4 ms·

> Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces In other words, demonstrating one's affinity (or non-affinity) to a

> Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces In other words, demonstrating one's affinity (or non-affinity) to a particular group becomes more important than demonstrating individual skills/virtuosity. Nietzsche (whom so many contemporary artists adore, btw) would have some harsh words on such herd mentality.

metaphorical 14y ago
I was referring to the critiques in the article (e.g. dismissing the works one by one, instead of looking at the retrospective as a whole.) But you raise an interesting point. I'm not sure if groups form because of herd mentality, or if there are parallels in perceiving the modern world. It's hard to say. If I remember correctly, the early Nietzsche (in Birth of Tradegy) discussed the Dionynsian ideal of an artist -- which in his spiritual ecstasy he turns himself into a work of art. It's a very modern concept, in some sense expressed in Tracey Emin's work.
- bluekeybox 14y ago
  (Disclaimer: I personally like the individualistic part of Nietzsche's philosophy more than his love for the Dionysian). Nietzsche wrote The Birth of Tradegy back when he was under huge Wagnerian influence (an influence he later renounced), and the duality he introduced there between the Apollonian rationality and the Dionysian irrationality basically gave ammunition to the postmodernism movement. That said, although I do think that mysticism/spiritualism has a place in human experience, it is tautologically absurd to rely on it as a guide to areas that are better explored using a rational mind. There are many other ways to look at art; to bring up one example, one could look at art as an attempt at naming that which hitherto remained unnamed, which would place art into the rational realm (although more into the periphery of it than into the center). If I could read German, I would be incredibly interested to read Wilamowitz-Mollendorf attack on "The Birth of Tragedy" (infamous for the fact that it nearly ended Nietzsche's career) because I came believe that the difference between early Nietzsche and a charlatan may be more subtle than many realize.
  - metaphorical 14y ago
    Lots of good thoughts here. Thanks for sharing. I like your example of art as naming the unnamed. It's similar to Paul Klee's "art does not reproduce the visible, it makes visible". I don't think rational/irrational are two separate realms. Personally I believe the totality of "existence" is an open system - so you seek connections of what you know with a rational mind, and you push the boundaries of what you don't know using intuition. (And no, I'm not quoting Rumsfeld)

metaphorical 14y ago

I was referring to the critiques in the article (e.g. dismissing the works one by one, instead of looking at the retrospective as a whole.) But you raise an interesting point. I'm not sure if groups form because of herd mentality, or if there are parallels in perceiving the modern world. It's hard to say. If I remember correctly, the early Nietzsche (in Birth of Tradegy) discussed the Dionynsian ideal of an artist -- which in his spiritual ecstasy he turns himself into a work of art. It's a very modern concept, in some sense expressed in Tracey Emin's work.

bluekeybox 14y ago
(Disclaimer: I personally like the individualistic part of Nietzsche's philosophy more than his love for the Dionysian). Nietzsche wrote The Birth of Tradegy back when he was under huge Wagnerian influence (an influence he later renounced), and the duality he introduced there between the Apollonian rationality and the Dionysian irrationality basically gave ammunition to the postmodernism movement. That said, although I do think that mysticism/spiritualism has a place in human experience, it is tautologically absurd to rely on it as a guide to areas that are better explored using a rational mind. There are many other ways to look at art; to bring up one example, one could look at art as an attempt at naming that which hitherto remained unnamed, which would place art into the rational realm (although more into the periphery of it than into the center). If I could read German, I would be incredibly interested to read Wilamowitz-Mollendorf attack on "The Birth of Tragedy" (infamous for the fact that it nearly ended Nietzsche's career) because I came believe that the difference between early Nietzsche and a charlatan may be more subtle than many realize.
- metaphorical 14y ago
  Lots of good thoughts here. Thanks for sharing. I like your example of art as naming the unnamed. It's similar to Paul Klee's "art does not reproduce the visible, it makes visible". I don't think rational/irrational are two separate realms. Personally I believe the totality of "existence" is an open system - so you seek connections of what you know with a rational mind, and you push the boundaries of what you don't know using intuition. (And no, I'm not quoting Rumsfeld)