२० जून, २०२०

"Is it me, or do we seem to have a problem with sculpture today? I don’t mean contemporary sculpture..."

"... whose fashionable stars (see Koons, Murakami et alia) pander to our appetite for spectacle and whatever’s new. I don’t mean ancient or even non-Western sculpture, either. I mean traditional European sculpture — celebrities like Bernini and Rodin aside — and American sculpture, too: the enormous universe of stuff we come across in churches and parks, at memorials and in museums like the Bode. The stuff Barnett Newman, the Abstract Expressionist painter, notoriously derided as objects we bump into when backing up to look at a painting.... [S]culpture skeptics from Leonardo through Hegel and Diderot have cultivated our prejudice against the medium. 'Carib art,' is how Baudelaire described sculpture, meaning that even the suavest, most sophisticated works of unearthly virtuosity by Enlightenment paragons like Canova and Thorvaldsen were tainted by the medium’s primitive, cultish origins. Racism notwithstanding, Baudelaire had a point. Sculpture does still bear something of the burden of its commemorative and didactic origins. It’s too literal, too direct, too steeped in religious ceremony and too complex for a historically amnesiac culture. We prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on flat surfaces, flickering in a movie theater or digitized on our laptops and smartphones, or painted on canvas. The marketplace ratifies our myopia, making headlines for megamillion-dollar sales of old master and Impressionist pictures but rarely for premodern sculptures...."

From an essay by Michael Kimmelman, published in the NYT in 2008, which I'm reading this morning because I blogged it at the time with my tag "sculpture" and I'm going through all my old posts with that tag looking for things that deserve my new tag "destruction of art."

The new tag is something I'd thought about creating for a very long time. I've been interested in violence directed at art much longer than I've been writing this blog — at least as far back as 1974 — but somehow my resistance to tag proliferation kept me from breaking this subtopic out of my generic topics "sculpture" and "art." There was also the "protest" tag. "Destruction of art" is (usually) a subtopic of that one too. But the pulling down of statues of Junipero Serra and Francis Scott Key — last night in San Francisco — finally dragged me over the line.

Speaking of Junipero Serra, I remember Richard Serra and his "Tilted Arc." I was one of the workers of lower Manhattan in the 1980s who rankled at the hostility the artist expressed toward mere pedestrians. I've written about that a few times. The people in the plaza have feelings and interests and may richly resent the impositions of artist ego and elitist civic pride. Once art is in place, it demands admiration, and what happens? It might be ignored — that's what Kimmelman fretted about — and it might be attacked — the present-day rage.

I'd like to look up what the "sculpture skeptics" — Leonardo, Hegel, Diderot, Baudelaire, et al. — had to say. Oddly, they — at least some of them — expressed racism. The sculpture skeptics of today style themselves as anti-racists. But there's resonance in Kimmelman's summary of the skepticism:
Sculpture does still bear something of the burden of its commemorative and didactic origins. It’s too literal, too direct, too steeped in religious ceremony and too complex for a historically amnesiac culture. We prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on flat surfaces, flickering in a movie theater or digitized on our laptops and smartphones, or painted on canvas. 
We — some of us — prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on the flat surface of the embedded video on Twitter as protesters drag down another stately chunk of metal.

ADDED: From "Why Sculpture Is Tiresome" in "The Mirror of Art: Critical Studies by Baudelaire":
The origin of sculpture is lost in the mists of time; thus it is a Carib art.We find, in fact, that all races bring real skill to the carving of fetishes long before they embark upon the art of painting, which is an art involving profound thought and one whose very enjoyment demands a particular initiation. Sculpture comes much closer to nature, and that is why even today our peasants, who are enchanted by the sight of an ingeniously-turned fragment of wood or stone, will nevertheless remain unmoved in front of the most beautiful painting. Here we have a singular mystery which is quite beyond human solving. Sculpture has several disadvantages which are a necessary consequence of its means and materials. Though as brutal and positive as nature herself, it has at the same time a certain vagueness and ambiguity, because it exhibits too many surfaces at once. It is in vain that the sculptor forces himself to take up a unique point of view, for the spectator who moves around the figure can choose a hundred different points of view.... Painting has but one point of view; it is exclusive and absolute, and therefore the painter's expression is much more forceful.... Once out of the primitive era, sculpture, in its most magnificent development, is nothing else but a complementary art. It is no longer a question of skillfully carving portable figures, but of becoming a humble associate of painting and architecture, and of serving their intentions....
(Charles Baudelaire died in 1867.)

