O, Sweet Saint Of San Andreas

Also see Roger Scruton's remarkable essay: Why Beauty Matters

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlzUP_M83W4

In a nutshell: grace and beauty vs self-indulgent crassness.

Pink woman model still alive unless someone ran over it mistaking her for a stump.

Pink woman model still alive unless someone ran over it mistaking her for a stump.

Looking at the two sculptures it becomes quite obvious that the one artist spent more time at Walmart than the other.

Compare Georgia O'keefe's work to some of the crap people pass off as "fine art". Been watching Neil Cavutto lately on Fox News and he's looking at pictures from Stanten Island and Long Island then juxtaposing those with the stupid fools taking part in the "million muppet march" in Washington DC. His quote was "there's Rome isn't it? Burning. President Obama in Las Vegas."

This observation could have been made as easily in New York or London.

The vulgarization of art is not a California exclusive, though Hollywood has certainly done much of the heavy lifting.

Art, he lives 3 doors down!!!!

Gotta give the curator credit though, he/she/it kept California Lady around and not stuffed in a warehouse somewhere in Sonoma County.

Faux art is not restricted to Cali either. For the life on me have never been able to call a painting of a soup can "art".

I'm FOR ending the self imposed dark ages, this is retarded.

This was posted at PJTV very recently and it deals with the subject rather well.

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=7622&mpid=86

Love her or hate her she almost always has something interesting to say.

Like a bird on the wire,
Like a drunk in a midnight choir
I have tried in my way to be free. (Cohen)

In my modest way, I try to create art. My subjects are banal: trees, kittens, children, grandfathers. I have been criticized for this and frequently see my work relegated to the various Salon des Refusés while anti-depressant pills pasted to a board arranged to make a happy face was considered clever and "arty". So much stuff out there is just gimmicks. I have attended classes where I was instructed on how to properly appreciate "art". They were supposed to refine my perceptions and improve my judgement. It still didn't make Voice of Fire (Stripes) worth 1.8 million to me.

I don't believe art has to be pretty. I can see some merit in Pink Lady--or at least the idea of Pink Lady though I don't much care for it. The classic California Venus is lovely but somewhat generic. Neither one appeals to me much. I would refer both artists to this: http://www.godardgallery.com/Fafard_Renoir.htm

ct
You stole my comment. Walmart is full of pink ladies. Amazingly, many pushing strollers... (Shiverrrr)

California Venus'. Not so many.

Just my opinion, but I don't find "California Venus" beautiful at all. Its only merit is pointless craftsmanship, a rendering of objective reality that may have served a real function several hundred years ago but has since been rendered irrelevant by photography and such. "Pink Lady", on the other hand, while not beautiful in a conventional sense, better depicts modern California: fat, puffy, and probably diseased. It therefore has meaning beyond its ostensible subject.

I think people, even the estimable Zombie, are over-analyzing this. "California Venus" is a pretty statue, and would be useful for displaying in places where pretty statues are customarily displayed. "California Lady" is simply a 3-dimensional cartoon of the type often seen in the "humourous birthday" section of the greeting card rack.

Their purpose is different.

TrueNorthist at November 4, 2012 10:13 AM

Paglia is brilliant thinker, has clear view where the art and world should be heading.
Would say that she is in the same category of thinking as the renaissance of of the 14th–17th centuries.
It is very refreshing to hear the passion for meaningful art as opposed to the definite ugliness, inartistic of the “pink lady”.
The pink lady was created because of shallow inability, intelectual void of the ”artist” to create art of beauty

Paglia is a classic liberal.
A liberal that has no relation to the Liberals, Democrats, socialists and the rest of the demagogues.

You don't need to go to California. I was shocked at the desecration of the Group of Seven collection at the McMichael Gallery in Kleinberg on a recent visit. Would you rather see art by Tom Thompson or mannequins by "Chief Gay Eagle Testicle?"
I consider my day and my gasoline wasted. Children should not be exposed to this crap by their teachers.

To qualify my previous post, I doubt that the maker of "Pink Lady" was thinking explicitly about California at all. I do, however, think her work evokes more associations than "California Venus" does. Appraisal of the latter probably goes no further than "My, it must be hard to make those toes look so real!"

