The Origins and Development of Surrealist Art | David Starkey: Renaissances Present and Future (2/2)

[@ManinOdessa1886]

Wonderful series of lectures, brilliant thought provoking illumination from our history. David Starkey is outstanding as always. Thank you.

[@sandramccoll4256]

I was a music student in the late 70s. The ‘new music’ I heard and had to play much of the time convinced me that the world was about to end. My emperor’s new clothes detector caused a lot of sleepless nights. Then I encountered critical theory, with the same result.

[@gbickell]

Brilliant! Thank you.

[@nyckolaus]

Thank you, Dr. Starkey.

[@afifahhamilton8843]

Interesting, erudite and informative, as always.

[@lbakemeyer]

Great presetation.

[@jeff__w]

The gentleman in the camel hair jacket, caught, perhaps unwillingly, in the frame to our right of David Starkey for almost the whole of the talk, would look right at home, dressed appropriately, in a portrait by William Gainsborough.

[@Heronjim]

Of course the completely humourless Starkey does not recognise that though DaDa was very serious, it was at the same time very tongue in cheek, a lot of artists having fun at the expense of the Starkeys of the day.

[@Pinkdam]

Being charitable I can only agree that your tongue in cheek reference to the constantly-quipping Starkey as being 'completely humourless' was ironically well made, at the expense of DaDa and its ilk.

[@cheapother]

@@Pinkdam the Dadaiste's will be turning in their graves as someone so regressive sings their praises, as the Starkey's of the world were their big fat bloated targets! Hilariously dumb

[@pasquino0733]

Dada was nothing more than tongue and cheek anarchism. Nothing more to read into it. When "NeoDada" as coined by Barbara Rose, started in New York / North America in the very late 50s/60s, those involved in Dada largely hated it. This was precisely because NeoDada wanted to be institutionalised. Where the Dadaists couldn't have given a toss what you thought, NeoDada wanted to be rarefied as "art" i.e. conceptual art, instillation art, video art, digital art etc as just discourses of it that attach themselves to "art". And that I tell you, is what makes it a complete pile of bollocks.

[@cheapother]

@@pasquino0733 dada has had a profound effect on culture all around the world, from surrealism to punk and beyond. So-called neodada is just a marketing tool as you say but some of the artists lumped in there are very interesting. The really funny bit is us discussing this under a no-nothing talk by racist prick Starkey, how the dada's would have laughed!

[@alanbrown214]

Andy Warhols work is a bad colouring book. 20 cent art is a cargo cult.

[@donaldcatton4028]

The art market has lost 50 per cent of its value in 2years...hope...

[@donaldcatton4028]

The art market has lost 50 per cent of its value in 2years...hope...

[@markwrede8878]

This is a meteorological account of civilization for investment climate. Repudiating investment is not an adequate response for art, which is still judged by investor society.

[@samuelelsby1800]

The irony is part of the modernity….and The Large Glass?

[@rensha8635]

Brilliant - I always wondered how they got and still do get away with their Modern Art which is nothing art like at all but a mockery.

[@pasquino0733]

Duchamp wasn't a genius. Anymore than a social media sensation today is. Post War Europe with the hegemony of the mass production of the 1920s, was the acceleration of the world of vacuous marketing. Starkey misunderstands Reynolds' Discourses. Conceptual as the term is used, is the antithesis of the intellectual in art, as understood by Reynolds. The Discourses actually are like a summary of early-modern understandings of art, as it evolved from Alberti to Felibien and to his own age. The 17th century Italian art biographer Bellori, talks about "The Idea". Yet this idea, is only known by becoming incarnate in physical materials, via the craft of art. If one cannot see the idea in a painting, sculpture etc then it has failed the Aristotelian test of artistic communication. According to the Renaissance and Reynolds, it thus is NOT a work of art. That's why we have people who become proficient in technical skill today, who do nothing but churn out portraits and empty landscapes. They lack the intellectual component that culturally communicates a story. They lack the capacity to take that skills and apply it to a culturally communicative function. From First Nations Australians to history painters, the function of all image making / art, is to successfully communicate ones cultural story. Its highest aim. An aim that makes culture collectively sacred within a given society. Conceptual "art" knows nothing of this. Because ironically, successful communication does not define it.

[@jebjeb1498]

Art literally goes down the toilet.

[@bmkbmk4469]

Art has been subituted for a commody of an art SCENE CULTURE ,a subculture of exceptence fueled only by one thing : money