET VOLTAIRE in Zurich

The House on Haunted Hill

2009-11-13T14:42:00.001-08:00

The House on Haunted Hill

1959, directed by William Castle, written by Robb White, Starring Vincent Price

Edvard Munch Paintings

2009-11-13T14:33:00.000-08:00

Edvard Munch Paintings

Egon Schiele with Bach, solo piano

2009-10-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

Egon Schiele Video

Emil Nolde - mer & terre

2009-10-23T15:11:00.000-07:00

Great Emil Nolde Video

Looking Through the D’oh-Nut Hole

2009-08-02T18:51:00.000-07:00

ed src="http://tvali.ge/player480/Caucasus_FLVPlayer_Progressive.swf?xmlFile=http://tvali.ge/dataNew.php?vid=acada994fa9f081004122233&vw=480&vh=360" quality="high" bgcolor="#ffffff" width="480" height="360" scale="noscale" allowFullScreen="true" name="svplayer" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" />

The Simpsons: Season 10, Episode 19: Mom and Pop Art

Looking Through the D’oh-Nut Hole

What is television? Or, more to the point; what place does television hold in relation to art? Is television an art in itself or simply a medium for the dissemination of art? TV is a controversial thing, in every way of which it can be regarded. Formulating commentary about television that accurately describes what meaning it holds as an artifact in current American culture is, as design critic Stephen Bayley put it when attempting to write on the subject of taste, “not so much difficult as impossible.”

Television does have something in common with art that cannot escape even the most casual observational comparison between the two. They both take up space. A painting, sculpture or television set are all meant to not only take up a measurable three-dimensional space, but also to serve as one of a room’s intended focal points. Especially now that television’s mimic the form of traditional art pieces, as the newly available flat-screens are meant to be hung on walls just like their once removed, antediluvian cousin paintings. Televisions like paintings serve a similar, utilitarian function in their service as an entertainment medium. They are both meant to be looked at.

But, does television fulfill a calling similar or identical to that of art? A television program that has helped to document and define culture much like great artworks of the past is The Simpsons. Throughout history artists have interpreted and depicted the Venus, the Virgin and the Holy Whore in a manner comparable to the way preachers and other representatives of Christian religion have interpreted the Bible. Similarly, The Simpsons has assisted culture in defining for all who have been exposed to it one very specific and important element of it; the provenance and function of women. Other animated shows like South Park, King of the Hill and Family Guy also seem to reflect upon the meaning of femininity. However, since The Simpsons was the forefather of this genre of TV show, and all the other shows mentioned can be viewed as its descendants in both form and function, this essay will concentrate on the feminine within the confines of Springfield.

From an observation of The Simpsons many things about culture as it exists currently in America can be inferred. Premier among them, and for the purpose of this essay, is that women are different from men. Perhaps this is a simplistic observation, but one that is surely accurate.

All of the male characters on the Simpsons, and on other animated shows that have taken inspiration from it, have one thing in common in that they can be viewed as lovable creatures that inspire the audience’s sympathy and sense of fairness. The female characters also contain a common strain. Almost all of them are unequivocally and without exception meant to be abhorred, only each in varying degrees. While the male characters are portrayed as flawed any imperfection seems to exist largely for comic effect or to personify through absurd exaggeration the harsh realities of life. The female characters seem to exist to present an almost always unflattering side of the feminine role in society and the toll it takes of the efficacy of masculinity. Every conception of all of the male characters on the show conjures sentiments that simultaneously connote both the good and the evil contained in the personage of mankind. Virtues such as loyalty, love, friendship, dedication, courage and kindness can be associated even with the most imperfect male Simpsons character; forever bumbling, blundering patriarch and walking, talking blooper, Homer Simpson. Simultaneously, a viewer would be hard pressed to associate virtue or any higher traits with most of the show’s female characters. It seems that every regularly featured female can be accurately described as a vile, poisonous witch very few if any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Even the most morally correct woman on the show Marge Simpson is not without her ugly moments. Left to her own devices, Marge’s concerned worry wart mommy image crumbles, giving way to unspeakable acts of cruelty and vice. In instances when she is unencumbered from the duties necessary to being an efficient, mindful housewife and mother Marge unveils a dark side that includes a gambling addiction and a moralizing holier-than-thou streak that presents itself in a reactionary guise, leading her to play the unwelcomed role of censor in many episodes of the show, sometimes simply as a result of the condition of her presence.

Portrayed as Homer’s “long suffering wife”, her virtues are amplified possibly because of the simple reason that she is the matriarch of the Simpson family, with which the audience is presumably meant to identify. While the writers of the show try to disguise Marge’s faults in an ordinary episode, one of her less than commendable traits almost never concealed is her lack of backbone. Frequently highlighting her dissatisfaction in her relationship with her husband, Marge is shown continually trying to ignore the embarrassment caused by Homer’s antics, which has become a normal part of her life. In short, Marge’s mission is, or has become trying to polish the turd that is Homer.

While Marge’s moral qualities are among the most favorable and admirable examples of such on The Simpsons, her female friends and neighbors are portrayed in a largely unfavorable light. Many if not all of the women in Springfield who show signs of self-assertiveness are almost without fail also shown as opportunistic, gossiping, morally bankrupt, back-stabbing harpies.

The only exception to this ugliness is in the guise of Maude Flanders, Ned Flanders’ “long suffering wife”. Maude is the only other female character who can be viewed as a non-shrew, mainly because the audience does not know very much about her. It looks as if she might simply serve as a carbon copy of Marge. From the given information it is apparent that Maude is the quiet, docile spouse of Homer Simpson’s friendly neighbor and arch-nemesis, bible-beating, church-going Ned, who also provides by way of antitheses a juxtaposition to Homer’s moral values and system of logic. While Marge carries the burden of Homer’s lack of impulse control, Maude as Ned’s wife is meant to tolerate her husband’s hyper-moralistic views and the effect that Ned’s Christian asceticism has on the Flanders family’s life, exemplified on one of the show’s episodes by Ned’s late-night phone calls to Reverend Lovejoy, expressing his worry that he might be coveting his own wife. Marge and Maude are very similar characters in that both wives must bear the brunt of their husband’s selfish and insecure behavior.

Another thing that the audience knows about Maude Flanders is that the writers of the show saw fit to kill off her character, the implications of that decision being open to many interpretations. Once Maude is gone, Marge remains as the only woman who endures as the show’s weak bastion of moral fortitude and tolerance.

Which leads back to the original question: Is The Simpsons show misogynistic in nature, or is it at least a viable assumption to make when confronted with a portrayal of femininity on the show that is observably skewed in a negative direction? Additionally, is finding an answer to that question important? Does it make a difference either way?

Negative portrayals of women can be seen as illustrative of the general, maybe unconscious bias of the show’s creators and a simple reflection of the viewing audience’s opinions. In this case art might not be imitating life, but fulfilling a collective need for introspection.

Calling The Simpsons a misogynistic show, even with the use of a superbly constructed argument, would probably be inaccurate. Focusing more on the audience and trying to understand the welcoming popular reception of the show, if it is taken as a complex caricature of not only a collectively negative view of women but also of modern culture as a whole, might be a more productive, fruit bearing exercise. Endeavoring to answer any questions about misogyny in connection with representations of it in art and pop culture cannot be done without incurring a debt on any preexisting bias.

Ultimately The Simpsons can be viewed as a work of art, comparable in its form to Andy Warhol’s rendering of Marilyn Monroe, or his now cliché soup cans. Art takes up space and is meant for viewing. As paintings, mirrors also hang on walls and serve as conversation pieces. Like television, so too do mirrors, framed and displayed for the purpose of decoration and optical illusion, amplifying the size of the space they occupy, have something in common with TV sets. They are meant not only to be looked at but also into. The inevitable conclusion of this line of reasoning should already be apparent. Works of art serve the purpose of mirrors, where the looker engages in a probing narcissistic introspection of the reflected figure and the purpose of that figure’s existence. Television and particularly well made shows like The Simpsons are a reflection of the society they represent and entertain. It has become an American obsession, since the creation of TV culture, to engage in narcissistic introspection via the sublimation to television, similarly to the way Homer Simpson’s doughnuts, among many of his others obsessive vices, provide him with a nihilistic escape from the reality of reality, Homer’s love of this uniquely American breakfast pastry can be likened to the average American’s love of any object or practice that pacifies insecurities. Like baby Maggie Simpson’s trademark pacifier, used by her as a substitute for speech, the obsession over things that quell insecurities become a means of communication for those who employ them. If The Simpsons can somehow be viewed as a misogynist show that exaggerates the unflattering side of the weaker sex, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. The pondering self-revelry provided by artworks, television or other forms of expression through creativity intended for mass viewing in many cases unintentionally serve to quietly expose the shortcoming and insecurities of both audiences and the artists or entities that create them.

