This reading started off on a great note; by using an
analogy that I don’t much relate to but wish I could(with the cars). It was
hard for me to focus on the passage past all of the car analogies. The passage
roamed into a more art-related discussion for awhile, and then as soon as it
said it was going back to the “lingua franca of cars” I immediately zoned out
again. It was a flowery and well-written article despite these grievances
however, and though the numerous analogies to cars were not all explained, I
guess they did a good job of relating someone-who-was-not-schooled-in-art (from
the beginning of their relations to art) to the art world.
I think this reading has a good view of wonder in discovery,
and frustration in lack of expansion and futility which are struggles all
artists have at some point. It’s very interesting that as he edges more toward
the end, he comes into an idea that seems almost totally separate from the rest
of the passage, at least to me, in saying that the art market was born entirely
of a mixture of Christianity and capitalism. This I can at least partly agree
with, in that the art market could be born of capitalism mainly, but then that
it could also be a product of religion (not just Christianity) in that we as
humans historically seek icons or things to use as a placeholder or diety for
things we need to deal with or don’t entirely understand. Such as the power of
the sun, or the terror of war (as is mentioned in this reading).
You know, looking back and making connections within this
make the last bitter paragraph less angry and disconnected and more malcontent,
and tragic. This man spends an entire what, 10 pages talking about how the art
market is a lovely thing of discovery and how much he loves cars and the art in
them, and then spends his last moments of our time saying it was all a wash,
for nothing, caput.
No comments:
Post a Comment