Writes Adam Gopnik in "The Case of the Upside-Down Mondrian/A great work of art always produces a vital disorientation" (The New Yorker).
Why does Gopnik keep saying "progressive"? It doesn't sound like the so-called "progressives" in American politics today.
To view the "vigorous acceptance of uncertainty" as the central quality of progressivism runs directly counter to the idea Biden proclaimed in his speech last night. Am I progressive if I vigorously accept that we can never really know who won the 2020 election or am I a dark demon of chaos? Is Biden a fanatic or dogmatist for wanting to quelch those who won't embrace the "right" answer?
I had to stop and say out loud: "Do you 'quelch' a person or thing?" (I wanted to write "quelch those [people]" but Gopnik said "quelch the vigorous acceptance.")
Meade questioned whether "quelch" is a word at all. Shouldn't it be "squelch"? Did Gopnik mix up "squelch" and "quench"? There's also "squash" and "quash."
The OED calls it a "rare" word, "An imitative or expressive formation" influenced by "quell" and "squelch." There's an example from the 17th century that seems to presage Mondrian:
1659 A. Wood Life & Times (1891) I. 280 Some hang swinging on the gallery..and then come quelshing downe on people's heads.
But let's get back to Gopnik and the Mondrian picture — don't say "painting" (it's colored adhesive tape). Some expert recently decided it has been hanging upside down. And look, Trump rears his head:
Uncertainty about an artist’s intentions—including, but not limited to, which way she intended the picture to be top and which bottom—is not a sign of what a certain man would call a “hoax”; it is a sign of originality of purpose and a tolerance for open-ended inquiry....
So... your "vigorous acceptance of uncertainty" displays originality and tolerance, but the Trumpists who say those legal procedures —that said Biden's belonged on top — well, they hung the picture of the 2020 election upside down... those people... they're not like the fine people who tolerate uncertainty about the orientation of the Mondrian.
The entire controversy puts one in mind of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s wondering why people said that it was natural for humans to think that the Sun went round the Earth—what would they have thought it looked like if it were the other way round?
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
Sure impoverished virtually enslaved people with no free speech, which is the progressive ideal, reality “empowers” people to self expression. What a crock. All I got was a copy of Gulag Archipelago and an old VCR tape of 1984 that I don’t have a player for.
what IS the purpose of art museums?
Isn't The Purpose: To give Rich Folk a tax write-off, for virtue signaling ?
I hereby squelch the bogus word quelch.
Political progressives in the U.S. are history deniers or revisionists. To the extent museums give the lie to their ideology they would have no appeal.
Museums are not so much about uncertainty as they are about, "Now we have it right." "These are the most important artworks", says the art museum. "This is what we now know about how dinosaurs lived", says the natural history museum. "This is what actually happened", says the history museum.
Meade questioned whether "quelch" is a word at all.
Immediately, my mind went to Raquel Welch in One Million Years B.C.
"What say there, fuzzy-britches? Feel like talking?"
I'm reminded of the Rockwell painting of the "square" standing in front of the ersatz Pollock: titled - Art Connissuer.
To a certain type of person, “Progressive” encompasses all that is right-thinking and good and “Conservative “ all that is bad.
'...is that they are the last place where individual purpose and human pluralism are so ferociously honored.'
Who the fuck writes like this?
Wasn't this the plot of a 'Frasier' episode?
Why does Gopnik keep saying "progressive"? It doesn't sound like the so-called "progressives" in American politics today.
Progressives' notion of themselves is utterly unrelated to the reality of progressivism and its adherents. And neither has anything to do with progress.
As for Gopnik, typical nonsense. Most great art has religious themes. Historically, the church was the patron of most art--the very fanatics and dogmatists Gopnik sets in opposition to art.
Gopnik is forever asserting the continuity between 19th century liberalism and today's progressivism. The link is skepticism. But while 19th century liberals had doubts about religion and metaphysics, today's progressives have found new certainties in Science and ideology.
Or maybe that's not quite right either. 18th and 19th century liberals did have their own deep beliefs and conviction and ideas about Truth that aren't shared by modern skeptics, who chip away at established beliefs. In either case, the connection between liberals then and progressives now isn't as clear and definite as Gopnik maintains. The philosophical clothes we make for our political beliefs often don't have much to do with the everyday realities of politics.
I suppose it makes sense if you think about in class terms. Gopnik wants to flatter and cheer on the class of New Yorker readers and to maintain his own self-respect an independent-minded, non-dogmatic person, even if he, and they, don't question or doubt their own convictions.
Why does Gopnik keep saying "progressive"? It doesn't sound like the so-called "progressives" in American politics today.