The Twilight Zone

2009-07-30T21:51:00.000-07:00

The Twilight Zone: The Night of the Meek
Season 2, Episode 11

Original Air Date: December 23, 1960
Starring: Art Carney

Blog Re-Do. Please bear with me!

2009-07-30T17:04:00.000-07:00

Currently re-decorating my blog. Will be up and running as usual again by Saturday. Thanks for being patient.

Russell Brand: Hippie Jesus with a Mockney Mouth

2009-07-28T11:13:00.001-07:00

Russell Brand: On the Road Part I

Russell Brand: On the Road Part II

Russell Brand: On the Road Part III

Russell Brand: On the Road Part IV

Russell Brand: On the Road Part V

Russell Brand: On the Road Part VI

Russell Brand: On the Road Part VII

Global Gifts for UNICEF in San Pedro, California

2009-07-27T12:49:00.000-07:00

Global Gifts for UNICEF in San Pedro, California

The parts of this planet that are inhabited by art galleries and museums can appear to exist for the purpose of propagating a cult of shallowness and the vapid elevation of self serving vanity in the costume of artistic introspection. So, it’s nice to find a place where art is used for the purpose of good instead of evil. Global Gifts for UNICEF in San Pedro, California is just such a place. Equal parts curio shop, art museum and folk art exhibit with the added benefit of a social studies lesson, the UNICEF shop is a testament to the rare instances of human kindness that endeavor to make the world a better place.

Showcasing the multicultural diversity that is unique to a place like Los Angeles, the items available in the shop are just as beautiful and well made as those found in any gallery, museum gift shop or chic bric-a-brac boutique. The shop carries items such as hand-made furniture, African masks, Indian soapstone boxes, toy cars and airplanes made by Vietnamese children from cut up Coca Cola cans and a large collection of greeting cards perfect for any occasion.

Prices in the shop fit the capabilities of pockets of all depths and the volunteer sales staff, comprised mostly of adorable little old ladies, creates an unpretentious, caring atmosphere that makes visitors feel warmly welcome with the knowledge that this store truly is a labor of love. All the fun of a spectacular rummage sale plus all the beauty of a fine art gallery makes this shop one of the rare gems that gives residents of Los Angeles a reason to be proud.

Located at 531 W. 7th Street, San Pedro, California 90731, Global Gifts for UNICEF is open Tuesday through Saturday, 10am to 5pm. For more information about the store please call (310)548-1762.

Work by Artist Mario Mirkovich

2009-07-16T12:50:00.000-07:00

Mario Mirkovich
Smoke Tree
Oil on Canvas
24" x 20"
2009

Artist's Website: http://www.mariomirkovichfineart.com

Alfred Hitchcock Hour: The Body in the Barn

2009-07-15T00:10:00.000-07:00

"The Alfred Hitchcock Hour"
Season 2, Episode 32, Runtime: 50:13
Body in the Barn (1964)
Featuring: Lillian Gish as Bessie Carnby
Directed by: Joseph M. Newman

Laurel & Hardy in Big Business, 1929

2009-07-10T00:15:00.000-07:00

Big Business

Stanley Laurel and Oliver Hardy

Big Business
Released on April 20, 1929
Directed by James W. Horne and Leo McCary
"The story of a man who turned the other cheek and got punched in the nose."
Runtime: 19 minutes

Tom and Jerry: Pecos Pest

2009-07-09T22:37:00.000-07:00

My favorite Tom and Jerry cartoon.

Title: Pecos Pest
Created in the year 1953
Released on November 11, 1955
Directed by William Hannah and Joseph Barbera

My Favorite Tom and Jerry Scene Ever!

2009-07-09T00:23:00.000-07:00

Tom and Jerry
Title: Solid Serenade (Is You Is or Is You Ain't My Baby?)
Created: 1946
Released: August 31, 1946
Directed by William Hannah & Joseph Barbera

Lyrics to the Song:
Is You Is Or Is You Ain't My Baby?
By: Louis Jordan & Bill Austin
Year: 1944

I got a gal that's always late
Every time we have a date
But I love her
Yes I love her
I'm gonna walk right up to her gate
And see if I can get it straight
Cause I want her I'm gonna ask her
Is you is or is you ain't my baby?
The way you're actin' lately makes me doubt
Yous is still my baby-baby
Seems my flame in your heart's done gone out
A woman is a creature that has always been strange
Just when you're sure of one
You find she's gone and made a change
Is you is or is you ain't my baby
Maybe baby's found somebody new (Baduledey-dondeedee)
Or is my baby still my baby true?
Is you is or is you ain't my baby?
The way you're actin' lately makes me doubt
Yous is still my baby-baby
Seems my flame in your heart's done gone out
A woman is a creature that has always been strange
Just when you're sure of one
You find she's gone and made a change
Is you is or is you ain't my baby
Maybe baby's found somebody new (Badulu-daludu-deydulu-doda)
Or is my baby still my baby true?
More lyrics and information about Louis Jordan can be found here: http://www.louisjordan.com/

They Shoot Reality TV Show Contestants, Don't They?

2009-07-07T01:26:00.000-07:00

Youtube Deadliest Catch Video Link,

Title: Tragedy at Sea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdNl7Doj4KM

They Shoot Reality TV Show Contestants, Don’t They?

Some works of art are decades ahead of their time, seemingly predicting the future of political, scientific and cultural occurrences. Without going into a painstakingly detailed list of prophetic works, a number of artists and writers have quite accurately foreseen the effects of trends that were only in the first stages of infancy when they were mentioned in any particular work of art. George Orwell, for example, seems to predict the proliferation and prevalence of televisions in ordinary homes in his chilling, futuristic 1984, written in the 1940’s at least a decade before television’s “Golden Age.” Orwell’s accuracy regarding the intended use of televisions and whether those predictions came to be shall be left to the discretion of the individual.

A film that contains a similar sort of Orwellian prophecy is 1969’s They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? Based on a novel of the same name written in 1935 by Horace McCoy, upon viewing it is presumably well nigh impossible for the eerie similarity between the film’s diabolical dance marathon and modern reality television shows to go unnoticed. The contestants at both the dance marathon and on Reality TV are apparently participating for the same reason, money and fame. Participants of both are also prepared to make any sacrifice required of them in order to achieve their goals.

The conclusion of this analysis should be obvious at the outset, accompanying a complete lack of argument. The film was preaching back then, like the Greek Tragedies of yore, what audiences should know now; specifically that hubris and greed inevitably lead to public humiliation and/or a messy, untimely end.

Gloria, the main female character, portrayed by Jane Fonda, at the end of the film turns out to be very different from what is expected. During the course of the film, though she is obviously malcontented, Gloria appears as a pillar of strength when required to endure any and all of the dance marathon's physically and emotionally trying challenges. She is portrayed as possessing an unabashed, never-say-die, whatever it takes attitude toward achieving her objective that would be the envy of a marine. Unfortunately, neither her character nor the viewer can quite figure out what that objective is or what purpose it serves.

Only at the end of the film, when the dance is exposed as a sham and all hope for victory is gone, does Gloria completely remove her mask. The intriguing thing about her departure from the competition is that her decision is of her own volition, because she no longer sees any self-interest in the pursuit. She is not brought to her knees by the contest's physically and mentally demanding rigors, but because it turns out the reward is that there is no reward, where she calculates in favor of leaving as opposed to being party to fruitless suffering for the benefit of others. At this point the viewer is granted access to the character’s true and utmost self. She tells us who she is, what she wants and that she cannot seem to get it, no matter how she tries. Most importantly, she uncovers that she is in fact suicidal and that she has been for a long time. For all of her strength, endurance and mental fortitude, her desire to cease existing, by her own admission, has always been trumped by her fear of pulling the trigger of the gun that she carries in her purse at all times, intended specifically for the purpose of one of the arguably most selfish acts possible, literal self-sacrifice.

The conclusion can be drawn, from an observation of this character’s behavior and the unveiling of her true state of mind, that her ability to carry out deeds that require her to forsake her ego, via the humiliating tasks of the dance marathon, for the entertainment of others and most importantly for the benefit of her career, is merely a substitute for her inability to carry out the ultimate destruction of not only her ego, but also that to which it is inseparable, her physical self.

While it can also be argued that her participation in the dance marathon is not a forsaking of ego, but a quest for its gratification, as Gloria is an aspiring actress, it can nevertheless at least be inferred that in Gloria’s case, and that of many whose circumstances mimic hers, in the quest for fame and wealth ego can be regarded and treated as an incidental commodity that is only as valuable as it is useful.

Through Gloria a parallel can be drawn to Reality TV and its participants/contestants. They too are seemingly in a quest for fame, money and quite possibly ego affirmation, at least judging by surface appearances, and like Gloria, they also may well be harboring a well masked, deep-seated self hatred that, like the purse concealed gun, only comes to the surface when the self-serving quest comes to a metaphorical and literal dead end.

