clareomalley-blog1

[clareomalley-blog1]

What is the nature of aesthetic experience? 

The four approaches to defining aesthetic experience are affect-oriented, epistemic, axiological, and content-oriented.  The affect-oriented approach is marked by a ‘highly distinctive feeling with which every true lover of art is ultimately familiar - perception, sensation, feeling’.  The epistemic approach requires that a viewer becomes directly familiar and comes to know an object in a specific way.  The axiological approach identifies the kind of value it is thought to secure.  This may be ‘intrinsic value or value for its own sake’.  The content-oriented approach suggests that an aesthetic experience is definable in terms of content - or the ‘kinds of objects toward which the piece is directed’.

Carroll explains that there are many ‘liabilities’ to affect-oriented, epistemic and axiological approaches because everyone may experience the sensational, object-familiarization and intrinsic valuing of a work in a different way.  The content-oriented approach is most valuable in deterring aesthetic experience because it is more so informative than any of the other methods.

In some ways, I agree with Carroll - however, I am a very feeling-oriented person.  His arguments are valid and well thought out, but I believe he is short selling the affect-oriented approach.  One of the best things about art is the feeling stirred by a piece.  Not only can someone be attracted to the content of a piece and its visual appearance, but most often people talk about how art makes them feel.  I tend to be on this farther end of the spectrum.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Emily Kngwarreye - Ntange II (Grass) - 60 x 125cm - Synthetic polymer on Belgian linen - 1994

Curatorial practice and indigenous peoples: contextualizing non-Western artworks

Emic and etic refer to two different kinds of anthropological ‘perspectives’ dissected in Butlers writing - emic is a viewpoint obtained from within a certain social group (perspective from within the tribal group), and etic is from the outside (perspective of the European uniformed person).

Roger Benjamin writes ‘A New Modernist Hero’ for an artists catalogue that ‘the tribal lore apparently encoded in Kngwarreye’s canvases distinguishes her from the apparent lack of content in her post-modernist peers and aligns her instead with the original spiritual impulses of the pioneering generation of Abstractionists (Kasimir Malevich, Mark Rothko, Barnett Newman)’.  

Although Benjamin may be (for the most part) accurate in his unhelpingly etic analysis of Kngwarreye’s work, this reading points out that he will never be able to summarize the works of this Aboriginal artists in emic-accuracy.  He does his very best to put himself in her shoes in some regards, but he will never be able to fully understand, with every fiber of his being, as she does, the meaning and intent of these works.  We are tainted with Western ideals that cannot be washed away.  It is the equivalent of attempting to feel exactly, bit for bit, what another person is feeling in any moment - it is impossible.  Butlers belief in this sort of unavoidable separation is accurate, and this is why there will always be a level of ‘otherness’ to works of cultures not our own.

Works of non-western, indigenous creators should be curated only by people of the same traditions.  In this way only can a work be most accurately displayed to the world.  Cultural nuance cannot afford to be diluted in western ignorance.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Museum/curatorial ethics: should the Barnes collection have been relocated?

Albert C Barnes was an American chemist who made his fortune on hard work and a successful pharmaceutical for a common STD.  He eventually began collecting art and created one of the worlds most valuable and impressive collections of impressionist, post-impressionist and early modernist paintings of artists like Renoir, Cezanne, Matisse and Picasso.  He also collected sculptures from all over the world.  

All of this was displayed in his home based on aesthetic, not chronology, to serve as an educational experience for art students.  It was rarely open to the public.  This was the Barnes Collection.  He went to the extent of writing up documents to prevent the collection from ever being taken out of his home.  When he died, shortly thereafter, his will was ‘reinterpreted’ by the city of Philadelphia for the ‘good of the work’.  It was ultimately moved from his home, against his wishes, into a space in the city with a similar building layout.  

In my opinion, it was a terrible idea to remove the work from his home and allow the collection to be seen publicly at all times.  His home should have been restored as to preserve the welfare of the collection, but I feel that Barnes was a true visionary and he had a very good and well thought out reason for keeping the collection more private.  The art was appreciated so much more deeply by these people who could only come see the work by being enrolled in one of his classes.  Barnes worked so incredibly hard to assemble these works, collectively worth billions and billions and billions.  When you work that hard, you should get your last wish for the betterment of what you have built.��

[clareomalley-blog1]

The National Memorial for Peace and Justice

For whom do artists speak and when does memorializing pain become profitable and exploitative? 

The National Memorial for Peace and Justice is a large memorial building that serves as a reminder and a place to pay respects to those who were victims of racial lynching.  This particular memorial is extremely impacting because of the materials and layout used to construct this open plan building.  Large metal blocks with names of lynching towns etched onto them begin on the ground at the entry and as one progresses through the memorial, the blocks suddenly are suspended overhead in a very dramatic and emotional display.  The large blocks not only illustrate the numbers and the places where these monstrosities occurred, but they are also quite literally hung, or lynched, in an effort to remind visitors of the heartlessness and inhumanity committed.  

Often times, people will move slowly through the space in silence, with solemn faces, remembering those who they will never know who have been lost to these crimes.  There is some controversy over white visitors who come and take pictures of the artistic aspect of this memorial, but will never understand being on the other side of the issue; ancestors taken in violence.  Some people say that it should be completely acceptable for non African Americans to come and pay respects and to see this beautiful piece.  It is difficult to create such a gorgeous work of structural art, and then expect people to come and not appreciate that aspect while also making an attempt to express silent love to victims remembered there.  

If there were enough backlash, perhaps guests would go through a briefing upon arrival and be asked to refrain from photos, videos, etc.  People need to understand the pain experienced by the ancestors of those honored in the memorial by being no more than a witness to the moment.  This place is too magical to make superficial.  Families deserve to come here and connect with the ones lost along the way on a deep and profound, uninterrupted level.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Modern Art on Trial : Mary Kate Cleary, "'But Is It Art?' Constantin Brancusi vs. the United States"

Constantin Brancusi was a Romanian sculptor living in Paris (1904) who was obsessed with capturing the essence of a bird in his pieces.  He ultimately created 15 versions of Bird in Space in marble, bronze and plaster.

Bird in Space. 1928. Bronze, 54 x 8 1/2 x 6 1/2″ (137.2 x 21.6 x 16.5 cm). Given anonymously).  The sculpture is a streamline form that seems to imply speed and grace - just like a bird.  The cast metal sits atop a concrete base.  The form initially almost looks like a feather as well.  I did not make a connection to a ‘bird in space’ until I saw the photos by Edward Steichen.  The photos of the sculpture almost make it look like a space age rocket ship flying through the ether - in an eerie way.  It looks like a bird of prey in a nose dive flying through space.  

This piece came to define art in an unexpected way.  “Although the law permitted artworks, including sculpture, to enter the U.S. free from import taxes, when Bird arrived, officials refused to let it enter as art. To qualify as “sculpture,” works had to be “reproductions by carving or casting, imitations of natural objects, chiefly the human form” (source: Rowell). Because Bird in Space did not look much like a bird at all, officials classified it as a utilitarian object (under “Kitchen Utensils and Hospital Supplies”) and levied against it 40% of the work’s value (source: McClean). Bewildered and exasperated by this assessment, Brancusi launched a complaint in court in defense of Bird in Space.”  This all came to be because of ‘technicality’ - a modern day conflict that I am not fond of.  I find myself wondering if this case would have come to be if the name of the sculpture were something like ‘speed’, or ‘smooth stone’, or even ‘abstract feather’.  “During his testimony, the art critic Frank Crowninshield was asked by the court what it was about the object which would lead him to believe it was a bird. He responded: “It has the suggestion of flight, it suggests grace, aspiration, vigour, coupled with speed in the spirit of strength, potency, beauty, just as a bird does. But just the name, the title, of this work, why, really, it does not mean much” (Rowell).”  Essentially, the court was asked to reconsider what art was, and this was done by formal assessment of the piece.  This sculpture most definitely did not belong with ‘kitchen utensils and hospital supplies’, as utensils have active function and supplies can be replaced because they’re usually mass produced.

At this time, defining what art is is harder than ever.  With inclusivity peeking, society is forced to strain its weary eyes and look deep into the face of the unfamiliar and ask why a ‘piece’ may be considered art.  In 2019, it is more about looking for why it IS art than why it ISN’T.  Title may give context and lead the viewer on more of a guided journey than if there was no title at all.  A juxtaposition of perceived meaning of title and work is also sometimes used to evoke a certain meaning.  However, this does not mean that a title is always necessary.  Even titling something ‘untitled’ gives it some sort of meaning or another by association of the word itself, or its sounds.  “What constitutes an artwork, and for that matter, who can occupy the role of artist, has become broader and more inclusive”, and this seems to still be rapidly accelerating and evolving to this day.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Censorship continued: Dana Schutz's Open Casket “Hannah Black’s letter to the curators and staff of the Whitney Biennial” and “Censorship, not the painting, must go”, by Coco Fusco

Dana Schutz is the white American artist who created the controversial Open Casket, a painting of the brutally murdered Emmett Till.  Schutz’s paintings typically depict frightening and creepy content in bold color schemes.  The paintings themselves have dramatic and bold aesthetic and style to them, but the content has been misunderstood because of the context Schultz, who again is a white American, works within.