California is mired in the sewer but once led the world in pride, freedom and innovation. Visualize this short video and see if you can see it coming out of todays California. I could'nt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=L7N6slVrQeY&vq=medium

I've had this thought frequently, most recently a week ago as I was watching an episode of a travel show as it toured some of the churches and statues of Rome and particular the Vatican Museum.

If as some have suggested that Pink Lady has some meaning its that mediocrity is now the best that we can hope to achieve. It appears that western civilization has severely lowered its standards for many things at a time in human history when we should be capable of rising them.

You can lead a horse to art, but. . .

robw:

In my opinion, the more quickly you can pin down the "meaning" of an artwork, the shallower it probably is. I'm not sure what Pink Lady "means", but it does cause me to think about all sorts of things, from kitsch art (notice how the piece is finished in glaze) to transvestites (notice how masculine the face and hair-style are). "California Venus", on the other hand, would remind me of nothing were it not for the title that its maker helpfully provided.

Do you have similar reactions?

“Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art.”

Tom Stoppard"

I thought this first comment from the link bore repeating.

Here in the Land of the Free, we have at least one warehouse in Ottawa full of the renderings of "artists" whose work was supported by the Canadian Taxpayer,via the Canada Council on the Arts and their grants to the talented.

The whole "movement" seems to be a rejection of the status quo,whatever that happens to be at the time. The only problem is that crap art has become the status quo,and we don't seem to have much of a rejection of that state by today's artists. Maybe they've discovered that mediocrity is a lot easier.

"Appreciation of art" and other scams was covered in the tale,"The Emperor's New Clothes" a long time ago.

How like an "artistic type" to evoke rather than argue his claim. "Grotestquerie" has long been a part of the arts -- Rabelais is as much an artist as Raphael. A bit of mediaeval grotesquerie

But he is right that it has become more prominent & this book analyses why. [click "first pages"]
Art reflects the culture of which it is a part. For example, Phillip Aries "Centuries of Childhood" traced in art the changing attitudes to childhood in religious art.
From the above link --
"cultural vehicles for the grotesque included such disparate developments as psychoanalysis, photography, mass media, science fiction, ethnography, weapons of mass destruction, globalization, and virtual reality."
&
"Huysmans contended that the microscope revealed an entirely new field of monstrosities equal to any of those animating medieval art."

Since he hates the trend & makes it illustrative of our culture, I suppose it's no surprise that he writes under the name "ZOMBIE"

Texas Canuck: "Faux art is not restricted to Cali either."

I know what I like!: "I was shocked at the desecration of the Group of Seven collection at the McMichael Gallery in Kleinberg on a recent visit."

Check out the AGO in the past six months. They've jumped on the GAY (Good As You) bandwagon big-time. There's an exhibit on now, by Evan Penny, called Re Figured which I saw a couple of weeks ago with my husband and daughter. On our way out, I was just about to ask my husband, "was there some kind of gay sensibility there?" when he turned to me and said, "gay city." Uh huh.

Then, there's the Frida and Diego show; it's well-known and well-documented that she was bisexual.

I know, I know. The art world's full of gays -- and, so what? But why is it always being shoved in our faces? This summer the AGO mounted a HUGE exhibit of gay art, 'can't remember what it was called, but I'm getting sick of it.

Maybe the gay community had better start calling themselves BTY -- Better Than You. That's sure the vibe I've been getting.

dmorris:

I'm not sure that Pink Lady lacks "skill". If you want a piece that looks totally real, this piece fails; but if you want an image of decay, suffering and frustration, I think it succeeds. I've heard that Picasso could draw with great fidelity to the original, if he chose. We could debate forever his wisdom in choosing not to, but that his career reflected a choice is reputedly beyond dispute.

RSP, I DO like Picasso! And Breugel,Bosch,Dali,my appreciation isn't limited to realists.

My complaint is with artists who believe they possess a rare insight into ...anything,and present us with works of "genius" they expect US to pay for. "Piss Christ"?

