Comments on: The Conundrum of Modern Art: Complexity versus Complicatedness

By: Matthew Dunlap

Matthew Dunlap — Fri, 02 Jul 2010 19:27:22 +0000

I cannot agree that Joyce, unlike other modernists/postmodernists perhaps, had the “destruction of the novel” as his aim. The complexity of the language in “Finnegans Wake” arises, I believe, from the desire to write a story including, well, everything (“Here Comes Everybody”). It would certainly be much easier to read if Joyce, a resident of such polyglot locales as Trieste, Paris, and Zurich, had confined his punning to English.

By: TR

TR — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 13:03:36 +0000

This reminds me not only of modern literature, but also much modern literary theory. Perhaps this explains some of Derrida’s appeal – beguiling the reader into thinking his work is insightful when it is really rambling, penetrating when it is really obfuscating, and wise when it is really foolish.

By: Christian

Christian — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:17:00 +0000

“Should art require an education for appreciation? Or does the best kind of art stand on its own?”

At least some of what I regard as the best kind of art does require education. Offhand I’ll offer The Arnolfini Wedding and the Annunciation, both by Jan van Eyck, as examples.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 23:35:16 +0000

Christopher: “Should art require an education for appreciation? Or does the best kind of art stand on its own?”

It’s an interesting question. The more I’ve learned about Abstract Expressionism, or Impressionism, etc., the more–in general, that is–I’ve appreciated it. But it’s limited. As I learned about Dadaism, or Futurism, I could appreciate their place in art history, but I found much–no, most–of the artwork ridiculous. Duchamp’s “Fountain”? Arp’s paper pieces randomly dropped onto another paper? They’re a complete joke.

So yes, I’d say that in most cases, the best kind of art can stand on its own, accessible to the connoisseur and the regular Joe. There is a surface appeal, but one can find depth–real, legitimate depth–if one looks for it. One can look at a piece of art, but perhaps, one can see into it as well (if that makes any sense).

By: Christopher Benson

Christopher Benson — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:03:36 +0000

STEVE: Thanks for offering a comment which reinforces Terry Teachout’s point: “hypercomplex modern visual art is accessible in a way that hypercomplex literature and music are not.” Notice, you appreciated Pollock’s paintings after learning more about his techniques and conceptions. Should art require an education for appreciation? Or does the best kind of art stand on its own?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:07:44 +0000

After learning about how Pollock produced his artwork–dripping paint onto canvases with sticks, stones, brushes, etc.–it’s hard to see it as in any way complicated. Beautiful? Yes. Complex and intricate in its design? Sure. Great modern art? Yeah. But intellectually deep and complicated? No. Not for me, at least. Still, I do appreciate looking at it.

As for Joyce, I always thought that part of his complexity–especially in Finnegan’s Wake–had to do with his attempted destruction of the novel, even of language itself. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I always saw that work as attempting to do to the written story what the Dadaists attempted to do to art: destroy it.

And as for the modern music I hear at the philharmonic…much of it just sounds like a bunch of noise, as if someone decided to throw the instruments down the stairs, and then play the noise back to the audience.