#dragon miad | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

aevansblog-blog · 6 years

Text

The Invisible Dragon [Journal Response]

1. “Beauty is the agency that causes visual pleasure in the beholder”, says Hickey, “and any theory of images that is not grounded in pleasure of the beholder begs the question of their efficacy and dooms itself to inconsequence.” Why does Hickey think this is so?

Because, “If images don't do anything in this culture, if they haven't done anything, then why are we sitting here in the twilight of the twentieth century talking about them? If they only do things after we have talked about them, then they aren't doing things, we are . Therefore, if our criticism aspires to anything beyond soft science, the efficacy of images must be the cause of criticism and not its consequence , the subject of criticism and not its object”(2). Simplified, Hickey believes the inherent efficacy of beauty established within works gives us viewers enough cues/ signals to explore deeper and navigate through its context.

2. Do you agree with Hickey’s statement that pleasure is necessary for successful artwork? Why or why not?

Yes and No. This is due to Hickey’s examples of definitions of successful as given throughout the reading. Success can be claimed by being a hot commodity or selling well within the market, proving a public point/ raising awareness or proving a private point/ raising awareness to a private statement. Pleasure should not be confused with beauty however and thus somewhat denotes the market perspective.

3. According to Hickey, what did the people he ‘informally surveyed’ think was ‘wrong’ with beauty?

While I didn’t read any spelt out answer, I can assume it may be due to the lack of reasoning to include beauty. Between their power as an institution and their political correctness (for lack of better wording) they may not include beauty. As stated, “One must suspect that we are denied the direct appeal of beauty for much the same reason that Caravaggio's supplicants were denied direct appeal to the Virgin: to sustain the jobs of bureaucrats”(12). To include beauty in images strongly engrained with their services is to give in and allow viewers into the wrong government, per say.

4. How does Hickey answer their criticisms?

Basically… Hickey believes their claims to be rough around the edges and partially expected. I personally, love his reference, “It came out strenuously in defense of the status quo and all the perks, privileges , and public money it had acquired over the last thirty years, and did so under the tattered banner of "free expression"-a catchphrase that I presumed to have been largely discredited by the feminist critique of images”(14). I concur that the banner of free expression is tattered and I ask myself why this just be or even how we have arrived to this? I am not sure, but the whole thing of everyone being offended at everything is partially true and slightly confusing.

5. What does Hickey like about the commercial market for art?

I believe Hickey appreciates the commercial art market for it’s ability to deteriorate the priestly and governmental bureaucracies that previously governed the meaning of work. Additionally, due to the nature of the market, all eyes can be found pressed against their doings making them held responsible where as private institutions have much more flexibility and can even set their own rules. In my eyes, Hickey hints at the fact that all viewers are wanting the same thing and we see this on page 4/5 where, “Art dealers, I found, “only care about how it looks,” while the art professionals employed by our new institutions “really care about what it means.” Easy enough to say. Yet even if this were true (and I think it is), I can’t imagine any but the most demented naïf giddily abandoning an autocrat who monitors appearances for a bureaucrat who monitors your soul(4/5). I believe they are alluding to a conversation of intentions– not critical decisions and examination.

6. Do you agree with Hickey that beauty in art is a good thing?

Yes, however I say this hesitantly– and this may be the ‘business’ and ‘correct’ side of me that would say otherwise. Art should not be limited and restraining the efficacy of beauty is not proper however over indulgence is real I suppose. On a very simple scale, we see this today via social media– especially Instagram. The beauty is so public and can overtake individuals.

SOURCES:

Excerpt from Dave Hickey, "Enter the Dragon: On the Vernacular of Beauty", The Invisible Dragon: Essays on Beauty (University of Chicago Press, 1993), 1-18.

#The Invisible Dragon #Journal Response #MIAD #Art History

2 notes · View notes