Slobodan and Rob,
1. you guys repeatedly argue for a very privileged view of what is art and what isn't. You freely profess to judge what is good art and what is not worthy. That act of pride is certainly as egotistical as any narcissistic selfie photographer.
As for why it matters that we recognize all forms of expression as valid artistic endeavors...
2. You have undoubtedly heard the expression history is written by the victors. There is a related concept that history is written by the aristocracy. Because of this we have precious little information about the common human experience of the middle ages or the 18th century or the classical period. We have some anthropological research that has tried to make good guesses, but as for the thoughts and ideas of a common person, we are a complete blank. We have writings from the wealthy or the aristocratic, or other important people, but no writings (or exceedingly few) from the point of view of common folks. It is a modern phenomenon that regular (common) folks are able to write and possibly have their work exhibited or published. Certainly it is an even more contemporary phenomenon that regular folks have access to imaging and publishing venues. We all understand this as the Internet and digital revolution we have lived through in the last fifteen years.
3. In the year 1066, a pottery bowl was just a bowl, but today, that common artifact is sold for thousands of dollars and is displayed as art. The common artifacts of life become art. The ability to see and understand that today before time has passed, allows us to view our place in history with a little bit more detached understanding.
4. The elitist view of art being only in the forms you have understood from the past, is a narrow-minded point of view that lacks the wisdom of the ages.
Numeration and italicisation of the above is mine - Rob C
1. Were that so, wouldn't I have to be in a privileged position to argue the point as you write that I do? I learned everything I know about art fom my mother, her books, and the frequent visits to
public art galleries to which she dragged me during the war. Blitz notwithstanding. No golden keys, I'm afraid. A few golden friends once upon a time, but that was in the past when things were different for everybody.
2. The doings of the 'common folk', who were almost surely illiterate and too involved in earning a crust to worry unduly about matters of self-expression, are probably not fully recorded because there was nothing much to record. When you share your four walls with the cows and the pigs, for warmth as well as because there's nowhere else to go, you ain't gonna feel high on art. You may well feel high, but it ain't on art.
Why do you feel that being able to arrive at some sort of informed conclusion about what may or may not be fine/high/acceptable/poor or any other form of art demands a base of privilege and/or elitism? All the museums let you in, you can see whatever you want to see and if you don't that's your choice. I have no access to private galleries - can't remember Elton ever inviting me in, not even sure I'd accept - Karl has never asked me down to the south of France either. No need: art has been democratic all of
my lifetime.
3. In 1066 they showed more good sense in some things than we do today. A pot is a pot is just a pot. That rarity lends it value isn't a measure of it's intrinsic worth, it's a measure of the price some people are willing to pay for things that are rare. Rare is not necessarily about art; it is certainly about rarity. If rarity equates with art, we may all just as well say goodnight and turn down the wicks.
4. That's a tiny bit convoluted; are you then stating that to appreciate and understand old art is elitist? That's a bit odd. Or are you attempting to indicate that only contemporary art or even art-yet-to-come has democratic, non-elitist values? Is your value structure in this exchange we are enjoying based upon politics or art? I find it difficult to combine the two concepts. I understand that 'old' art was the work child of established religious influences and wealth: is that why it's wrong and anti-democratic and terribly elitist? Actually, you should really be thankful for all of those dreadful tyrants who were instrumental in its very production. Without them, there wouldn't
be any art in those museums. And consequently, without that background of established appreciation for such things, nothing would exist today, because today's bright lot are perfectly willing to admit that from the 'privilege' of those elite art colleges they were able to attend, they learned the trick of standing on the shoulders of giants.
Rob C
