Art in Utter Decline: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of the Arts » Art in Utter Decline » Art in Utter Decline

Art in Utter Decline

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Art in Utter Decline

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:42 PM:	#21
Banno With respect, this would appear to be a load of pretentious twaddle. Relax, old man. There is no pretension, only a sensitivity on my behalf regarding the choice of words. (English isn't my "mother tongue," you see.) You have no basis for the evaluation that forms the premise of this thread. You are misreading my posts. The OP presents the postmodern condition, followed by a handful statements from which I wish to initiate a discussion. There is no evaluation, only rhetorically concealed questions and answers. StaticAge Why just the past 50-100 years? Because of the paradigm shift from modernism. Art is art is art is art. Roland Barthes warned against such tautologies in Mythologies, labeling them as a sickness adhering to the anti-intellectual petty bourgeoisie; the sneaking fascist tendencies of the middle class and the nouveau riche. I see your OP to basically be talking about art in the sense that particular conventions that relegated art to a specific sort of parameter has dissolved, but so what? That's what I mean by evolution. And how is that incongruent with decline? There is no need to be nihilistic or defeatist and make grandiose claims about the death or end of or decline of art. I am neither nihilistic nor defeatist, yet I do see a prevailing decline. For instance, everything regarding your internet persona (avatar, signature, alter ego) is strikingly postmodern, and I would deem it so because it resembles a collage of influences you have spread around you. Your blend of punk (Cro-Mags) and Christianity (Ecclesiastes) is just one of the many symptoms: pastiche and parody. Its still happening now same as it always has been. How would we know that?
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 04/12/09 - 04:49 PM:	#22
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: Banno Relax, old man. There is no pretension, only a sensitivity on my behalf regarding the choice of words. (English isn't my "mother tongue," you see.) You are misreading my posts. The OP presents the postmodern condition, followed by a handful statements from which I wish to initiate a discussion. There is no evaluation, only rhetorically concealed questions and answers. Fair enough. I had supposed that "art in utter decline" was a bad thing; but if it is not an evaluation, I guess it is not a bad thing, and so doesn't matter all that much...
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/12/09 - 05:22 PM:	#23
Firstly, you have yet to really define just how art is declining. You throw around a bunch of postmodern cliches and catch phrases, but you never make any connection as to exactly how art is "in decline" and why and how this matters. For instance, you claim we can't attribute what you call "decline" to an evolution in art because of the "paradigm shift" from modernism. Really? Why is that? Connect the dots for me, show me why that argument is necessary. So far, I expect from you in response more postmodern cliches that don't explain anything as much as show that you may have read a smattering of essays from 20-40 years ago but stop short of applying them to the situation at hand. And I like Kuhn. I like Barthes. I like Jameson. I like Baudrillard. I am very familiar with their work, so why you can't just come out and explain why you feel art is in decline is beyond me. Secondly, you will have to provide reasons as to why quoting the Cro-Mags is "pastiche" or why quoting the Bible is a "parody." How so? I can't like the Bible or punk without only acting as if I like punk or without going through the motions? My quotation of the Bible is a mockery? What draws such a conclusion? You talk like an intellectual, yet you haven't explained anything. Thirdly, in light of the above matters, all I see is random bits and pieces culled from writers whose work you seem to be lampooning yourself- because you havent really described anything. You have made it sound as if you are describing something. Congratulations! You may be mistaken as a postmodernist. What, do you want a cookie? A prize for this achievement? But what is really funny, is that at least the people you are quoting had real points and valuable insight as far as I am concerned. I never took it for the whole enchilada, but I thought they were interesting. But since you aren't even making a point, but are just pretending to make one, or acting as if there is an important manner, you actually aren't even a postmodern- you are a pastiche of a postmodernist. (BTW, did you see that? See how I not only made a claim but gave some reasons leading towards that claim? That way, if I am wrong, you can explain how it is wrong, and if it is right, you can see why it is right. That is called argument. I did not just drop some old has-been buzz words from the 80's and act like that is all there was to the matter.)
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 06:17 PM:	#24
StaticAge Firstly, you have yet to really define just how art is declining. Reread the list presented in the OP, then view the questions posed. For instance, you claim we can't attribute what you call "decline" to an evolution in art because of the "paradigm shift" from modernism. I make no such claim. This easy-to-read link may give you some info on the matter at hand. I like Baudrillard. I am very familiar with their work, so why you can't just come out and explain why you feel art is in decline is beyond me. Well, if you had read Baudrillard's Simulacra & Simulation (1981) you would have come across his notions of "disappearance of meaning" and "brutal disaffection" characterizing Western culture, with art being one aspect of this condition. Secondly, you will have to provide reasons as to why quoting the Cro-Mags is "pastiche" or why quoting the Bible is a "parody." How so? I can't like the Bible or punk without only acting as if I like punk or without going through the motions? My quotation of the Bible is a mockery? What draws such a conclusion? By merging the two (alongside the description "fearless vampire killer" (which I guess shouldn't be taken at face value?)) you create a caricature. Consider the occurrence of an "openly gay Republican" or a "Jewish antisemite." No doubt such individuals exist, yet they come to life as parodies -- and the same goes for "anarchist punk choir boy." Very postmodern. You talk like an intellectual, yet you haven't explained anything. One never explains while communicating, that is what lecturers do. Thirdly, in light of the above matters, all I see is random bits and pieces culled from writers whose work you seem to be lampooning yourself- because you havent really described anything. Accurately so. I rely on my interlocutors to be knowledgeable. I never took it for the whole enchilada [dead metaphor], but I thought they were interesting. But since you aren't even making a point, but are just pretending to make one, or acting as if there is an important manner, you actually aren't even a postmodern - you are a pastiche of a postmodernist. (BTW, did you see that? See how I not only made a claim but gave some reasons leading towards that claim? That way, if I am wrong, you can explain how it is wrong, and if it is right, you can see why it is right. That is called argument [irony!]. I did not just drop some old has-been buzz words from the 80's and act like that is all there was to the matter [irony!]. I underlined the "old has-been buzzwords" for you and added comments in brackets ...
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

