Artistic taste

[abu nuwas]

My brother took me to his studio, and showed me an Olde Worlde calendar-- pictures of quaint cottages, or wooden houses, with women sweeping about with long skirts. One of his sons had given it to him last year, and several months later, he had shown it to his older son (both in their 20s). He expected him to laugh at it, but he did not. He said he thought it was good, and admired the pics.

He found this difficult to understand. Then it dawned on him. No-one had ever told them otherwise, whereas he and I, when young, lived in a house with white everywhere, save black book-shelves. Mum liked Matisse, and similar- but I would still have liked the pretty pictures until---Sis goes to Art School, and returns home talking about "the Fifth" and how she loves it; Bach and Brahms; things being so "chocolate-boxy"; kitsch, and so we began to crawl out of our primordial cultural slime. Along the way, I was exposed to Eliot and Pound, and it was made plain these were the goods. At least it enabled me to mumble about 'Burnt Norton' and the 'Quartets'

Although his pictures are all around the house (and this avatar is his), his sons had not been exposed to this idea of what was cool, art-wise, and what was not.

Is it as simple as that? I think things are good or bad, because I have been told so?

Sorry for long intro. What has been your journey? Oh, and it was Beethoven's Fifth Symphony that so baffled us!

[rayheinrich]

.
abu nuwas: "Is it as simple as that? I think things are good or bad,
because I have been told so?"

Yes.

Famous quote: "You can't judge a hammer without nails."

[Wildcard]

I don't want to sound derogatory, but the kind of logic that says things are only good because we are told so reeks of elitism. Whatever happened to liking something because it speaks to you?

Why can't it be beautiful to one and plain to another? Art speaks to us or it doesn't. Our own constitution should be strong enough to distinguish between our true taste and the 'inherited' taste of others.

My folks think that poetry is a fool's game; that hip hop is noise and Picasso needed new glasses. That doesn't mean that I necessarily have to feel that way because it's what I was told, does it?

[abu nuwas]

.
abu nuwas: "Is it as simple as that? I think things are good or bad,
because I have been told so?"

Yes.

Famous quote: "You can't judge a hammer without nails."

That is v depressing. I have been rather hoping that bruv and I have it wrong.I know one paint a less bald picture -- for example, putting emphasis on having doors opened for one, and the benefit of good guidance; or the development of the brain, and understanding. But none of that accounts for distaste at chocolate boxy Hallmark cards. Also --- who told you you were right to agree?

---

I don't want to sound derogatory, but the kind of logic that says things are only good because we are told so reeks of elitism. Whatever happened to liking something because it speaks to you?

Why can't it be beautiful to one and plain to another? Art speaks to us or it doesn't. Our own constitution should be strong enough to distinguish between our true taste and the 'inherited' taste of others.

My folks think that poetry is a fool's game; that hip hop is noise and Picasso needed new glasses. That doesn't mean that I necessarily have to feel that way because it's what I was told, does it?

It is the disallusioned reverse of elitism. I am not suggesting that everyone likes the same stuff--obviously they don't, or my brother and I would have simply admired the calendar also. And when we looked at these scenes, they were nice, in a chocolate boxy kind of way. But once, I should have thought them nice, full-stop. In this case, it is not a case of technical imperfection, it is content. After Sis and her new friend Zeitgeist had breezed through the door, I knew that a coach and horses in the snow, with some rotund man in a tall hat at the front, was in some sense despicable. Not what a Real Artist would do.

Your folks are in the opposite situation (much as I may sympathise) because they know Johnny Foreigner when they see him, and his name is Zeitgeist. Old hat though he now be, That Picso still lingers in the minds of true believers in Zeitgeistism. So I amend now. When we are being told what is right and what is bad, it helps a good deal if it accords with the spirit of the time, or fashion, or call it what you will.

[Erthona]

From my experience, all families pass on some erroneous tidbits that are considered fact (even when we are not talking about outright prejudice), when they are not, and as a recipient of the sixties from my friends older siblings, I can attest how the storm of Zeitgeist can sweep through.
One thing I think you are overlooking is the effect that nostaligia has on art. There is a painting hanging in my house for no other reason than it once hung in my grandmothers house and has fond association attached to it for me. It is not even good art, let alone great art, but I enjoy it just the same. However, at an earlier point in my life, had I considered it, I might have thought it was a great piece of art.