Could the person who created "Pink Lady" have drawn a simple picture of "the Pirate" as we used to see on the back of Dell comic books in the 'fifties?

I wonder.

RSP, I DO like Picasso! And Breugel,Bosch,Dali,my appreciation isn't limited to realists.

My complaint is with artists who believe they possess a rare insight into ...anything,and present us with works of "genius" they expect US to pay for. "Piss Christ"?

Could the person who created "Pink Lady" have drawn a simple picture of "the Pirate" as we used to see on the back of Dell comic books in the 'fifties?

I wonder.

The distinction is a simple one. California Venus is an attempt to represent a woman's beauty. Good attempt. Pink Lady is a mockery of women's beauty and of art that tries to capture it. Mockery is clearly an easier thing to do.

Classical art is based in beauty. Modern Art is based in hate. Keep that in mind when you look at it and you won't go far wrong.

Music is art too.
Modern musicians wouldn't be selling out stadiums and arenas if they played the way the Pink Lady artist sculpted, if indeed it was sculpted.
Looks more like shaped mashed potatoes with a coat of paint..

RSP said"Its only merit is pointless craftmanship".

Craftsmanship is never pointless - in any endeavour a person undertakes. Even if you are trying to make a stutue of an ugly person to make what ever statement you are making, you can do it with the best craftsmanship possible. Anything less is to sin against yourself.

I know art when I see it. California Venus is art, it has pretty tits though it would have been nice if we had a rear end shot so I could check out her ass. Pink Lady would do nicely as a lawn ornanment on Halloween.

Fabulous article. Right on the money. Hear hear!

dmorris:

I don't recall "the Pirate" from my comic-book-reading days, my taste at the time having been limited to Scrooge McDuck. (Is it any wonder that I'm now a social and fiscal conservative?) Anyway, I wouldn't be too quick to downplay the skill involved in comic book art. It takes considerable skill to convey attitude and personality while confining oneself to a bare minimum in the way of line and color.

In the case of Pink Lady, I think the subject matter, or "meaning" if you will, is far more elusive than the subject matter in your average comic book. As I stated in an earlier post (1:03PM), I think significant elements of the work include the masculine appearance of the face and hair-style (bringing to mind a transvestite), the raw red, puffy, grossly unattractive appearance of the body, and the glaze finish (which reminds me of the kitsch art that some "cat ladies" accumulate in lieu of children). What I've just written is admittedly speculative, but that illustrates the point I'm trying to make, namely, that the art I find most interesting stimulates associations and reactions that are hard to pin down. "California Venus" doesn't do that at all, at least not for me.

Phantom:

"California Lady" is indeed an attempt to represent a woman's beauty, but with all due respect, I don't think "Pink Lady" has anything to do with women per se. To avoid repetition, I'll just refer you to my comments of 1:03PM and 3:51PM, assuming of course that you're interested.

By the way, I often agree with you, but here's a case where we differ.

minuteman:

Craftsmanship can indeen be pointless. It all depends on the end to which it is applied. The aphorism "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing well" begins with an important qualification:

IF IT'S WORTH DOING!

"I know art when I see it. California Venus is art, it has pretty tits though it would have been nice if we had a rear end shot so I could check out her ass."
Now there's a sophisticated approach and shows that art isn't just about the "tits".

They needed to add a few more sculptures to complete the theme California Women, then and now - anorexic models, hideous plastic surgery, high powered businesswomen and aspiring starlets. It's the contrast that makes it interesting.

For those who have a chance, if you ever visit Houston Texas, drop in to the Museum of fine Arts, Houston (on Thursdays Shell Oil pays for your entrance) and take in the art there. On regular display they have a lot of works by the masters and to see a Rembrandt, Monet or Degas in person is truly inspiring. Some of the works by the Dutch masters are bigger than my living room wall. it is well worth the visit.

RSP - if it isn't worth doing, why waste your time doing it?

