obscure: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/ap

Пишет Настоящий праздник (

obscure)
@ 2015-04-16 02:39:00

(Читать комментарии) - (Добавить комментарий)

obscure
2015-04-17 23:31 (ссылка)

почему это именно искусство, а не плакат, не политическое высказывание
как раз на днях перечитывала уальдовскую the soul of man under socialism
и там введён не критерий, а, скажем так, признак "настоящего искусства", подходящий как к ситуации с японским вагинами, так и к большей части историй, упомянутых в статье про 10 художниц

And it is to be noted that it is the fact that Art is this intense form of Individualism that makes the public try to exercise over it in an authority that is as immoral as it is ridiculous, and as corrupting as it is contemptible. It is not quite their fault. The public has always, and in every age, been badly brought up. They are continually asking Art to be popular, to please their want of taste, to flatter their absurd vanity, to tell them what they have been told before, to show them what they ought to be tired of seeing, to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much, and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own stupidity. Now Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic.
==
A fresh mode of Beauty is absolutely distasteful to them, and whenever it appears they get so angry, and bewildered that they always use two stupid expressions—one is that the work of art is grossly
unintelligible; the other, that the work of art is grossly immoral. What they mean by these words seems to me to be this. When they say a work is grossly unintelligible, they mean that the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is new; when they describe a work as grossly immoral, they mean that the artist has said or made a beautiful thing that is true.
=
If a man approaches a work of art with any desire to exercise authority over it and the artist, he approaches it in such a spirit that he cannot receive any artistic impression from it at all. The work of art is to dominate spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the work of art. The spectator is to be receptive. He is to be the violin on which the master is to play. And the more completely he can suppress his own silly views, his own foolish prejudices, his own absurd ideas of what Art should be, or should not be, the more likely he is to understand and appreciate the work of art in question. This is, of course, quite obvious in the case of the vulgar theatre-going public of English men and women. But it is equally true of what are called educated people. For an educated person’s ideas of Art are drawn naturally from what Art has been, whereas the new work of art is beautiful by being what Art has never been; and to measure it by the standard of the past is to measure it by a standard on the rejection of which its real perfection depends. A temperament capable of receiving, through an imaginative medium, and under imaginative conditions, new and beautiful impressions, is the only temperament that can appreciate a work of art.

(Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	(Анонимно) 2015-04-17 23:44 (ссылка)
	this appears to me like someone is telling the Art what Art should be. (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	obscure 2015-04-17 23:47 (ссылка)
	как раз наоборот. (Ответить) (Уровень выше)

	obscure 2015-04-17 23:48 (ссылка)
	но если ты тот самй анон, который заддавал мне вопросы по поводу японских работ, то я наконец поняла, почему мне пришлось пересказывать содержание интервью. уж извини (Ответить) (Уровень выше) (Ветвь дискуссии)

	(Анонимно) 2015-04-17 23:53 (ссылка)
	я тупой, да. меня извини. (Ответить) (Уровень выше)

(Читать комментарии) -