|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 9:19:52 GMT
Let's start with Art. Representation- painting, sculpture, drawing, "installation".
Is there anything from, say, 1945 onwards that reaches the same standards of past masters?
Or are people like Avramovic, Kapoor, Beuys, Wei Wei indicative of a comparable level of standard?
I'm always uneasy with dismissing modern art entirely, but as it is something new, it can't easily be compared.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 9:21:55 GMT
Would we be in agreement that the emergence of industrialised mass production has had a generaly negative impact on the creation of personalised art and culture?
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 9:22:41 GMT
Culture is an umbrella term. How we communicate and it's impact is part of the process. I think in the U.K especially, culture is a hot potato, mixed in with definitions of British values. The brexit debate talked about our culture and the division of opinions on both were staggering. Living abroad, culture is a living breathing entity. It is easily recognised, practiced and praised. Is it in decline ? If anything it is experiencing a renaissance. did you see what I did there ?I wouldn't disagree with much of that and I guess we need to define what we mean by culture because it encompasses so many things, therefore using that broader definition of culture it can't be in decline any more than breathing is as it is inherent in the human condition and human society. But I think Toby was talking about the idea of great works and to refute his proposition you'd have to provide examples of great 21st century works (and I accept such definitions would be subjective) to counter the argument of decline. Who would be the 21st century equivalents of Mozart or Picasso?
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 9:23:25 GMT
Would we be in agreement that the emergence of industrialised mass production has had a generaly negative impact on the creation of personalised art and culture? No. It just means that the ideas get burnt out quicker.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 9:34:30 GMT
Would we be in agreement that the emergence of industrialised mass production has had a generaly negative impact on the creation of personalised art and culture? No, quite the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 9:48:28 GMT
Culture is an umbrella term. How we communicate and it's impact is part of the process. I think in the U.K especially, culture is a hot potato, mixed in with definitions of British values. The brexit debate talked about our culture and the division of opinions on both were staggering. Living abroad, culture is a living breathing entity. It is easily recognised, practiced and praised. Is it in decline ? If anything it is experiencing a renaissance. did you see what I did there ?I wouldn't disagree with much of that and I guess we need to define what we mean by culture because it encompasses so many things, therefore using that broader definition of culture it can't be in decline any more than breathing is as it is inherent in the human condition and human society. But I think Toby was talking about the idea of great works and to refute his proposition you'd have to provide examples of great 21st century works (and I accept such definitions would be subjective) to counter the argument of decline. Who would be the 21st century equivalents of Mozart or Picasso? I quite like this Kanye West fella. I've heard he's a genius.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 10:43:10 GMT
Culture is an umbrella term. How we communicate and it's impact is part of the process. I think in the U.K especially, culture is a hot potato, mixed in with definitions of British values. The brexit debate talked about our culture and the division of opinions on both were staggering. Living abroad, culture is a living breathing entity. It is easily recognised, practiced and praised. Is it in decline ? If anything it is experiencing a renaissance. did you see what I did there ?I wouldn't disagree with much of that and I guess we need to define what we mean by culture because it encompasses so many things, therefore using that broader definition of culture it can't be in decline any more than breathing is as it is inherent in the human condition and human society. But I think Toby was talking about the idea of great works and to refute his proposition you'd have to provide examples of great 21st century works (and I accept such definitions would be subjective) to counter the argument of decline. Who would be the 21st century equivalents of Mozart or Picasso? I hear ya. Um, Mozart and Picasso are examples of who's culture? I would bet banksy is more admired than Picasso , who mostly confuses most people when viewed. Mozart is considered, generally as "high brow" and has basically touched less people than Queen. Culture is being presented as an almost high brow , intellectual idea of greatness. If classical music and art are not part of the evolutionary changes that are occurring now, why do we hold them up as yardsticks of what culture represents. Are Georgian columns and architecture based on the buildings of ancient Greece and Rome ( but with symmetrical windows) a bastardised version of another's culture, is it different to a four bedroomed tudor-bethan pile owned by a successful used car dealer in Essex ? Why is the fact that successful city traders don't have commissioned portraits produced never given a moment's thought but a couple painted by a Dutch master is considered culturally important? G, is right, we need to decide what we mean by culture. Are we looking for something created now that will be still be standing in 200 years. Is culture about how the masses experience it or scholars with an interest or love of a particular time? I dunno, it's the same as asking what is art ? Maybe Toby is looking at things in a certain way, why are we not drinking chateau Lafitte and discussing Jean - Paul Sartre, instead of hot topics concerning the Saudi pro-leagues impact on the prem. Dougie might be right. It probably is Ticktok. The equivalents of the previous cultural icons will, I suspect, emerge , as most do, over time.