३९ टिप्पण्या:

Mr. Forward म्हणाले...

"Tilted Arc" has been relocated to Mexican border.

Laslo Spatula म्हणाले...

"We — some of us — prefer the multicolored distractions of illusionism on the flat surface of the embedded video on Twitter as protesters drag down another stately chunk of metal."

Cultural snuff films for the pseudo-intellectuals.

You won't believe what happens next.

I am Laslo.

wendybar म्हणाले...

They are MOBBISH. They probably don't even know who half of the statues are. Ignorance is bliss with our public school taught liberals who think they are teaching all the right stuff. You know, like how to have anal sex when you are 5, and teaching them to hate whitey...you know...things like that. The real important stuff.

wendybar म्हणाले...

I'm just glad that it is now okay to destroy art that you don't like. There are quite a few pieces I would love to get my hands on. Now is my chance!! I can chant Black Lives Matter, and they will let me do whatever I want!!!

rhhardin म्हणाले...

Pulling down systems is more significant to political science. Statues come and go without side effects.

buwaya म्हणाले...

Chunks of metal aren't just chunks of metal. Both the pagans and the Catholics had the right of this. They are meant to evoke ideas, to remind, to be a constant argument.

"too complex for a historically amnesiac culture"

Likely correct, but that is because you all have failed. You have lost your virtue, due to neglect, through indiscipline, and cowardice in opposing the attacks of your enemies. This is not something that has just happened, but it has come to pass because you let it happen.

whitney म्हणाले...

Eventually the masses will get into the Vatican and rip it all down. How will you feel then?

Kevin म्हणाले...

Certain segments of our society have a problem with symbols, and our sculptures are very public examples of them.

Not only are they receiving messages that a wide range of symbols are harmful, but they also receive praise for removing them from the public square.

mezzrow म्हणाले...

We stuck around
To hear the sound of
Clasm meeting clysm.

Icono saw that
Cata found
A thing they thought was wisdom.

Susan म्हणाले...

I remember when the Taliban overseas was destroying Buddhist and other religious and even secular art that depicted humans because it offended their sensibilities. I had hoped I would not see the day it happened here. At least I thought that people here would put up more of a fight.

It will be "interesting" if there is anything at all of our former culture that will be allowed to continue. Any depiction of any minority as a brand spokesperson is out now. Using any person as a model for anything at all will follow sooner or later. The same intolerance that was the hallmark of the Taliban inflicts these cultural vandals.

Hope everyone who wanted to see our art museums has already done so. They will be next on our civilization's funeral pyre.

tim maguire म्हणाले...

The tag should be “Bonfire of the Vanities”

Jeff Brokaw म्हणाले...

“historical amnesiac”

It’s not amnesia — none of these statue topplers learned our history in the first place.

FU Howard Zinn.

tcrosse म्हणाले...

Entartete Kunst

Kevin म्हणाले...

These people obviously want more Trump.

Browndog म्हणाले...

Why Beauty Matters-Roger Scruton

Jeff Brokaw म्हणाले...

The destruction is bad enough, but what it says about our leadership class is at least as bad: they admire these mobbed-up idiots.

At the very least, they don’t care enough or are too afraid of the mob to do anything about it.

And by refraining from use of force to stop them, they are actively supporting them. It could not be more obvious at this point.

We cannot trust them to protect our persons, property, or history. Ever. Let them surprise me in a good way someday but the bar is so low now an ant could crawl over it.

What good are they?

Tucker last night was on fire for this exact issue.

narciso म्हणाले...

that's what the wall is for, but I guess francis will open the gates himself, and let the vandals in, and we know imam arifi intends,

bagoh20 म्हणाले...

