The pricing is crazy/justified thread

[Fade to Black]

The Gospel According to St. Avantster.

CHUUUUCH

[Mail-Moth]

Auto-satisfaction and/or self-delusion .

Of course. Doesn't it take a lot of both to believe that the world will listen ? :)

A little more seriously, I assume that the purpose of art can be something intimate.
Who cares then ?
The artist himself. I'm with Beau XIX on that point : he is an audience. Feeling the urge to give a palpable shape to blurry intuitions doesn't necessarily need the justification of a larger display.
But of course, the result will only survive as a work of art if it succeeds in making its way out and reach at some moment a larger audience, that will be convinced of its artistic value - or that will question it. The artist himself may be almost completely indifferent to that issue, though. He may even not be conscient of making something that will be regarded as art by others. Think of Emma Hauck and Jeannot le Béarnais : they were writing messages to someone else. Nothing more. But those messages have been seen as art by many.

[BeauIXI]

Thanks for bringing up those points, Avantster. Sometimes the most important points in a discussion are those not openly discussed, but circled.

But of course, the result will only survive as a work of art if it succeeds in making its way out and reach at some moment a larger audience, that will be convinced of its artistic value - or that will question it. The artist himself may be almost completely indifferent to that issue, though. He may even not be conscient of making something that will be regarded as art by others. Think of Emma Hauck and Jeannot le Béarnais : they were writing messages to someone else. Nothing more. But those messages have been seen as art by many.

I appreciate your bringing up of art by non-artists, Moth, and I do think that to be publicly defined as a 'work of art', something must reach a larger audience, but in reaching that audience, and in that definition, there lies a great difficulty- once defined and categorized, the art piece is overshadowed by a reproduction of itself that is the popularized view and critical definition of the original. I like to imagine that the most important artists are those who contribute greatly to greater art culture, or culture in general, and who are forgotten by history, but latently remembered in their lasting and now inherent effects.

That's a little romanticized and a little purist, but hey.

[Fade to Black]

^---- no, i dig it.

also Mail-Moth your first line may have been meant in half-jest, but to me it's truth.

[Avantster]

A little more seriously, I assume that the purpose of art can be something intimate.
Who cares then ?
The artist himself. I'm with Beau XIX on that point : he is an audience. Feeling the urge to give a palpable shape to blurry intuitions doesn't necessarily need the justification of a larger display.
But of course, the result will only survive as a work of art if it succeeds in making its way out and reach at some moment a larger audience, that will be convinced of its artistic value - or that will question it.

The operative word highlighted is an important one - obviously only works that survive (whether in the physical sense, or in the minds of others) can be absorbed into static patterns of experience, and thereby have any significant/lasting cultural impact upon society and the progression in its understanding of art.

[deleuze]

A few points here on a number of topics that came up in this thread and seem to continually emerge in this forum every now and then.

- Dismissing something as completely subjective only limits the possibility of further discussion and learning. The beauty of art is that someone completely new to it can have something fresh and valuable to say, but this does not invalidate current knowledge of art and everything that came before it. Understanding this history and current arguments in a particular field are often critical when forming qualitative opinions. This is of particular note to fashion, which is yet to have the benefit of a large academic/theoretical body of work.

I'll humor an opinion as it's the democratic way and we're dealing with a democratic discipline? but understand that my opinion will still be more valuable beacause this is my specialty. Hmm, it was this attitude that prevented contemporary thinkers from crossing over into other disciplines in the first part of this century. An Adorno or Benjamin might not invalidate current specialized knowledge but they do have the potential to render a lot of it insignificant and some of it completely irrelevant.

- The artist is attuned to experience, and can express this dynamic quality through an imaginative vision (not necessarily visual) to other people. The artist lives in society and understands the pre-existing attitudes and values of others both as humans and collective society, and this is what makes their vision resonate powerfully as a experience for others.

Where does this leave outsider art? Or everyone from Van Gogh to Artaud? The artist you describe sounds quite drab yet with a sense of self-importance, almost like 19th century academic art.

- Art evolves dynamically over time. The artist of today turns a critical eye to yesterdays definition of art, challenging and redefining it. This new way of seeing eventually hardens and becomes the established truth. It's a continual cycle where established notions are continually examined and turned on their head. As a result 'modern art' is often mystifying to newcomers. It is an acquired taste which has it's own rewards, one where where the journey is as just as important as the end result.

All this comes across at worst as replicating a pre-1950's philosophy of science text and at best a Clement Greenberg redux. Something about it is just too mechanical and fails to explain counter-revolutionary movements like Symbolism or outliers like Bacon who together are probably more important yet at the same time less influential than most other "contemporary" art.


-------


And I have absolutely no idea how to relate these criticisms to (fashion) design

[sargon97]

This is probably the wrong thread for an extended discussion on art, but this concept of art as some sort of evolutionary trend is rather dated, as if art is moving to some modernist purity of expression. I generally see art movements as a cyclical and reactionary process but that is also influenced by its current social-political context. However this is more a tool for reasoning rather than some grand unified theory. Taking the 18th century as an example, neoclassicism was a reaction against the decadence of the Rococo which was in turn a reaction against the art of Louis IV. At the same time you will always have individuals such as Goya who operate entirely outside of the context of their times.

