We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, March 18. 2011
Kandinsky went through many phases, as did Picasso later. I think all of his stuff is interesting to look at.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I don't know a whole heck of a lot about impressionist or modern art. In fact, I look at a painting like this and I just don't get it. It does seem to follow certain rules like how the represented objects move smoothly from left to right and how the straight lines at an angle move the viewing right along, but what the heck does it represent?
You don't get it because there is nothing to get. Kandinsky's sole distinctions were the audacity to call a bunch of randomly-collected shapes "art," and the good fortune to work in an art world which welcomed such idiocy.
--see the black circle up and slightly left? The concentric black and white circles? That's a 'bleak eye' motif --and to a personal viewer it could be your eye, and the rest of the picture could be how the inside of your consciousness feels when it is overloaded --say, on wakeup without coffee yet, or at bedtime with a day full of thoughts yet to assume some sort of form, after any hairy haywire dang thing or other has entered your mind.
So, i'd say, it's a snapshot of a state of mind. "But what isn't?" one might wonder. The answer might be, "Well, nothing isn't." And then there you are gazing at the picture having a universal experience, that of utter uniqueness and utter commonality at the same instant --as it is to be a person.
That's why he's a big hit --his art is 'optimistic' in what it grants as to the intrinsic value of a person --which is, as we all intuitively understand, always at question, and forever fragile in the glowering light of evil.
uh huh. Did you know that pigs fly?
I also have a bridge to sell you - good deal. I tried to sell it to BD because he's in New York City often and I thought it would be a good investment, but he turned it down.
It's still for sale though.
I remember seeing Kandinsky's work at the Tel Aviv museum when I visited there in my childhood. I must have been 9 or 10, but what struck me about his paintings was how old they were and yet how modern they were. To me, Kandinsky's paintings represent a revolt against the old order, the stuffiness and oppression of the old regime. This is different than Picasso, because Picasso lacks the optimism that is there in Kandinsky's work. Modernism represent a clean slate. (See: Tel Aviv Bauhaus). Of-course, modernism was co-opted by the old regime, who turned modernism into ugliness and alienation. (The old regime never lost power. They just slightly re-branded themselves to sell you a new con -- corporatism).
Anything widely accepted as "modern art" is very firmly of the "con" variety.
obviously this is a bold reinterpretation of man's inhumanity to man.
Kandinsky started out painting more traditionally, and this work is masterful as well:
While it looks like the doodle of a high schooler in science class, the composition is pleasing and the coloration whimsical. It's something I would hang on a wall and I'm not much one for non-representational art. Jackson Pollock excepted of course. He might have "just" dripped paint but it was a symphony of dripping.
that has always been a mystery --you can find it in Gramsci's writings --or the Franfurt Schools --the direction to uglify art and and demoralize the western boojwah's confidence --but, how such fertile ground for such art --where did all the traditional politics artists go? One place is magazine covers --Norman Rockwell on the Saturday Evening Post, elder Wyeth in books and magazines and advertising --from whence they became not artists but mere ''illustrators''.
This would not have gotten so far along (Serrano and Finley, and Cristos pink-sheeted river valleys) if folks had just asked themselves who had done this rebranding, and how and why. It was just a few editors, but they brought bolshevik mountains to mohammed --and NYC/Chicago/Frisco, thus Everytown, USA.
Not who, but what. And the answer is corruption. Unfortunately, the American people don't seem to mind as long as they grow fatter and fatter on corporate poison.
--well it's soon to be a moot question. They --we --didn't mind it enough in the past but we do now, and either we shake it off the body politik (see tea party) or there won't be a body politik to shake anything off of.
Either way, the imperialist baton will be picked up by others. The disease will continue. Same script, different names.
I thinks it's a cool thing. I also see portraits. What's an artist to do after cameras appeared but to do interesting things with visual images?
Turn of the 19th/20th Century, the Camera turned the Painter's world upside down. Electricity, Einstein, things were not as they were before. In that light, over the years i've gained an appreciation of the efforts of Artists' like Kandinsky, Picasso, etc., of that time, moreso.
Liberals, Commies, Fascists, Socialists, whatever, are all born from the same source. And they are all used as cover in a false dialectic to advance the interests of the source that gave birth to them.
...but isn't that the same as saying that one gains by fighting against one's enemy? Which in turn is to say that humans are in the human condition?
One gains by educating one's enemy and educating oneself against greed. And if greed is the human condition then we are forever condemned.
i think you're right --and that's why there's 'salvation' available --which works even without the supernatural --one can't feel 'saved' and still do others wrong --which is the problem of greed after all.