Slog
News & ArtsTuesday, January 27, 2009
Visual Art Art Problem
Posted by Jen Graves on Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 12:27 PM
Okay, I realize this is sort of out there. But this morning I'm reading some notes I took a year ago when I run across this idea from Kant: The only valid opinion about a work of art, he says, is one from someone who is disinterested in the subject of the art work. The hungry can't assess paintings of food, for instance. "Only when men have got all they want can we tell who among the crowd has taste or not."
Still Life with Fruit and Flowers (1620-21) by Balthasar van der Ast
Laura Letinsky's Untitled #6 (From To Say It Isn't So) (2007)
3
Ok Amelia, I know this is waaay out there, but like, I think it's like when you go on a low-carb diet, and then you realize how much you miss all your favorite foods, and like, then you start to remember every ingredient in that cesar salad wrap you usually get everyday, and then you can finally appreciate it.
5
Still a hungry person who is not insane could readily appreciate the art as representation, and hence useless to him, even while wishing he had the real thing in front of him rather than a painting. Kant was a little crazy in his love for arabesques and parrots. It goes beyond the principles of his aesthetics.
8
Jen,
Regarding food and still-life art, this is probably my favorite example:
http://www.wga.hu/html/s/sanchez/cotan/s…
Painted by Spainard, Cotan circa 1600.
Regarding food and still-life art, this is probably my favorite example:
http://www.wga.hu/html/s/sanchez/cotan/s…
Painted by Spainard, Cotan circa 1600.
9
Kant. He dead. There is no art version of the 10 Commandments to carry down from the mountain. Regina
12
Just to clarify... Kant was saying that ALL "hungers" must be removed before one can recognize universal beauty. Essentially, the argument is that if you remove all desire, then you can judge a work of art solely on it's own merits rather than imposing your own prejudices. When you judge a work of art free of desire, you have the authority to declare the works' beauty as a statement of fact.
In short, when someone filled with desire declares their affection for a work of art, that declaration is merely a personal preference and does not hold the weight of Truth.
In short, when someone filled with desire declares their affection for a work of art, that declaration is merely a personal preference and does not hold the weight of Truth.
13
@8: the cool thing about 17th c. Spanish still lifes is that during that time there was massive crop failure due to the final expulsion of Jews and Muslims - the very people who historically cultivated the land (and kept the economy afloat). Absentee fathers were in the new world, and orphans overwhelmed monasteries and convents because women had to abandon their children when they could no longer feed them. Cotan's food is arranged like jewels because it is much more precious, on strings ready to be yanked away from grasping hands.
14
@12: Yes, but I specifically am fascinated by the way he makes his abstract idea concrete by applying it to wealth. The idea of a "disinterested" ideal relationship with art is especially interesting when you consider that art is the first thing sold off in times of need (ie today's announcement about Brandeis). It is also interesting in that it points to a totally different relationship between viewer and art than between artist and art -- and 20th-century art asked why those relationships had to be so dissimilar.
15
Regina @9, I agree with you, but what fun is that? So, instead I shall disagree and provide the Ten Art Commandments:
1. Thou shall not steal, only transform.
2. Thou shall not covet thy colleague's gallery.
3. Nor shall thou covet thy colleague's reviews.
4. Thou shall not say "I could have done that."
5. Thou shall not call video games art in vain.
6. Thou shall not criticize that which you have not seen in person.
7. Thou shall honor the studio and keep it free of those annoying red fibers from the carpet in your TV room that seem to get everywhere.
8. Thou shall not crush the hopes and dreams of younger artists.
9. Thou shall work faster and smaller.
10. Thou shall not watch the Super Bowl.
1. Thou shall not steal, only transform.
2. Thou shall not covet thy colleague's gallery.
3. Nor shall thou covet thy colleague's reviews.
4. Thou shall not say "I could have done that."
5. Thou shall not call video games art in vain.
6. Thou shall not criticize that which you have not seen in person.
7. Thou shall honor the studio and keep it free of those annoying red fibers from the carpet in your TV room that seem to get everywhere.
8. Thou shall not crush the hopes and dreams of younger artists.
9. Thou shall work faster and smaller.
10. Thou shall not watch the Super Bowl.
16
I think Kant is full of it. It's the tension between our own desires in what we want in art and what the artist has actually created that makes looking at art interesting. Don't forget that this desire includes envy - to possess the artwork.
None of us are immune, which is I think Kant's point...and which is why I think he has a point, but is wrong. We've been coming up with intelligent, critical, insightful things to say about art for years, and we haven't needed to always be at arm's length to do it. Yes, journalistic standards insist that there be no "conflict of interest" (you can't own an artist's work if you're going to write about him), but that's a modern invention.
If we were going by Kant's rules, this conflict of interest would include anyone who had an inkling of positive feelings of desire for any work -- whether it was a reaction to the sinuous strength of line in an etching, or the bold use of red in a painting, or a particularly affective figure in a sculpture. None of this negates the ability to be a critical viewer.
Also: my favorite Vik Muniz still life.
None of us are immune, which is I think Kant's point...and which is why I think he has a point, but is wrong. We've been coming up with intelligent, critical, insightful things to say about art for years, and we haven't needed to always be at arm's length to do it. Yes, journalistic standards insist that there be no "conflict of interest" (you can't own an artist's work if you're going to write about him), but that's a modern invention.
If we were going by Kant's rules, this conflict of interest would include anyone who had an inkling of positive feelings of desire for any work -- whether it was a reaction to the sinuous strength of line in an etching, or the bold use of red in a painting, or a particularly affective figure in a sculpture. None of this negates the ability to be a critical viewer.
Also: my favorite Vik Muniz still life.
17
This is why I love Kant, and why I love rules. Because they're so wrong, they make awesome, true, and clear thoughts like this come out:
It's the tension between our own desires in what we want in art and what the artist has actually created that makes looking at art interesting. Don't forget that this desire includes envy - to possess the artwork.
18
@8 and @16,
Another contemporary Cotan reference, from a local gallery:
http://groverthurston.com/html/siteimage…
Another contemporary Cotan reference, from a local gallery:
http://groverthurston.com/html/siteimage…
19
I'd liken it to male commenters on feminist blogs who come in and say "As a totally detached observer..." Bullshit. Detachment is an imaginary state for dead white guys. And dead buddhists I guess.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Putting It In by Dan Savage
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
Meet the UW "Swagga Suit" by David Schmader
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (19) RSS