tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post1246827692275830039..comments2024-03-16T17:43:25.784-04:00Comments on DanielMaidman: The Nerdrum AffairDanielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-62974981654088528862012-09-27T07:29:08.784-04:002012-09-27T07:29:08.784-04:00Actually, I lean toward thinking you did. So why d...Actually, I lean toward thinking you did. So why don't you head back over there and remind Nerdrum and his little cult that when he was facing trumped-up tax charges, I forwarded his case to every contact I had in the human rights community.<br /><br />As for you, you semi-literate little prick, you have no idea what I want, but Nerdrum's stripe of "fame" ain't it. You're getting riled up over a post that's more than two years old. How about next time you want to come over here and share your devastating insights, you use your own name like somebody with the courage of their convictions?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-47604404702454304802012-09-26T21:51:16.391-04:002012-09-26T21:51:16.391-04:00Average Nobody artist is jealous of famous artist,...Average Nobody artist is jealous of famous artist, finds flaw and opportunity to rant. Nobody artist inadvertently reveals career struggle and desire for recognition that famous artist has.<br />Best part is everyone here thinking,discussing,writing about Nerdrum...this post wouldn't exist but for Nerdrum...so he wins, Nobody artist loses.<br />Oh wait, I just read a post about Nobody artist on Nerdrum's facebook page...not<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-44566216384248230072012-08-09T11:56:18.876-04:002012-08-09T11:56:18.876-04:00moral flattening? He can't/won't pick a te...moral flattening? He can't/won't pick a team (good vs. evil)? Who are you to judge? Reducing art - any art - to the naive camps of good and evil is just farcical!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-52921787890025265862012-01-13T13:38:32.237-05:002012-01-13T13:38:32.237-05:00...I understand that yes, you were furious with hi......I understand that yes, you were furious with his Facebook post: how dare he associate Hitler's actions with that of an artist! Something you see yourself as! Gosh! But lets be honest, it is easy to point fingers at a known commonly-accepted "evil" (Hitler/Nazi sympathizers), even rewarding (in an empty thrill-less way) to do so in a world so full of wrong action, hurt and suffering. But pointing fingers is really quite silly, you're not actually doing anything positive. Don't you see your senselessness? Essentially, if all this was actually about the Hitler comment then you were a bit of a fool to get your feathers so ruffled up. It was ego, no?<br /><br />The subject of association, however, fascinates me. Why are people drawn to and then seek to imitate & replicate something. Like your "artist" friends appreciation for Nerdrum, or your desire to paint your models as you do. What is the willingness of "artists" to find landmarks of style/technique/feeling of established artists and their work, and then usually (and probably quite unconsciously) circle around these anchors as if a deep invisible association has unbeknown to themselves captured their attention? As if under a spell, hypnotized, but never self aware of the hook in their mind. Could it not be that perhaps people's fascination with Nerdrum's work is precisely because of this unconscious association? Because in those naked, eyeless and forsaken figures they see themselves and all of humanity through the wordless thoughts of their deepest memories flung together in forgotten but felt narratives of dreams and hidden fears. You might even call this unconscious association a fascination. A fascination that resonates and hints at clues that perhaps the identities trotting through our well-lit busy-days of our purposeful-lives are not the well-groomed masks we hold up to the mirrors in our sanitized bathrooms in the apartments of the suburbs of our minds.<br /><br />No, it isn't beautiful. But neither are the moderate forms of a table-wiped world of the socially acceptable and eager to sell.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-38737182565629518262012-01-13T13:37:27.733-05:002012-01-13T13:37:27.733-05:00(Wow I didn't realise I had this much to say.....(Wow I didn't realise I had this much to say... Nevertheless)<br /><br />In fact, to build an argument against another based on the idea of morality - using words like "evil" & "good" and terms like "moral topography problem" - without ever truly analyzing or elucidating your own understanding of morality (as if your existence casts no shadow on this world) - is a trifle silly, wouldn't you say? (Rhetoric). Especially as your work seems to illuminate the character of an artist with complete amnesia for anything beyond what you cultural ideals will acknowledge as real. To live is to kill another. This existence is not made of tissues and sanitizers. And the dead and dissected and soulless work of much current art does nothing for this pitiful delusion of safety: both mentally and physically in this world.