Have we ever had a more poorly educated youth than today? Now tell me how it could be better if we just spent more money on it.

Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves म्हणाले...


Destruction of art and history.

You know who else likes to destroy history and art? Besides foolish democrat party supported/ media stamp of approval- leftwing Antifa fascist goons??


ISIS, The Taliban, and other assorted angry Islamic religious supremacists.

History in Ruins: Cultural Heritage Destruction around the World

more

ISIS and the Destruction of History

The party of Hillary, Biden, O, Brennan, CNN, and Schitt is a religious cult. Burn on, circle A.

Howard म्हणाले...

Violence is against people, not inanimate objects. It's protesters doing performance art, sorta like Bob Rouschenberg eracing the de Kooning drawling. It's about the celebration of negative space.

traditionalguy म्हणाले...

Monuments are tombstones placed outside a cemetery in honor of the deceased’s deeds. Erasing them is erasing a real history. It’s purpose is so the USA can be erased by the Soros paid infiltration Army the Dems unleashed on us.

Fernandinande म्हणाले...

They probably don't even know who half of the statues are.

I'm wondering how they can tell which statues are of white people, what with being made of metal and all, because "kill whitey".

Bruce Hayden म्हणाले...

The destruction is bad enough, but what it says about our leadership class is at least as bad: they admire these mobbed-up idiots.

At the very least, they don’t care enough or are too afraid of the mob to do anything about it.

And by refraining from use of force to stop them, they are actively supporting them. It could not be more obvious at this point.


It looks idiotic from our point of view, but part of that is that most of us have faith that Trump knows what he is doing, which very well appears to be the case. Part of it is that the Dems are dependent upon their Soros wing for money, but also for having had the foresight to have ought so many election officials that they have a chance at cheating their way to power. Tolerating AntiFA and BLM comes with the deal. Moreover their MSM propaganda wing is all in with their Soros wing.

Their real problem with fighting Trump is that they set out complex stratagems, Trump adroitly pivots, and they continue to blithely charge down the primrose path, into ambushes that they are convinced that Trump is too stupid to set. What they want here, is what they wanted a half century ago - Kent State. They want federal government overreaction. They got it in 1970, where they could prop up the bodies of a bunch of dead protesters as martyrs. I don’t think that they are going to get it with Trump. Instead, the DOJ, under AG Barr, is carefully and patiently going after the riot leaders using Klan laws that make make many of their actions federal felonies. For example, a number of AntiFA routinely travel back and forth between Portland and Seattle to riot. Turns out, every time they do it, they have committed a federal felony - crossing a state line to riot, commit arson, etc. Those busses of out of state protesters? Ditto. Federal felonies. One woman was identified through her T shirt and tattoo, mostly through diligent searching on the Internet, then arrested.

Moreover, the Trump Administration is separating AntiFA from the black community, by championing law enforcement reform. Now Trump is pushing Juneteenth. What must be remembered is that a lot of the rioting and arson in black communities in Dem cities across the country was done by AntiFA connected Whites, and the result is that they burned down decades worth of improvements in these Black communities, turning them into food and medical deserts. Where are they going to get their food now, or their diabetes medicine, now that the Walgreens, Targets, Kroger’s, etc have been looted and burned out?

Balfegor म्हणाले...

The "antiracism" rubbish is merely pretextual -- some activists care about the symbolism, but most of the rabble pulling down statues are just louts and bully boys who derive pleasure from the mere act of defacing or destroying things they believe others whom they hate hold dear. That's why they keep defacing statues of abolitionists, tombs of unknown soldiers, the Cenotaph, etc. Any statue or monument that exists can be "racist" if you only work hard enough at coming up with a justification, so everything is fair game.


The brief glow fell upon a huge sitting figure, still and solemn as the great stone kings of Argonath. The years had gnawed it, and violent hands had maimed it. Its head was gone, and in its place was set in mockery a round rough-hewn stone, rudely painted by savage hands in the likeness of a grinning face with one large red eye in the midst of its forehead. Upon its knees and mighty chair, and all about the pedestal, were idle scrawls mixed with the foul symbols that the maggot-folk of Mordor used.

gilbar म्हणाले...

wendybar said...
I'm just glad that it is now okay to destroy art that you don't like.


yep! so,
if some racist/sexist/western loving museum presents (say) a Crucifix in a jar with piss...
we can burn down the museum!
right? i mean, right?

ps What IF, i can PROVE that that Crucifix was just like the type worn by mexican indinos?

Enlighten-NewJersey म्हणाले...

Howard, it’s destruction of property these people do not own and have no right to destroy. There is no defense for the destructive and violent acts of these mobs.

mtrobertslaw म्हणाले...

Sculptures now, paintings next.

Howard म्हणाले...

Enlighten New Jersey: the topic is art, not the right and wrong of it. To your point, statuicide is a nothingburger compared to police state manufacturing crime escalating to induce resistance to justify arrest tune-up and murder. Those prison guard union brothers need to eat too. Fresh bodies every day.

gilbar म्हणाले...

Balfegor quotes from LITERALLY the MOST RACIST BOOK, EVER WRITTEN
(also, my Favorite Book!)
If you don't think that The Lord of The Rings isn't racist; you're not paying attention
(ignore orcs, ignore elves and dwarves; just look at treatment of southerners and easterlings)

{not satisfied? then, go back and look at orcs, elves and dwarves}

Birkel म्हणाले...

I hope the Leftist Trolls cannot press charges when the mobs come for them.
I hope the police never come to take the report.

I'll be with the Korean grocers on roof tops.

rcocean म्हणाले...

Sculptures of famous people made sense in a world without color photography or film. Accordingly it now seems old fashioned, like a Presidential painting of Donald trump or JFK. Unfortunately, modern attempts to be less literal are usually failures like the current statues of Ike or MLK in Washington DC.

Its too bad we didn't live in real country, where people are concerned about things other than moral signally and money. There's a good case to be made for moving the US Capital out of DC to a more central location like KC or Denver. Its ridiculous that we have District of Columbia that votes 90% D year after year, and is completely unrepresentative of the entire USA. Its a freakish place, and we deserve better.

Michael K म्हणाले...

Howard is getting crazier by the day.

Balfegor म्हणाले...

Re: gilbar

I am pretty sure there are a lot of books that are more racist than Lord of the Rings, e.g. the entire Fu Manchu series (which are enjoyable enough) or Mein Kampf, if you want to go full Godwin.

Totally off topic at this point, but I would rate Tolkien as somewhat less racist than Churchill's The River War, i.e. racist by fussy modern standards but not particularly objectionable. The Haradrim and the Easterlings are there in the background but that's about it -- there's the bit where Sam wonders about the soldier sent off to fight in Sauron's wars to humanize them, but otherwise they're just referenced occasionally in the narrative as allies of Sauron. They don't do anything notably horrible as far as I can recall, just send troops in response to Sauron invoking Article 5 of Evil NATO.

You're on stronger ground with the Easterlings and the Haradrim than with orcs and elves, though. From the perspective of the protagonists, yes, they're all just monsters, but Tolkien, through the hobbits, let's us hear the orcs talking amongst themselves several times throughout the narrative. Based on their dialogue, they're more like amoral Tommys than anything else. Even so, they are given interesting little bits of dialogue suggestive of their worldview, e.g. the Moria orcs who get caught up with the troops from Isengard and Mordor and slaughtered in Rohan when all they want is to get revenge for their brethren who were killed. The Morgul and Cirith Ungol troops seem to disdain elves as being quick to abandon their companions ("Elvish trick") too, suggesting that loyalty to one's fellows is central to their value system, even if they don't exactly live up to that value system. They dream of setting up as bandits somewhere far away from Sauron, the Nazgul, and the bureaucracy of Mordor. They complain about how the rank and file orcs have to pick up the slack when top management (even the topmost management of all) screw up, and squable over who was responsible for what. Sure they all immediately backstab each other as soon as anything goes wrong, and then they get genocided in the end. But they're not stand-ins for Blacks or Arabs or Irishmen or Gypsies or any other race. On the contrary, they're easily the most "modern" and least exoticised characters in the entire narrative. That's precisely why they're so degraded, scrawling graffiti all over, engaging in casual vandalism, griping about their bosses, hypocritically backstabbing each other, and committing atrocities under orders and for fun. They're 20th century yobs dropped into a quasi-mediaeval fantasy.

