I do understand what you are implying in you're posting, and to some extent agree with you're basic pretext. It would be so easy to compartimentalize art into simply Low & High categories, unfortunatly I have too often encountered too many exceptions to this general rule. For instance, are you absolutely sure that "high" art was never driven by a need to advertise the artist's ego? Some art historians recount Michaelangelo as a narcissistic megalomaniac driven by a desire to simply outperform any other sculptor of his time. His Statue of "David" was sculpted out of a 9 foot piece of marble, which was deemed impossible to successfully carve by all other sculptors of his time. Wasn't vanity at play here just a tad?
Picasso also chose to paint "Guernica" specifically for the purpose of shock value and to subtley gain attention to the social anxiety he perceived for the upcoming Spanish Civil War.
Most of my autobiographical reading on Salvador Dali suggests to me that he executed 99% of his work in an attempt to either:
1) mock the 20th century fashion elites
2) pay hommage to the love of his life (Gala) Dali whom he
worshipped
3) by his own admition, show the world that he was the one
true genius, capable of seeing through the veil of reality.
I can go on and on here, but I think you understand my dilemma.
What is art? by who's world view is it decided? Is it not the viewer who makes the final decision? Irrespective of the Artist's motives, I doubt we will never have a black & white categorization fo something so elusive!
Marc
|
|