The promoters of the dance marathon and its master of ceremonies are portrayed in this film as monsters, profiting from the contestants’ desperation and pain. The time period during which the story takes place, 1930’s depression era America, is part of the film’s message that poverty, or simply an unfortunate economic situation, contributes to an individual’s readiness to be humiliated and abused in the hope of attaining a promised reward.

The similarities between the dance marathon, its contestants, promoters and reality television are central in an attempt to understand the motivating force behind the creation of the reality genre. Like the dance marathon, the entertaining part of reality television, in its most benign form, is watching people deliberately put themselves in compromising and often embarrassing situations for the viewing pleasure of the television audience. In its most malignant and sinister form, Reality TV can be a malevolent vehicle for the profiteering from and exploitation of suffering, misery and pain, going so far as to film participants in situations that might very realistically go horribly wrong, with programs like the Deadliest Catch serving as the most odious example of a new genre of television that could only be accurately referred to as “Tragedy TV”. Deadliest Catch documents not only the physically backbreaking labor and extremely dangerous working conditions of crab fisherman, but also engages the viewer in a vicarious morbid revelry when a boat does sink, including footage of gut-wrenching search and rescue missions, having already a number of times shown the face obscured corpses of fisherman as they are pulled from the water by helicopter crews.

Ethical concerns should be at the forefront; however they don’t seem to be. A casual perusal of information sources about the show on the internet and reviews by members of the television media almost unanimously laud the program, without any mention of the moral implications of such graphic depictions of death documented for something not even remotely resembling educational purposes. While the fishermen, boat captains and other people featured on the show have presumably consented to being filmed in their arduous occupational circumstances, and might well have done so in the hope of educating the viewing public about the fishing industry, it does not necessarily make the broadcasting of any and all footage collected by the film crews morally correct. Not to mention how the viewership of this show can be likened to bloodthirsty audiences of Ancient Rome, and the inherent exploitation of the subject that is a necessary factor in the utmost to bringing a television show of this type into being. An important question to ask, notwithstanding the ethical scrutiny of the show’s creators, is why viewers watch, and via the condition of mere viewership in the process become culpable in the inevitable profiteering from the suffering and pain of other human beings.

While seemingly fascinated by the Deadliest Catch, many viewers might not have stopped to question the circumstances under which the fishermen are filmed. Are there any labor laws pertaining to the entertainment industry in force for the filming of the show? Are all of the fishermen duly compensated for participating in and appearing on the show? Also, the issue of the film crew’s presence and the impact that it might have on contributing to the perilous aspect of already very dangerous working conditions should be scrutinized. Included in this should be a discussion of why footage of dead bodies has been allowed to air. Neither should the families and loved ones of these men be excluded from the consideration of these issues, or more precisely the concern about how the fishermen’s families react to seeing their fathers, sons and husbands lives constantly under peril, and in some instances their dead bodies. Finally, if a fisherman on one of the show’s featured boats were mortally injured in the course of filming, would that footage also air?

The most disturbing aspect of Deadliest Catch is the demeanor and overall tone of the show. A gleeful anticipation of disaster, tragedy and death is sensed at almost every moment emanating from the show’s creation apparatus, and is probably largely responsible for the popularity of what would otherwise be a boring documentary-style program about fishing.

The author of They Shoot Horses Don’t They? already seems to have known about these things and has accurately predicted how this type of entertainment would be used in future popular culture. Tragedy, pain and the demonic exploitation of human beings are apparently the ingredients that either make for good entertainment or at least improve dull performances. Modern man marvels and is outwardly repulsed by the bloodlust of ancient audiences, while simultaneously ignoring his own inhumanity. As Andy Warhol predicted, this era has provided the prophetic fifteen minutes for everyman. However, Warhol either failed to identify or was wily enough to omit any mention of the cost of those minutes.

Fifteen minutes are now availed to and by virtually everyone, but only if they are bartered not only for a disregard of the ego but also the element of it that provides dignity for the individual, that element being self respect. It appears that slavery is not a thing of the past in the Western World. In modern culture the common connotations of slavery have been replaced with new meanings that more fittingly comply with the requirements of indentured servitude. Audiences of today might watch real-life characters similar to Fonda’s Gloria ultimately because the characters serve as illustrative caricatures of the true, unconcealed guise of humanity. Real Gloria’s, presented by masters-of-ceremonies and TV production companies as Christ-like, self sacrificing figures, are ultimately revealed as an odious, more-human-than-human variety of individual, willing to sacrifice everything not in a search for the salvation of mankind but in the quest for an ego that turns out to be irreparably flawed or nonexistent.

A denouement of the issue concerned with exploitation in the guise of entertainment that intertwines with a description of mankind as a group of people who, for some unknown reason have collectively agreed that the purpose of existence is to aspire to posses the qualities of heroic beings would be incomplete without at least a mention of objectivism, a philosophy that can be described as nothing if not the celebration of ego. Objectivist theory describes art as something that exists for the purpose of serving a human cognitive need. In the case of They Shoot Horses, Don’t They? that need is to identify and describe why and how people are used in a malicious way for the benefit and amusement of others, and the evil that is an inherent part of the process, not only for the abuser but also for the person who assumes the role of martyr. Conspicuously absent from the film and in most discussions of exploitation in entertainment is the entity for which the vicarious benefit of exploitation is intended, the viewing audience. Whether the audience opposes or supports the maltreatment of others for the purpose of entertainment is irrelevant. Silence and inaction are classically indicative of approval. Those who oppose televised abuse, but fail to cease viewing are as equal in culpability as are the active fans, participants, and creators of “Tragedy TV”.

Though her theories are arguably flawed, Ayn Rand, the empress of self determination herself, in her novel Atlas Shrugged, provides the perfect way to address both those who profit from exploitation and for those who would like it to help put an end to it.

The last of my words will be addressed to those heroes who might still be hidden in the world, those who are held prisoner, not by their evasions, but by their virtues and their desperate courage. My brothers in spirit, check on your virtues and on the nature of the enemies you're serving. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love --the endurance that carries their burdens-- the generosity that responds to their cries of despair--the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs...life is the object of their hatred. Leave them to the death they worship...don't exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs...to win requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person...

Howard Pyle and Shel Silverstein's Mermaids

2009-06-27T14:23:00.000-07:00

The Mermaid
Artist: Howard Pyle
Oil Painting

Year: 1910

The Mermaid
By Shel SIlverstein

(Spoken Intro: When I was twelve years old I used to see the pictures of mermaids in all the books and magazines. Not mermaids but mermaids (pronounced MAREmaids), that's what we called them at home. And all the pictures, yeah, they never had no bras on, they didn't have anything on! And I was old enough that I knew that they didn't really exist, but, I also wondered, if they did exist, what the hell would you do with one if you caught it?!)

When I was a lad in a fishing town, an old man said to me,
"You can spend your life, your jolly life, a-sailing on the sea.
You can search the world for pretty girls 'til your eyes grow weak and dim,
But don't go swimmin' with a mermaid, son, if you don't know how to swim!
'Cause her hair is green as sea-weed,
Her lips are blue and pale.
I'll tell you now before you start,
You can love that girl with all your heart,
But you'll only love the upper part;
You will NOT like the tail!

I signed on to a whalin' ship, and my very first day at sea,
I spied a mermaid in the waves, a-reachin' out to me.
"Come live with me in the sea," said she, "and down on the ocean's floor.
I'll show you a million wond'rous sights you've never seen before!"
So I jumped on in and she pulled me down, down to her seaweed bed.
A pillow she made of tortoise shells, and placed beneath my head.
She fed me shrimp and caviar from a silvery dish.
She was just my taste (down to her waist), but the rest of her was fish!
Her hair was green as seaweed.
Her lips were blue and pale.
Her face it was a work of art,
But I only gave her half my heart,
'Cause tho I loved the upper part,
I did NOT like the tail!

And then one day when I looked up, I saw a sailin' ship,
And I met the stare of a millionaire out on a fishing trip.
A diamond ring he tied on a string and lowered it down to her,
And my love divine, she went for the line and went for the usual lure!
So I sighed in the rolling tide, and I cried to the clams and the whales
How I missed her hair and her seagreen eyes; I missed the shine of her scales.
Just then her sister swam on by, and set my heart a-whirl --
For her upper part was an ugly old fish, but the bottom half was GIRL!
Her toes are round and rosey!
Her legs are slim and pale!
Her face might not be a work of art,
But I love that girl with all my heart.
And I don't give a damn about the upper part --
That's how I end my tale! ('Cause now I'm getting tail!)

M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Moerder (1931)

2009-06-05T19:26:00.000-07:00

M - Eine Stadt sucht einen Moerder (1931)

Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens

2009-06-05T19:17:00.000-07:00

Nosferatu, eine Symphonie des Grauens

The original silent film classic of 1922

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or Who's Crazy Now?

2009-06-05T00:10:00.000-07:00

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1919) - Full Movie

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari or Who’s Crazy Now?

