Comments on: Art and The Inconsequentialness of Nature http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/ Our mission is to combat the unreason and selflessness that are sweeping our culture from the nihilist left to the religious right, and to sound a new ideal of capitalism and individual rights in American politics. Mon, 06 Feb 2012 03:04:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Joseph Kellard http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-813 Joseph Kellard Wed, 11 Feb 2009 03:11:16 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-813 Hi Jim, That’s for your reply and everyone’s reply here to my post. In answer to your comments, I always take in a painting first, before reading any accompanying description that may explain it. Then I read the explanation see if there is anything I can learn. A painting should stand on its own, without any accompanying explanation — and that’s why I take it in first, before reading anything about it, to see what my initial reaction will be. Having that explanation as an option is a value in my book. I don’t see it as any different as having a good teacher explain aspects of the painting too me and provide valuable insights. I read and thoroughly enjoy Diane Durante's essays on art in The Objective Standard, as well as her excellent book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0814719872/thenewcla-20/ref=nosim/" rel="nofollow"><cite>Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan</cite></a>. I don't always know the subjects I am looking at in a work of art, and reading about them can enhance my understanding and appreciation of a painting. It may not change my initial, sense-of-life reaction to the painting, but it very well may provide some insights I might have missed. The same can be said about the biographies of the artist, who often times are obscure. Again, this may help me understand and better appreciate a work of art. Moreover, if I hadn’t read those accompanying descriptions at this exhibit, I probably wouldn't have written my post. ~ Joseph Kellard Hi Jim,

That’s for your reply and everyone’s reply here to my post.

In answer to your comments, I always take in a painting first, before reading any accompanying description that may explain it. Then I read the explanation see if there is anything I can learn.

A painting should stand on its own, without any accompanying explanation — and that’s why I take it in first, before reading anything about it, to see what my initial reaction will be. Having that explanation as an option is a value in my book. I don’t see it as any different as having a good teacher explain aspects of the painting too me and provide valuable insights.

I read and thoroughly enjoy Diane Durante’s essays on art in The Objective Standard, as well as her excellent book Outdoor Monuments of Manhattan. I don’t always know the subjects I am looking at in a work of art, and reading about them can enhance my understanding and appreciation of a painting. It may not change my initial, sense-of-life reaction to the painting, but it very well may provide some insights I might have missed. The same can be said about the biographies of the artist, who often times are obscure. Again, this may help me understand and better appreciate a work of art.

Moreover, if I hadn’t read those accompanying descriptions at this exhibit, I probably wouldn’t have written my post.

~ Joseph Kellard

]]> By: Jim May http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-809 Jim May Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:08:04 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-809 Joseph: why would you read those things? I don't. The art shouldn't need to have an explanation next to it... if it does, it fails as art IMO. Joseph: why would you read those things? I don’t. The art shouldn’t need to have an explanation next to it… if it does, it fails as art IMO.

]]> By: Amy Nasir http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-806 Amy Nasir Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:05:55 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-806 What a corrupt individual that curator is. I'd like to see him "respect" nature, dropped into a forest with no civilization or roads for miles. What does it say about a person's view of the world and view of himself when projecting onto these paintings? I suppose it's self-loathing and inefficacy. It reminds me of Alec Baldwin's character in the movie, "The Edge." What a corrupt individual that curator is. I’d like to see him “respect” nature, dropped into a forest with no civilization or roads for miles. What does it say about a person’s view of the world and view of himself when projecting onto these paintings? I suppose it’s self-loathing and inefficacy. It reminds me of Alec Baldwin’s character in the movie, “The Edge.”

]]> By: Bill Brown http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-804 Bill Brown Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:06:07 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-804 EdMcGon: this post was actually by Joseph Kellard. I've edited the byline (and the one for <a href="http://www.newclarion.com/2009/01/what-our-readers-are-reading/" rel="nofollow">his previous submission</a>) to make that clearer. Sorry for the confusion. Also, good point. EdMcGon: this post was actually by Joseph Kellard. I’ve edited the byline (and the one for his previous submission) to make that clearer. Sorry for the confusion. Also, good point.

]]> By: EdMcGon http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-801 EdMcGon Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:22:49 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-801 Bill, your post reminded me of a show I saw last year, where this guy would hypnotize sharks (some of them were fairly large and aggressive maneaters too). And he was successful. While I thought the guy was a loon for even attempting it, it does prove your point in a rather eccentric way. Nature submits to reason. Bill, your post reminded me of a show I saw last year, where this guy would hypnotize sharks (some of them were fairly large and aggressive maneaters too). And he was successful.

While I thought the guy was a loon for even attempting it, it does prove your point in a rather eccentric way. Nature submits to reason.

]]> By: L-C http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-796 L-C Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:46:18 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-796 Ryan, it is only man's triumphs that are inconsequential. His failures are eternal. Ryan, it is only man’s triumphs that are inconsequential. His failures are eternal.

]]> By: Ryan Mulkerin http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-794 Ryan Mulkerin Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:16:56 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-794 Ah yes, man is horribly inconsequential, yet able to control the future of the planet! Nope, there's no contradiction there! Ah yes, man is horribly inconsequential, yet able to control the future of the planet! Nope, there’s no contradiction there!

]]> By: Andrew Dalton http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-793 Andrew Dalton Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:58:24 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-793 "... smoke of the increasing human presence and the negative impact industrialization has on the Earth’s natural resources." You have to love how the curator projects the political fetishes of the 21st century onto an artist from the 19th century. “… smoke of the increasing human presence and the negative impact industrialization has on the Earth’s natural resources.”

You have to love how the curator projects the political fetishes of the 21st century onto an artist from the 19th century.

]]> By: Mike N http://www.newclarion.com/2009/02/art-and-the-inconsequentialness-of-nature/#comment-791 Mike N Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:33:48 +0000 http://www.newclarion.com/?p=574#comment-791 Obviously this curator is an altruist. Obviously this curator is an altruist.

]]>