 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2005-11-03 10:51
My hometown, Augsbrug, was given the oppotunity of erecting a statue by one of Germany´s greatest living artists, the "Aphrodite" by Lüpertz. The budget wasn´t an issue at all, statue finished - and then the citizens of Augsburg revoltet, the thing is most ugly, we don´t want it, this isn´t art but garbage etc pp. This took from 200 to 2003, as far as I know it, first the major and the city´s gouvernement stuck to their decision of implementing contemporary, modern art into an environment of (agreed, absolutely wonderful) Renaissance; then local election was due, parties pulled back, in retrun the artist and the few defenders of the statue went furious - to cut it short, the "Aphrodite" now stands in the industrial outskirts of Augsburg, where only the most dedicated tourists will venture to go, it´s really off scene, on the grounds of the local newspaper (whose founder´s granddaughter dedicated the money all in all).
Question: On one hand, there´s hardly a finer republican action than citizens voting whether they accept something as just/due/beautiful/the right thing at the right time in the right place. I value that highly, especially so because the German political system hasn´t much room for direct democratic actions, it´s a representative democracy which prefers to mediate immediate outbursts/outings of people´s will, Weimar taught Germany a lesson indeed, and it was the USA who insisted on the priciple of not only horizontal but also vertical checks and balances.
But: Is/should art (be) subjected to ballots? What if Shakespeare just "doesn´t make it" to the majority? Who invented the nivellating and blasé principle that art should please (and it´s twin sister, art which is art because it is a sort of constant rebellion - which is equally falsely conceived in my view)? The place for the statue was a public place, yes, and therefore it´s not completely absurd that the citizens should have a voice in that - is it acceptable then that a piece of art is rejected because the audience doens´t dig it? Would there ever be something like evolution/history/development of the fine arts if the audience could/would/should decide on it´s status as art itself? What would remain of the aera´s respective modernity if "Leave me alone with that modern stuff!" was to have the last word?
What do you think about this?
Markus
|
|
|
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2005-11-03 11:50
> But: Is/should art (be) subjected to ballots? What if Shakespeare just
> "doesn´t make it" to the majority?
When art occupies public space (and possibly public money), then yes, art /can/, sometimes /should/ be made subject to ballots. (We also vote whether or not we want to subsidize our local opera house, as we vote about a new sports stadium).
If a private entity wants to play Shakespeare or Schlingensief or whoever, or puts a pot ugly statue in their own yard, then it's none of the public's business.
These tasks (finding a spot to put a statue etc) are usually delegated to some "Art Commission" who decides what to put where. But when there's public opposition, then the public must have the last say. That's how democracy is supposed to work. Sometimes we agree with the result of a ballot, sometimes we don't.
If you have a hypothetical mayor who is a huge fan of eg Le Witt and wants to put a huge concrete cube on the most beautiful place in your town? Would you object, would you value "open, undecorated places" over "art"?
(And who defines whether a painting is "art" or just a wet fart on canvas?)
Just out of curiosity, do you have an image url of this statue?
--
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Author: archer1960
Date: 2005-11-03 12:19
I think that if the people are paying for it (through taxes or whatever), then they should have a say. If a private individual is putting it up, then unless it rises to the level of a public nuisance or being patently offensive, then not.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: David Peacham
Date: 2005-11-03 13:16
Perhaps they should have put the statue in the centre of Augsburg, with a promise to remove it in (say) three years' time if people still didn't like it.
Oh dear, how we English do like to find a compromise.
I do wonder whether the objection of the public was to the statue in itself, or to the proposal to site it in a particular place. Sticking a modern statue in front of a lot of historic buildings might seem uncomfortably like performing a Bach cantata with electric guitar continuo.
-----------
If there are so many people on this board unwilling or unable to have a civil and balanced discussion about important issues, then I shan't bother to post here any more.
To the great relief of many of you, no doubt.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2005-11-03 14:54
If art is subject to the masses approval, it is compromised and ceases to become true. Did Beethoven's compositions offend many people in his day? Yes. If Beethoven was subject to "tax-payer approval" we certainly wouldn't have his music as we know it. Does art make civilization richer? Germany certainly thinks so- Berlin's arts budget alone is at least a billion dollars and the United States' entire arts budget is only 100+ million.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2005-11-03 15:07
> Does art make civilization richer?
Sure. But you do art a disservice if you subsidize it with millions of dollars while at the same time cutting education or healthcare budgets...