<br /><br />In fact, I've heard many argue that what is "insane" and "mad" is our understanding of who we are supposed to be and how we are supposed to be through the lens of western ideology. But since that type of senselessness is invisible through normalisation to you, I suppose you don't go de-friending people on Facebook? Why are you so blind to the brutality of the human world? A positive move forward (that is, not merely a flirtation with an aesthetic that ignites in someone the desire to hang a print of yours up in their bathroom because it matches the tiles), if that is your aim, is to confront and not to deny that which you find ugly or scary. Having said that, the effect of beauty and harmony on the human mind definitely (ok, arguably) heals. The Greeks loved and did what they did for good reason, don't get me wrong. On the one hand I can say that I find Nerdrum's work to be morbid and lost. On the other hand, most modern and postmodern work is completely meaningless & soulless to me. So I understand Nerdrum's opposition to being associated to the idea of art (as if there is only one kind).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-26362092684958351882012-01-13T13:35:41.432-05:002012-01-13T13:35:41.432-05:00Hi there, quite strangely enough i happened across...Hi there, quite strangely enough i happened across an article about Nerdrum's tax evasion (or some such "crime"). The context & underlying severance of the article lead me to search for images of his work, as i had never heard of him. I clicked on an image "dying couple" and it lead me to this now well aged discussion. I did not finish reading all the comments (I stopped when there was a bit too much stone-throwing to hold my attention), but in amongst all the honorary comments one usually finds on such public figures, I enjoy - thoroughly - hearing a different perspective. And so I read on. As I read on however, I was bemused my many of your comments, and then as others reacted to your post I was further… impressed by the curious nature of your character. By that I mean you made an impression on me that now compels me to write this comment, and although I am not one to usually leave a post, I feel a need to express my impressions of you, Daniel.. Since this is your blog.<br /><br />So I looked at your work. It is fine, I guess. Precise, neat, clean. As stated in you The Nerdrum Affair, you professed to confronting your subjects character through a method of gentleness, by seeking to portray what you call beauty - minor details, the curl of a muscle under soft light, silent or staring - to communicate their essence, their being. My rationality as to why I am even typing this to you when there are many more interesting pursuits I could be partaking in, is that perhaps the most meaningful contribution someone can make is an honest cart-blanche opinion of someone else, like a camera snap: what the conscious mind illuminates, and what it leaves out… And just as I may be leaving out 'deeper' details of your work, the impression I have (of your work) that i wish to mirror back at you is one that is simplified, idealized, always pretty. It seems as though your work is the one side of a coin that you will not flip.<br /><br />It is a personal taste, I know. But beautiful? I think not. This is not an attack, I understand preferential subjectivity and so who cares what I think (I'm sure there are many who admire your portrayal of humanity). But your work does not hold me in the magical sense that I believe an "artist"/"Kitschist" should. It seems immature. Safe. House proud. Your strong gut dislike for Nerdrum would make sense in this light. From what I see he does not seem to bother with the cute flattering neatness of normalized identity. That's okay though, each to their own, and I'm sure you will make a nice living for yourself.<br /><br />But to have called a witch-hunt (or in this case a Hitler-hunt) for another because his work points to and portrays all those fetishist violent dead/dying representations of seemingly nihilistic forms of flesh you cannot bare to look at within yourself does not make him evil. Your argument is not about Hitler, do not try fool yourself.<br /><br />It is clear even to me, after contextual provided by RichardTScott, that Nerdrum did NOT say what you think he did (When I use Caps-lock it denotes imperative detail by the way, not screaming). And to that you did not even offer a mild sign of admitting that perhaps you had a limited understanding of Nerdrum's statement. So what of this pride of yours? You grasp onto your thinly discussed discomfort for confronting all shadow aspects of this world by a weak thread of accusation - via a Facebook statement - that links Nerdrum to the truly mad and murderous beast who was Hitler.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-79037176103301906422011-08-12T19:00:15.336-04:002011-08-12T19:00:15.336-04:00Thank you for an interesting post and comments. I ...Thank you for an interesting post and comments. I was wondering weather it is right to let a persons ideas or bad deeds stop us from appreciating their work. Let´s say Caravaggio was a murderer and Michael Jackson was a paedofile, does it make their work any better or worse?