And the difference between "high art" and "hi-falooten"
is...?
that high art is something that one comes to understand, while
high-falootin is something one does not wish to understand. And
this is not to say there is anything wrong with not wanting to
understand. However, the term high-falooten is very much about
an attempt to impose ones subjective interpretation in a
dismissive manner.
Seems to me that they try to impose their subjective
interpretation on the artist, the piece, and the reader.
On the other hand, the pictures and thus the representation of
the work is very much the same no matter what your language or
level of linguistic fluidity. A demonstration of intent and
interpretation, no matter how authoritarian its pose, is still
only a suggestion, which anyone is free to question and so on…
Anyone may point out to me things I haven’t seen; no-one can
make me believe in their validity or import. That is still, I
think, a choice left to my own judgement.
Certainly you do not mean to suggest that these
questions can be answered "[b]y using some of the textual
tools of current art theory"?
Actually, I suggest that the soul is a non-issue - wether it
exists in you has no bearing upon how I experience your work.
Much like the subjective interpretation of the above; its
significance ( soul or artspeak ) is only as great as I allow it
to be. You want to believe? Fine, but don’t ask me to believe,
and work with me to find a method of discussion that we both an
understand.
The difference being that the vocabulary used in this
forum is that of the metalsmith, while the vocabulary
displayed in the quoted passage is that of the academic.
Which dosen’t make either one wrong, nor is one ‘better’ than
the other. There is obviously a need in our community for
different forums - not much discussion takes place here about
art issues ( although the present thread is an exception), while
not much technical discussion takes place in MS. To be blunt, so
what? Nothing wrong in that; look at the pictures there, ask
questions here. But don’t bemoan the fact that something is
other than what you think it should be.
Then perhaps they should change the name to "Jewelry as
High Art."
Is the crux of this thread associated with feelings that by
titling the magazine Metalsmith they are somehow playing tricks
on the buying public? That they need to be more obvious in their
naming? I cannot believe that this is the case. The magazine
contains the work of metalsmiths. This reminds me of the need to
inform the customer that a cup of coffee is hot; how little
thinking do we want the public to do?
Is this what the magazine purports to be, or is it what
you want it to be (and thus find it to be)?
What it purports to be is a non-issue. What I find it to be is
what it is. And if you find it to be something else, we can
discuss that. Sort of like the defendant in a criminal trial.
Almost all of them purport to be innocent; a lot of them are
found to be something else. Do you want to free them because
they advertise themselves as something other than what they are,
or would you prefer to make your own decisions about it? The
magazine is a forum for the discussion of art jewellry away from
the concerns of the marketplace. You need to demonstrtate that
it is not, rather than question my desires.
Assuming, of course, that the artist shares your
formalist construction of beauty. A post-modern
interpretation might suggest that the artist is demonstrating
and sharing her awareness that these are made-objects, i.e.,
that "high art" is created by soldering, filing, and joining
objects in ways that satisfy the soul...
Back to the soul… Please give me credit for understanding
deconstrucion; believe me when I say that the pieces and
problems I refer to are not part of that discourse. Further, I
am fully able to judge the works I see and make a decision as to
the appropriateness of their degree of finish. It is what we all
do every day with our own work.
In other words, they hide behind "hi-falooten
gobbledegook."
Actually, what I said was that they lack intellectual
discipline. There is in my opinion more work to be done within
the discourse they are engaging in. This is not my critique of
where they are, but of how they behave while there.
This is a circular construction: I believe in my
own subjective interpretation of their subjective
interpretation of the world which I (subjectively)
believe I "create".
Anyone who attempts to be ‘objective’ is playing games with
their own authoritarian stance. Objectivity finally resides
imposing a subjective interpretation upon the world. Sorry, but
all experience is subjective. If we agree that red is red, it is
still subjective and arbitrary. The fact we all concur does not
change this, it only encourages us to forget this fact. As for
circular construction, the mission of the agazine as I have
demonstrated it has not been satisfactorially challanged. As
such my assertion still carries weight of fact. If you can posit
and argue a different mission for Metalsmith, we can begin to
determine the circularity of my arguement. More appropriatly,
however, we can begin to critique and understand the revised
mmission.
Translation: There is no satisfaction to be taken in
any endeavor from which I do not take satisfaction.
I do not think that I said there was no satisfaction to be had.
The last part of your reply was very much tied up in issues of
subjectivity. I am thinking that you wish for a universal set of
ideas and thoughts, akin to your stated belief in a ‘soul’. I do
not believe in such an animal, and therefore do not require one
for artistic and aesthetic experience. That is, obviously, my
subjective experience. But that does not invalidate that
experience, nor does it prevent me from communicating that
experience with the rest of my peers. And I do not need to
insist that we all think alike in order to participate in that
discussion. The very subjective experience of those I contact in
my life is what gives me the input for learning and growth.
Objective reality exists ata lower level; pain, pleasure and the
like. Above that all is subjective, and any time language is
involved it is not only subjective, but open to flux.
Tom, thanks for the response. A thoughtful reply is always a joy
to recieve, and I enjoyed your ideas. I disagree with some of
them, but that is part of the fun of life. I want to say that I
have not intended to offend yourself or anyone else; if I have I
will apologize as necessary. I look forward to your next
response, and I hope there is one.
Cheers
Douglas