(question remains who defines what's art and what's not)
--
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Shorthand
Date: 2005-11-03 16:33
Here's a picture of the sculpture in question:
http://www.artfacts.net/index.php/pageType/exhibitionInfo/exhibition/13033
Here in the US, public funding of art at the national level has been the source of more than a little controversy. As is well known, there are various groups of Americans that get offended very easily and will speak very VERY loudly against their tax dollars funding something which they find offensive.
However, recent studies here have also shown that having an active cultural scene is important in attracting the kind of people who drive economic growth to a particular metropolitan area. Therefore, once can very much argue that culture is worth funding, even from the most utilitarian of viewpoints.
Experience here has shown that the best way to do this is to have elected officials appoint a board or council to oversee distribution of these funds long before any controversial topic comes up and when clear heads are the only ones at the table. Public opinions and standards are important in public art, but the voice of the people is fickle and should be mediated in areas where passions run high and knowledge low.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BelgianClarinet
Date: 2005-11-03 16:51
If we only would have done what is 'normal', life wouldn't be as 'normal' as it is today. Life didn't get better by doing the same thing over and over again.
Let's use Art to provoke (sometimes, also use it to enjoy it of course).
If a work of Art only 'provokes' it will not survive at the end and will disappear quietly
But if it is truly visionary then one day it will become pretty 'normal', think about all the beatiful music we all enjoy, lot's of it was not evident !
And about the money : let's try to keep some of it available for Art, even if indeed there still are basic needs to satisfy. I don't believe in a society where there is no room for expression, fun and yep provocation..
I didn't see the statue yet, so don't know if I like it, but to be honest there's a lot I didn't like at first sight, even some of my best friends.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Don Poulsen
Date: 2005-11-03 17:14
I basically agree with tictactux, in that, because it is publically funded and/or on public property, the public by default has some say in its presence, even if most of them don't understand art. Hence, private support of the arts is important. As I understand, most composers and artists of the past were supported through private patronage and commissions, not through public, especially democratic, means.
Personally, this piece of art intrigues me. I wouldn't mind having it on display in my city. (For a period this year, there were cartoonish sculptures by one artist scattered around town, including one directly in front of the state capital building. There was no major uproar that I heard of, perhaps because they were whimsical and most people enjoyed that aspect of them, although, because of their cartoonish nature, some didn't really consider them to be "art". Somewhat the opposite situation from that Markus describes.)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-11-03 17:26
On the concept of voting on art:
Just how much freedom to provoke were accorded to Da Vinci or Michaelangelo when providing artwork (revered today, If I'm not mistaken) to the Vatican? Ditto for music written by Bach or Mozart as church or court musicians? Some musicians are actually at their best when producing work to meet a certain specification, or serve a specific purpose.
On the concept that art that ceases to provoke ceases to be art:
I've heard it said (and would more readily agree) that art ceases to be art when it becomes self-conscious enough to call itself art. The concept of art for art's sake can really get out of control, and I often think that the artist is positively benefited by some early criticism or collaboration. Not unlike having a producer for your recording session.
On the value of the piece itself:
I followed the link. Let's face it, it's ugly as sin. What makes it great? Is it simply the fact that it comes from Lupertz? Maybe some emperor's new clothes here...
On its placement in Augsburg:
I was in that beautiful city in 1999, and would hate to see this thing clash with all the great stuff there. If anyone goes there, be sure to stop in at Anton Bohm & Sohn.
If Lupertz intended the work as a parody on our image of Aphrodite, a great spot IMO would be along Stutgarterstrasse just west of Donauworterstrasse. I seem to recall some local Aphrodites parked out there at night who looked about like that statue. The proximity of the McDonalds restaurant would also add to the parody.
The greatest fallacy in all the arts:
"This is a tremendously IMPORTANT new work"
Allen Cole
Post Edited (2005-11-03 17:39)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BelgianClarinet
Date: 2005-11-03 18:08
Mozart didn't provoke ? what about Die Zauberflöte ? and other hidden goodies ?
And J.S. Bach wasn't exactly the greatest composer in his time.
it's only many years after his death that he became the greatest composer of his time.
Post Edited (2005-11-03 21:09)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2005-11-03 20:43
Allen,
Thank you for finding my hometown beautiful,which I miss very much, being stranded in this moloch Berlin. But whether You find Lüpertz´ statue ugly or not (and exactly sin isn´t ugly at all,most of the times), isn´t the point - or rather: that taste isn´t the point, i s the point indeed. My question is about how to solve the clash between the inertia of majority and the proposals of individual works of art. And I´m still too young to stand blasé polemics. It´d have been wholly sufficient to say that the planned place wasn´t a good choice, but to rant at modernity that its place should be next to prostitutes and junkfood, was most unnecessary, thank you very much.
