05-12-2016, 11:49 PM
If Andy Warhol had not yet offered his Brillo box and Campbell's soup can, then I could offer an image of an automobile battery or a container of motor oil as a parody of art, with the artist as the object of celebration instead of beauty and meaning which the 'art' does not offer. Obviously I would not offer Warhol's depictions of commercial banality as art. I see a joke; millions do not.
Watson says that Matisse is trash, and I say otherwise. Maybe you concur with Watson; maybe you don't.
![[Image: the-joy-of-life-1906.jpg!Large.jpg]](http://uploads5.wikiart.org/images/henri-matisse/the-joy-of-life-1906.jpg!Large.jpg)
I see ecstasy in female forms. Daring? Sure -- for 1905. Maybe it isn't so modern anymore.
Of course some of the examples that Watson suggests are literal $*!+. Just as we have the need to judge musical compositions or plays and their performances, we need the capacity to judge art.
Watson says that Matisse is trash, and I say otherwise. Maybe you concur with Watson; maybe you don't.
I see ecstasy in female forms. Daring? Sure -- for 1905. Maybe it isn't so modern anymore.
Of course some of the examples that Watson suggests are literal $*!+. Just as we have the need to judge musical compositions or plays and their performances, we need the capacity to judge art.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.