I think he's using it in the more traditional, ideological way: progressives challenge every concept they inherited, making them more enlightened than the average person.
So, they argue, fatherhood isn't necessary for stable communities, our nation's founding was not morally legitimate, children can decide to switch sexes and an unmade bed is art. These mark "the vigorous acceptance of uncertainty" Gopnik celebrates.
They're also disastrously wrong.
The values that are most important—and ones which progressives are most inclined to honor—are..." If I may interject...no standards at all.
I've been told for years and have read for years that great art should move you, or shake up your world, or make you uncomfortable. I don't agree. And, I guess as a breathing human being, I'm allowed my opinion on this. To me great art does move me, or stimulates me, but not through it's brashness or lack of substance, or lack of clarity of ideas. It moves me through it's beauty and clarity of the story it is telling. Music, books, paintings, photography- all move me through the beauty of the art itself or the story it is telling.
As a young guy I loved Mondrian artwork. I don't know how or why I was introduced to it, but I loved it. I even picked out a shirt that was all Mondrian...all over, for a birthday present (shoulda got the new mitt). Today, I look at Mondrian and think...nice, but meh. It doesn't move me. Something's been lost along the way. As for our betters not knowing which way to mount the painting...I rest my case. This is my problem with much of what passes for Great Abstract Art. A black canvas does not move me, or even inspire great thoughts within me. To me it means nothing, and I cannot help but feel like the artist is laughing all the way to the Scam Bank. I see someone who probably worked his or her entire life becoming a Master level painter, studying all the greats and finally finding their own way. Then realizing that, Wait, you mean I only need to do this, and I can make some real money? Hell, yeah!
Websters gives quelch as a dialectal variant of squelch. Maybe it sounded highfaluting to Gopnik because "squ" has a vulgar squishy squeezy squat squirmy squibby squally squeamy sound to it. Maybe "quench" was on his mind, but it didn't quite fit his intended meaning.
What could make it look to the naive eye like the Earth circled the Sun? The Earth does circle the Sun, even though it doesn't look that way. What configuration of the solar system would it take to make it appear that way?
"The reason that pictures of Mondrian’s kind are inestimably precious to the human spirit... is that they are the last place where individual purpose and human pluralism are so ferociously honored. The values that are most important—and ones which progressives are most inclined to honor—are those which empower the greatest range of people to self-expression with the greatest possible individuality." So, an arrangement of squares on a flat surface is an honor to human pluralism? I guess if Mr. Gopnik says so it must be true. The quoted portion of the article is an perfect example of a NY psuedo-intellectual patting himself on the back. I hope Mr. Gopnik didn't dislocate his shoulder in the process.
Okay, I read the whole piece. Which was a waste of my time. The author has nothing to say, but had to say something, presumably. So he blathers for a few paragraphs about uncertainty (good), a famous person associated with the word 'hoax' (bad), progressive-minded religious affection for modern art (good) climate protestors who deface works of art (misguided, but their hearts are in the right place).
It seems to me that 97.9% of 'journalism' is about validating the reader's biases. Or stroking the egos of people with little reason to have high opinions of themselves.
It seems like a whole lot of words to justify not noticing a painting was upside-down.
I am Laslo.
"The reason that pictures of Mondrian’s kind are inestimably precious to the human spirit, even if sporadically overpriced, is that they are the last place where individual purpose and human pluralism are so ferociously honored."
Well, there and the Althouse blog.
Is Gopnik overdoing it on purpose? Because that, like the rest of the article, is just silly.
More bafflegab from one of our "betters" in New York. These folks need to spend a few weeks in flyover country working at--say a pig farm, or on a soybean farm to get their mental feet on the ground.
It seems to me that 97.9% of 'journalism' is about validating the reader's biases. Or stroking the egos of people with little reason to have high opinions of themselves.
Yes while it was once inverted, the mission now is to comfort the powerful and discomfort the powerless, and they do it with such mirthless glee.
Museums are, indeed, progressive or [unqualified] monotonic, a faith-based supremacism: one step forward, two steps backward. So, when can we be certain? Where do we place our faith, our trust? When do we celebrate our past, present, and future? What are the principles of our religion (i.e. behavioral protocol)?
Oh, shush, Ann. Progressives are better than you, that much they are certain of.
Pretentious twits. Anyone with half a brain can see that it wasn't hung upsidedown. I was hung sideways.
What could make it look to the naive eye like the Earth circled the Sun? The Earth does circle the Sun, even though it doesn't look that way. What configuration of the solar system would it take to make it appear that way?