"Your folks are in the opposite situation (much as I may sympathise) because they know Johnny Foreigner when they see him, and his name is Zeitgeist. Old hat though he now be, That Picso still lingers in the minds of true believers in Zeitgeistism."

What confuses me Ed, besides the way you spell Picasso, is you act as if Zeitgeist is a singular event. Mark's parents are a part of a separate Zeitgeist, one not called Modernism. There is no such thing as reverse elitism, you are either an elitist or not. All of it is just a form a cultural prejudice, quite common often expressed (loudly), and when two different ideologies clash, there will generally be some sparks. The thing is, is there are as many ideologies as there are families. Sounds to me as though you got a good dose of cubism, socialism, and imagism, which were all planks of the Modernist movement. The somewhat ironic thing is you use the term "Zeitgeist" which came from German Romanticism to describe it. For Mark's grandparents, if they were like mine, it would not have been Johnny Foreigner, it would have been Johnny Yankee, as New York city was very much a part of the (depraved) Modernist movement. Regardless, you are not alone Ed. There are many people I have known that grew up with the same thing, and it all reeks of the same indoctrination that all such forced ideologies do, whether religious, political, cultural, or nationalistic. We all have prejudice to overcome.

Dale

[rayheinrich]

.
abu nuwas said: "Is it as simple as that? I think things are good or bad,
because I have been told so?"

ray answered: "Yes."

ray continues: Sorry, didn't mean to be too flippant. While I really DO think
the answer is a simple "Yes", the question that it answers, which includes yours,
goes something like: "Is our perception of reality subjective?"
It all comes back to that. But don't worry too much about my answer,
I guarantee you it's just as subjective as your question.

(And I DO think it's cool that it's elitist and egalitarian at the same time.)

----------------
BTW, here's the complete art/hammer quote (as best as I can remember it):

"Judging art is like judging a hammer; there are only three differences:

   1. We know what a well-driven nail looks like.
   2. We know what a nail is.
   3. We know what a hammer is.

---

Nifty remarks Erthona.

My subjective feelings about:

Cubism: Can take it or leave it since I don't really think of Diego Rivera
as a cubist. But, if you include him, then I really love cubism.
(I'm a Frida cultist as well.)

Socialism: Absolutely and fanatically prejudiced (in favor).
(Explaining, just a bit, my love for Rivera and Frida. [Score one
for subjective judgment.])

Imagism: Positive on average, but extremely positive when limited
to what the Objectivist poets borrowed from it. (George Oppen, BTW,
is my absolute bestist, favoritist poet in the whole world.)


"We all have prejudice to overcome."

Yes, I think life is mostly about overcoming prejudice.
(In perfect contradiction to my reality beliefs.)

[Erthona]

I too like Rivera, which makes me suspect he is not a cubist. What he was,was a drunken womanizer, which I can live with. Sorry let me correct that. He was a big fat drunken womanizer who was caught screwing his wife's sister. So we must conclude he also had large balls!
Seriously, there is nothing remotely cubist about his work, he was part of the "Mexican Mural Movement" which always appeared to me to draw heavily on motifs of indigenous artwork as a lot of his work is contained within the shape of an arc, recalling aspects of Aztec, Mayan, and Toltec art. Obviously Frida struck an iconic nerve with her self portraits, and had many admirable qualities, especially her perseverance in relation to the bus accident early in life, and her inability to have children as a result of it. It is also admirable that she could make herself so vulnerable in her self portraits. However in terms of talent and skill she is far inferior to most artist who receive such acclaim, and it must be noted that her renown is based more on being embraced by a cultural movement than any inherent genius in her art. Her non-self portraits, while grotesque, could have been painted by an eight grader. It is not surprising that Madonna, who made her name through shock much more so than musical talent should identify so strongly with Frida. To me, her recognition is because she embodies the ideology of a certain movement, not because of any intrinsic genius in her art, and eventually will probably go the way of most fads, much like her patron saint, Madonna. This is why it is generally true that the passage time decides what is and isn't art, as enough time must come and go to strip the Zeitgeist from the piece and see if it can stand on it's own without the support of a cultural movement.
In terms of Modernism, which touts objectivity, what could be more subjective than art? There is a reason why there is and has been for a long time, a deep divide between science and art. Objectivity arises out of the ability to repeat and verify, how does one do that in art? Is not emotion a subjective quality? To me, the modernist movement has been as entertaining for it's claim to pseudo-objectivity, as it is humorous in total futility. The reason I have such disregard for Modernism, is that I have a strong dislike for any proselytization, regardless of the form. As a result of interaction with such zealots, they have put me off Modernism in much the same way that Christian fundamentalist has put me off religion. Both have left a bad taste in my mouth, and have made me leery of sampling anything else of their dishes. Out of hand disdain for both Christian fundamentalism and Modernism is the nature of my own prejudice. Both my be egalitarian in ideology, but both are also very much elitist in execution (thanks Ray, I like that), at the core of which is this overweening arrogance that a person should feel guilty if he does not believe as they do. While their messages are at opposite ends of the spectrum, their methods of promoting that message are nearly identical. Ironic, is it not?

