1. Ed_C

    Not sure if this is a compliment or a criticism–but StudioMatters tends to draw moral philosophy into talk about art. Why is that?

  2. Studio Matters

    Why? In this case, because the artist’s own stated intention prompts response from our moral imagination. If man is, indeed, “destined for trash,” then concepts of human dignity are chimeras waiting to be dispelled.

  3. Christopher S. Johnson

    Maureen, I’m not so sure that Ozzy hasn’t made your point for you. What is left of the king’s temporal powers and his megalomania after all, but a ruin in the sand by an unknown sculptor who “well those passions read”? Surely, it is the artist’s work “which yet survive.” Futility marks the destiny of our political arrangements, our vanities of power and prestige, while the artist holding true to his art has achieved a kind of immortality amidst the wreckage; just as that unknown artist of the sonnet is a stand-in for a poet that dared hope his words would find a purchase upon the future.

    When artists commit themselves to a posture of transience and obsolescence, to decay instead of permanence, they confess both a smallness of ambition and an inability to imagine a future worth possessing. Whether this is a product of a profound cultural despair, or just the latest decadent affectation is perhaps a subject for another day.

  4. A.Hsu

    I vote for despair. But it’s nice to think maybe, just maybe, it’s an affectation. That would make it a refusal “to imagine a future worth possessing.”

  5. Valentine

    Hip-Hip-Hooray to you for the artical: Grashow vs. Ozymandias.

    I’m reminded of this quote: “I want to make of impressionism something solid and durable like the art of the museums” Paul Cezanne

Comments are closed.