If the same side of the earth always faced the sun (like the moon toward the earth), the stars and moon would seem to move but not the sun. That would come closer. (Though the earth would probably be lifeless.)
"Museums are indeed the churches of progressive-minded people, since they celebrate just the qualities that fanatics and dogmatists want to quelch..."
Museums that have been infected by theprog virus, yes. Museums that honor beauty, tradition, and human excellence, no.
"... the vigorous acceptance of uncertainty that lets us ask new questions and leaves us unsure about which way is up."
Of course, art progs don't believe their own BS either. For one thing, they are very sure about the deplorable qualities of fanatics and dogmatists.
"those which empower the greatest range of people to self-expression with the greatest possible individuality."
Except that, in the age of identity politics and DEI, art is to be judged by the group membership of the artist.
It doesn't sound like the so-called "progressives" in American politics today.
That's funny, Althouse. Seriously.
"To view the "vigorous acceptance of uncertainty" as the central quality of progressivism runs directly counter to the idea Biden proclaimed in his speech last night."
Well, yes. It also runs counter to more than a century of progressivism. Progressives were always very sure. About their own superiority, above all.
Re The NYer, I badmouth David Remnick mercilessly, but his paean to Dylan last week was a fine and insightful piece of writing.
Shorter Gopnik (What an name!)
Progressives are free thinkers and questioners who have come up with positions that no one can question.
So much of the MSM is operating on the old commie principle of inverting reality. And accusing the other side of what you are acutally doing. For example, the Left/Liberals are in power, and use their power to censor, insult, and smash everyone who disagrees. But they don't really defend their abuses or their censorship, they simply call the people who they censor rigid authoritarians who can't engage in free thought, or accept DEMOCRACY.
Complete inversions. Trump didn't use the FBI and DHS to censor Leftwing thought on social media. But Biden, as we now know, IS using the FBI/DHS to combat "disinformation" and asking facebook, twitter, etc. to ban/censor.
The blog has a theme today best summarised by Thomas Sowell’s master thesis a conflict of visions, the restraint and the unrestrained.
it’s worth a listen , 22minutes.
As best as I can tell, striking a balance between the two is what the American enterprise is really about.
I see a new wave in museology--start displaying everything upside down and turned the wrong way. Dispense with icky labels.
Less than a mile away from here there's a small museum and gallery with a fine collection of mostly French Impressionist paintings. (Also some porcelain, which I understand better after our 2019 trip and related reading.)
I'll give Gopnik this: he has reminded me that I haven't refreshed myself there in a while.
Midwittery on parade
Blech
If museums are indeed the churches of progressive-minded people, it's because you can argue either side of the coin with equal ferocity. Your opponent can always be dismissed as unenlightened.
The curator reveals the game. If the work is turned around, it is at risk of destruction, or it doesn't make any difference. Tell me the right answer, I can argue either side.
If he's positioning museum against church, he really doesn't understand the history or philosophy of either.
So, when climate cooks deface great works of art, does that make them heretic Progressives?
Not a Wittgenstein quote I've run into and I've read all his stuff except Tractatus. It's a little odd for Wittgenstein because it depends on two senses of "looks like," one as in "It looks like it's made up," and the other in "It looks like a goldfinch," that he would be careful about.
picture hanging - observation/opinion
Paintings (realizing that strips of tape on a canvas is neither a painting or a picture) are typically hung with a wire strung across the back ~1/3 down from the top.
Any decent artist will prerun that wire.
If some moron attempts to hang it upside down, it will fall off the wall or at best hang at an atrocious incline.
In the case of New York City 1, I don't believe it matters, as the artist died before signing or orienting it. That photograph of it on an easle is meaningless as an artist will orient a painting on the easel to facilitate painting on it (or tacking strips of tape). I will at times orient an in-work painting to do a large area where I want the brush strokes running parallel.
Gopnik looks at a piece of abstract art and sees… Trump! It’s the very definition of someone living in your head.
Piet Mondrian - opinion
His work is mostly graphic design.
Want (or Need) proof that Things Used To Be BETTER?
In the olden days, people thought that Raquel Welch and Ann Margret defined pretty..
Now? they what? What do they think? Kim Kardashian? AOC? Ru Paul?
Not convinced? Two words: Gina Lollobrigida
"Not a Wittgenstein quote I've run into and I've read all his stuff except Tractatus. It's a little odd for Wittgenstein because it depends on two senses of "looks like," one as in "It looks like it's made up," and the other in "It looks like a goldfinch," that he would be careful about."
If you Google it, you'll see that it's from a conversation that supposedly took place in a corridor somewhere. Not sure if there's security camera footage.