/I did mention that the original clash was never about money,it was privately funded,completely - the whole hubhub was about whether the public has/should have the right to interdict the realisation of a work of art it doesn´t like. The dilemma is so direct this time, because the budget-question was settled already (Which isn´t at all to say that oeconomics have a say in the arts without any doubts.).
/The mentioned opposition between high passions and low knowledge (by Shorthand), though it perpetuates the metaphysical agon/structuralistic pair of mind vs body, makes sense here, it´d be pragmatically sensible to have a comittee decide and then stick to the decision. But: How to ensure that the gremium isn´t comprised of just the same ninecompoops they are to represent? Isn´t that patronising? The anglo-American tradition to entrust to private enagements what in Europe is supposed to be done by public/gouvernemental actions provides a way out here, i f there´s enough of those privateers to say yes to contemporary art; museal artefacts are rather easily funded in comparison to modernity (that isn´t to say that museums have an easy life at all, monetarily speaking). And, if art and its stageing is to be other than for a economically potent elite, if there is something like a democratic task as public art and the possibillity for everyone to consummate works of art, the meeting of esoteric elites in turtlenecks isn´t enough (though it pleases one´s psyche to have at least someone nodding to what you´re doing).
David: This would have been a good thing to do, give it a try, a chance that it will change some people´s opinion,letting itself be seen in public, giving it a try. It seems as if this wasn´t thought of back then. What I appreciate about this is the idea and trust that if something is a true work of art it will convince in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-11-03 20:50
Markus Wenninger wrote:
> But: How to ensure that
> the gremium isn´t comprised of just the same ninecompoops they
> are to represent? Isn´t that patronising?
Who are you to make that grand leap, that sweeping generalisation?
Why, sir, I knight you the grand nincompoop, and put you in charge.
What you just wrote is the most grevious patronisation of all.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-11-04 08:43
To Belgianclarinet:
Read my post more carefully. Die Zauberflote is not a relevent reference, as it was not written in Mozart's capacity as either a church or a court musician. I specifically asked about the nature of compositions created in these capacities. Please tell me of provocative works in those areas.
To Markus:
How am I ranting at modernity? I see nothing resembling the concept of Aphrodite in this work, unless it is a parody. Plenty of modern art is attractive, and I really don't see a particularly artistic purpose served by making something so unattractive--particularly if designed for the center of a rare city like Augsburg.
As for suggesting the location, I think that it would add to the apparent parody of beauty itself that I see in the work. On my first night in Germany I was intrigued to see these vehicles with red lights on the dash outside my hotel. Being American, I mistook them initially for police cars. Police or prostitutes---Aphrodite or anti-Aphrodite. To borrow your phraseology, I thought that the parallel dualities were most intriguing!
On the whole arts committee concept:
Europe had much better art in the days of private and royal patronage. Its public patronage of the arts is seriously marred by two things. First is an overall fear of being judgemental--possibly discriminating against some revolutionary work because the arts committee fails to grasp it. This results in a lot of trash being subsidized. I think it's Denmark that has managed to purchase and warehouse a record amount of unwanted and unloved stuff that someone has classified as art. Now they must catalog and store each work until the greater intellects of some future society finally appreciate it.
Second is the fact that despite their desire for a non-judgemental self-image, many of the "art smart" individuals that you feel must be on these committees are heavily burdened by their own artistic prejudices and favored schools of thought. A few of the people who you classify as nincompoops might come in handy to remind both artists and public arts purchasers that art should make at least a reasonable effort to reach the average person.
This comes back around to Die Zauberflote. Was this not a commercial venture on Mozart's part? Designed to attract the general public (as opposed to high society) and needing to generate ticket sales? Perhaps a little hunger provided the correct inspiration.
Allen Cole
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2005-11-04 09:42
BelgianClarinet wrote: "Mozart didn't provoke ? what about Die Zauberflöte ? "
What is provocative in Die Zauberflöte?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: BelgianClarinet
Date: 2005-11-04 12:44
Begin a masonic work throughout e.g.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Markus Wenninger
Date: 2005-11-04 13:40
Mark: You misunderstood me badly - I wasn´t speaking on my behalf, I was pointing out the fact that in constituting a gremium is per se reliable to the question "Who controlls the contollers?". If a gremium isn´t to represent just a happy few, the nivellating and generalising dimension of representation gains more and more weight. (And yes, I do indeed think there are intersubjective, good reasons why, instead of a imperialistic and authoritarian period of musical history, modern art should be promoted and performed; but i am able to argue about this,- though this is a different (?) post.).
