Comments on “Subcultures: meanings at play”

Comments

Great art?

Sasha's picture

“subcultures reveled in absurdity. This made for great art…”

What do you consider some of this great art?
Absurdity, like irony, can give an edge to art, but it alone without anything deeper seems like it can only lead to vacuous art, joke art, shock art…from Duchamp’s toilet to Warhol’s junk.

There is great art being made, but doesn’t all of it involve something more profound?

Great art and trash

DonJibber's picture

I lay the blame more on art historians than the caperfull Frenchman, for focusing so much effort on reading into the museum urinal when the Larger pieces on other floors are provocative in a way that compells a meaningful response from the imagination. Calvin Tomkins’ biography is illuminating and a fun read, if you like painting. Warhol’s great legacy was his Factory more than its productions; the plastic lightshows seem dated and horrid, but look at the people who came from his nothing-world, from Nico to the Ramones. Danny Fields , famous as the “punk publicist” made a distinction that holds up– the American Warhol crowd weren’t the “No Future” band of visionaries.

Add new comment

Navigation

This page is in the section Subcultures: the diversity of meaning,
      which is in How meaning fell apart,
      which is in Meaningness and Time: past, present, future.

The next page in this section is ⚒ Archipelago: subcultural politics.

This page’s topic is Subcultures.

General explanation: Meaningness is a hypertext book (in progress), plus a “metablog” that comments on it. The book begins with an appetizer. Alternatively, you might like to look at its table of contents, or some other starting points. Classification of pages by topics supplements the book and metablog structures. Terms with dotted underlining (example: meaningness) show a definition if you click on them. Pages marked with ⚒ are still under construction. Copyright ©2010–2019 David Chapman.