3 Reaktionen zu “pruefungen”

1. admin
   Am 15. Juni 2025 um 14:52 Uhr

   Brandner Kaspar · Das ewige Leben
   Günther Maria Halmer + Franz Xaver Kroetz

   https://www.br.de/br-fernsehen/sendungen/capriccio/kulturmagazin-capriccio-1602.html

2. admin
   Am 3. August 2025 um 09:33 Uhr

   https://tripleampersand.org/cornering-the-critics/

   the only possible way out I see is relearning a historically grounded sense of judgment, developing an understanding and appreciation of art as a firsthand experience in the present.

   Dezember 2024
   Sean Tatol

   __________________

   The internet-art era wasn’t very good and the woke-art era is worse; both fundamentally misunderstand art by rejecting it as a discipline that has to be learned. The former favored ahistorical individualism under the guise of a tech-mediated proliferation of inexhaustibly subjective experience, the latter an ahistorical individualism under the guise of an empowered identity, i.e. „my art is valid because I am a _______.“ These are simplistic stereotypes of both eras, and neither precludes the possibility of a talented artist arising from either context, but they also broadly encouraged the simpleminded sense of artistic entitlement that’s endemic to a post-critical art world. That presumption of meaning is the underlying problem that Dean [Kissick]’s critique can’t account for, because he’s at most a „culture critic,“ not an art critic, so he doesn’t know how to process art except as the excitement of new pop-cultural phenomena. He’s still looking for the next trend, even though those waves of pop kitsch as art crested a decade ago.

   ——–

   We’re in a bleak, dour age, and it needs to be critiqued. The substance of that critique needs a relationship to the past, not as a form of nostalgia but as a basis for comprehension and a sense of value. All I’m really advocating for is more sensitivity to art without being clouded by self-centeredness, or a desire for attention, or political prescriptiveness, or anything else. The real problem of the art world is that no one gives a shit about art. The system caters to collectors, and collectors overwhelmingly want to indiscriminately make money or just spend it. In the face of this, those old dirty words like taste and connoisseurship become the only frame in which the value of art can start to make any sense. Of course that’s elitist and all that, but the faux democratization of art only led to a relativity that exorcises art’s content and degrades it further into meaningless acquisitiveness. I’m not idealizing the old aristocratic patronage model, I’m only suggesting that it’s a better state of affairs for people spending money on art to appreciate it. Insofar that art has cultural value it needs to be nurtured and cultivated to be sustained, and that opens the door to taste and elitism, but so be it. It would probably help if there was more intellectual competitiveness in the art world to counterbalance all the careerism. Discriminating taste is a participation in that process of consensus, a grappling with the phenomena of perception to find something of value within it. That is what we need criticism for.

3. admin
   Am 4. August 2025 um 11:35 Uhr

   more

   https://www.family.style/art/immersive-exhibitions-anne-imhof-jordan-wolfson-luna-luna

   https://tripleampersand.org/after-the-end-of-the-world/

Einen Kommentar schreiben

Name (erforderlich)

eMail (erforderlich) (wird nicht veröffentlicht)

Webseite

Δ