I think my whole point has been lost. THIS IS NOT ABOUT TASTE, but trends. It was never to debate the merit of Pollack over Raphael, just a trend I happened to come across and notice with a lot of people who are left wingers. Like I said before I have no problem with post modern art, but that is missing the entire point. Is there a fundamental reason this trend exists, is what I was curious of. THere is no need to describe personal tastes, if that was the case I would have asked people what they thought of post modern art/ philosophy. I am sorry if my words had not been clear enough
The title of the thread should have been POSTMODERNISM AND THE FASHIONABLE LEFT (hence why philosophy is on my list of examples), that was my mistake.
It has been altered.
Sorry to triple post. I think that postmodernism can be safely stereotypically associated with the left. They seem to over represent it. Just as blacks over represent the NBA, white males over represent CEO’s or whatever. I do beleive when an aesthetic has trends to certain groups it is important to find out why. To me it is along the same lines as a naive person asking "why do libertarians buy more gold and guns than non libertarians? " If he knew nothing about libertarians but saw that trend, it may mean something. Not that gold and guns are exclusivly libertarian. If this was a site for Jocks who wanted to beat up nerds and give them wedgies I think it would be appropriate to ask “why do nerds like dungeons and dragons.”
Yes you could ask the same question of art and the right too, that is just as valuable. And as far as Ayn Rand is concerned ,I have a very short list of fiction books I have read and Ayn Rand novels are not on it.
well if you want a leftist answer, one can point to marxist philosophers who collerate taste and art with class position and consumption
i recommend naked lunch by Burroughs to one and all.
have not read the illiad.
Has anybody seen this ?
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
That about sums it up. I think in a way Sokal showed what a fraud it all was with the whole “science wars”, yet it continues to thrive. By the way this, I thought this thread was long dead. Perhaps it is a zombie now.
To answer your question, I think post-modern art is popular with leftists because of it’s view of a lack of structure to the world. Post-modernism basically teaches that there is no order to the world, so the same belief that justifies the abstract art also justifies the left’s interventions due to the post-modern belief in a lack of structure or order to anything. Since the left buys into this stuff, it justifies the state in “creating order” that they believe would not exist naturally.
I hope that helps clear things up.
But the lack of order and all, shouldn’t that make them free marketers then, or at least see the post modernism in that?
in all seriousness, Jackson Pollack was an artist. Those splatter paintings might look ridiculous, but it really does take talent and artistry. rofl, idk but i see his paintings, and honestly think that it has a flair of uniqueness, and is not something anyone can do.
This is an interesting thread, considering that some really wacky creatives happen to be or were libertarians. Take Dennis Leary, who said he wants to be free to run around naked covered with green jello or the stuff that Penn and Teller do.
I personally think that anyone CAN be an artist, provided that they are willing to be serious enough about it.
boinks the loony left Back to the factory!
boinks the loony left Back to Russia!
boinks the loony left Back to Africa!
Huh?
Ah! There had been a sad lack of boinking as of late, until now.
I don’t come here too often. What do you mean by that?
The word “art” also has an objective definition, which includes technical proficiency.
There are things which pass for “art” which qualify themselves as such by the very absence of technical proficiency in their creation. Saying that is art is like saying a corpse is human life by virtue of the fact that it is dead.
I’ve always thought that Andy Warhol had a respect for capitalism. Haha.
“Being good in business is the most fascinating kind of art. Making money is art and working is art and good business is the best art.”
Not at all. If you don’t believe in spontaneous order, (the fact that human beings naturally cooperate without direction) then you don’t believe in any natural market forces; therefore, you believe that there needs to be human leadership directing the way society goes.
The belief in the free market entails that there is a natural order to the world because humans naturally cooperate in the marketplace without leaders in the ivory tower.
If someone believes that there is no natural order, they cannot possibly believe in the free market with any sort of coherent thought. The belief in markets requires the belief of a natural order as a prerequisite. If you believe that the world is just chaos, you are bound to believe that leaders are needed to direct human beings or humans will not cooperate.
This is kind of like the Nietzsche ‘Overman’ bad boy mentality. That society must progress through overmen who distance themselves from ‘the herd’ by creating ‘never seen before’ art masterpieces. Art like many things is a subjective interaction. I think Pollock has an interesting technique yet so does Picasso. If people wish to label Pollock ‘not an artist’ then I care not for why does art need to be objective?