Why do certain films seem to inspire people without any real explanation? In jaded 21st century contemporary culture there are a number of films, beloved by many, that arguably do not seem to have a great deal to do with artistry in any of its many guises. Oftentimes, when an individual cannot find any contemporary film to sate emotional longings or fulfill a search for some sort of spiritual affirmation, old films are the only things that suffice to answer modern concerns about the state of existence commonly referred to as “life”.

When old films are viewed, archetypal kinships with the people in them are experienced. Characters like Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz or Scarlet O’Hara from Gone With the Wind are used by the viewer as sources of life experience by proxy, and those characters are understood by the viewer to convey a sense of hope while the film itself is seen as a message that no matter how bad things are, that they will somehow ultimately turn out alright.

And then, there are horror movies. And then, the viewer questions just how alright things will be. A film like The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, directed by Robert Wiene, as psychologically disturbing as it can seem upon viewing, is also trying to tell viewers that everything will be alright, as difficult as that might be to believe, but only in its own, very unique disposition.

Horror movies and psychological thrillers are comforting in their own special way. Humans have a peculiar penchant for finding happiness in watching the suffering of others. Writers and directors of horror films, it would seem, are acutely aware of this trait. Those same humans also like to root for the protagonists in movies of any genre, and all the more so for horror. Caligari forces the viewer to look at a tortured individual while simultaneously drawing sympathy for him, and then, at the very end of the film, reveals that Caligari’s protagonist is completely crazy. That shocking, surprise twist ending is one of the main reasons that this silent film, made in the year 1919, is thought of as an expertly executed example of German Expressionism and considered a cinematic masterpiece to this day. While dealing with the psychological issues of ennui, disconnection and obsessive love in a frighteningly odd way, the film still manages to calm fears about mental illness. After all, Francis, the main character of Caligari, during the part of the film prior to the revelation of his insanity, believes that he is in fact very sane, so why shouldn’t the viewer?

Francis’ happiness is threatened by a rival, Cesare the somnambulist, who, as he sees it in his version of reality, is competing with him for the attention of Francis’ girlfriend and object of affection Jane. This would seemingly be a totally ordinary problem for any ordinary film hero. But Caligari is not an ordinary movie. The difference between an ordinary film protagonist and Caligari’s is that this hero is an inmate at an asylum.

While Francis’ story is being told by him and the film maker via flashback, before the viewer finds out that Francis is mad, there is a sense that something might be wrong, the suspicion of which is ignored because, other than the distorted, disturbingly odd and beautifully rendered scenery, there’s really no reason to doubt that Francis’ story is true. The viewer feels empathy toward him and wants him to succeed in winning back his Jane. And then, at the very end of the movie, we are enlightened as to the heartbreaking fact that he is, or has gone, mad. Funnily enough, it seems that the film maker wants the viewer to ignore the protagonist’s insanity. The viewer still wants this protagonist to “get the girl” and wants to believe that Francis is “okay”. Why? Francis’ story didn’t sound crazy? Did it?

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is reminiscent of an anecdote that has to do with the question of madness. It goes like this: A psychiatrist wanted to study how the patients/inmates of an asylum interacted and behaved when they were not in the presence of doctors or staff. The psychiatrist wanted to see if their behavior was markedly different while they were not knowingly being observed. In order to carry out this experiment the psychiatrist felt it necessary to feign mental illness. Posing as an insane person, he succeeded in getting himself admitted to an institution. The interesting part of this story is that the asylum’s doctors and staff were unable to detect this psychiatrist as an impostor. The patients on the other hand, were not fooled. Without being told, they knew that the psychiatrist was, as they say, not one of them. And so they ostracized him, refusing to take part in what they instinctively recognized as the psychiatrist’s ruse.

What does this anecdote have to do with Caligari? Just as the doctors in the anecdotal asylum could not see that the impostor was indeed sane, finding no reason to question the psychiatrists’ front, the viewer too is unable to recognize that Francis is insane, and as such can safely dismiss any self-suspected insanity. As it seems, and as we learn from the film, the old adage might well be true. It really does take one to know one. In some way the viewer might already know this and, at an unconscious level, find comfort in it. The horrific part of this particular horror movie that is also a part of the “it takes one to know one” epiphany is that the viewer realizes the inability to recognize insanity, however difficult to detect as that of Francis’, can also be dangerous. Meaning; if a person isn’t “one of them”, how can he protect himself without being able to recognize one of them.

Nevertheless, as with Dorothy and Scarlett, viewers identify with Francis. Possibly feeling displaced, as he does, the viewer might also be afraid that some strange, dark force is trying to take something or someone loved away in a systematically evil and mysterious way that cannot fully be defined or proven. There is also a kinship with Francis because the viewer knows, absent of exposure to this films message, either from life experience or otherwise, that the path to defending what one thinks is his can often lead to the gates of an insane asylum, at least metaphorically, where the dark tormentors continue, forever after, to reduce him to minion. The viewer might even feel a transposed love for the poor, unwell Francis, as an effect of empathy and in a desperate attempt to wish away his insanity, hoping that his story was not merely the product of a damaged mind.

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is as much a deeply beautiful and moving work of art as it is a twisted psychological thriller. Like great art, this silent film speaks to its viewer wordlessly. The story contained within it takes the viewer on a tour of a world to which he might not be privy otherwise. Most importantly, and poignantly, this film illustrates that, in regard to love, for all individuals, there is a thin line between sanity and insanity. So, as the title of this essay asks: “Who’s crazy now?”

Salvador Dali on "What's My Line?"

2009-06-04T16:17:00.000-07:00

Salvador Dali on "What's My Line?"

Edward Hopper's New York (NGA)

2009-06-04T16:09:00.000-07:00

Edward Hopper's New York - National Gallery of Art

Le Mystère Picasso: Henri-Geroges Clouzot: Pt. 1 & 2

2009-06-04T15:40:00.000-07:00

Le Mystère Picasso - Part 1

Le Mystère Picasso - Part 2

What if Pablo Picasso Were Alive Today?

2009-06-04T15:35:00.000-07:00

What if Pablo Picasso Were Alive Today?

What if Pablo Picasso were alive today? Would his work be relevant? Would he be featured in any of the many, many art magazines found on newsstands or the internet? And, speaking of the internet, would Pablo Picasso have his own website, or a myspace page?

Obviously all of these questions are hypothetical. And the version of Pablo envisioned, who would be confronted with the situations inherently necessary in the formulation of these questions, would probably be an individual raised and educated in surroundings vastly different from the ones familiar to the Pablo as we know him from the past.

Critiques of Picasso’s work, as well as casual observations of uninformed art enthusiasts, find it obvious that Pablo’s art was indeed breathtakingly beautiful and way ahead of its time. His works are in fact timeless, which is one of the reasons they are still abundantly popular and relevant today. Even today Picasso’s works inspired directly by political events and situations specific to the time during which they were created, such as Guernica and the like, still hold great meaning when viewed with an ignorance of the circumstances that brought them into being. It is commonly accepted opinion that Picasso was an artistic genius for so many reasons that it would be an excruciating exercise in futility to attempt listing all of those reasons here. However, the initial questions posed at the beginning of this essay remain, or another variance of them, namely: Would anyone in today’s world care? If there had been no Pablo Picasso in history as we know him, or perhaps if he’d been born 50 to 70 years later, but creating the same timeless, breathtakingly beautiful works, would his endeavors result in as much success or achieve the same type of fame as they did then?

For readers who are aware of how the art world works now, contemporarily, the answer might be an unsurprising no. In attempts to get exposure and interest in their works, today’s artists run into a large number of road blocks, again so vast in number that it would be impossible to list them all.

Conversations with gallerists and other art promoters not infrequently yield answers in the negative when confronted with situations similar to the above described Picasso conundrum. Without naming names, there are many gallerists who, though they like or even admire a lot of the works they see done by emerging or unknown artists, simply refuse to display those works in their galleries.

Ask yourselves why? Those who don’t know the answer don’t care to. Those who do know don’t like to admit that it’s true.

In many cases art is thought of and treated as an investment. Many of the people who buy art might as well be buying stocks or betting on a horse. Likewise, many of those selling art might as well be stock brokers, or bookies. On both sides of the equation all parties and entities involved don’t want to lose money. They want their stocks to grow in value and/or they want their horse to be a winner. If the racetrack analogy is taken to its conclusion, everyone wants the horse they pick, for whatever reason it’s chosen, to be a sure bet. When a new horse comes along, read artist, even if it’s a strong, healthy, fast looking horse, and somehow it is permitted to run in a race, it’s not going to get a lot of bets for the sole reason of its nonexistent track record.

And so, a large majority of bookies, horse trainers, jockeys (i.e. galleries, agents, art shows) are not willing to risk an investment of any time, effort, money, etc. on an unknown artist because they want to be as close as they can be to 100% sure that the artist’s work will sell, which, even if the artists work is very good, they can’t be sure of, unless the artist has a proven, solid sales record already established.

