The Visual Arts: Exploring the History of "Fine Art" and Beyond

I respect that St. Lukes, but you have to respect also why in some circles formalism is viewed as the standard postcolonial analysis must go against. If we use Western art history, movements, forms, theories, analyses, a lot of artists in developing countries will be ignored. Their art histories can only be traced back to modernism that is still either American or European-influenced.

How will you then classify the Buddhist sculptures of India? If you will just use formalism, will you deny the fact that they have religious, cultural, and social contexts?

We look at them within their own traditions... and within the history of art as a whole. Art History as practiced in the West is far more open to non-Western influences than Literature... due in part to the lack of incomprehension as a result of language barriers. Persian and Islamic influences exist throughout Western art since the Middle-Ages... or earlier. Egyptian and Mesopotamian/Persian/Babylonian art are all part of the common formal studies of art history. There is a clear recognition of the interweaving of cultures in Byzantium and Italy (as illustrated by the Cathedral of Siena with it's Islamic-inspired patterns and stripes) and certainly Spain. A study of Indian art will reveal the influx of Western (Greco-Roman) Classicism as well as the impact of Islamic ideals. By the same token, an exploration of Persian art will reveal influences drawn from the West (especially Venice and the Byzantines) as well as the East (China and the Mongols). The whole Post-Colonial view of art history is just a weak thinking, self-loathing, politically correct self-righteousness that ignores the fact that art and culture are forever the result of interweaving various cultures and traditions. Those interested may dig deep into other cultures and other traditions. Personally, I'm quite fascinated with Islamic Spain, Persia, India, and Japan especially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

What do you mean then by reader's digest as opposed to shakespeare's works. That is a binary opposite. Don't fool me. One has to be inferior, bad, or low. You don't use both extremes if you don't intend to show the vast difference.

---

Bull****.

Read my latest post.

And of course, it's NOT a "binary opposite," in fact you commit a standard bifurcation fallacy. I picked out two possible texts out of a vast range of options, which may have fuzzy boundaries.

It gets awfully tiresome to have what one writes be so willfully misrepresented,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

This is a meaningless question.

Rothko's art, like all art, exists in a broader context: the rest of the art that he created, the climate of the times, politics, economics, trends, visions.

All art is contextual. Abstract art, which I prefer to call non-representational art since all art is abstract, no matter how realistic, had its roots in the mid-ninteenth century rebellion against a stifling classicism. It's worth reading about the travails of the Impressionists and especially Van Gogh, who was not an impressionist but a majority of one, to see how hard it was to break the dead hand of tradition in art.

As irony would have it, by the 1950s the abstract expressionists had become just as dictatorial as the classicists of the mid-19th century, declaring that all art that even hinted of the figure or of "literary" or "real-life" concerns was to be abjured. A new art church had developed with its own dogmas and its own way of excommunicating heretics.

Happily, that too is history, and in post-modern art anything goes. We'll see how long that lasts.

The pictorial arts, like all arts, cannot be classified. You might as well try to nail a blob of mercury to the wall. Art always eludes our classificatory schemes.

ETA: Er, why is this thread in "General Movies, Music and Television"?

---

Here's your "all art is contextual post."

I admire your patience, stlukesguild.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Here's your "all art is contextual post."

---

Right. And?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Bull****.

Read my latest post.

---

Please! Maybe you want to talk now about rhetoric. You cannot change the fact that you belittle reader's digest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Right. And?

---

You don't even understand your sweeping statement?

I rest my case.

Ignore him Miyako. He is just destroying the thread in his desperate attempts to mimicry Stlukes, however with a full range of contradictions and personal attacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

And of course, it's NOT a "binary opposite," in fact you commit a standard bifurcation fallacy. I picked out two possible texts out of a vast range of options, which may have fuzzy boundaries.

It gets awfully tiresome to have what one writes be so willfully misrepresented,

---

For your free education:

In literary studies, popular writing in which reader's digest belongs is considered low literature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

Please! Maybe you want to talk now about rhetoric. You cannot change the fact that you belittle reader's digest?

---

Incredible.

So, Reader's Digest has the same inventiveness of language, density of meaning, complexity of symbology, and soaring appeals to the human heart and mind, to the great, profound, and tragic events of life as ... Shakespeare? Seriously, you wish to say this? But you actually don't really know what you are talking about, do you?

You seem unable to process the point that I am NOT "belittling" Reader's Digest, UNLESS you wish to contend that Reader's Digest is every bit intellectually on par with Shakespeare. Is that your contention?

Reader's Digest has a context. Shakespeare has a context. They serve a niche. It is only you who insist on importing normativity to this discussion, not. I. It's not the Reader's Digest is bad and Shakespeare is good. It's that Shakespeare is more challenging and sophisticated than RD, and if we wish to expand our mental horizons we will pursue texts that help us do this. No one has to do this. No one is good or bad if he or she does or not do this. It's all up to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Ignore him Miyako. He is just destroying the thread in his desperate attempts to mimicry Stlukes, however with a full range of contradictions and personal attacks.

---

It was 6 days ago when I posted. I admire St.Luke's patience..........6 days and 11 pages. :lol:

Quote:

---

I just can’t believe it…......the same pattern again that has happened on St.Luke’s The Art Thread and my Mythology and religion in art……before threads were closed.

Time to go back to art. Franz Richard Unterberger's paintings may help reduce anxiety for a few.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_ogq8toN4A

http://www.online-literature.com/for...d-Beyond/page5

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by miyako73

You don't even understand your sweeping statement?

I rest my case.

---

You rest your case? LOL. You don't even know any longer what you're talking about, if indeed you ever knew. What part of my "sweeping statement" don't I understand, that you understand, that you understand so much better? Are you suggesting I have contradicted myself? Or .. . what?

But you don't know what you are saying. You are just desperately flailing about because, like most people on the Internet, you want to win an argument rather than have a meeting of minds, and actually learn something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cioran

Incredible.

So, Reader's Digest has the same inventiveness of language, density of meaning, complexity of symbology, and soaring appeals to the human heart and mind, to the great, profound, and tragic events of life as ... Shakespeare? Seriously, you wish to say this? But you actually don't really know what you are talking about, do you?

You seem unable to process the point that I am NOT "belittling" Reader's Digest, UNLESS you wish to contend that Reader's Digest is every bit intellectually on par with Shakespeare. Is that your contention?

Reader's Digest has a context. Shakespeare has a context. They serve a niche. It is only you who insist on importing normativity to this discussion, not. I. It's not the Reader's Digest is bad and Shakespeare is good. It's that Shakespeare is more challenging and sophisticated than RD, and if we wish to expand our mental horizons we will pursue texts that help us do this. No one has to do this. No one is good or bad if he or she does or not do this. It's all up to you.

---

I already gave you a free education on low literature. I should not really take you seriously. You dropped bifurcation fallacy without even understanding what it was all about. You were the one who created reader's digest-shakespeare comparison and you accused me of a fallacy? That's one big sh!t of a bull.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JCamilo

Ignore him Miyako. He is just destroying the thread in his desperate attempts to mimicry Stlukes, however with a full range of contradictions and personal attacks.

---

Wow, more incredible stuff!

Yes, we know Miyako has no idea what the hell to think or say, and neither do you! So just go knock yourselves out. Meanwhile Stlukes and i will continue to provide value to this thread while you provide nothing but nonsense.

You see, I don't "imitate" anyone. Like stlukesguild, I am visually educated, so it's reasonable to suppose that some of our opinions will coincide, since we, unlike you, know stuff.