Join Stephen Colbert in discovering the value of Art

http://www.avclub.com/articles/tickets-refunded-for-boring-steve-martin-show,485...

Unfortunately "too smart" for a lot of people that saw Steve Martin talk about art at the 92nd St. Y in NY. Martin said it was “a little like an actor responding in Act III to an audience’s texts to ‘shorten the soliloquies,” later adding on Twitter, “So the 92nd St. Y has determined that the course of its interviews should be dictated in real time by its audience's emails. Artists beware.”

The Y issued an e-mail apology and promise of a refund for the $50 ticket, saying they had “planned for a more comprehensive discussion and we, too, were disappointed with the evening” and that it “did not meet the standard of excellence that you have come to expect from 92nd St. Y.” Solomon responded by essentially calling the Y crass philistines, and railing against “a culture that values celebrity and award shows over art.”

war sells and it's not great.

nope war is still just a death machine that will take your life or your soul nothing else.

Then you missed the point, since that's not the part that is selling. You have mistaken the representation for the reality. Patriotism, weapons and politics sells but not the actual destruction of war.

I don't agree! The act of war sells. the profiteers are just supplying the weapons not the hate.

But you can't eat hate, you can only use the demand created by manipulating hate to supply other things that you can profit and eat off of.

The act of war itself only supplies cannibals which are too few for such a large market

you can feed on hate. I see people here do it all the time.

What you see is people enjoying the attention, which is quite different.

Yes you may be right.

You are a baroque fellow ! ( uhm,...... gaudy, perhaps ? ) +^d !

You can avoid becoming baroque by making lots of Monet, it worked for his estate at least since it's worth millions.

p.s.
I really DO love these,....for the record.

....and DAMN,....now I want to do one. ( THIS is a GOOD meme )

heh

"In short, for these approaches, since the meaning of art is the maker's original intention, a valid interpretation involves the psychological reconstruction and recovery of this original intention".

I can respect that premise,....but I do not hold to it.
FOR THE ARTIST - that would be the "VALID" interpretation. ( I be one )

p.s. ( having an argument about it,[ that premise, much less the assessment of any particular case OF it ] will bore 99.9% of the population to tears.

You could always go with the "Art is in the Viewer" interpretation, is that a premise you could hold?

For these various theories of "reception and response," the meaning of art is not found in the author's original intention, nor is it found in any specific features of the artwork itself. Rather, these theories maintain, since the only way we actually get to know a work of art is by viewing it (looking, listening, reading), then the primary locus of the meaning of the artwork can only be found in the responses of the viewers themselves.

Thus, according to this view, the nature and meaning of art is to be found in the history of the reception and response to the artwork; and likewise, a valid interpretation of the artwork consists in an analysis of these responses (or the cumulative history of these responses). As Passmore summarizes it, "The proper point of reference in discussing works of art is an interpretation it sets going in an audience; that interpretation—or the class of such interpretations—is the work of art, whatever the artist had in mind in creating it. Indeed, the interpreter, not the artist, creates the work."

yes.
That is my position.

oh GOD,...not quite - -
as a Platonist,... . . .It gets more cumbersome,....."the viewers" perception is purely derivative OF, and Dependant ON, a ubiquitous set of PRESET forms . . ."

BUT I CAN PRAGMATICALLY ACCEPT THAT.

amen

But those PRESET forms are holons that are wholes part of nested contexts.

In fact, the whole of art theory can be seen as a spirited attempt to decide exactly what the locus of art is, and therefore where we can find or locate the meaning of an artwork—and thus, finally, how we can develop valid interpretations of that art. In short: What and where is art?

And I am saying, the nature and meaning of art is thoroughly holonic. Like every other entity in the universe, art is holonic in its nature, its locus, its structure, its meaning, and its interpretation. Any specific artwork is a holon, which means that it is a whole that is simultaneously a part of numerous other wholes. The artwork exists in contexts within contexts within contexts, endlessly.

Further—and this is the crucial point—each context will confer a different meaning on the artwork, precisely because, as we have seen, all meaning is context-bound: change the context, you elicit a different meaning.

Thus, all of the theories that we have discussed—representational, intentional, formalist, reception and response, symptomatic—are basically correct; they are all true; they are all pointing to a specific context in which the artwork subsists, and without which the artwork could not exist, contexts that therefore are genuinely constitutive of the art itself—that is, part of the very being of the art.

And the only reason those theories disagree with each other is that each of them is trying to make its own context the only real or important context: paradigmatic, primal, central, privileged. Each theory is trying to make its context the only context worth serious consideration.

But the holonic nature of reality—contexts within contexts forever—means that each of these theories is part of a nested series of truths. Each is true when highlighting its own context, but false when it tries to deny reality or significance to other existing contexts. And an integral art and literary theory—covering the nature, meaning, and interpretation of art—will of necessity be a holonic theory: concentric circles of nested truths and interpretations.