<br /><br />Nerdrum denies to call him self an artist because many people call things he dislikes great art and some people called his style kitsch back in the 70s. Norwegians have a reputation of being narrow minded and see things in black and white and when he was young everyone there consideerd him old fashion. The terrible mass murderer in Oslo stated that pluralism was evil and multiculturalism was bad. When Nerdrum became offended he tried to create his own world and tried to hype the mock-word of kitsch to be the new thing. Looks like the revenge of the nerd has turned in to a succsess. But is he any better him self in his one way- attitude?<br />Saying that what Hitler did was as bad as the so called modern artists, just on a much larger scale is a rather bad joke. Let´s hope he has learned his lesson: to stick to his day job and stop spending time on the internet. You cannot be good in every field.<br /><br />P.S I really love your blog. You are so reflecting when it comes to your art and life. I´s a great treasure and challenging source of inspiration. Sorry for my bad english.Steinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02935285756034207368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-65462482181247127232011-07-25T09:32:19.889-04:002011-07-25T09:32:19.889-04:00Anonymous - I'm sorry it's taken me so lon...Anonymous - I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply, but I appreciate the thoughtful analysis. You sound like somebody who has either studied with him or studied his work closely - how did your life throw you in the way of his work?<br /><br />I hadn't heard the categorization of work as kinetic or static before. This is a fascinating idea and I'll be considering it further. I agree with you that there is something frightfully detached and hostile to Nerdrum's work. I'm no fan of Freud's, but when I put him beside Nerdrum, for all their shared misanthropy, there is a solidity, an ethical presence, which is present in Freud and absent in the hollow Odd. The soul as a subject resists aestheticism.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-50209435140849502892011-07-09T16:12:37.927-04:002011-07-09T16:12:37.927-04:00Great post, Daniel, thanks for your clarity of vis...Great post, Daniel, thanks for your clarity of vision in a sea of baffling praise for Odd Nerdrum. Odd he is, and his work exploits human beings. His pictures lack empathy but not simply in a manner often employed by some artists who, for example, might see the opposite sex as objects, or people of another class as subhuman, or people of another race as less than their own, but rather Nerdrum appears to have no empathy for any human being-- and to a frightening level. One critic wrote that he includes spitting, shitting, erections, disemboweling, etc. but carefully avoids sexual intercourse--ostensibly because he worries his work will be reduced to pornography. Well, the work is already pornographic in the same manner James Joyce defined pornography, as "kinetic". Nerdrum's work is kinetic in that it moves the viewer to a state of horror, or shock, or repulsion (Joyce also applies the movement the other way, to desire, and also didactic works). Great art, on the contrary, is static. Upon viewing a great work of art a feeling person is left in a state of aesthetic arrest. No, I fear Odd Nerdrum avoids sexual contact not because he sees it as "pornographic" but more likely because it reminds him of a human connectedness. <br /><br />Furthermore, his technique is ridiculously overrated. Take a look at an original Rembrandt. Unlike Nerdrum, who continually scrapes off his underpainting and smudges much of what's left with his fingers, Rembrandt let his brushwork show. Consequently, his paintings appear much deeper and more luminous than Nerdrum's.<br /><br />He likes being provocative, which is why he made the insensitive statement about Hitler. What if Nerdrum simply cannot "feel" and we're all wasting our time talking about his "art"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-80612154172396912712010-08-15T19:40:55.864-04:002010-08-15T19:40:55.864-04:00>Now,this kind of commentary makes me think tha...>Now,this kind of commentary makes me think that it comes from the frustration of how thing are not working out with one's career as and "artist."<br /><br />I wouldn't presume, if I were you.<br /><br />>could you explain to me how is the statement Odd made, offensive?<br /><br />Oh dear. I expended a good deal of energy, in the main post and in the interminable comments, explaining precisely this. My writing must not be as good as I thought. <br /><br />>I apologize if I made any grammatical errors, I am still learning English. <br /><br />Your English is quite good - what's your primary language?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-47680568825420494912010-08-14T23:38:24.233-04:002010-08-14T23:38:24.233-04:00"Pompous vapid nihilism for people who mistak..."Pompous vapid nihilism for people who mistake the combination of darkness plus surface sheen for depth."<br /><br />Now,this kind of commentary makes me think that it comes from the frustration of how thing are not working out with one's career as and "artist."<br /><br />Now to the topic.<br /><br />Daniel, I found your post quite interesting and enjoyed reading your view. Although I don't agree with many things that you wrote, could you explain to me how is the statement Odd made, offensive?<br /><br />I apologize if I made any grammatical errors, I am still learning English.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-55490618842799390272010-08-04T17:26:58.773-04:002010-08-04T17:26:58.773-04:00He's a really nice guy, apart from being sharp...He's a really nice guy, apart from being sharp. Ed, meet Fred. Fred, meet Ed.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-17273500619212735522010-08-03T22:27:22.029-04:002010-08-03T22:27:22.029-04:00"Pompous vapid nihilism for people who mistak..."Pompous vapid nihilism for people who mistake the combination of darkness plus surface sheen for depth."<br /><br />Oh I like this Fred fellow a lot.Ed.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08992347401319922675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-75970155870060578282010-07-28T11:20:12.795-04:002010-07-28T11:20:12.795-04:00Fred! I'm honored that you dropped by, and tha...Fred! I'm honored that you dropped by, and thank you for your kind words. If there must be sides, I'm glad to share one with you. Also, I think this is very well put: "mistake the combination of darkness plus surface sheen for depth." Marvelously clear, and precisely so.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-8010927430508082242010-07-28T01:06:15.669-04:002010-07-28T01:06:15.669-04:00Daniel, this is an excellent piece of writing and ...Daniel, this is an excellent piece of writing and I pretty much agree with all of it, except I actually think you give Nerdrum more credit than he deserves. Pompous vapid nihilism for people who mistake the combination of darkness plus surface sheen for depth.Fredhttp://fredhatt.com/blognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-63983013640266161842010-07-20T21:12:18.136-04:002010-07-20T21:12:18.136-04:00>I don't blame you for trying to promote yo...>I don't blame you for trying to promote yourself. But why use the same tactics of shock, insult, and twisting the facts for self promotion if you reject those tactics?<br /><br />I've already admitted to the entire extent of self-promotional motives involved in this post, in a previous comment. But let's say, for a moment, that you're right. I'm doing this to promote myself. Specifically, what I'm doing is pissing off a lot of people I know and like, probably alienating half the figurative galleries in Norway and a couple in New York, and insulting a painter just powerful enough to make life difficult for me, if he really wanted to, but not so powerful that anyone outside of his comparatively small group of fans, collectors, and followers actually respects him or particularly knows who he is. You wrote before that I struck you as intelligent - does this strike you as the kind of idiotic move I would make for mercenary reasons?<br /><br />I try to save my idiotic moves for things I believe in. :)<br /><br />>Why not write an article asking Damien Hirst to apologize? He repeated Stockhausen's statement about 9/11, and he actually believed it! That would also generate a lot of hits,<br /><br />Just so. <br /><br />But he didn't say it to me, in however tenuous a way "to" is meant in this situation. I didn't have some interesting thoughts to write up based on his comment. Only Nerdrum's.<br /><br />Incidentally, how is it that Nerdrum gets to make the comments, and you get to waste your time defending them? Is his time worth more than yours?<br /><br />That about brings us to the end of your comment. Look - you're trolling my blog for no sensible reason I can discover (if you genuinely believed I were out to promote myself, why would you risk diverting attention my way?). I've given you a really hard time here, and I hope I've made you look like a monkey. All that aside, Richard, I want to like you. I think you've got a lot of integrity and a lot of promise as a painter. I also think you're trying to lift a weight that cannot be lifted. I think you've devoted yourself to a man who has forgiven himself for entirely too much. Perhaps he started with a real grievance, and perhaps it was a legitimate grievance. But in pursuit of his single goal, he has allowed himself to become complacent and wicked - just as complacent and wicked as his enemies, who are no doubt laughing at him, and justifiably so. I think you're an adult, and you've got as much skill now as you need, and I think you can do better. Your allegiance should be to nobody, your work should be your own, and you should speak for yourself and nobody else.<br /><br />I am in no way mocking you, slighting you, or being ironic with this bit. I sincerely hope you will distinguish your strengths from your weaknesses, and continue to show integrity even when the only thing you can be loyal to is doubt. I will not be here to answer your certainties, which I think are ridiculous certainties, but I will always be ready to talk to your doubts, your fears, and your hopes. I hope you'll remember that on my end, when it is the right time, there will be no bad blood between us and you can rely on me to be honest and offer what help I can.<br /><br />Jeff - I will duly enter your vote in the register. Thanks for clarifying that. As for the rest of your comment, it's really more of an indictment of academe than an exoneration of Nerdrum, don't you think?Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-54268697482220372122010-07-20T21:11:56.430-04:002010-07-20T21:11:56.430-04:00>My first question is: how do you caution peopl...>My first question is: how do you caution people against a tragedy without mentioning it? My second question: how do you reach the people who have this mindset and try to change their minds and actions? They will never read a calm and respectful essay, they will never acknowledge something that doesn't grab their attention in the first place. They don't take an artistic statement seriously if it's not ironic.<br />So, Odd attempted to speak to them in their own language.<br /><br />Nerdrum wasn't exactly opening for Christina Aguilera at the Verizon-Dome. He was addressing his 5,000 or so Facebook friends. Presumably, most of these are people who chose to friend him, and presumably they did so because they like his work. Now what kind of contempt for his own fans does it take for you, or him, to assume that these people haven't got the wits or will to read a serious analysis? You already suggested that readers of this blog suffer from the same inability to get through a reasonable argument. I like to think that I have to be at my sharpest to appeal to my readers, and if this restricts my number of readers, that's a restriction I can live with. If Nerdrum, and you, think that your interests and readers are best served by dumbing down statements, you can go right ahead. It's no kind of relationship I would court, and to my ear, it sounds predicated on the kind of abstracted idea of "the people" which characterizes the Robespierre stripe of humanist and empath.<br /><br />You also wrote this:<br /><br />>So, when I saw your article here, and based on your response on his page which I had previously read... And also based on the opening statements of your article, I assumed that you were also blindly calling him a Nazi - instead of just calling him evil.<br /><br />As far as I can tell, you're the only one in the room who has trouble reading an essay from start to finish.<br /><br />>But calling Odd a Nazi or evil is illogical, and slander, and knowing that you typically would be more thoughtful about such things, I can only logically conclude that you have written this for self promotion.<br /><br />Let me tidy this up a little bit for you. What I think you're saying is: "Since I've demonstrated my point to you to my own satisfaction, and you've rejected it, I am forced to conclude you have corrupt motives." <br /><br />What do you think this is, "Night of January 16th"? You can deduce whatever you like, Richard, but that doesn't force reality to correspond to it. Assuming that anyone who disagrees with you must be corrupt is, in real life, a statistically unsound proposition.<br /><br />>Though, with all due respect, it's insulting to my intelligence (and other readers')<br /><br />Due respect noted. How about if you speak for yourself - and, of course, Odd Nerdrum - and let other readers decide whether I'm insulting their intelligence?<br /><br />>for you to suggest that you didn't know this article would generate a lot of hits. Seriously? <br /><br />Seriously - I'm accustomed to my average 22 hits a day (I had the number wrong before). When that's where you're at, you don't know if any particular thing is going to cause a sudden spike. It took me by surprise, but let's face it, even a hundred readers a day is a fart in the wind. Let's say 500 people, total, have read the post. So? One of my blogger friends gets 800 hits a day. Most of the blogs I read are in the hundreds of thousands. If this was a publicity stunt, it wasn't a very effective one, was it?<br /><br />continued...Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-31804905358019365402010-07-20T21:11:00.567-04:002010-07-20T21:11:00.567-04:00>and tries (in his Scandanavian way - think of ...>and tries (in his Scandanavian way - think of Ingmar Bergman) to represent empathy and dignity for man, even when they are surrounded by an apocalyptic world.<br /><br />I simply disagree, and I am also forced to conclude that you haven't watched very much Bergman.<br /><br />>This is obvious in how carefully he applies his technique to paint the body.<br /><br />I know this is a big idea for you, but it's not as pivotal for me, and doesn't convince me. If you think of technique as language, it is best to have at one's disposal a language of many and fine words, but it is better still to have something to say. There is no functional language which makes it impossible to say things that are ugly and false; the mightiest technique is the merest servant of a vision. Nerdrum's vision, to me, is scabrously misanthropic. I would prefer a painter with fewer skills and more adoration and insight.