Dale

PS This is not to disparage anyone's personal beliefs; this is simply my experience with certain people aggressively pushing the ideology of Modernism. Nor am I generalizing and saying that because you like aspects of modernism that you embody these unpleasant traits, or that it is endemic to all supporters of the movement.

[Wildcard]

Well, I am not too familiar with all these 'isms' and maybe I need to do some research, but my point was this: Why can't 'chocolate-boxy' be good? I mean, to me there is something about quaint simplicity that brings me peace. Now I know that some disdain such things, but again, that is up to taste. While the name of this thread is artistic taste, we are conversing less about the artist and more about the perception of the art itself.

For example: I think that Hank Williams Sr. was not only a talented songwriter, but also a visionary that lead country music to new, wonderful places- yet his music was simple and straight-forward with few frills. Similarly I enjoy the art of Thomas Kincade, who paints ocean scenes and not prolifically either. These things speak to me.

Dale mentioned a painting that he keeps for sentimental reasons. I have a similar painting(but I'd dare say worse) in my home. Before she died, my grandmother gave me a velvet portrait of a unicorn that in all honesty is hideous. I can say that it is hideous in my logical mind, but the fact remains that I love that simple picture because of the inference of her love for me. The same applies to art that was recommended: it has it's value because of the value it had to someone that you trust(or trusted at one time). We grow up and learn to think for ourselves, but art isn't something that is dependent on logic- there is a lot of heart in it.

[Erthona]