"Museums are indeed the churches of progressive-minded people, since they celebrate just the qualities that fanatics and dogmatists want to quelch..."
Well at least he is admitting the otherwise godless unchurched quality of so many progressives. That alone puts them out of touch with most of America. As does their 100-year effort to replace our Republic with a direct democracy, and then replace the federal courts with panels of appointed experts.
That was like a McSweeny’s piece mocking Gopnik/The New Yorker for both ridiculous writing and writing ridiculous things. Blech.
The painting would be better if it was oblong, so it could be hung "right side up" or "sideways" depending on the height and 2idth of the wall.
Abstract art is not, technically speaking, illustrative of the male gaze. One must note, however, that the artist is not only male but white and may very well have been straight. Perhaps his designs were ultimately designs against women. He may have sought fame and fortune as an artist not in order to express beauty but to possess beautiful women. He wasn't so overt as Renoir but his designs on women are all the more retrograde because of their subtlety. In any event his place on museum walls is not occupied by a woman or a person of color so how can you call it progressive.
Progressives' notion of themselves is utterly unrelated to the reality of progressivism and its adherents. And neither has anything to do with progress.
Absolute truth.
"what IS the purpose of art museums?"
If you have to ask, don't mess with it.
By chance, I was at the Boston MFA today. Very enjoyable overall. But it struck me, in the galleries dedicated to historical African at, that the curators wrote differently about that art from that of, say, the historical art of China, India, or the Islamic world. Only in the African section did I see one of the interpretive plaques drawing my attention to the beauty and workmanship of the bronze sculptures.
There was no need for it. They were beautiful, and beautifully worked. Why did they think I needed to be told to appreciate those qualities of this art and no other?
Or, as Insty might say, why are left-leaning institutions such cesspits of racism?
"Most great art has religious themes."
Most? Sez who? Much, yes, but most? Arguable at best.
Gopnik is a Russian word for a criminal delinquent.
The Musee des Arts et Meteirs in Paris is where the original meter and kilo are displayed along with Mr. Vernier's wonderful measuring device. Also the worlds first purpose built screw turning lathe. And an early example of Whitworth's precision flat surface. All also works of art.
"Gopnik" in Russian means something like juvenile delinquent, punk, or thug. I thought that might explain a lot about Adam's ancestry, but it is one of those Soviet-era terms that was probably developed after his family took the name or left the country.
Maybe it's from too much Walt, Saul, and Mike but all that shit sounds like money laundering to me.
" don't say "painting" (it's colored adhesive tape)."
Well, F* me running. I have been painting fake Mondrians for years buying tubes of c. blue, c. yellow. black and c. red. I did not know I could just tape it all up! Damn!
In my childhood my Grandmother gave me a "Compleat Mark Twain" containing a sketch "Traveling with a Progressive", around 1905. The Progressive was from Milwaukee and an ethnic German, Twain met him on a train ride. The Progressive imagined that everyone in the car was, at different times, insulted for bigoted reasons, and violently assaulted the guilty.
The breed still runs true.
Abstract Art was meant to interrogate premises
Meant by whom? The artist? So Gopnik is an originalist about art -- at least when convenient. But when he extends the argument to encompass politics, maybe not so much.
This blather about what "Art" wants to do, like the Adorno quote the other day about what "The Essay" wants to do . . .. Aren't these critics just ventriloquizing through their idols?
Upside-down for 50 years in an art museum, and just look at all the rationalizations.
"A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can't stand to be wrong."
Upside-down for 50 years in an art museum, and just look at all the rationalizations.
And the child says, "But Mommy, the emperor isn't wearing any clothes!"
As I went into the Boston MFA today, I was texting my husband, "Any bananas taped to the wall and I'm out!" I had 2 banana sightings but none that were just bananas taped to walls, thankfully.
Gopnik has a fascinating ability of his own: to just barely fail to notice everything about his subject. His incognition is as perfect as a Mondrian, by which I mean tacking duct tape to a canvas or a banana to a wall is anything but visionary or celebrating human something or other.
Example: the museum curator says they might destroy the painting if they turn it over. Why? Will it actually fall apart, or is the curator speaking metaphorically? Gopnik doesn't tell us. That's sort of interesting. But it makes him decide that it would be really exciting if all the museums in the world turned all their paintings upside down for a day. He gets to this after criticizing environmental protesters who are throwing paint onto famous paintings and glueing themselves to museum walls. He thinks they should glue themselves to the floors in front of the paintings instead. And that we should turn all the paintings upside down.
Maybe the article makes sense if you read it backwards.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा