Academia became a refuge for many defunct aristorcrats.
But they told us that academia was a vast Jewish conspiracy. Anyway, how can one be a defunct aristocrat? It is not as if aristocrats stopped working - they never started.
This is my 1000th post to PAS.
So all the Art History departments have art wrong, and a few people on this thread have it right, their rectitude being based not on aesthetic grounds but on the feeling that they must be right, because their notion of art is inclusive and non-colonial. So the Art History departments must redefine themselves to suit your interpretation of art; somehow they must find a way to teach craft forms which are hierarchical, uniform and anonymous as if they were works of art. Only that way they will be globally relevant, despite the western model of art being globally adopted by museums, artists, critics and dealers.
So, in the Pacific countries where artists now practice much as western artists have done for the last 200 years, these artists must be ignored in favour of the traditional handcrafts, which suit your political concerns better. Finding something to say about these crafts which has not been said already will be a challenge, but that is by the by.
It is nothing personal, Chris, but you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about, as that Wikipedia piece you posted shows.
When somebody is clearly faking it, I see no reason to be restrained. Had Giovanni read Boardman, he would have been able to make an argument and challenge mine; clearly he had not read him.
Of course there is a big picture and I have been presenting it. Art is a European construct. Some people here have chosen to interpret that to mean I am a colonialist who is oppressing the first peoples by denying that their art is such. I am rather dismayed by the sheer nastiness of some comments on this thread, by Giovanni, Sacha and Islander especially. They cannot deal with the argument, they have no evidence to offer, so they snarl and sneer and snipe.
I suppose with Chris's examination of the syllabuses of my universities we have moved on from Giovanni's psychic ability to know what Art History departments are thinking. But then Chris's conclusion dismays once more: the art history departments don't teach what I think is art, so they must be wrong. Protip: perhaps they know what they are talking about, perhaps you are wrong; and perhaps your 'strong sense' about my learning is just your blind prejudice.
Really, when it gets to the point where people are creeping around university websites searching for clues, divining intentions, shouting abuse, rejecting evidence on the grounds of unpalatability and pretending to have read books, it is time to move on.
According to a definition of art that pre-empts the inclusion of the traditional cultural practices of non-Western peoples, I'm sure some of them probably can.
You, being cynical and having your own agenda, choose to see it that way. As I have been arguing for weeks now, the evidence is available; you have produced no evidence. So why should I give a toss about your baseless opinions?
Art for art's sake, as an object of aesthetic appreciation without practical, social or political purposes, never actually applied to a time in history - certainly not to the Rinascimento for which it was supposedly coined .. .
I said it didn't apply in the Rinascimento; that was my point. If you are going to talk about art, you need to read a little further than the first chapter of Gombrich;
...and is a notion utterly shattered by twentieth-century artists
Did you find the time to visit any exhibitions during the Twentieth Century? It is virtually all for its own sake.
We ought to feel free to reject it, and not just because it demeans the indigenous culture of our nation - although that's not a bad reason.
Oh, rubbish it does nothing of the kind; that is nothing more than White Liberal Guilt mixed with an unhealthy dose of philistinism, which can only see value in art when it serves your political purpose..
I'd add that it is of course political advanteguos, from a colonial perspective, to hold philosophical positions that subsume the experience of a culture within another. So to suggest that Maori didn't do art is far from innocent.
Giovanni, there is a nasty, bitter streak to you, that makes the winning of an argument more important than decency and integrity. You have to suggest that I have darker purposes, to put it about that I must be some sort of racist. You don't have the honesty or the integrity to take on an argument squarely. Of course, you would not refer to any of the academic literature on the subject because it probably would not support your view, so instead you insinuate evil intent on my part.
I dispute that the quotes you offered mean anything more than what they say - namely that the Greeks had a different concept of art from ours
You have not read Boardman; you attempted to deceive me and the readers of this thread. I called you on that. You are a fraud.
I am done with you now. I will leave the final word to Ringo:
Which is why a dozen or so people have taken issue with you - if all you had said was that different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes art as opposed to craft, and that the modern global art world is heavily influenced by Western ideas of just what it is that constitues art (just as it is about what constitutes poetry or literature), I think nobody would have had much to object.
I am sure you would have found a way. The point is not about different ideas of art, but the very existence of it. I realise my opinions have scandalised readers, such that you accuse me of cultural insensitivity and Sacha goes as far as to imply that I am a racist. But all the people who study non-Western material culture - anthropologists and the like - are united in saying that the traditional cultural practices of non-Western peoples cannot be described as art. In that respect, they share much with the people who study historic Western cultural practices. Further, many of the traditions which we might think as grounded in history are invented - this is the theme of the papers I recommended, which unfortunately are not available on Internet.
I don't think it is very productive to try to gain an understanding through snippets on Internet. John Boardman wrote an excellent book on Athenian Black Figure Vases (1974), in which he writes of Exekias "the hallmark of his style is a near statuesque dignity which brings vase painting for the first time close to claiming a place as a major art." It would be a good idea to read the book in its entirety to learn where vase-painters stood in Athenian society. Social standing is important, since it indicates the value given to the painter's livelyhood. Little is known of Exekias, but there is a legend that he was a slave.
I sense Giovanni gets that he may be right or wrong, or that there is more to know, or that might be known through discussion, whereas your tone indicates you are right, period.
Such a subtle distinction. It is so much easier for you to put up a movie clip and then accuse me of being nasty.
When I quote John Boardman, top Greek art history man, saying the Greeks had no concept of art as we understand it, Giovanni says I have misinterpreted Boardman. When I ask Giovanni to show where Boardman supports his argument, he falls silent. I am sensing bollocks here.
When I read Giovanni saying "Artists throughout history have innovated, experimented, struggled to find the means to represent not only what was beautiful but also what was true of the world in which they lived" I realise where he studied Art History: The Marcia Blaine School for Girls, in Miss Jean Brodie's class.
Show me where I am wrong, then; examples, please.
Another is to claim that they didn't appreciate the beauty of their own works, or that they didn't know they were making objects of beauty.
I have not made this claim. You are confusing making objects of beauty, which is a common practice, with making art. People make their homes and their gardens beautiful, without claiming them as art.
Besides, notions of what is beautiful change. The Greek ideal of beauty was mimesis, the imitation of nature. Creativity as we understand it was unknown to them. Greek sculptors did invent, did not make sympbols, did not allegorise. The made marble look like flesh.
Artists throughout history have innovated, experimented, struggled to find the means to represent not only what was beautiful but also what was true of the world in which they lived.
In a word: Romanticism. Painters, sculptors, architects and all the rest worked for a living; they had workshops and apprentices; they relied on patrons for work and advisers for ideas; they worked to order, making what they were told to make. They joined guilds. They were thoroughly petit-bourgeois.