[lbo-talk] Questions from before the Global Minotaur...

[Wojtek S]

[WS:]  I would also like to respond by pointing to the fact that this
discussion of modern art entail two semiotic levels, as Roland Barthes
(_Mythologies_) put - one the phenomenon itself and the other is that
phenomenon becoming a mere signifier in a system of mythologies that
have cultural significance.  Barthes illustrates that with an example
of photo on the cover of a popular magazine depicting a Black soldier
in French army uniform saluting the tricolor flag.  On the basic level
the photo is just a picture of a Black guy in a uniform, but on the
mythological level it becomes a signifier of the French empire with
all its cultural connotations.  Barthes calls the second level "stolen
language" because the concreteness of the signifier provides
embodiment to abstract mythological concepts - as soon as that
abstract concept is being questioned in any way, the empirical
concreteness of the signifier is evoked to demonstrate that the
mythological concept is an empirical fact embodied in empirical
richness of that signifier.

Likewise, art is not just objects created by artists, but also a
signifier of social mythologies imbued with political  social and
cultural identities, status and what not.  For example, Warhol is not
just a, artist who produced x number of works of art, but also a
signifier of the avant garde and the whole gamut of social values,
life styles, and cultural identities it entails.  Criticizing Warhol
is not just an aesthetic statement, but a rejection of the whole
system of social mythologies that he and his art signify, and
therefore met with thinly veiled hostility from those who identify
with those mythologies.  Likewise, criticizing college football, guns,
SUVs, Israeli politics, Cuban socialism, climate change, or apple pie
is not just an expression of personal opinions and preferences, but an
attack on cultural icons and social values signified by these icons.
In a way, it is like publicly wiping one's ass with a national flag -
it is an embodiment of an attack on the nationhood itself.

Therefore, it is really difficult to have any discussion on these
subject, because such discussion will quickly degenerate into personal
animosities if not attacks.  I think it was Carrol who once postulated
the futility of discussion between people who don't share the same
worldview, and i tend to agree with a qualification.  The discussion
is futile only if it involves signifiers of mythologies that form the
basis of social identities.

On that note, have a tasty turkey everyone and whatever cultural myths
and identities it evokes.

Wojtek

On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com> wrote:
>> Jordan: "Wojtek just wants to see pretty pictures"
>>
>> [WS:] Why is it bad?
>
> It's not bad, it's just not a useful topic of conversation.  You don't want
> to talk about art, you want to talk about your own aesthetic taste.  I have
> nothing of substance to say on the subject, just as you have nothing of
> substance to say about my aesthetic interests.
>
>> Yesterday you criticized me by alleging that I
>> look for more than just pretty pictures.
>
> I certainly didn't mean to do that.  Like what you will, I don't care one
> way or another.  But don't pass your personal aesthetics off as a discussion
> of art.
>
> Here's what I learned about your taste:
>
> - You don't want to discuss politics in art (I'll get my politics
> elsewhere")
>
> - You give some credence to "craft" (I bet you say things like "My 3yr old
> monkey could paint that")
>
> - You think the market has spoiled it
>
> Whatevs, dude.  Have fun at the Great Museums.
>
> /jordan
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>