The same old question… March 26, 2011 9:04 pm \ 15 Comments \ by jeff What is art?. Posted in: Uncategorized
Really incisive. That’s some good stuff.
This is such an understated, yet powerful argument for doing more of those things that provoke attending rather than less in our schools.
Leading into the recent discussion of education and class war we followed recently on a certain social site–I cannot reconcile the world of clarity out of which Glaser’s comments and perspective flow with the crazy world of badgering and provocation and boorishness that throttles all discussion and exploration of necessary ideas in the local talk pools. Can’t even muster the will to put in two cents worth. Guilty of despair, I fear. Thanks for the link, jeff. Always enjoy the Big Think stuff. It keeps me going to be reminded that there’s a world out there where clarity seems to have a place (and that one day I can earn my way in?…maybe that’s my ultimate fatal delusion…)
I’m still mulling this one over. I think he’s right as far as he goes, but that cannot be the complete answer. I think of myself regarding latter-day musical works, operas of the 12-tone variety, and compare that to my students listening with complete bafflement and scorn to Don Giovanni, and have to ask, which of us is missing the art?
And I’m always taken aback when some child, suddenly hearing the Beethoven playing on the sound system in the media center, looks up and blurts, “What’s that noise?”
I didn’t get the impression that he was offering his answer as a complete answer but as a way of learning discernment for one’s self.
After all, whether something is worthy of our attentiveness is a question that can only be answered by each of us for ourselves, isn’t it? What moves me to pay attention and look more deeply bores some people to tears and vice versa.
The number of people who deem something art or not is completely beside the point in terms of whether it moves an individual to attentiveness and what seems to be exquisitely artful may later seem pedestrian.
Set, setting, trigger
I’ve been thinking about the video- good job, Jeff! I’ve been trying to get a handle on some commonalities possessed by the things that move me to attentiveness and I’m not sure that there are many in most cases.
One thing that seems to be common to most is that the work which provokes attentiveness seems to me to reveal something important about who the artist is, how she thinks and feels.
I’m wondering how important it might be for the artist to be a person of some real depth. Is it possible for a superficial person to produce excellent art?
Craig, in response to your last post in this thread, I’m thinking of that guy Dale introduced to us who … lives in a barn and makes art out of his own feces? Or maybe it was ash or something. Arguably sublime works from someone everyone regarded as the village idiot.
Speed-read Jeff’s last comment and left out “introduced to us”…made me snort with delight. Re-read properly. Nodded. Intoned “how true, how true.” Must confess to enjoying snort more. But prose excellent in either case. Carry on.
Snort away. I imagine I shall be reduced to that eventually.
Is it possible for the village idiot to possess enough depth to create sublimininity?
Brings Chauncy Gardner to mind.
Sublimity is not created; it is excavated.
No wait, never mind. You’re right. It’s created.
I said sublimininity. Not sublimity.Lots of folks confuse it with subliminosity, too.
Again I am undone by speed-reading. Help me. I just can’t keep up with the Information Revolution.