[Faust]

You can entertain your postmodernist opinions all you want - they are just your opinions, as Johnny would say - but there exist canons, there exist difference in quality, there exists meritocracy. Your pomo world is the world of shit art, art as commerce, a world that's driven by galleries, who are in the business of selling, and not by critics, who are in the business of upholding standards of culture. Of course, you will say that everyone is free to like what they will - this still does not invalidate the state of the art world today. Now go admire Marina Abramovic or whatever else the fuck this anything goes mentality has produced.

[Avantster]

I'll humor an opinion as it's the democratic way and we're dealing with a democratic discipline? but understand that my opinion will still be more valuable beacause this is my specialty. Hmm, it was this attitude that prevented contemporary thinkers from crossing over into other disciplines in the first part of this century. An Adorno or Benjamin might not invalidate current specialized knowledge but they do have the potential to render a lot of it insignificant and some of it completely irrelevant.

You are right but what you're describing is a similar process of the continual challenging of established notions. The main point is that understanding contemporary and historical thinking in a discipline still has value when forming qualitative opinions, regardless of speciality. One can make up his own mine before reading Benjamin, but it's going to take much more than simple disagreement to make him and say, Hegel and Kant irrelevant to others.

Where does this leave outsider art? Or everyone from Van Gogh to Artaud? The artist you describe sounds quite drab yet with a sense of self-importance, almost like 19th century academic art.

Sanity is culturally defined - people with psychiatric 'disorders' and children can be just as attuned to dynamic quality than 'ordinary' adults - their difficulty lies in being able to sustain this into static patterns that others can experience. Outsider art (in the widest sense) is actually a good example of the challenging of established cultural values.

[Avantster]

This is probably the wrong thread for an extended discussion on art, but this concept of art as some sort of evolutionary trend is rather dated, as if art is moving to some modernist purity of expression. I generally see art movements as a cyclical and reactionary process but that is also influenced by its current social-political context. However this is more a tool for reasoning rather than some grand unified theory.

Right - I'm not insisting on a strict linear progression nor proposing a unified theory devoid of social-political context - rather an simplistic illustration of the challenging existing values.

[sargon97]

You can entertain your postmodernist opinions all you want - they are just your opinions, as Johnny would say - but there exist canons, there exist difference in quality, there exists meritocracy. Your pomo world is the world of shit art, art as commerce, a world that's driven by galleries, who are in the business of selling, and not by critics, who are in the business of upholding standards of culture. Of course, you will say that everyone is free to like what they will - this still does not invalidate the state of the art world today. Now go admire Marina Abramovic or whatever else the fuck this anything goes mentality has produced.

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I'm definitely not advocating some post modern orgy. I was also thinking about this from an art historical context, hence my examples chosen from the 18th century rather than contemporary art which has its own issues.

[sargon97]

Right - I'm not insisting on a strict linear progression nor proposing a unified theory devoid of social-political context - rather an simplistic illustration of the challenging existing values.

I think we are on the same page then. Was reading Winckelmann a few months ago and its interesting, especially when one is centuries removed from the original context, how naive and off axis arguments for absolute *true* and *purity* in art can become.

[messenoire]

Aah, and another sweeping generalization from an outsider looking in. You have little clue what actually goes down so you're left to go off assumptions and adages–neither of which make you sound as bright as you probably are.

endorphinz, there is something called a middle ground. A lot of people I know, including many of the people on this forum, are able to own these labels based on 2 major factors: 1. they're not making frequent expenditures on lower to mid-range brands like Diesel, A&F, Kenneth Cole, etc (like the vast majority of people do, both male and female). Instead, they'll pool their cash for a while until they can drop it on one great piece–that will likely stay in their possession for a lot longer than anything found at the mall. It's a matter of having one stellar blazer/coat/boot whatever, over 3-4 that add up to the same amount in cost, but never character.

And 2. you're making the assumption that everything is acquired for full retail price, which is the case maybe half the time, if that. When people aren't making bank, they still find ways to get things they want. Between online auctions like eBay, SZ & SuFu classifieds (let one thing go, acquire another) store sales, etc, they're kopping their shit at a price that they're able to swing, even if it means letting the electric bill double over. Full retail purchases often go on credit cards, get paid down, then get jacked back up. If they work in the industry, they get discounts deep enough to make you cry, or they receive gratis. Though there are plenty of exceptions, if you were to peer into a many of their closets, you'd find that they're half as full as you might expect–though when you did the math, your mind would be blown.

No one I know is dropping 20K on shopping sprees, but I've dressed many people who have such budgets, and you know what the common thread, no pun intended, running between each of them is? They more often than not look contrived due to a painfully obvious lack of sincerity, which no amount of money can fake. I've found that those who appreciate artisanal/niche clothing the most are those who can afford it the least.

Just goes to show that money and style are mutually exclusive. Most everyone here already knows it. The rest are throwing around assumptions and adages because they don't have anything else to go by.

.

i didnt mean to resurrect this thread but i just wanted some way to commend interest1 for the points he's made through the thread. these have been a joy to read.

[Fade to Black]

He? interest1 is a whole lotta woman.

[messenoire]

He? interest1 is a whole lotta woman.

my humblest apologies! i didn't mean to assume.