MetaFilter posts tagged with Criticism and art

The New Shock

chuckdarwin — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:27:18 -0800

Art critic Robert Hughes and The Mona Lisa Curse

Shakespeare and philosophy

painquale — Mon, 05 May 2008 18:38:38 -0800

Martha Nussbaum reviews three recent books on Shakespeare and philosophy. The essay offers an excellent analysis of love in Antony and Cleopatra and Othello, and an excellent discussion of the interaction between philosophy and literature. From the essay: "To make any contribution worth caring about, a philosopher's study of Shakespeare should do three things. First and most centrally, it should really do philosophy, and not just allude to familiar philosophical ideas and positions. It should pursue tough questions and come up with something interesting and subtle--rather than just connecting Shakespeare to this or that idea from Philosophy 101. A philosopher reading Shakespeare should wonder, and ponder, in a genuinely philosophical way. Second, it should illuminate the world of the plays, attending closely enough to language and to texture that the interpretation changes the way we see the work, rather than just uses the work as grist for some argumentative mill. And finally, such a study should offer some account of why philosophical thinking needs to turn to Shakespeare's plays, or to works like them. Why must the philosopher care about these plays? Do they supply to thought something that a straightforward piece of philosophical prose cannot supply, and if so, what?" There is some discussion of the piece here.

Where's Walter? Beating a Dead Meme

illovich — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:20:38 -0800

Where's Waldo? Reflections on Copies and Authenticity in a Digital Environment. Consider for a moment The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (JSTOR PDF here) by Douglas Davis. Alternatively, of course there is The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction (alternative link) by Robert Luxemberg. Not to be outdone, Charles Alexander Moffat recently added to the discussion with The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction. I hope all of the authors mentioned were able to make it to the ATA's fundraiser last year called The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction. Some people are willing to admit that it's not just all about the Benjamin ^.

the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon; the moon is beautiful

saulgoodman — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 10:26:36 -0800

What Good Are the Arts? asks John Carey’s recent book of the same name. The New Criterion think Carey’s thesis is informed by cynical political motives rather than earnest convictions, and accuses Carey of dabbling in the risky art of aesthetic relativism: Obviously, art is ultimately about “the search for truth” (a lesson we’d do well to remember before society falls apart). But as Carey and others point out to the contrary, the Third Reich was all about art—and yet, art under the Third Reich had precious little to do with “searching for truth.” So just what good are the arts? Here’s what a few others have to say on the subject.

Free MoMA!

Joe Hutch — Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:21:06 -0800

MoMA Free Tomorrow for New York MeFi Readers! Well, everyone, actually. The Museum of Modern Art in New York reopens tomorrow and graciously offers a day of free entrance for all. Your chance to avoid the much-criticized $20 admission (views: con, pro-fessional, mayoral). Even good old free-admission Fridays bear the price tag of aggressive name-branding [paragraph 6] by an image-crazy donor (it's not charity anymore if it's advertising, folks, much less design-heady classiness-by-association). Some reports (scroll) from the press preview.

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 05 Dec 2001 20:51:40 -0800

Real Cinephiles Prefer Reading "Cahiers du Cinema" to Going to the Movies: I stopped reading Cahiers du Cinema - the famously dogmatic French film journal where Godard, Truffaut, Resnais and Rohmer cut their teeth - a few years ago, when it got too arty-farty for its own good. Well, it's slowly becoming essential again. Their website is trés chic, intelectually challenging and a welcome antidote to the usual online movie-reviewing clowns. Or is it still a load of pretentious rubbish? (In French, but with a lovely intro, lots of cool stills and a Quicktime interview, in English, with underrated director Paul Verhoeven)