Mark,

I do not think personal taste should be constrained. I also do not think that a few should dictate to the many. However there is also a universality to art that survives the test of time, but we are not talking just of aesthetics, per se, we are looking at cultural influences on aesthetics, as this is the topic that Ed introduced.
However it also impacts your question as Hank Williams did not arise in a cultural vacuum, and was embraced by one side, while being rejected another, both of which had to do with ideology, and little to do with aesthetics. I will try and briefly outline the cultural background against and within which both Ed's and your experiences arise, and why it is so difficult to grasp an answer.
Modernism, and an understanding of what it is, is important because it was the last mass cultural movement. It is also important to understand what motivated the people who were a part of it, as that motivation speaks to the ideology of the movement, as well as what they were rebelling against. It is important to understand that even though they are philosophically the antithesis of the conservative Christian movement in America, they were actually rebelling against the various schools of thought that had dominated Europe and England for the past century, although to some extent, in America we can trace back some of the roots of what is called liberalism to the Modernist movement, however the conservative Christian that gave rise to conservatism did not originate from the same source and ideology as that which Modernism was a rebellion against, although as time has passed that distinction has for the most part become moot. In time, however, there were clashes between these two groups; one of the most notable is the Scopes trial (Two films that explore this clash from different angles and from different time periods are "The Adventures of Baron Von Munchhausen" and "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". Munchhausen dramatizes the death of Romanticism by the Modernist, and Rocky Horror dramatizes the clash between the morality of religion and the new morality of Modernism.).
In poetry it was the later Romantic movement that the Imagist were rebelling against, in art it was less a rebellion and more of an outgrowth of impressionism. Cubism took the emphasis on light in impressionism to a more (as they saw it) fundamental level, taking the idea of light refraction and turning it into fundamental shapes. In politics it was a rebellion against capitalism, and the rise of Marxism, then later socialism. It was Darwinism’s rebellion against the Christian idea of creation, which in fact was just the latest stage of an ongoing struggle between science’s and religion's turf war in the area of the formation of the Earth and man. It was a movement away from a philosophy of facts and things, such as Kant dealt with in his "Critique of Practical Reason", and "Critique of Reason", to a philosophy where "forces" not "things" becomes the focus, such as the writings of Nietzsche, and from these philosophical underpinnings arose the idea of relational ethics, as opposed to the absolute ethics of Kant. It was a movement away from the religious into the secular (although this was a trend that had be happening since the Renaissance). It was a movement in values from absolutes to the relatives, a large portion of which was brought about by a paradigm shift in science brought about by Einstein’s theories and the formation and introduction of Quantum Mechanics. There was also the impact of the industrial revolution that saw more people living in towns and cities, a mass migration from rural to urban living. It was a movement away from nature and towards technology. Because of the advances in the printing press, as well as the advent of artificial light, the common person now had access to books, and was no longer constrained to follow the rising and setting of the sun. The transition brought with it a haughty disdain for the bucolic, and the values and morality that were part of it. It was a transition from hayseed to sophisticate, for the first times in history common man could take on the airs that had been reserved for royalty in the past. It was rebellion against the straitlaced clothes and morals of the Victorian Era. The one difference between Modernism and past cultural movements, is Modernism offered itself up as a secular replacement for religion. After all, was God not dead?

“Gabriel Vahanian, a professor of theology at Syracuse University, wrote in The Death of God (1961) that the "essentially mythological world view of Christianity has been succeeded by a scientific view of reality".”

Thus Modernism became the new religion, and it has been a pitched battle ever since. So to respond to Ed’s question I think one has some understanding of the context from which his experioence arises, and that includes some understanding of the Modernist movement and the impact it has had on society in general, and in individual’s specific beliefs.

How does this affect our discussion? As I noted in another thread, Modernism, specifically the schools of literary criticism that arose from it, have operated from the idea that they can use their particular ideology as a moral code by which to judge what is and what is not art.

"I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table."

As I have said before, I do not like the bullying of the Modernist anymore than I do that of the Religionist. To my mind, art, regardless of it's form, has intrinsic worth, and the better the art the more people there are that can apprehend it. They may not be able to define what it is, but they know they are moved and awed by it. This type of art rises above the self imposed boundaries so that it has what is called a universal appeal. I do not know what that is or how to describe it, however, I do know it has nothing to do with the pronouncements of the ideologues.

Dale

[rayheinrich]

Erthona said:
"I believe it is an important distinction, one that was blurred in the last century do to such school's of literary criticism as Marxism, Darwinism, Feminism, and other's of the same type. I believe that confusion in terms of poetical criticism is still operative today. These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem, and discover if it matched those expectations. So they determined if the poem was good or bad in relation to the ideology specific ethics they brought to the table."

It seems as if you've brought your own ideological ethics to the table.

Criticizing art's effect on society is as valid as any of the other aesthetics.

[Erthona]

"It seems as if you've brought your own ideological ethics to the table.

Criticizing art's effect on society is as valid as any of the other aesthetics."

I said, "These schools had a ready made ideology they brought to the table against which to measure the poem,"

Can you p[lase tell me where in my statement I said anything about "Criticizing art's effect on society is as valid as any of the other aesthetics.""

I don't mind debating a topic, but I will not if you are going to say I said something which I didn't and then criticize me for it. Do you know what I am referring to when I say "schools of literary criticism"?

What I was talking about had nothing to do with whether they criticized art's effect on society, in fact a number of these schools did not do that, one of the one's I mentioned did not: Darwinism. Feminism was more concerned with the idea of how women are presented in literature, especially as it relates to the idea of the other. I personally think feminism had valid points, the problem is that not all literature has a gender focus or bias, and often times, even when it does it is not really germane to the work.

