Art on the Internet

Every once in a while I check through the slim list of Art Blogs that I have book marked here at home. Mostly they are people from Brooklyn and Philly and by and large I don't turn away from them outraged by any of the opinions that I find expressed.

I did this tonight after happily checking a couple of reviews in the New York Times and feeling my thirst had hardly been satiated. I say happily not because I particularly care about New York or its insipid NY Times, but because it makes me feel good to know that there are a couple of decent shows that I am missing but that I can still glean a few useful factoids.

I have come to the conclusion that the internet, the blogosphere, remains a miserly, pointless, stupid place to talk about art. In the end, I look at the Rudolph Steiner e-Library because I am so tired of all of these flying opinions like a swarm of ambitious gnats. The long and short of it is, in my opinion, that high art is dead, not because people stopped respecting painting and sculpture, but because intellectuals started believing that their stupid game is worth pursuing.

I ended up last weekend in a wee bit of an argument about positive vs negative aspects of PRETENSE. I think it is fine to be pretensious. I think artists need to consider carefully what they are pretending to be and then be it fully. The internet, though, shows a lot want for not disproving pretense, in fact, the merely pretensious show up in a rather glaring light.