Allen: "to reach the average person"? Who´s this? There´s nothing like a cultural sensus communis at all - whether one constiutes a gremium on behalf of public interest, or if a private person decides on the publically cultural invest of her/his money, it seems unavoidable that all you get is a certain perspective. I agree that the only way out of a most nivellating and going-the-easiest-way stalemate situation is to get private investors going to support the arts. That is n o t to say that the public/the gouvernement can get to the "really hard important things" instead of the production and consummation conditions of cultural goods, but who has ever experienced a mayor getting down to the "average person" and letting them both be kicked you know where in the name of the arts? A phenomenon I really do appreciate is the fact that works of art still seem to have the ability to cause controversy, to affront and to stir, instead of being a sedative to make the public easier to handle in respect to economy.
/Art and attractivity: Intriguing question (though I rarely experienced modern art associated with being attractive, besides all those retro-isms). Of course it´s sort of a safety-chord pulled to qualify the realism of unpleasantness as irony or a parody. But irony/sarcasm/parody are not contents or semantics of a work of art but part of the pragmatic toolbox, to put it semiotically. What Allen C. sees as parody, I conceive as factum brutum, and we both are looking at the very same statue; both our qualifications are subjective opinions, there intersubjective reasons why we think so. But if this mentioned "attractivity" is comprehended as a pull-towards, as the notion of an attractor is understood theoretically (maths,meterology, physics etc), there has to be an attractor defining the outline and probably the inner differentiation of a work of art, as something that pulls together the internal structure (with which the attractor must not be identical: We don´t conceive Kantian glimpses into a pure realm of Ding an sich), focusing it, making it conceivable as itself first of all.
Markus
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-11-04 14:14
Markus Wenninger wrote:
> Mark: You misunderstood me badly
Probably so. Your prose is very dense and your choice of words (gremium - not listed in the OED even ...) incredibly obscure.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2005-11-04 14:25
Try dict.leo.org.
http://dict.leo.org/?lang=en&search=gremium yields "committe, board, panel, ..."
It won't help a lot to make philosophical texts easily understandable for apparent simpleteons like me, though.
Putting complex topics into simple words is an art per se. It doesn't even require funding.
--
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2005-11-04 14:35
"Begin a masonic work throughout e.g."
And why is that provocative?
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2005-11-04 14:35
tictactux wrote:
> Try dict.leo.org.
If somewone write in English, then words borrowed from another language that do not have English meanings (and if it isn't listed in English dictionaries then I can't consider it English) they need to be set-aside via quotes or italics.
> It won't help a lot to make philosophical texts easily
> understandable for apparent simpleteons like me, though.
> Putting complex topics into simple words is an art per se. It
> doesn't even require funding.
One of my professors in physics was a Nobel laureate and another instructor I had was Hymie Rickover. They (and a number of other luminaries I've worked with over the years) luckily had that art form down pat.
|
|
|
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2005-11-04 17:30
> One of my professors in physics was a Nobel laureate and another instructor
> I had was Hymie Rickover. They (and a number of other luminaries I've
> worked with over the years) luckily had that art form down pat.
I understand that Anglo-Saxon countries have a greater tradition of "popular science", talking in a language the addressee is likely to understand.
In the Germanic language area, however, resorting to simplifications is considered "unscientific". <shrug> Their problem.
--
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2005-11-04 18:55
Gremium actually derives from Latin.
In German, it refers to a representative body - something like a committee, working group.
This conversation about language just proves the need for universal metaphors that we can all understand without really knowing what they mean.
By the way, Markus, what did you mean by refering to Berlin as "maloch" - it sounds negative - somekind of hole. A few weeks ago I spent a very enjoyable weekend in Berlin - first time I've been back since before the Wende (1982). The rebirth of East Berlin (Prenzlauer Berg, Hackescher Markt, Oranienburgerstrasse) is really remarkable, though very bourgeois.
Post Edited (2005-11-04 19:01)
|
|
|
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2005-11-04 19:28
> This conversation about language just proves the need for universal
> metaphors that we can all understand without really knowing what they
> mean.
Er...you sure?
Metaphors are dangerous for "outsiders" (lacking a better a generic term here). Metaphors add a lot of colour and life to dry sentences, but they can have an unintended ambiguity, especially if the audience doesn't share the same linguistic/cultural background.
Not having eye contact with your audience only adds to these difficulties.
But we digress...
--
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
Author: larryb
Date: 2005-11-04 19:44
tictac:
i guess irony doesn't translate well without eye contact either
but I refuse to employ those cute diacritical objects (sideways semi-colons, etc) to signify irony
|
|
|
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2005-11-04 19:46
[ We've now strayed pretty far from a clarinet related thread - GBK ]
|
|
|
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
