huckelberry wrote:I followed the links provided above for a quick refresher. I do not suppose Blixa would find much very satisfying there.
Heh, ya think?
Instead of any journey of discovery there is something else.
Do you mean that these images seem to come from a place of answers more than questions? That could be a way to describe crudely didactic art. by the way, I don't think "didactic" in and of itself is a "bad thing" in art: on a general level it could be argued that art always has a pedagogical component (and this is an aesthetic argument that I find especially interesting myself). But there are different ways issues and experiences of teaching and learning can be structurally framed by art practices and individual works. Much of the art in those links strikes me as simply "illustration": an image designed to visually represent an idea on a one-to-one basis. (Also, though it may sound like it, I don't necessarily regard "illustration" as some lesser art form but as an institutionally different form (in terms of its location in social/economic institutions of production and consumption). Some of it in other contexts can stand on its own as art, of course.
It is very hard to approach such things without a lot of personal attitudes determing things. I do not respond very much to all the sentimentalism. I am practiced in seeing that is staying inside a small closet in the back of ones mind. perhaps others would feel entirely different.
This is true, but "personal" attitudes are not entirely "personal": they come from some place other than the strictly individual as they are the composite result of what we've taught (about art and many other things) as well as
not taught: if one has not had the opportunity to be exposed to art, or been encouraged to think about it, or even lived in an environment that its an everyday part of, then one isn't likely to have very developed "attitudes" about it or maybe even find it very meaningful.
I'm not saying that personal taste isn't important or valuable, but that its only part of how one views (judges?) art. In other words, its not entirely "subjective."
I'm curious what you mean by "I am practiced in seeing that is staying inside a small closet in the back of ones mind."
I looked at some Minerva Teichert pictures. I had not seen them before. They seem in some ways a nice change of place. Colors, or at least a little instead of beige. Shapes rather lively,artist must have some urge to dance. Women figures all drawn with no center. I suspect some viewers may choose to ignore that entirely. It speaks to me as at the heart of the matter.
I actually saw some of the Minerva Teichert exhibit at the BYU art museum with runtu. While I don't find her work all that interesting in itself, it is interesting to me historically.
I looked at a bronze by somebody else of Christ and the woman at the well. It spoke directly of what all I find repugnant in LDS theology. Christ is a big overbaring figure with no actual connection to the woman but the ablitiy to dominate. The woman is a mere child tiny and bowing away. I find this a dreadful image.
Yes, I agree. It seems a particularly thoughtless expression.
When I read the story I imagine nothing remotely like that. Will I be able to continue after being infected with this dreadful image?
I hope so!
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."