中級 英國腔 5256 分類 收藏
開始影片後,點擊或框選字幕可以立即查詢單字
字庫載入中…
回報字幕錯誤
"The Mona Lisa"... "The Pieta"... "The Girl with a Pearl Earring."
For a score of centuries, artists enriched Western society with their works of astonishing beauty.
"The Night Watch"...
"The Thinker"...
"The Rocky Mountains."
Master after master, from Leonardo, to Rembrandt, to Bierstadt, produced works that inspired, uplifted, and deepened us.
And they did this by demanding of themselves the highest standards of excellence,
improving upon the work of each previous generation of masters, and continuing to aspire to the highest quality attainable.
But something happened on the way to the 20th Century.
The profound, the inspiring and the beautiful were replaced by the new, the different, and the ugly.
Today the silly, the pointless, and the purely offensive are held up as the best of modern art.
Michelangelo carved his "David" out of a rock.
The Los Angeles County Museum of Art just offers us a rock, -- a rock -- all 340 tons of it.
That's how far standards have fallen.
How did this happen?
How did the thousand-year ascent towards artistic perfection and excellence die out?
It didn't. It was pushed out.
Beginning in the late 19th century, a group dubbed "The Impressionists"
rebelled against the French Academie des Beaux Arts and its demand for classical standards.
Whatever their intentions, the new modernists sowed the seeds of aesthetic relativism --
the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" mentality.
Today everybody loves the Impressionists.
And, as with most revolutions, the first generation or so produced work of genuine merit.
Monet, Renoir, and Degas still maintained elements of disciplined design and execution,
but with each new generation, standards declined until there were no standards.
All that was left was personal expression.
The great art historian Jakob Rosenberg wrote that
quality in art "is not merely a matter of personal opinion but to a high degree . . . objectively traceable."
But the idea of a universal standard of quality in art is now usually met with strong resistance if not open ridicule.
"How can art be objectively measured?" I'm challenged.
In responding, I simply point to the artistic results produced by universal standards compared to what is produced by relativism.
The former gave the world "The Birth of Venus" and "The Dying Gaul,"
while the latter has given us "The Holy Virgin Mary," fashioned with cow dung and pornographic images,
and "Petra," the prize-winning sculpture of a policewoman squatting and urinating -- complete with a puddle of synthetic urine.
Without aesthetic standards, we have no way to determine quality or inferiority.
Here's a test I give my graduate students, all talented and well educated.
Please analyze this Jackson Pollock painting and explain why it is good.
It is only after they give very eloquent answers
that I inform them that the painting is actually a close up of my studio apron.
I don't blame them; I would probably have done the same since it's nearly impossible to differentiate between the two.
"And who will determine quality?" is another challenge I'm given.
If we are to be intellectually honest, we all know of situations where professional expertise is acknowledged and depended upon.
Take figure skating in the Olympics, where artistic excellence is judged by experts in the field.
Surely we would flinch at the contestant who indiscriminately threw himself across the ice
and demanded that his routine be accepted as being as worthy of value as that of the most disciplined skater.
Not only has the quality of art diminished, but also the subject matter has gone from the transcendent to the trashy.
Where once artists applied their talents to scenes of substance and integrity from history, literature, religion, mythology, etc.,
many of today's artists merely use their art to make statements, often for nothing more than shock value.
Artists of the past also made statements at times,
but never at the expense of the visual excellence of their work.
It's not only artists who are at fault; it is equally the fault of the so-called art community:
the museum heads, gallery owners, and the critics who encourage and financially enable the production of this rubbish.
It is they who champion graffiti and call it genius, promote the scatological and call it meaningful.
It is they who, in reality, are the naked emperors of art,
for who else would spend $10 million dollars on a rock and think it is art.
But why do we have to be victims of all this bad taste? We don't.
By the art we patronize at museums or purchase at galleries, we can make our opinions not only known but felt.
An art gallery, after all, is a business like any other.
If the product doesn't sell, it won't be made.
We can also support organizations like The Art Renewal Center that work to restore objective standards to the art world.
And we can advocate the teaching of classical art appreciation in our schools.
Let's celebrate what we know is good and ignore what we know is not.
By the way, the white background you see behind me is not simply a white graphic backdrop.
It is a pure white painting by noted artist Robert Rauschenberg at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.
I'm Robert Florczak for Prager University.
提示:點選文章或是影片下面的字幕單字,可以直接快速翻譯喔!

載入中…

為何當代藝術如此糟糕? (Why is Modern Art so Bad?)

5256 分類 收藏
Jacky Avocado Tao 發佈於 2015 年 8 月 3 日    Jacky Avocado Tao 翻譯    Amber 審核
看更多推薦影片
  1. 1. 單字查詢

    在字幕上選取單字即可即時查詢單字喔!

  2. 2. 單句重複播放

    可重複聽取一句單句,加強聽力!

  3. 3. 使用快速鍵

    使用影片快速鍵,讓學習更有效率!

  4. 4. 關閉語言字幕

    進階版練習可關閉字幕純聽英文哦!

  5. 5. 內嵌播放器

    可以將英文字幕學習播放器內嵌到部落格等地方喔

  6. 6. 展開播放器

    可隱藏右方全文及字典欄位,觀看影片更舒適!

  1. 英文聽力測驗

    挑戰字幕英文聽力測驗!

  1. 點擊展開筆記本讓你看的更舒服

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