In Open Casket, the subject is a 14 year old black boy who was notoriously murdered in the 50’s.  He was brutally killed after supposedly offending a white woman.  The painting shows his disfigured face, and the body in a nice suit.  The painting is extremely abstract.

This painting is controversial because many people argue that a white artist may not depict black trauma.  Hannah black, a black identifying biracial woman, says that the effort is shameful and wrong.  it is not right for a white person to profit from fake sympathy toward black pain.  Other people, like Coco Fusco, a multidisciplinary artist who opposes Hannah Blacks stance, says that Blacks arguments are not based on fact - for example, not all black people feel the same about these paintings.  “Black does not consider the history of anti-racist art by white artists. She does not recognize that the trope of the suffering body that originated in Western art with the figure of the Christian martyr informs much representation of racialized oppression — by white and black artists.”

Both of these arguments are valid and make good points.  However, I must say I more strongly identify with the stance of Coco Fusco.  Surely Schutz was not attempting to claim the pain of those before her who have experiences racial injustice.  I see this more as a service in empathy to mankind.  Perhaps she was sympathizing with Emmett Till and his family as just a human.. and not a human with a color.  It draws awareness to the issue in so many ways other than personal fiscal and social gain.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Is the contemporary art market good or bad for living artists? Director Nathaniel Kahn HBO Films, “The Price of Everything”

Art is marketed in many different ways.  Sometimes, a dealer may market a piece of art by advertising its collectability.  When something becomes sensational, art created by the same artist will be scooped up fast, for the sake of high status.  Another way something may be marketed is to create a catalogue of highly anticipated work, that may also be shown with a comparison work of previous famous work.  Auction houses may create a demand for art by advertising where the art will be sold as well.  For example, something sold in Germantown, Wisconsin will not be as highly anticipated as something sold in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates to people who pay a $500,000 entry fee (most of the best stuff is sold in New York). 

Art is also becoming increasingly perceived as an investment.  Art as an asset is now above art as an interest.  Some of the work has become so unattainable that not even money can buy it - it may only be attained by exchanging art for art of equal caliber.  Many of these people are acquiring the works to trade them later on or sell them for a higher value.

The contemporary art market often impacts artists in a negative way, I believe.  A vast majority of artists will never become world famous.  There are so many people out there creating work, and the market is incredibly saturated.  The competition is too high for everyone to win.  Even for many of those who do ‘win’ at some point or another, nothing ever stays popular.  People always get bored and search for more, more, more.  If you allow the market to tell you what is good, you will never be good.  Artists must ‘make an enemy of envy’, or they will be eaten alive by the pain of the lack of their success.  To be an artist now is to go against the grain, to not be afraid, and to create for the sake of creating regardless of all payoff outside of oneself.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Who done it and why should we care? Art and authenticity. Denis Dutton, “Artistic Crimes"

Dutton combats Alfred Lessings argument by saying it “is that aesthetically, it makes no difference whether a work of art is authentic or a forgery.  The fact of forgery is important historically, biographically, perhaps legally, or…financially; but not, strictly speaking, aesthetically.”  When something is found to be a forgery, its origins should not matter so much when it was initially found to be aesthetically pleasing.  Forgery lacks originality, yes, but it still may be considered an accomplished ‘performance’ by someone who admires it.  Every piece of art, whether sculptural, painting, dance, etc., is a performance that celebrates the creators ability to arrive at the final piece.

It seems to me that the most distinct issue of value lies within the money behind the art.  Either it is about the money or it is not.  Forged work is so controversial in this way because lack of originality negatively effects the status of a piece.  Many times, if someone owns a piece that they believe is a Picasso, for example, and then they find out that it is a fake, a lot of people would no longer find the work ‘valuable’.  Originality is not an observable feature, so lack of originality cannot affect a forgerys aesthetic value.  In the same way, achievement may not be completely observable without knowledge of the origins of the work.  Dutton says that people who prefer an ugly original to a beautiful forgery of something else are money snobs.  Forgery is misrepresented achievement, and I think this is what makes people most upset about fake work.  The forger did not have to come up with the original concept.  Some people argue that the greatest forgers are masters because of their ability.  Others see forgers as tricks, who make art critics look bad while seating off of the achievements of others.  I personally see why people want to have an original work, even if it is not particularly attractive.  People like to celebrate a direct creation of someone who has created wonderful works already.  However, when a work is done by someone who is not ‘famous’, people tend to care less whether the work is original or not.  I suppose this means that the matter differs from person to person in terms of the art that they are interested in.  Some people might value an original work done by their friend just as much as an original Picasso just because of how much they like the artist. 

[clareomalley-blog1]

Marxist critical theory: are we living in the “spectacle”? Guy Debord, “Society of the Spectacle"

According to Debord, the spectacle is produced as a result of capitalism.  Capitalism encourages us to make money and live lives of production, working to live, living to work.  Americans find themselves presented with images and ideas all day long; advertisements on tv, phones, computers, magazines, celebrity gossip, etc.  We are the audience gazing dumbfoundedly into the spectacular abyss of our screens, mouths gaping, eyes glossy.  “The Spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images.”  While we gaze asininely into phones, computers, etc, we are not interacting with each other.  Another example might be the perception of classes responsible for corralling us into the lives of some people and away from others.

The spectacle brings about separation by creating the illusion of connectedness.  The ‘truth’ of the world has been created in a representative image, and no one is seeing the reality of what the image is representing.  As a result of all these things we’re exposed to, our behavior changes in order to achieve the illusion we aspire to.  “The more his life is now his product, the more he is separated from his life.”  ‘Life’ is increasingly overwhelming and overloaded, bursting at the seams, pushing us toward a seemingly unattainable, glistening, lifestyle and existence concept.  Or rather a representation of a concept, because for the most part, this is all we know.  I find this next passage haunting and timeless.  There is always something ‘distracting’ us.  I was just saying to a coworker recently that I am so sick of hearing people walking into work and saying ‘wow its so cold outside’ or something about the cold.  It was like they didn’t know what else to talk about because their phones and the news had reminded them all so many times in the previous days about how deathly cold it was.  “To the extent that necessity is socially dreamed, the dream becomes necessary. The spectacle is the nightmare of imprisoned modern society which ultimately expresses nothing more than its desire to sleep.”  

The spectacle blinds us into submission in the form of indoctrinating the concept of commodifiable assets.  Every small bit we do throughout the day may be preyed on and mutilated for the sake of capitalistic gain.  We all find ourselves asking ‘what can I do to have/be this?’  We are shown the ‘solution’, each competing relentlessly against the other, so many times a day, that we have no choice but to categorically prioritize in our great pursuit to massive American success, and thus boil our days down into only the most profitable commodity exchanges.  Its all about the commodity.  As it is said now, ‘secure the bag’.  

I think that Debord is, for the most part, spot on with his critical examination of whatever the spectacle is and was.  Today, I see people glued to their phones.  A man recently killed himself after losing his phone.  Of course, I only knew this because I clicked on a derogatory looking article in Daily Mail recently.  People are completely obsessed, possessed, by instagram persona.  People go to such great lengths to create an image, or representation, of themselves.  I also think of the news.  I do not watch the news because I do not ever finding myself changing my day-to-day because of what I see on the news.  I see people becoming scared from the news and talking about it over dinner, but they never do anything about it.  Debord says, “Such a perfect democracy constructs its own inconceivable foe, terrorism. Its wish is to be judged by its enemies rather than by its results. The story of terrorism is written by the state and it is therefore highly instructive. The spectating populations must certainly never know everything about terrorism, but they must always know enough to convince them that, compared with terrorism, everything else seems rather acceptable, or in any case more rational and democratic.”  I think media is incredibly powerful to the point where I fear it is certain it has been hijacked by a more influential ‘office’ to subtly, or dramatically, alter our behavior.  Life has been negated in too many ways via the pacification of the masses.  We are the annoying 3 year old only satiated by an ipad.  Is there any point in fighting the ‘technology era’ when it will eventually take over completely?  I for one, as a moderate ‘anti-technology’ist, hope that my own resistance to the ‘spectacle’ is not in vain.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Does “contemporary art need to be transgressive? Patrick Radden Keefe, "The Family That Built an Empire of Pain"

The Sacklers are an insanely wealthy family (net worth thirteen billion dollars) known globally for their philanthropic work.  “The Brooklyn-born brothers Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sackler, all physicians, donated lavishly during their lifetimes to an astounding range of institutions, many of which today bear the family name: the Sackler Gallery, in Washington; the Sackler Museum, at Harvard; the Sackler Center for Arts Education, at the Guggenheim; the Sackler Wing at the Louvre; and Sackler institutes and facilities at Columbia, Oxford, and a dozen other universities.”  They speak publicly about their generous donations, but they often do not talk about Purdue Pharma - “a privately held company, based in Stamford, Connecticut, that developed the prescription painkiller OxyContin”.  This family has acquired an unfathomable fortune on peddling pills to whoever will pop them.

Purdue Pharma has used many ‘marketing tactics’ to sell their most infamous concoction, Oxycontin.  They were known to go into doctors offices and speak with clinicians and pay off doctors to endorse the product.  One on the brothers also happened to be a medical advertiser, and seemed to be able to coerce doctors into prescribing the medication by creating savvy advertisements in medical journals that stood out from the rest.  They completely misinformed the medical community about the risks, saying that Oxycontin was ‘virtually’ non-addictive, and other bs like that.

It is extremely difficult to say wether or not museums should vet and reject their sources of income on the basis of how their patrons accrue wealth.  Some people might argue that philanthropy might represent, for at least some of the Sacklers, a form of atonement.  Regardless, this would undoubtedly result in a massive overhaul of, dare I say, pretty much everything in our society if establishments were to ‘comb’ through their donations.  I have a sneaky feeling that there is way more corruption, akin to the scandalous Sacklers, than we can comprehend.  If museums, for example, begin to reject money that comes from companies who are not the most ‘down to earth’ and ‘wholesome’, where will the money come from?  Thats the kicker…it won’t.  And then these great expansive museums will fall from a lack of funding - because only people like the Sacklers have enough extra money laying around to be able to give enough to national museums.  The rest of the world is scrambling to pay an overdue electric bill of $46.23 (or is that just me?).  Imagine how hard the world would freak if a museum began to take the art away?  Or close down the spaces built by these people?  Because of the corruption of the donators?  I wonder if the donators themselves might take some kind of stealthy ‘big cat’ approach to screw over the establishments that rejected them.  I know when im feelin good and evil (especially on Mondays), I’d do just about anything to cause the demise of those who shorthanded me for my hard weekend work (I don’t really feel this way *nervous laughing*).  Perhaps they should leave the past to the past and reevaluate from this point on.  It is tricky when a vast majority of a museums ever changing display of monumental works and spaces continue to come from people who never quit it with the ‘fu**ery’.  However, if we take the other route and leave it be, nothing changes for the worst, and money keeps gushing through the pipes to all of our favorite public facilities, and we’ll all continue to have that monotonous, dead-eyed jolly that everyone who ‘turns a blind eye’ has as they look away from the wreck.  Too dramatic?  Not really.  Its like we have all, as a society, become the step kid, left choiceless as we take handouts from the evil step mother, Lady Tremaine, despite our yearning to break free and take on the hardships of independence for the sake of justice and morality.  I think ultimately, just like everything else in this world, it comes down to money and greed.  These museums are too greedy, complacent and settled into their flow to suddenly shut off the water in quest of a long trek to a far away well.  Why carry buckets out in the heat when we have a sink right here?  I’ll tell ya why - its because behind the sink, there is a guy strong-arming 12 little kids from South America into illegally pumping water from Lake Nicaragua to a basin for you to access in your kitchen at your leisure (ok, this one is super super over the top dramatic and ridiculous, but you get the point).  Ultimately, these museums have decided to turn their backs on all the people who have been screwed by Purdue Pharma.  This company has ruined lives and families because of false advertisement and predatory business practices. To stop taking their donations would be really really hard, and probably detrimental in more way than one, but it would be the right thing to do.  It is scary though, because who would they then give their money to once the do-gooder museums wont take it anymore?  Who knows.  Real ‘philanthropy’ would be to contribute money to taking care of the people they should own up to fu**ing over.  Hopefully someday, the Sacklers will have a change of heart and hopefully the places that accept donations from people like this will begin to do the right thing.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Does contemporary art need to be transgressive?  Cynthia Freeland's "Blood and Beauty", Art in Theory: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2001), 1-19

Freeland thinks that Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ has value as a work of art for several reasons.  The print is 60x40 and glossy and rich in color.  The piece also, when the title is removed, cannot be recognized for what the subject matter is - piss.  There is beauty in the derogatory nature between the title and the image - it is jarring.  Bodily fluids are not shameful, but natural.  Bodily suffering and bodily fluids have been regarded as sources of religious power and strength.  Relics containing these pieces are revered as holy.  Spanish work is often also seen as violent and beautiful; take bull fighting for example.  The work is provocative and confusing.  I think that these reasons are fairly significant because a large part of the population feels it is true.  If I were to see this piece somewhere and not see the title, I might think it was strange thick lighting rather than actual piss.  How much art has been created via ‘blasphemy’ and we don’t even know it because the creators don’t tell us?

These reason may fail Freeland because some of the issues are far too graphic.  Essentially, the solutions to his pieces are too offensive when viewers are informed on his subject matter.  She battles these detractions by saying that there is morality in confronting viewers directly and not beating around the bush.

[clareomalley-blog1]

Does “beauty” in art matter anymore? Dave Hickey, "Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty"

“[B]eauty is the agency that causes visual pleasure in the beholder”, says Hickey, “and any theory of images that is not grounded in pleasure of the beholder begs the question of their efficacy and dooms itself to inconsequence.”  Hickey thinks this is so because he is ultimately asking “what has art become?”  In 1993, in the height of contemporary crafts, the new age art contained things like faux green fur, urine, and yarn (not to say that great art is not these things).  Artists were creating for the sake of controversy, rather than an aesthetic that evoked a long gaze.  How can we assess the meaning when we are not even inclined to look at the thing itself that has the hidden meaning.

In may cases, I think Hickey is accurate in saying that pleasure is necessary for successful artwork.  However, we must next ask what pleasure is defined as.  I think that for the sake of this argument, we have to take him rather literally in his meaning of ‘pleasure’.  This is a truly complex statement because there are so many different kinds of people who like so many different kinds of art.  However, I think that when applied to any kind of art, the statement is correct.  If a sculptor is not inclined to look at a sculpture, the piece has failed because it is not asking to be seen.  The same can be said for paintings, fashion, products, sketches, etc.  It does not matter if the cause of the unpopularity is a matter of craft, color choice, composition, etc.  Perhaps we take an initial look because the piece is shocking or violent, but the craft, color or composition are not good enough to encourage a viewer to view any longer than a glance.

When Hickey says he informally surveyed people to find out what was wrong with beauty, I am wondering ultimately what ‘informally surveyed’ means.  Did he just chat with people in galleries?  I am not sure - I feel like he has mainly come to this conclusion on his own.  Beauty is not to be mistaken for gaudiness, violence or sex.  There is a reason that humans are so sex-crazed; both ‘nature and nurture’ have delivered us to where we are as a society - meaning it is both animalistically and habitually integrated more and more into our behavior as the human species evolves.  In the case of Robert Mapplethorpe, who was the photographer who had large prints of the ‘common culture’ of homosexual men, people have long thought that there was beauty in these pieces because they’re honest and unafraid.  This is not what Dave means.  He is saying that the community who he has ‘informally surveyed’ find ‘beauty’ rather boring.  “We need more than the beauty of a human form to evoke reflection”.  People want to be attracted by something more shocking than beauty alone.

In criticism, Hickey asks, “should we really look at art, however banal, because looking at art is somehow good for us, while ignoring any specific good that the individual work or artist might propose to us?”  I think he is ultimately disappointed in the attitude of the public toward this concept.  There is so much more to the beauty of art than the initial shock a piece might employ.

Hickey likes the fact that the commercial market is typically not threatening.  The market is blamed for ‘bad art’, when in reality, the issue at hand is much larger.  The market has made just as many mistakes in determining good art as the academy has, but overall, they’re the masters of immediate beauty and attraction of an image.  

I agree with Hickey that beauty in art is a good thing.  How could it possibly be a bad thing?

I must just say.. Hickey’s language feels pretentious and lofty.  How can he convey his point when I cannot understand what he is saying?  Its rather ironic that he clouds his message with such language in the midst of the very point he is attempting to argue; pleasure.  I find no pleasure in reading a sentence I cannot understand.