123savethewhales
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 25, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 345

Posted 04/12/09 - 06:34 PM:	#25
Banno wrote: Fair enough. I had supposed that "art in utter decline" was a bad thing; but if it is not an evaluation, I guess it is not a bad thing, and so doesn't matter all that much... And all that time I was posting with the assumption that the following statement is suppose to imply something bad is going on that we should care about. "At face value, all images relate to a collage of pastiche, kitsch, irony, parody; tasteless, repetitive, nauseating, dulling, graphic ..."
Keep it simple.

StaticAge
Fearless Vampire Killer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 18, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 298

Posted 04/12/09 - 06:54 PM:	#26
What is it referred to by the OP even a list of? You described it as "a scrapbook" left after "the surge" finally settled. What surge? I suppose you might be referring to your claims made in the two paragraphs before, which states something you feel to be an obvious immense problem that grows greater, which is that "art is in decline?" Really? Why? The list? What does the list have to do with anything? What is it in this list that is supposedly a valuable critique of, or what evidence supports claiming them as valid criticism of some real phenomenon? Why is art "embarrassing?" Can you show that people are "averting their eyes?" To what "opposition of the grotesque" are you referring? What "shadow shapes" are you talking about? Why can't they be as "vibrant?" This is the only question you ask: "And what is this, if not a decline of the very structures we attempt to express?" which, given that you have already asserted so much in your first few sentences, comes across as rather rhetorical and circular. I read Baurillard and am familiar with his notions. I was hoping that since you are posting here and not Baudrillard that you could express your own point of view. If I can get your point of view by reading Baudrillard, I'll assume you really are nothing else but a pastiche of other persons deeper thoughts. You have no basis to assume someone else is enacting a parody other than your perspective, and since you don't know me, all you are really doing is quoting other peoples work and forcing everything else into your preconceived frame. Since you neither explain how you arrive at your own conclusions, and neither seem able to demonstrate how your basic assertion of art's "decline" should be taken at face value other than quoting everybody else (as if it would go without saying that they actually succeeded in proving it), you are simply projecting your own ignorance. You poor, poor elitist. Edited by StaticAge on 04/12/09 - 07:36 PM
"All that your hand finds to do, do with your very power, for there is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going." -Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Overpower, overcome." -The Cro-Mags

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 04/12/09 - 08:02 PM:	#27
123savethewhales wrote: And all that time I was posting with the assumption that the following statement is suppose to imply something bad is going on that we should care about. "At face value, all images relate to a collage of pastiche, kitsch, irony, parody; tasteless, repetitive, nauseating, dulling, graphic ..." Apparently we are at fault for thinking it so, 123; and the good Doctor meant nothing of the sort! We are just not clever enough to understand PoMo...
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Dr. Tyko Glas
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Location: Jävla Sverige

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 277

Posted 04/12/09 - 08:29 PM:	#28
123savethewhales And all that time I was posting with the assumption that the following statement is suppose to imply something bad is going on that we should care about. & Banno Apparently we are at fault for thinking it so, 123 ... Yes, and shame on both of you for not reading the posts thoroughly. One who subjectively deems contemporary art as "tasteless, repetitive, nauseating, dulling, graphic" can not make a case when it comes to an objective evaluation or an implication that something has gone wrong. Taking such a stance would make me a moralist (perish the thought!). However, if someone may believe that I take such a stance (while furthering his/her own agenda), then it might help create a new opening towards an unsuspected pathway. The role of "Devil's advocate" is enjoyable, and I recommend that you try it whenever such an opportunity arises (even if it entails second-rate sophistry). Nevertheless, postmodernity is the zeitgeist that surrounds us, generating a place where "nothing is real and all is permitted." This outline poses a series of questions that we need to reiterate, just for the sake of regaining what has been lost through the years. And (to reinstate the discussion) if art has lost the capacity to temporarily free us from the space-time cage, then what is there to replace this urge?
"In the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 04/12/09 - 10:49 PM:	#29
Dr. Tyko Glas wrote: And (to reinstate the discussion) if art has lost the capacity to temporarily free us from the space-time cage, then what is there to replace this urge? So art is supposed to "temporarily free us from the space-time cage"? And if it doesn't something has gone wrong?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

throng
Profester.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 12, 2008
Location: Downunder.

Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 803

Posted 04/12/09 - 11:40 PM:	#30
It is easy to see that a huge proportion of modern art is completely contrived. Art does reflect the state of society and in the western world media saturation is bamboozling people into rampant consumerizm and 'I want it now' demands. Modern artists just whack out some blatent statement containing no movements or refined sentiments. As people fall into the media delerium they are fed crap and told to like it, so if you can't sing become a rapper, if you can't paint just squirt random colour on a sheet, and if you can't act convincingly, become a TV star. Obviously there is utter decline in art. Isn't it plainly obvious?
I know that I don't know, so I don't know if I do.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.