- "A work of art should not be beauty in itself, for beauty is dead;...A work of art is never beautiful by decree, objectively and for all. Hence criticism is useless, it exists only subjectively, for each man separately, without the slightest character of universality." -Tristan Tzara 1918. - via Adrian Duran's ArtblogTrey Kirk - disagree.Michael Roybottom top, or entire thing?The universality part. I think universality and history and controls are importantDiscourse Michael. Discourse.yeah, the universality part is where cont. art goes into delusions that prohibit anything other than fashionsbut the quote was shared from the art history teacher from mca. and it sums up modern art edno one has except the deluded inside communities that perennially keep such delusions nurturedbut the quote,, i want to believe is being taken from it's context. I think those feelings are fine from a painter that works for edification or therapy, but a historian uses it with a wider scope and uses it to push more absurd aims.what are you getting at with controls?maybe when you aren't typing on a mobileTotally agree. Artists perspectives. Wasn't thinking cuz I've never had those.And I am on a mobile. When u in Boston or Memphis?Taylor Martin -if criticism is useless than art in it's entirety is useless, right?
- mmm interesting, do go on
- exfoliate that skin please
- idk. i just thought we all kind of agreed that the point of making art was to show it to people.
- and allow them to have thoughts about it, etc.
- this quote is weird
- the "without the slightest character of universality" part is what gets me the most
- by that logic, if i look at a painting i didnt make and in some way relate to it, my actions are somehow false or misguided
- those playing the community game, yes. And certainly I would say the author of the quote was no hermit. There are artists that never had worked with the intent of showing others. i.e. walter anderson. and there were artists that had the communicative aspect very low on the chain of drivers i.e. joseph cornell. What I don't get is the quote stemming from a critic in the contemporary community.
- ^ earlier comment
- and that's the popular sentiment isn't it, that all empathy you have with a painting or art object is somehow misguided in contemporary art
- because obviously communication is opaque
- right
- though if we took such a strict stance with language
- yes yes, go that route
- we'd be typing sounds for personal enjoyment now, not sentences that are doing fairly well
- that's a great point
- i guess that's where you were going earlier, by saying this takes rationality to a point of absurdity
- yeah, exactly, but i've been flying sentences around the issue trying to wrangle it in mentally, so it's good to talk to you. you make things much more concise
- it seems very wrong on a base level, but especially so coming from a trained critic in the contemporary community. i mean it's posted on a blog and facebook for fucks sake
- lol
- lol not usually
- it's a very hopeless sentiment. i'd use the word nihilist but i havent checked up on that reference recently enough
- i do like the "work of art is never beautiful by decree" fragment
- but this is where i think some of those masses that claim they are still dealing with modernism are viewing from. The ironic take on communication doesn't deal with any of the real issues concerning being or the issues of communication.