If Pablo Picasso were alive today, and he was an unknown or emerging artist with no track record, he would also have a really difficult time getting exposure for his work. As many gifted artists are, Picasso too might be forced to do embarrassing, debasing and maybe even fiendish things to get anyone interested in looking at, let alone buying, his work in today’s world, even knowing, as we collectively as a society now do, that the quality, beauty and level of skill featured in the paintings of the great and deeply talented Pablo is rarely if ever called into question by anyone in a serious manner, least of all by art critics and brokers.

So, what’s the moral of “What if Pablo Picasso Were Alive Today?” To gallerists: If a talented artist presents you with his work and you think it’s good … SELL IT! To art collectors: If you see art that you find both beautiful and affordable … BUY IT! To artists: If you like to create art, and you have reason to believe that you are, as they say, “good at it”, yet for some reason continue to have difficulty in finding a place to display your art and hopefully trade it in exchange for money, for you I have the most important bit of advice … KEEP WORKING! A little known, or rather oft ignored, fact about Pablo Picasso is that, despite all of the glamour associated with his persona, he was in fact a pathological workaholic. So if working worked for Picasso, just think of what it can do for you. After all, look how many people want to buy his work now.

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 9: Conclusion

2009-06-04T14:58:00.000-07:00

Conclusion

If one accepts that Kandinsky’s arguments are possibly faulty, narrow-minded and emotionally biased, albeit plausible, what can the reader take away from a piece of artistic philosophy that is flawed, yet simultaneously applicable to the games being played by the brokers of art and purveyors of culture, both in Kandinsky’s time and the present? According to Bayley, society is force fed the concept of taste on a daily basis. According to Kandinsky, a great majority of those, who present themselves as artists, are nothing more than opportunistic charlatans, seeking only to profit from society’s ignorance and malaise. Unfortunately, everything Kandinsky writes concerning the matters of materialism and lack of spiritual grounding in art amounts to an “It’s not fair!” argument that cannot be taken seriously, structurally. Putting aside the possibly socially influenced or emotionally biased nature of Kandinsky’s argument, however, he was astute in his symbolic description of society and artists with his triangle. But to the detriment of his goal in explaining the matter, he does not offer a solution to the problems of which he makes his reader aware. Thus, the solution, either unintentionally or strategically, is left to the discretion of the individual.

Applying Kandinsky’s triangle to the art of today, many circumstances and their results remain the same. Stephen Bayley outlines these conditions as he perceives them, that they only exist conceptually, and that they mean very little, if not absolutely nothing. Left unanswered is how to make a consumer culture more aware of the possibility that, rather than possessing “prophet” artists, society is, instead, being bamboozled by false prophet artists. The answer to that question lies in a task that no one is prepared to undertake, that task being to ignore the money. According to Bayley, in retrospect and in all practical foresight, the money has not and probably will never be ignored. Therefore the conclusion is that there is no conclusion. So what is an art lover to do? How is good art different from bad art? If Bayley succeeds in enlightening his reader, as to the nonexistence of taste, sorting the good from the bad should not be a problem. Drawing from Kandinsky, however, one must conclude that, contrary to reality, art should not be a question of taste or money. Rather, it should be the objective and subjective simultaneously occurring, in both the artist creating the work and the viewer for whom it is intended. To banish any doubt left in the art lover, when he begins to wonder about the state of art and culture both presently and in the past, he has only to read the writing of someone like Wassily Kandinsky. In it the art lover will find a brilliantly verbose analysis of art theory that will, in a grand manner, outline what he is to think, but not necessarily explain why he is to think that way. Then, that same art lover can find someone like Stephen Bayley to help fill in the blanks. Only that solution would result in the advancement of society and art Kandinsky longed for, and somehow lessen the cultural stagnation he found so repugnant.

* If you'd like references for this paper please feel free to email me.

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 8: Spirituality

2009-05-15T11:56:00.000-07:00

Spirituality

Spirituality is what appears to be the motivating force behind Kandinksy’s book. His writing on spirituality is that of a reactionary who finds fault with every religious group, political theory and source of information that does not mirror his own beliefs. In his writing, he mentions Madam Blavatsky (Russian spiritualist, author and cofounder of the Theosophical Society) as someone who was capable and observant enough to see a connection between the “savages” and modern western culture. He describes Blavatsky as the beginning point of a “spiritual movement” called the “Theosophical Society.” [i] By virtue of not expounding upon Blavatsky or the Theosophical Society, one is left feeling that Kandinsky’s brand of spirituality has no firm foundation in reality. He seems to be concerned with the impact of every sort of social upheaval imaginable, stating that “religion, science and morality” have been “shaken,” and suggesting a belief that art would be one of the only forms of refuge for those who could not make sense of what was going on around them.[ii]

At this point in his writing, as in many parts of “Concerning”, Kandinsky sounds less like an artist and more like a political scientist expressing his woes over a world gone mad. His concern for the spiritual in art, while it might very well be expressed in all sincerity, is not as spiritually based as it might first appear to the reader, or perhaps even to Kandinsky himself. Rather than to attempt to explain his (or any of his contemporaries’) motive for creating art he instead dictates what he finds wrong with his environment, claiming it has been ruined by “ultra-materialists” who are overly concerned with the “marvels” of science. [iii] His opinions, though they might be based on deeply held beliefs, are without question those of an individual who thinks everyone is wrong save him or the people who believe as he does. In a number of places in his writing, Kandinsky grossly contradicts himself in a manner which indicates that the magnitudes of his incongruous statements are inversely proportional to his purpose in writing this book.

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 7: Competition and Snobbery

2009-05-12T15:03:00.000-07:00

Competition and Snobbery

It seems that the true culprits in Kandinsky’s admonishments lie in the materialism that creates a necessity for the financially profitable aping and stagnation he deplores. Kandinsky’s background is indicative of his sentiment toward the “vulgar herd”. According to Richard Stratton, in the preface of “Concerning”, Kandinsky was born “to a well-to-do aristocratic family.” -His father’s money, made as a “successful tea merchant … was to support Wassily during many years of study.” [i] Kandinsky studied both “political economy and law … and one year later was appointed lecturer in jurisprudence at Moscow University,” his decision to become an artist having come sometime after he had completed his education and had achieved a tangible degree of success in his professional life. [ii] In these circumstances, coming from an era when class consciousness and social immobility were an ever present reality, he could not practically expect a society, or any individual within it, to be capable of any action or thought beyond realistic means. The stagnation and regression disdainfully identified as the foundation for so much loss in artistic progress, and fostered by the materialism that creates an overstressed emphasis on the profit margin of art, comes from a background with which he must have been quite familiar. Kandinsky’s love of art and his entrance into that field followed his completion of university degrees, in a society in which a formal education in any area of study was usually available only to those occupying the upper classes. Therefore, Kandinsky’s contempt for the culture of materialism and consumption, which was created and propagated by members of that very class that made it possible for him to acquire a higher education and pursue a career as an artist, seems a bit incongruent.

According to Bayley, the “explosion in production during the nineteenth century opened up consumption to social classes” not occupied exclusively by the wealthy or well educated. [iii] In this climate, the “idea of taste then came to represent not a commonly held view, but the antithesis of choices made in the market-place.” [iv] In terms of art after 1830, the “dilemma” of artists was “whether to be society’s picture makers, or to be misunderstood private visionaries.” [v] Apparently, Kandinsky sees himself as a private visionary. Considering this, it would follow that expectations for the “herd” to identify with and comprehend such exclusivity on Kandinsky’s part are quite unfair.

Because of the materialism vastly prevalent in consumer societies all items offered up for public consumption must be commoditized, including art. Popular art is such because it generates a tremendous amount of profit by a process that takes the form of promotion and financing, usually by a considerably wealthy patron, perhaps a gallery owner or an art collector, or a group of people, maybe a museum board or council, whose aim is to promote art for their own gain, mainly for the purpose of displaying their own wealth or clout. Ordinary people can only dream of the kind of money required to fund this sort of undertaking, so they try in a number of ways to emulate the tastes of the wealthy by consuming, or by showing a largely feigned interest in, the art patronized by the upper classes. This is incidentally what takes place behind the scenes of all art exhibitions, including the fictitious but theoretically possible one described by Kandinsky.

