Subject: Re: Percy and the Categorical Imperative, etc.
From: Barranger, G. K. (nikkibar@wild.net)
Date: Sat Jun 26 1999 - 14:57:57 EDT
Wade Riddick wrote:
>
> >Been on the sidelines for way to long -- in Message in the Bottle WP wrote, in
> >effect, "In the movement of art -- no one is alienated." I quoted this to a
> >recently re-surfaced movie director after I saw his movie. This director is a
> >true WP student/fan. He got it. Anyone care to discuss the various things WP
> >might have meant.
>
> This all boils down to one's idea of art. I've never been able to look at
> a Jackson Pollack without feeling alienated, i.e. cut off from whatever
> social force bands his admirers together strongly enough to call him an
> "artist." Much of the avant garde and modern art movements are explicitly
> geared toward creating alientation or feeding off of it - I suppose some
> would say they're just there to make us *aware* of alienation itself.
> Personally I wouldn't call such crap "art" - and hence agree with Percy -
> but others call it art, even though the goal of it seems to be pulling the
> wool over the proletariat's eyes. What are you going to do with those
> other people?
Dear Mr Riddick,
W.P. would have disagreed with you about Pollock. Walker liked the
abstract expressionists selectively, nor did he regard JP's work as
expressive of alienation. Nor, I think, do most of us who admire these
paintings. I think you are looking at them wrong. Naturally you will
feel a sense of being left out if you look at a Pollock or a Rothko and
expect the same sort of aesthetic experience that a Fragonard or a
Reubens might produce. If you think of the experience as a massage of
the visual sense rather than an attempt to convey a message of some
articulate sort (Virgin with Candle) then you may come closer to the
intent of the artist. Of course there are some who simply don't enjoy
the massage. . .
Nikki
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Jan 11 2001 - 12:52:14 EST