RSP, I am of course being deliberately provocative. However there is an argument in support of that statement which I make here:
http://phantomsoapbox.blogspot.ca/2012/10/disagreeing-with-camile-paglia.html

I'm also riffing off a comment at the original article site:
http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/10/31/the-decline-and-fall-of-western-culture-in-one-photo/#comment-287764

"By crafting an out of proportioned, ugly swimsuit statue, the artist is mocking the idealism of beauty. Pink Lady is a parody of the commonly found beauties used in photos, advertisements, movies, television and in art. While we may covet the natural beauty of the older statue, and admire the craft of the sculptor, both California Beauty and Pink Lady is intended to open the eyes of the status quo at the time of their creation."

One is beauty, one is mockery. The urge to create beauty comes from a different place than the urge to mock.

IMHO anyway.

"Mother and granddaughter" perhaps? The 1895 sculpture is nice but already shows the decadence and rot which pervades the 1965 work. The article says, "the assumption that art was an attempt to capture or create beauty" is unhistorical rubbish. For much of history, art has been intended to capture deity, or glorify deity. Throughout the Christian era (until the 20th century) serious art was mostly intended for the greater glory of God. Little really good art is beautiful in the sense in which the essayist intends. Have a look at Rembrandt's "Flayed Ox" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/Rembrandt_Harmensz._van_Rijn_053.jpg), or Goya's Capriccios or Disasters of War, or his Pinturas Negras (of which this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Francisco_de_Goya%2C_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo_%281819-1823%29.jpg
is a fine example).

You certainly are never going to understand art before the quattrocento if you go looking for the effete modern concept of beauty!

But I don't wish to dignify the Viola Frey piece by putting it in such august company. It is c**p, as you so justly note.

My oversight: most of the Goya is shown in a thumbnail on the current home page of SDA.

Canuckguy@3:39 wrote:

I know art when I see it. California Venus is art, it has pretty tits though it would have been nice if we had a rear end shot so I could check out her ass. ...

The Brazilians evidently know art when they see it too.

minuteman:

Precisely. So if you are thinking of producing an artifact, the first question to ask is, "Is it worth ANY of my time to proceed?" Different people will have different answers to that question. The creator of "California Venus" had one answer. I, a hundred or so years later, think he was mistaken.

Phantom:

"By crafting an out of proportioned, ugly swimsuit statue, the artist is mocking the idealism of beauty".

I could be mistaken, but I doubt that mockery of any kind, particularly mockery of something as abstract as an aesthetic philosophy, was on Frey's mind. The piece is just too sad. If you want to mock something, like Hollywood pinups, you don't stray too far from the thing you're mocking. Otherwise, you risk obscuring the relationship to your intended target. Instead, you stay close to the thing you're parodying and distort it just enough to highlight its absurdity. The resulting mood is generally light. I doubt that "Pink Lady" would remind anyone of a Hollywood pinup, and most reactions to it probably range from revulsion to pity.

Favored, the most significant of the 20th century, bordering, if not genius was Dali, hands down.
Great intellect, composition, subjects, execution and you can easy add self promotion.
To make sure that the audience did not think that he only paints soft clocks and surreal stuff, he would often add realistic rose or drop of water.
Genius.

The “sculptor” of the “pink lady” does not in any stretch of want, come off the sidewalk mud.

Many think that Dali sold out to make part of his art commercially acceptable. Well, at least he did not go to the government to beg for subsidy. He made his art and made a lot of money.

Those that think that the “pink lady” is something are of course entitled to it, however to call it art is much like pink flamingo on the front lawn calling the same. Even the grotesque of it is shallow as a dog puddle.

Just my considered opinion.

You’re welcome.

What is art? A few years ago the family went to an art exhibition. We came to a nearly vacant room but in the middle of the room was a scrub bucket and mop with some other things. Of course being the only thing in the room, our small children were on it like you know what. Thankfully there was a staff member in the room to protect their "work of art". Apparently our kids hadn't been the first philistines in the room that day who were unaware of what artistic talent can produce.

"Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments" -- Ayn Rand

She also explained the decline of western culture/civilization. It started with Immanuel Kant divorcing reason from reality in the latter part of the 18th century. Philosophy rules all, for better or for worse.

Every civilization that has died first showed its body had gone necrotic from the decline of its Art & music. Than architecture. Public morals where symptoms of a deeper malaise.