Rosa Luxemburg and the value of art criticism?

Question

The brilliant Rosa Luxemburg was so blessed with talent that she could have made her mark in a number of areas other than the political arena; one of those areas was the world of art.

An intellectual who was an accomplished artist as well as the most powerful Socialist writer of her generation, Luxemburg was expected to contribute to the literature of art critique, but in fact did little. Her position was that one should confront art personally, rather than accept another's opinion. She felt that good art naturally recommended itself to the viewer and required no endorsement.

She did, however, have preconceived ideas about what constituted good art, and her tastes were thoroughly conventional. In short, she expected that good art--in her appraisal of it--had the power to speak to individuals in a way that poor art did not. The idea of art as subjective was foreign to her.

So, what do you think? Are there clearly established values of art? Is art appreciation subjective?

Answer 1

Well, I kind of think there is a learned skill involved in "appreciating" art... Actually, I am certain that there is. With objective training, experience and a depth of knowledge, I think you can learn something of the artist though its art, perhaps even matters that the artist isn't conscious of. Everything we say or do, or dont say or dont do, or lie about or express truthfully, tells us something about a person. Art doesn't use words.. but it is a form of expression that can be read, just the same.

Art is not purely subjective in so far as it is not limited to the perceptions of an individual. Individuals can look at art and hold the same perceptions of it, and of the artist. This is not unique to art critics, but the language of art is codified, contextual and culturally specific, so it is restricted in that way, much the same as the various dialects of spoken language is.

I think great art is codified, is contextual and is culturally specific. Oh yeah... it certainly is esoteric. Even the appreciation of a "primitive" artist's work is esoteric!

The idea that art is merely subjective is foreign to me too.

Answer 2

I read somewhere that there are REAL no-rules fights held in different parts of the world (currently or in the past). There were no restrictions like there are in MMA fights. I guess the only rule was one quit someway. Anyway, the point being, is that in the Real no-rules fights it was said that most of them ended standing up, with a poke to the eyes. That is quite a difference than the give and take of most MMA fights. Another good point is observing fouls committed in a MMA fight. Every once in a while you will see a fighter (purposely or not) commit a foul on another fighter. It may be a kick to a downed figher, a kick to the groin, an eye poke, strikes to the back of the head, whatever it may be. The fouls usually bring devestating effects to the MMA fighters. Their ability to fight is usually severly weakened once these fouls are committed on them. So, MMA fighers have a big weakness in this area. But, how good are these internal fighters? I've read of Tai Chi practioners winning no-rules fights. I am not sure how the other internal arts rate in terms of fighting. I guess Tai Chi had quite a fearsome reputation back in the old days (before it became the health fad we know it as today). An internal M.A. fighter would also, logically, be an older person. It takes time to master the subtleties of the internal martial arts. He probably would be at least 30 y/o. He may be realistically more like his 50's. It probably wouldn't be a big factor but is a thought. A MMA figher, that is in his prime, is more in his 30's. If everything else was mainly equal, weight, height, and so on, both masters of their paricular discipline, it would be an interesting fight to witness. I would probably guess the internal martial artist would probably win. If he was trained properly (not the health fad tai chi) and there were no rules he probably would have the advantage. The MMA figter is way to used to fighting with rules. If someone was good enough they can exploit this. It doesn only take one or a few "foul" techniques to takes some one down and out. I think the internal martial artists could take advantage of this weakness and beat a MMA figher. In a MMA fight the internal figher would probably be soundly beaten by the MMA figther. But, the rules make the difference. MMA isn't the greatest, unbeatable fighting style in the world. It has those glaring weaknesses if someone is good enough to exploit them. As far as an internal stylist against other martial arts....With all the combat sports like MMA I would say they could win by exploited the weakensses of fouls. With the other arts that are no-rules I'm not sure. It may come down more to the practioner than the art. The internal/chi advantages I am not sure. I have nenver experienced someone that was an internal martial artists that had strong chi. So, I don't know how much of an advantage it truely is. You hear the stories but you wonder how much is truth and fiction. I think as a kung-fu stylist they have practical advantages over combat sports and several other martial arts. If someone is trained properly in kung-fu styles (not watered down) they have an advantage over most. They fight "dirty," fluid, quick, to the point, at close range. They are very good.

Answer 3

I would suggest that art is subject to the view of the beholder. To say one claims to be an artist is for the opinion of those who view the works of an individual, not the individual themselves. What is defined as 'art', a work through medium that provokes an emotional mental response for the viewer. Without the following response that work cannot be defined specifically by the individual as a piece of art, it is an insult to the intelligence, a carbuncle of the mind.

Answer 4

Entirely subjective. I mean, there are people who drool over Pollock, and people who think Pollock is crap and much prefer da Vinci. Some people think mathematically, and so they might enjoy one of those contemporary pieces that's all shapes and angles, because such things do have emotional appeal to them. But those who think differently can't connect to the same work on that level.

Although to some degree, you just can't call the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel "bad art," even if you dislike the style. I don't really get Monet, for instance, but I have to admit that he was good at painting in the impressionist style. I can appreciate art even if I don't particularly like it - the two are independent of each other.

Answer 5

There are some objective values, mostly around the skill with which art is produced. It's all very well to have a great idea, but if you don't have command over your materials, and have not learned techniques, your art will fall short of what your ideas wanted to be.

I have seen too much bad art from living in college towns most of my life, and in large cities most of the rest. To me, it is inspiration PLUS technique.

Answer 6

The contemporary Indian artist Prabhakar Kolte, when speaking on the topic of art appreciation, classified five categories of viewers – the connoisseur, the artist, the critic, the student and the teacher/buyer. Each of these five categories is present in each of us. The connoisseur or the Rasika in Indian parlance is the one who truly enjoys the relationship between the work of art and him/herself, the critic estimates, evaluates and comments upon the value of the work, the student of course learns and the teacher teaches and instructs. The artist is the one who has chosen to dedicate his/her life to creating art.

`

Answer 7

Very concisely stated, and in the spirit of Daoist practice, if the work at issue aids one to connect powerfully to Source, then it is a brilliant piece of work. What it "looks like" is wholly irrelevant. As is what others may think of it. :))