Most contemporary artists works need to be appreciated as a whole, not as isolated pieces. The author here looks at trees but misses the forest.
Most people look at art as if they are portfolio pieces in dribbble.com. (Hmm, I like this icon, Hmm, I don't like that color). But art does not merely reproduce the beauty of forms, instead, it gives language to the "soul" so that it may speak.
> 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.
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.
(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.
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.
That "Protip:" thing is really condescending and irritating.
I don't understand how ordinary language can't give language to the soul so that it may speak. Especially if what the soul wants to say is something like "I am hungry."
Apologies. It doesn't sound right indeed. What I meant is that it takes a certain mindset to appreciate art.
Not sure what you mean by "ordinary" language though. If you want to express hunger in a way that is not indifferent, how would you say it?
Emin's famous "unmade bed" is actually very ordinary. But when you see it in the exhibition (not a photo), it says something interesting (to me) about privacy and modern life, that even a long essay cannot express.
In contrast, a "retina" ipad icon may look extraordinary, but it doesn't tell me anything interesting.
To me, that's the difference between art and design. Just a thought.
Most people look at art as if they are portfolio pieces in dribbble.com. (Hmm, I like this icon, Hmm, I don't like that color). But art does not merely reproduce the beauty of forms, instead, it gives language to the "soul" so that it may speak.
Protip: Keep an open mind.