This sort of activity, revolving around the promotion of art, was commented on by Kandinksy. He describes the process taking place similarly, but for different purposes. This occurs in situations where “art ministers to lower needs, and is used for material ends.” [vi] Here, art “becomes so specialized as to be comprehensible only to artists,” and is the result of what amounts to artists pandering to and being “lauded by a small group of patrons and connoisseurs (which incidentally is also a very profitable business for him).” [vii] The result of all of this is baseless, meaningless competitiveness on the part of artists, where the “wild battle for success becomes more and more material,” with “small groups who have fought their way to the top of the chaotic world of art and picture-making entrench[ing] themselves in the territory they have won.” [viii] In the end the “public…loses interest and turns away.” [ix]

In this mixture, the concept of snobbery cannot be overlooked. Bayley, again filling in the blanks of Kandinsky’s argument, observes that the question of taste is not and cannot be exclusive of the concept of snobbery. If, as Bayley states, the concept of taste, “with a capital T”, was a child of the salons of France, snobbery then must be its cousin. [x] In this analysis, “[h]ighbrows believe that they alone can appreciate culture.” [xi] Kandinsky’s sentiments are unmistakably highbrow, as evidenced in his attempt to outline what he thinks is wrong with the art world. He also seems to fear that true, high art is somehow endangered by the mere existence of artists who are not in the same league as those he deems the “prophet” artists. As Bayley points out, the highbrow version of “good taste” is “constantly under attack from the philistine lowbrows with their coarse pretensions (which continuously threaten the exclusivity of highbrow culture).” [xii]

One question remains: Can Kandinsky’s arguable frustrations simply be chalked up to intellectual snobbery? Quite possibly, considering the fact that the intended audience consists of people who have the time, interest and ability, (i.e. the educated upper classes) to ponder or be interested in such matters. It is not unreasonable to assume that Kandinsky expected very few objections to his arguments, and for those few to come from people who were, at the very least, as well educated as he.

“Snobbery is a remarkable and profound invention, an institution at least as formidable as the prison system and certainly as characteristic as the age that created it.” [xiii] Drawing from this statement by Bayley it follows that the parameters used to define the difference between good and bad art are the same as those that differentiate the oscillating and mutating concepts of taste. He continues to elaborate by observing that the “social game” of snobbery was “transferred … to the world of material things, where it became known as ‘good’ taste.” [xiv] Bayley also feels that employment of “good taste” or “bad taste” as descriptive references is “distinctive and telling, since it reveals the preferences and prejudices of particular social groups.” [xv]

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 6: Inspiration and the Other Art

2009-05-11T10:38:00.000-07:00

Inspiration and the Other Art

One of Kandinsky’s contradictions is in reference to what he calls “the other art”, when he apparently means to say “the good kind”, which he feels is “capable of educating further.”[i] However he neglects to define “educating”, and fails to explain “further”; “Educating” who and “further” from what? He claims that meaningless art taking the form of what is displayed in his theoretical art exhibition, which is by nature hollow and without the capacity to educate, “can only create an artistic feeling which is already clearly felt.” [ii] What is “clearly felt” Kandinsky has already identified as merely “splendid” and “nice”. It, apparently has “no power for the future,” and is “only a child of the age and cannot become a mother for the future,” which means that it is, for all intents and purposes, a “barren art.” [iii] The “other art”, also known as the “good kind”, “springs equally from contemporary feeling, but is at the same time not only an echo and mirror of it, but also has a deep and powerful prophetic strength.”[iv]

These sentiments represent a contradiction of his still-born and monkey analogies. Earlier, in “Concerning”, Kandinsky claims that old art has no meaning for the present and should not serve, in any artistic attempt, as a serious source for contemporary artists. Instead, he points to an “external similarity” in art that is “founded on a fundamental truth” [v] He makes mention of the “Primitive phase” of art, the markings of which were prevalent in the work of many of Kandinsky’s contemporaries, with its “temporary (sic) similarity of form,” recognizable in the work of Picasso, but that could “only be of short duration,” which Kandinsky held to be the “seed to the future itself.” [vi] This arrangement of ideas fails to fully explain why looking to ancient or primitive art, for the contemporary artist, is bad. Is he including the Primitive phase as well as ancient Greek art in his still-born/monkey analogy, or is he finding value in one form of mimicry, while simultaneously finding fault with another that does not suit his purpose?

As Kandinsky himself points out in “Concerning”, we now revere visionary principles conceived and born of individuals from the past who were dismissed, ignored or punished for their ideas, highlighting the fact that monuments are built to honor such visionaries in the present. If, he believes that old or primitive art has no use for the present, how then does he conclude that contemporary art created in his era will be useful for the future? Along with leaving that question unanswered, Kandinsky does not explain, other than blaming materialism, why his contemporary non-primitives have not made any progress spiritually, if they did presumably begin with such promise in their own primitive phases.

Apparently, Kandinsky believes that it is acceptable to mimic primitive art, at least for a short time, because the primitives are by nature deeply spiritual people, presumably because they didn’t know any better. The justification for this allowance is his feeling that spirituality of the primitive sort was sorely missing in the “civilized” world in which he lived. Since this was the case, it was not necessary for him to apply his monkey analogy. Unfortunately, this argument rests on an inherently racist ideology, stating everything short of the assumption that, while it needed help from the primitives, the better, smarter, civilized world, after catching up to and quickly surpassing their level of raw, primal spirituality, which Kandinsky believed to be the only surefire weapon against materialism, wouldn’t have to mimic, copy or be inspired by the primitives for very long.

Illustrative of Kandinksy’s obvious prejudices toward the primitives is an example found in the writing of Sally Price, in her book Primitive Art in Civilized Places. Price’s most telling example of the western world’s bias for its own intelligence is an advertisement referenced for an exhibition of “Afro-American Arts from the Suriname Rain Forest”. In this advertisement, a Maroon cape is displayed with the title, “If we didn’t tell you it came from the Suriname rainforest, you’d think it was Modern art.”[vii] Below the image of the cape, the first line of the advertisement’s copy reads, “It looks like a painting by Mondrian, but it isn’t.” [viii] Price specifies the thought processes taking place in the conception of the theme for this ad, in order to expose the explicit bias of its designers, pointing out that “the message here was clearly not that Maroon artists are like Mondrian in being individuals who engage in deliberate, dynamic creative expression,” but rather that “[t]he point of comparison, then is that Maroon art, in spite of being ‘a way of life’ for people living in the rain forest, has nonetheless come up with some objects that bear a… resemblance to paintings that represent their antithesis in terms of artistic creativity… and self-awareness.” [ix]

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 5: Bauhaus and the Mimicry of Predecessors

2009-05-10T00:43:00.000-07:00

Bauhaus and the Mimicry of Predecessors

In 1922, Wassily Kandinsky became a part of the Bauhaus. He was “one of the main figures there during the peak years of 1923-28, and remained until the Nazis closed the Bauhaus in 1933.” [i] Kandinsky states, concerning the creation of art, that he finds “value” exclusively in artists “ ’who really are artists, that is, who consciously or unconsciously, in an entirely original form, embody the expression of their inner life; who work only for this end and cannot work otherwise.’ ” [ii] Bayley’s opinion of the Bauhaus movement can be summed up in the statement that “[a] Bauhaus teapot…is both a geometry lesson and a sermon.” [iii] Throughout his book, he not only describes what it has and has not meant throughout time to define taste, but also expresses an obvious preference for simplicity in all designs, his thoughts on which are always in the background of his descriptions and observations. Above all things, he favors the efficiency and practicality in design that he feels “reached its extreme in the middle period architecture of Le Corbusier,” going on to say that Le Corbusier’s “influence was so powerful that the story of architecture for most of the twentieth century has been the story of whether you accept his view of the world, which is to say his taste.” [iv] According to Bayley, Bauhaus is the “most rational design the art and science of the 1920’s could achieve, a monument to the functionalism and the machine aesthetic that has dominated twentieth-century culture.” [v]

Defining art Kandinsky’s way leaves a wide area where any and all individuals endeavoring to create art, or critique the same of others, are able to find justification in their enterprise and claim legitimacy to their expertise. A critic with inclinations such as Bayley’s might find such limitless nonbinding parameters a little overwhelming. Following Bayley’s definition of what Bauhaus art was, and what great importance it holds for art and design created in the twentieth century, it is not unimaginable to assume that he could also find value in Kandinsky’s work, at least during the period of his Bauhaus involvement, even if Bayley is not an outright fan. The principles of the Bauhaus “machine aesthetic” seemed to require a philosophy which based its theme on defined details and curtailing its mobility by setting rigid design guidelines. All objects created within its framework were meant to serve a practical purpose, in both utility and visual appeal. For Kandinsky, the purpose of art was to not only create striking visual compositions that enabled the release of artistic expression, but also to heighten the spiritual life of both the artist and viewer. While allowing for the inclusion of beauty and fulfilling obvious aesthetic necessities for the viewer, the reliance on practicality and function are tantamount in Bayley’s parameters.

In consideration of the possibility that all historical periods can be viewed as stagnant, and that the nature of art itself is mimicry of predecessors, can Kandinsky’s words really be taken at face value? With what does he really find fault? Assuming that he has a good grasp of history and concepts of culture, as he describes at length culture’s stagnation, coupled with a thorough understanding of art as “aping”, are his complaints only against these things, or is his writing concerning these concepts a euphemistic smokescreen for what he is really trying to say?

