Man sometimes I think that your dad was a documentary or something.
Really though I'd say its a battle between socially specific and non specificart, the ancient Greeks being more the later has a universality to it that holds up today, you could argue I spose her work is the meeting point of the two(her being non specific as a focus for the specific reactions of others).
Just for the record -- I am illiterate when it comes to art. But just some thoughts on what you're saying.
Really though I'd say its a battle between socially specific and non specificart, the ancient Greeks being more the later has a universality to it that holds up today,
Firstly, when we're saying art, I assume that you're refeering to stuff like statues and monuments and such? Hence my "human bodies are the only form of art comment".
I'm hesitant to ascribe a "non-specificant" staple to such art. These statues were often raised to commemorate famous people, gods, mythological figures and such. They were raised to honour the "establishment" of the culture -- whom or what was important, venerable and worthy of remembering. In that way, they do have a socially specific function, in communicating what your culture deems to be exalted or venerable.
I think it's more a question of that with the flow of time -- these original social function's have become dilapidated and forgotten. Instead we have a sort of classical formualism that has replaced it, giving us more the apperence that this art speaks about certain universal virtues or ideals, forgetting the cultural references they were originally anchored in.
Really though I'd say its a battle between socially specific and non specificart, the ancient Greeks being more the later has a universality to it that holds up today,
Though, now that I think of it, I guess that you may be thinking of social art as "a statement meant to challenge or reflect on the social status que", instead of just being "art meant to aesthetic celebrate or elate saomething", which is more in line of how I was approaching it. In that case I would be much more inclined to agree, of course. It's always a bit queer to encounter something like The Trojan Women which is so directly critical of norms of its day.
you could argue I spose her work is the meeting point of the two(her being non specific as a focus for the specific reactions of others).
Eh, that seems to be a bit to divorced from the social reality for my liking. "I am a beutiful woman. I'm going to stand here and allow you to do anything to me for 6 hours" carries a bit too many social connotations for my liking to be considered non-social.
But considering my background in History I guess that I am just hardwired to see societal connutations towards everything. I can't even see human bodies as being non-social.
Don't really know how to articulate myself. But the entire idea of a hybrid seems queer to me. Besides, if you accept someone reactions towards a non-social artwork as being a social piece of art. Then wouldn't any reaction become so?
Personally as a landscape photographer
dealing in rawer feeling and atmosphere rather than any specific social;/political statement that's more in the eye of the beholder.
Man all this sentence makes me wonder about is how much our feelings and sense of aesthetics and atmosphere are sociocultural constructions. The older I get the more I feel drawn towards art that gives me sensual impressions -- but those sort of speculations and thoughts are always at the back of my brain, trying to analyse why I'm aesthetically disposed towards something
I better bail before I spend hours thinking about this discussion...
