1. When the author talked about critics saying any art specifically aligned with any particular biographical indicator was inferior art, I got to thinking - Is there any art that is completely without any references to identity markers? Even Abstract Experssionism was all about machismo. By their own definition then, those art critics would have to call Da Vinvi an inferior artist as he perpetrated the portrayal of the ideal female and male form. After a few days of thinking about this I came up with couple non identity artists: Monet and Rothko. Both mostly devoid of human figures and not about themselves in any way, just studies about light and perception.
2. Humor was brought up to be the great universalizer, bringing everyone from every background to a common perspective. I've always found this device to be the most pleasant for addressing important points, and many agree with me - that's why Jon Stewart and Steve Colbert are so popular. Shows like Family Guy also emphasize really really wrong stereotypes but everyone (of liberal demeanor) loves it because they know they're just joking but making a good point. I dunno, everyone enjoys a laugh it is true, but there's also a thing called taste that divides us all again, once again another marker of personal identity, forged in our upbringing.
3. A big DUH!!! moment: Cinema assumed a male viewer -> so did all Western Art --> DUH!!! Big realization for the feminists!! "The female nude flatters men by reinforcing their dominance while relegating women to the role of fantasy objects." So the feminists eliminated the female figure and/or replaced the male gaze with a female one.
4. NEA critics said they supported the X Portfolio as evidence that it supported porn - who are these critics of the NEA? Artists who don't get the grants? Traditionalists? Churchies?
5. Did the feminists start everything that changed Modern Art? They apparently started Body Art and Performance, and Identity art too.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment