I thought this weeks reading was difficult. Greenberg used vocabulary I am not always familiar with, and ideas that were new to me. It is good to be stretched, and I really had to think through his essay.
That all being said, I do not agree with him that "art for art's sake" is bad or obsolete art. Though this type of art may be created by untrained artists, are they no less an artist?
As Locke said, no art is created in a vacuum. All art is somehow relevant to culture, to a movement or to a person, 150.
I was raised in the "self esteem" era, where almost nothing we do is wrong and we are generally made to feel good about ourselves. Therefore, it is somewhat horrifying to me that people like Greenberg are so ruthless in their judgments about art. How could they make such blanket statements as to say whole genre's are bad art?
This is a new concept to me that I'm not sure I like.
No comments:
Post a Comment