Also, just to note, the term aesthetics is singular. There is no plural term for these is only one. There are not other "aesthetics". Aesthetics is the branch of philosophy that deals with the "nature of art and with judgments concerning beauty."

Dale

[Leanne]

Any "ism" (and almost all of them make me itch and shiver) views the world through a very narrow filter -- but so too does "popular culture". We are constantly bombarded by some critic's notion of "fashion" and how we should present ourselves, "what's hot and what's not", what toys to buy our kids, what books we should have read to achieve this level of sophistication, what magazines we should have read to achieve this level of celebrity awareness, what cheese is bad for us this week and what plastic milkshake will fill us up enough to magically shrink our stomachs and turn flab into ab with no exercise except pressing the dial button on the telephone. My point is that everyone who tells us en masse that something is good, acceptable, culturally significant or just "in right now" has an agenda. It may not necessarily be a sinister agenda and it may indeed coincide with our own personal goals (not just those we've been told we ought to have by Cosmo or The New Yorker -- yes, I put them together for a bloody good reason).

The fact is, if we choose to be impressionable beyond our impressionable years of youth, we will always have our thoughts and tastes dictated to us by others. I am unashamed to enjoy many pursuits that are considered "lowbrow" by "those who know" -- similarly, I enjoy many "snobbish" things and if I had a more snobbish budget, I'd be filling my house with Impressionist paintings and attend the opera every weekend Of course, my decor and dress would remain dreadfully unfashionable!

I think I've wandered... this happens... anyway, the confidence to buck trends and make your own decisions on what you find aesthetically pleasing probably comes from knowledge. Try everything at least once before you decide if you like it, then try it again a few years later to see if your tastes have changed. And never, ever be satisfied with the status quo -- they were a rubbish band in the 70s and they're just feeble now.

[abu nuwas]

Any "ism" (and almost all of them make me itch and shiver) views the world through a very narrow filter -- but so too does "popular culture". We are constantly bombarded by some critic's notion of "fashion" and how we should present ourselves, "what's hot and what's not", what toys to buy our kids, what books we should have read to achieve this level of sophistication, what magazines we should have read to achieve this level of celebrity awareness, what cheese is bad for us this week and what plastic milkshake will fill us up enough to magically shrink our stomachs and turn flab into ab with no exercise except pressing the dial button on the telephone. My point is that everyone who tells us en masse that something is good, acceptable, culturally significant or just "in right now" has an agenda. It may not necessarily be a sinister agenda and it may indeed coincide with our own personal goals (not just those we've been told we ought to have by Cosmo or The New Yorker -- yes, I put them together for a bloody good reason).

The fact is, if we choose to be impressionable beyond our impressionable years of youth, we will always have our thoughts and tastes dictated to us by others. I am unashamed to enjoy many pursuits that are considered "lowbrow" by "those who know" -- similarly, I enjoy many "snobbish" things and if I had a more snobbish budget, I'd be filling my house with Impressionist paintings and attend the opera every weekend Of course, my decor and dress would remain dreadfully unfashionable!

I think I've wandered... this happens... anyway, the confidence to buck trends and make your own decisions on what you find aesthetically pleasing probably comes from knowledge. Try everything at least once before you decide if you like it, then try it again a few years later to see if your tastes have changed. And never, ever be satisfied with the status quo -- they were a rubbish band in the 70s and they're just feeble now.

Agree re 'isms', except that, were there no fashions/fads/Zeitgeist --life would be v boring, and we should never have had Hots Pants, Minis, Micros etc

I think what impressed my bother and myself, was that we had picked up this stuff, and long since embraced it; so that one does not look a at a ye olde Christmas card, and first think,'How nice!' and then think 'No, I mustn't think that'. And in fact, there is something nice about even the most--most--crass ones.

The same brother, years ago, acquired a lamp, form out of greeny ducks with beaks up, and I thought it comical. My wife said she would give her right arm for it--so I looked again, and soon coveted as well. The same has happened many times at a boot fair, with some bit of china.

Although my brother and I went down different paths, in some ways we are the same. His sons resemble more a woman who said to me that she would really love to have an oil-painting. Nothing in particular-just that. I find it puzzling, but feel I have not truly expressed myself very well.