Kandinsky claims that the “nightmare of materialism, which has turned the life of the universe into an evil, useless game, is not yet past.” [vi] In his opinion people inhabiting the nightmare world he describes are in effect unable to appreciate art as it should be, where the “observer of today…is seldom capable” of experiencing “subtler emotions” that he predicts will be present in art of the future “after the period of materialistic effort” has passed. [vii] The coarse sort of observer he is referring to is only interested in art that is a “mere imitation of nature which can serve some definite purpose.” [viii] In his description of a fictional art exhibition, showing art which in his opinion, has no meaning, Kandinsky refers to the spectators as a “vulgar herd” that look at the art and “pronounce the pictures as ‘nice’ or ‘splendid’.” [ix] Lamenting this vapid scene, he concludes that “[t]hose who could speak have said nothing, those who could hear have heard nothing.” [x] Finally, he concludes that this type of work is called “art for art’s sake” and amounts to a “vain squandering of artistic power” producing art with a “neglect of inner meanings.” [xi]

Kandinsky’s thoughts on these matters are as vapid and contrived as the onlookers in his melodramatic descriptions. For him, these obviously lowbrow quality onlookers ignore “the artist who has higher ideals and who cannot see his life purpose in art without aims.”[xii] Intertwined in all of this philosophizing might well be a great deal of truth about the regrettable way that all societies are unable to recognize and appreciate the new and unique elements in art, and all other endeavors that seek to better the world. Unfortunately, it is all too easy to assume that Kandinsky imagines himself as the tremendously talented, yet vastly underappreciated, if not entirely overlooked, genius artist in his own descriptions. Without calling him an elitist crybaby, it is not unreasonable to expect a suggested solution to the problem he has identified, which he does not provide. Throughout “Concerning”, he repeatedly makes the same argument, with varying degrees of anger, indignation, and outrage, and in this process contradicts his own ideas, with a disregard that suggests he is above trying to tailor a coherent argument to support his pompous, verbose complaints.

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 4: The El Greco Anecdote

2009-05-09T00:03:00.000-07:00

The El Greco Anecdote

According to Bayley, art “was the first ‘designer’ merchandise,” and there is no better way to determine the value of taste and its oscillations than the “reputation of the great artists and the pictures they created.” [i] Drawing from this viewpoint, and the observation that every piece of artwork is a product not only of its own environment but also of all art that has preceded it, it is reasonable to ask whether there could have been a Pablo Picasso, as we know him, without an El Greco to serve as an example. Bayley answers in the negative, pointing out that El Greco’s contemporary critics found his work “unsettling” and that “the only way encyclopedists could interpret his attenuated forms and his spooky colors was to claim he was going blind and had gone mad.” [ii] Also referenced is Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon”, as the painting “conventionally held to be the origin of Cubism,” being as much inspired “by El Greco as by Cezanne”, and allowing Picasso “to claim an earlier Spanish precedent for the movement he invented.” [iii]

In the books by Kandinsky and Bayley, each has seen fit to make mention of Pablo Picasso’s work. The recognition of this detail cannot be overlooked in a comparison of these two authors, when attempting to draw from their observations a fuller understanding of the concept of art criticism and what value it holds in assessing the qualities of the man-made visual world. Each author’s mention of Picasso is made in order to cement his own respective viewpoint regarding the matter, which each explains for the reader. For Bayley, the relationship between Picasso and El Greco is that of one artist providing precedent for the other, and serving as an example of changing tastes and opinions regarding art throughout history. Bayley’s afore-mentioned example of El Greco is one of art’s “lionization and then neglect”, where he concludes that the “fluctuating taste” and the “reputations of great artists…have no permanent value”, and that the “estimation of the value of art depends as much on the social and cultural conditions of a particular viewer as on qualities embodied in the work itself,” [iv] Bayley concludes that the El Greco “anecdote makes clear that what is fashionable in one generation often becomes preposterous in the next.” [v]

As mentioned earlier, Bayley also makes note of Picasso’s “Les Demoiselles d’ Avignon”, citing it as the beginning of cubism and influenced by El Greco, as well as Cezanne. El Greco “became a cult”, according to Bayley, into which “other converts followed Picasso.” [vi] There is a great deal of respect shown for Picasso’s work by Kandinsky in “Concerning”, referring to Picasso as a “great artist” where “there is never any suspicion of this conventional beauty.” [vii] Kandinsky himself, in the same paragraph, states that Picasso’s manner of creating art was the “way there arose Cubism.” [viii] He goes on to sing the praises of “the Spaniard”, describing how Picasso has succeeded in “the destruction of matter…[but] distinctly desirous of keeping an appearance of matter… the problem of purely artistic form [being] the real problem of his life.” [ix]

Is this the spirituality for which Kandinsky pines throughout his writing? The work of Picasso was considered great in its own time, rather than only posthumously, and is still considered as such now. Does that have any effect on the weight of Kandinsky’s argument? The opinions he expresses are meant to lead to the conclusion that art should always be forward moving and that artists cannot and should not ape art from the past, in any way. He does not, however, explain what constitutes aping and how it differs from inspiration. It is commonly held that Picasso’s work was inspired by both El Greco and Cezanne, as confirmed by both authors. In Bayley’s rendering of art history, Picasso single handedly resurrected the cult of El Greco. Moreover, Bayley claims that “close parallels in both style and subject matter can be seen between Blue Period Picasso and late El Greco.” [x] According to Bayley, Picasso’s admiration of El Greco extended “so far that in one sketch book Picasso scribbled…(I am El Greco, I am El Greco)” and that his studio was “covered with photographs of El Greco.” [xi] From that perspective, would Kandinsky still find greatness in Picasso’s work and christen him as the “prophet” artist he felt the world so sorely needed, or would he again lionize El Greco and place Picasso at the bottom of his triangle?

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 3: Materialism

2009-05-08T14:18:00.000-07:00

Materialism

In an analysis of Kandinsky’s opinions regarding art, and Bayley’s opinions regarding how to look at art, a logical question that arises is whether Stephen Bayley could be a fan of Kandinsky’s work, and if that would have any bearing on his views concerning the concept of taste and how it is shaped. It seems that Wassily Kandinsky was a deeply spiritual person, who had what could be described as something bordering on fanaticism for including spirituality in art. Looking at the writing of both men, each seems to be concerned, in good measure, with what they both describe as a lack of any depth or meaning in art, and the manner in which art is viewed. Kandinsky’s entire writing in “Concerning” is dedicated to expressing his distaste for what he sees lacking in much of the art being created in his lifetime as well as the public’s empty reception of the arts in general. Bayley’s quotation about religious worship having been replaced by shopping, in today’s world, eerily echoes Kandinsky’s disillusionment. While both men have similar concerns about the cultural environment that surrounds them, they have not identified the same culprit in their individual examinations of problems that are inescapably related to each other. Kandinsky voices a disdain for materialism, which he feels is partially to blame for a lack of spirituality, and identifies that lack of spirituality as the main problem. Although he devotes a great deal of rhetorical energy to explaining his version of spirituality, and identifying where it is missing, he doesn’t suggest a sound solution to the problem.

Bayley, on the other hand, zeros in on materialism as the paramount cause of the problem. Without mention of spirituality, and without mincing words, his writing leaves the reader without any doubt as to what state he feels the world is in, as the direct result of an excessive emphasis on what money can buy. In “Taste”, he looks at the concept of same in a comical way, pointing out for the reader a number of the twentieth century’s passing fads, which seem laughable in retrospect, but were taken quite seriously when they were contemporary. His point is that, as time goes by, the appearance of man-made environments changes, while man always remains the same, especially in the way he changes his environment. While there is a degree of disarming humor in Bayley’s writing, he does express the gravity of the topic he’s discussing in the most unexpected places. In essence making fun of the rich, and revealing what fools people become trying to emulate them, Bayley laments the foolishness as indicative of a larger problem. It appears that the illusions man have, so intricately created through the use of fashion and art, are fabricated in order to disguise the painful realities of life. His statement concluding that shopping has replaced religious worship represents his identification of the symptoms of a debilitating social malaise he has diagnosed. His explanation of the way taste works, and its roots in money, are, in effect the root cause of this disease. One issue on which the two men seemingly collide is snobbery. Bayley openly condemns it. While Kandinsky doesn’t mention snobbery in his book, he does exhibit characteristically snobbish sentiments in his descriptions, finding no difficulty in referring to spectators at an art exhibition as “the vulgar herd”. Bayley regards those prone to such expressions with ridicule in his dissection of the concept of snobbery.