Balfegor म्हणाले...

Re: gilbar

I am pretty sure there are a lot of books that are more racist than Lord of the Rings, e.g. the entire Fu Manchu series (which are enjoyable enough) or Mein Kampf, if you want to go full Godwin.

Totally off topic at this point, but I would rate Tolkien as somewhat less racist than Churchill's The River War, i.e. racist by fussy modern standards but not particularly objectionable. The Haradrim and the Easterlings are there in the background but that's about it -- there's the bit where Sam wonders about the soldier sent off to fight in Sauron's wars to humanize them, but otherwise they're just referenced occasionally in the narrative as allies of Sauron. They don't do anything notably horrible as far as I can recall, just send troops in response to Sauron invoking Article 5 of Evil NATO.

You're on stronger ground with the Easterlings and the Haradrim than with orcs and elves, though. From the perspective of the protagonists, yes, they're all just monsters, but Tolkien, through the hobbits, let's us hear the orcs talking amongst themselves several times throughout the narrative. Based on their dialogue, they're more like amoral Tommys than anything else. Even so, they are given interesting little bits of dialogue suggestive of their worldview, e.g. the Moria orcs who get caught up with the troops from Isengard and Mordor and slaughtered in Rohan when all they want is to get revenge for their brethren who were killed. The Morgul and Cirith Ungol troops seem to disdain elves as being quick to abandon their companions ("Elvish trick") too, suggesting that loyalty to one's fellows is central to their value system, even if they don't exactly live up to that value system. They dream of setting up as bandits somewhere far away from Sauron, the Nazgul, and the bureaucracy of Mordor. They complain about how the rank and file orcs have to pick up the slack when top management (even the topmost management of all) screw up, and squable over who was responsible for what. Sure they all immediately backstab each other as soon as anything goes wrong, and then they get genocided in the end. But they're not stand-ins for Blacks or Arabs or Irishmen or Gypsies or any other race. On the contrary, they're easily the most "modern" and least exoticised characters in the entire narrative. That's precisely why they're so degraded, scrawling graffiti all over, engaging in casual vandalism, griping about their bosses, hypocritically backstabbing each other, and committing atrocities under orders and for fun. They're 20th century yobs dropped into a quasi-mediaeval fantasy.

Char Char Binks, Esq. म्हणाले...

These statues are not art, or at least not high art, or primarily meant to be art, however skillfully or beautifully made. They are commemorations.

I have no problem with statues, any statues, falling, if they fall because the people, or their elected reps, decide to bring them down, and hire workers to do the job in an orderly way.

That said, mobs felling statues is ultimately insignificant, but I did enjoy watching Jefferson Davis brain that rioter. It was definitely worth a chuckle!

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM म्हणाले...

inadvertently making room for the upcoming Trump statues

PluralThumb म्हणाले...

Inga is no Chuck Norris but makes a point of reference. I do not like speaking for we because my shrink says I am schitzo. I always wanted to be with the righty tighty lefty loosly we, but intelligent humans are very interesting. Art is literaly a medium. Like the heart is litteraly at the heart of a human system. Art can be a toe, but a toe can not be without heart. Art can teach or aggitate. Trick or treat ?

The problem with artists being aggitated may be because we the they paid into the same multistructured system that profited and passed through while judging from around and about without a thanks. Landlords not excluded. All is art except for Inga, she may be real.

daskol म्हणाले...

My successful sculptor artist used to say similar things about the primitive aspect and appeal of sculpture, but in lauding it over painting or print-making or other pussified, less macho and more intellectualized art.

Nichevo म्हणाले...

e.g. the Moria orcs who get caught up with the troops from Isengard and Mordor and slaughtered in Rohan when all they want is to get revenge for their brethren who were killed.


FASCINATING!!! Cite please? I believe I may have just learned something new!