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 10:54:41 GMT
Again I agree with much of that, and yes certain artists have become venerated through a process of adorning them with the cultural prestige of "high culture". At the same time though, I do find it telling that we can't even have a stab at naming some names. That does seem indicative of something.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 11:06:07 GMT
Precisely. No-one has suggested anyone that even two of us could agree or at least discuss.
Banksy. I mean, really.
|
|
|
Post by tory on Aug 18, 2023 11:10:35 GMT
Most culture being created is ephemeral. Tiktok/YouTube are technological advances in absorbing culture; they are not cultural in themselves.
We probably have more people interested in consuming culture than at any time in the past, but I'm not sure we have any great works in us. Perhaps it might occur, perhaps it might not. Whether it does or whether we enjoy what has been bequeathed to us by previous generations is maybe more important. Technological advances give us the opportunity to absorb more culture and its context than at any other time.
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 11:15:48 GMT
Precisely. No-one has suggested anyone that even two of us could agree or at least discuss. Banksy. I mean, really. I mean, really. Banksy is the absolute definition of a cultural icon. A cultural icon is a person or an artifact that is identified by members of a culture as representative of that culture. The process of identification is subjective, and "icons" are judged by the extent to which they can be seen as an authentic symbol of that culture. Do Vermeer or Beethoven tick any of the above boxes ?
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 11:22:07 GMT
Most culture being created is ephemeral. Tiktok/YouTube are technological advances in absorbing culture; they are not cultural in themselves. We probably have more people interested in consuming culture than at any time in the past, but I'm not sure we have any great works in us. Perhaps it might occur, perhaps it might not. Whether it does or whether we enjoy what has been bequeathed to us by previous generations is maybe more important. Technological advances give us the opportunity to absorb more culture and its context than at any other time. Yes, that is a fair point. It also makes culture dependent on the masses. It is a better representation of how and what is absorbed by the people ,shared values. It encourages more freedom . It is a renaissance, only this time , not dependent on commissioned art by the church .
|
|
|
Post by Stacy Heydon on Aug 18, 2023 11:40:26 GMT
Precisely. No-one has suggested anyone that even two of us could agree or at least discuss. Banksy. I mean, really. I mean, really. Banksy is the absolute definition of a cultural icon. A cultural icon is a person or an artifact that is identified by members of a culture as representative of that culture. The process of identification is subjective, and "icons" are judged by the extent to which they can be seen as an authentic symbol of that culture. Do Vermeer or Beethoven tick any of the above boxes ? You're talking about fame though, whereas Toby's talking about cultural and artistic worth ( which is admittedly a highly contentious concept).
|
|
|
Post by adamcoan on Aug 18, 2023 11:56:58 GMT
No I'm not. Vermeer and Beethoven are famous. What actually is their cultural impact and whose culture does it reflect ? Neither of them reflected,represented or even changed the culture. As for artistic worth, is that when summat is technically difficult? I don't remember Athena banging out thousands of virgin Mary and child posters to the masses.
Is culture solely derived from future study by intellectuals or is it the fact that Scotsmen wear kilts?
As I said at the start of this thread.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Aug 18, 2023 12:03:34 GMT
Yawn
|
|