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art Part 2: A Source of Opposing View

2009-05-08T00:46:00.000-07:00

A Source of Opposing View

A book written by Stephen Bayley entitled Taste: The Secret Meaning of Things answers many of the questions raised by Kandinsky’s analysis, albeit inadvertently. In his writing, Bayley tries to destroy the fabled, popularly held concept of taste and what constitutes such, as well as to answer the question of whether there are any tangible concepts at all to describe it. This analysis, however simple or ineffective as it might be described, tackles a number of sub-categories falling under the omnipotent concept of taste, including art, architecture, fashion and food, and outlines, in a cursory manner, how the guidelines for taste have been conceived and how these ideas have evolved over time. Due to the nature of this subject, there are no concrete parameters for the discussion. Yet, the book’s achievement, in the sum of its parts, is to leave the reader questioning his own taste and gravely doubting the same of those who claim to be authorities on the subject.

Bayley, a design critic as well as an author, is not without critics of his own. The response to “Taste” included comments befitting a criticism of an author who had perhaps written a book vehemently supporting theories stating that the earth is anything but round. Criticism ranges from attacks on writing structure, which he himself describes as “somewhat like the commedia dell’ arte,” to the entire premise itself.[i] In the very beginning of “Taste”, Bayley does not claim to be approaching the topic with the same degree of gravity as might the writer of something with any semblance of academic goals in his pursuit. The point, or so it is playfully asserted, prior to the outset of the book’s “imbroglio” where he addresses his task in discussing the matter at hand, is “about interpretation, but it concentrates on, or rather hints at, the meaning of things.” [ii] He goes on to key the reader in to the problem of writing about taste, stating that “an academic history of taste is not so much difficult as impossible” and offers his book as a “suggestive essay.” [iii]

Criticism accuses Bayley of trying to present his ideas as “an open-minded inquiry…when in fact it is a didactic work, chock full of Mr. Bayley’s own prejudices,” where his “statements point to an intolerance and defensiveness” that by the book’s conclusion, “reveal him as a prisoner of his own narrow-minded tastes”. As such, it would be fitting to question why Bayley’s thoughts would suffice to explain some of the ideas lacking in Kandinsky’s work or to explain anything about art at all. [iv] “Taste”, contrary to the presumption that it poses as an inquiry, is really an exploration of the topic. Throughout the book, Bayley never openly instructs the reader to regard the ideas presented in any specific manner, nor does he suggest that the reader should agree with him. He offers the examination of a topic, with examples to suggest that if he is not right about his assertions, then at least he is not completely off the mark. The book, the manner in which it is executed, and the way in which it is intended to be received, amounts to a cursory anthropological exploration concerning the peculiarities of human beings, the possible source of these behaviors and why they continue to thrive.

Bayley does have a point that the book’s entertaining quality might cause the reader to miss. His critics, though failing to see a successfully assembled and “coherent thesis,” cannot ignore the fact that “some provocative ideas concerning the relationship of class to taste and of taste to mass consumption”, are offered by “Taste”.[v] Those provocative ideas are the central foundation to all of the examples provided, and the reason why these observations are suitable for an examination of what fuels the opinions of art critics, or in this case, an artist who has seen fit to morph into an art critic, Wassily Kandinsky.

Bayley’s work can be applied to Kandinsky’s, in that it helps to fill in the blanks contained within the argument of the latter. Bayley, at least, does not take issue with identifying the factor that has kept the concept of taste, and, in turn, the facilitation of the existence of art (good and bad), spinning for centuries. That factor, indirectly identified but in essence only lightly glossed over by Kandinsky, and shouted from the rooftops by Bayley, is money.

Apparently art cannot exist without money and there seems to be several indicators present, in today’s art economy, pointing toward that particular version of reality. Bayley proclaims: “Economists are wrong: the law of diminishing marginal utility of goods states that when survival needs are satisfied, the appetite for consumption declines. It is a demonstrably false law. In an age robbed of religious symbols, going to the shops replaces going to church.” [vi] Art is a product. Just as clothing, food and other goods are necessary to the existence and comfort of human beings, so must art be conceived, produced and sold to those who intend to use it.

Wassily Kandinsky: On the Secret Meaning of Art, Part 1: Introduction: Kandinsky's Complaint

2009-05-07T17:49:00.000-07:00

Here is my first real post on this blog. The essay below is a analytical piece I wrote about Wassily Kandinsky's book Concerning the Spiritual in Art. This paper will be posted in sections, so check back to read subsequent installments. References will be inculuded in the last installment.

Introduction: Kandinsky’s Complaint

Navigating and fully comprehending the confusing state of contemporary art in the era that man inhabits today is not an easy feat. Artists and art lovers alike are continuously inundated with images and information that send mixed messages leaving those in the know, as well as the viewing public, with theoretical concepts that can only be likened to a bramble filled maze of anamorphous ideas, with no beginning or end. In the midst of so much sensory overload, the thought of traveling back to a time of less confusion, regarding the meaning and principles of art, would be a relief to those who would like the opportunity to grasp onto something simple and complete. A time when art meant what it looked like it meant and did what it said it was going to do. For these instances, books and art manuals are sought out to help explain the past and hopefully shed some light on this mess called the present, only to find that there never is a satisfactory explanation of the past, and the present has always been a mess, no matter how long ago it took place.

Wassily Kandinsky, not only an artist in his lifetime but also an intriguing source of writing on the topic of art theory was also concerned with explaining the problem of deciphering the meaning of art. In the book, Concerning the Spiritual in Art, he provides a manual regarding his own ideal vision of how all individuals, primarily artists, should conduct themselves regarding the creation and appreciation of art. The manifesto begins with an introduction that sets the philosophical tone of the intricate doctrine that follows. Here, he is found bemoaning the mimicry to which he believes most contemporary art has been reduced. His first and most profound example is that of modern artists “aping” classical Greek art, stating that, “[e]very work of art is the child of its age and, in many cases, the mother of our emotions.”[i] In these words lies the conclusion that the modern artist cannot attempt, be it modestly and/or only in spirit, to relive the period which he is attempting to reproduce, either visually or viscerally. Continuing his lamentation, Kandinksy conjures the grotesque imagery of miscarriage that, in the process, leaves readers with little doubt as to how he feels for historical artistic mimicry. “Efforts to revive the art-principles of the past will at best produce an art that is still-born.”[ii] Further still, a comparison is drawn between those who attempt to mimic classical art of bygone eras and monkeys mindlessly imitating human beings by pretending to read books, but having no understanding of the actions they are trying to recreate. What is most moving about this stance is its damning indictment of both the practitioners and spectators of art addressed in his book, stating in no uncertain terms that neither group is immune to any criticism. He does so by endeavoring successfully to reduce all of the world’s inhabitants into an easily recognizable and uncomplicated geometric form, the triangle. Using it as a symbol for both artistic and cultural stratification, Kandinsky thoroughly describes, for all time, the difficulties of creating art and the conditions that bring them about. All levels within the triangle are inhabited by a collection of artists. Each artist can see beyond the limitations of his own respective level. But coexisting with the former are also those who retard all forms of progress and in this activity are regarded as geniuses rather than the “prophet” artists who are genuinely deserving of this reverence.

While Kandinsky sees value in the existence of most artists in all levels of his triangle, he does not regard the motives of all artists, especially those living in periods of cultural stagnation, as genuine or pure. The deepest criticisms directed toward artists take the form of moralistic brow beatings, and lectures in which he voices his disgust for the materialism he seems to believe is a principle motivator for the impure artists he deplores. Were it not for these materialists, Kandinsky believes, art and all other attempts to better the human condition would have had the opportunity to advance exponentially, preventing the cultural, and in turn artistic, stagnation he so loathes. So what do these woes over the regression observed in the art world tell us about the state of affairs concerning art, and the way it is conceptualized, created, and received in today’s world? Are Kandinsky’s words prophetic, or is he demonstrating a pattern in which all events play out similarly, within any period of history, and not just the period during which he wrote?

When observing the art of today, and how it is presented to the public, via the media and at the disposal of art promoters, such lamentations echo in the background of the aware viewer’s thoughts. Contemporary art does not seem to have a great deal of importance in the lives of today’s audience, as it might have in Kandinsky’s time or movements which preceded his own. While this phenomenon is blamed on the advent of mass media such as television, so prevalently used in the consumer societies of the world today, no one entity can entirely shoulder the blame for mass disinterest in art. If anything, television at the time of its invention and today contains limitless potential for the broadening of popular consciousness in all areas and even more so for art. Kandinsky’s greatest concern seems to be for historical periods of cultural stagnation, as he feels that art is in the greatest danger of degradation or extinction during these times. But while still concentrating on his reproach for such periods, it can be easily argued that every historical period might have been experienced and/or perceived by its inhabitants as stagnant.

First Post

2009-05-07T17:43:00.001-07:00

Welcome to my new blog. As you can probably ascertain from reading the About section on the side bar, the goal of this blog is to provide a place where art enthusiasts can find entertaining ideas and commentary about all things art. In the future I hope to have more posts, not just be me but also articles and essays from other individuals who will contribute their work and knowledge. For the time being, thanks for looking and be sure to check back often to see new posts.