<br /><br />>The words "humanism" and "empathy" inherently reject "evil".<br /><br />Perhaps they do, although I think the formulation is simplistic. At any rate, I have told you my estimation of the value of waving some words around, namely, nil.<br /><br />>So, with the reasoning you used to say Odd was evil, you seem to be agreeing with him that Contemporary Artists are evil.<br /><br />Sure! I probably agree with him about a lot of things.<br /><br />>Odd's statement was not just about philosophy, it's about exactly what you mentioned: the moral relativity and the shock tactics of the Contemporary Artist.<br /><br />To me, this is vaguely akin to saying that the Mel Gibson tape is actually a commentary on the scourge of racism.<br /><br />>But you cannot rationally say, based on this statement alone that he is either a Nazi or is evil.<br /><br />You know what? I think that you still haven't read my post carefully. What I said was that to be able to think of the statement, and then to voice the statement, is a symptom of a kind of ethical collapse so severe as to amount to evil.<br /><br />continued...Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-42778555321164610992010-07-20T21:09:58.768-04:002010-07-20T21:09:58.768-04:00Richard -
First of all, you should know that read...Richard -<br /><br />First of all, you should know that readership volume has gone back down to its ordinary level, and this is the last comment of yours I intend to answer. So if you'd like to continue commenting, feel free, but keep in mind that it's a short soapbox.<br /><br />Well, I suppose I should go through your comment in detail:<br /><br />>First let me apologize to you about the caps.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />>Even more insulting, some ignorant neo-nazi sent me an e-mail voicing his support! This, above all infuriated me, as you might guess.<br /><br />To receive support from the neo-Nazis does not make one a neo-Nazi, but it should definitely give one pause.<br /><br />>And from meeting you before, I thought you were a rather kind and thoughtful person. <br /><br />Thanks! I like to think so.<br /><br />>I also assumed that like myself, you were reacting based on your immediate emotion and not a thoughtful response.<br /><br />Oh, I was furious. That doesn't mean I wasn't thoughtful.<br /><br />>So, when I wrote in all caps, I wasn't exactly intending to yell, I was intending to make the most important statements very clear so that the people who refused to read my response with any degree of patience would at least understand the basic assertions from the beginning.<br /><br />Hmm. So what you're saying is you weren't shouting so much as assuming that readers of this blog were not very good readers? I'm not sure how effective that is as an apology, but I suppose I'll have to take what I can get.<br /><br />Now we get to the heart of your comment, which begins as follows:<br /><br />>Evil lies both in one's intention and one's actions. Words are not actions, so logically you must consider the intention of the words.<br /><br />It appears as if you are starting with the tack that there was something apropos that I didn't understand about Nerdrum's comment. I'm going to guess that since your last effort on this front didn't yield results, you've dropped the Kant and Hegel angle, and would like to change the topic to the aspects discussed here?<br /><br />I don't know how much more clearly I can say this. I've said it already. I categorically reject every effort to defend the comment. Your task is sort of like trying to argue that 2 + 2 = 5. You can certainly come up with interesting arguments from a number of approaches, some of them very convincing. The only thing you can't do is make it an arguable point.<br /><br />Just so that's clear.<br /><br />Now, I'd like to address one or two of your many points, simply because they raise interesting topics.<br /><br />>Evil lies both in one's intention and one's actions. Words are not actions, so logically you must consider the intention of the words.<br /><br />In systems that tend to emphasize the terms of argumentation you use, actions tend to get classified as the outcomes of human volition. In this sense, words are, of course, actions. People are given broad freedom with their words in civilized societies because, although they are actions, they do not have the power to compel. Except under special circumstances, they can only persuade. Moreover, you give the lie to the not-actions argument with your request here:<br /><br />>And if you would be kind enough, I would ask that you remove that comment.<br /><br />If words are not actions, they don't have consequences. If they don't have consequences, why would you care where yours remained?<br /><br />That's as much as I have to say here about the ontology of evil. I don't find the prospect of a foray into the authorial-intent branch of literary theory exciting, so I'm not going to address the rest of the point.<br /><br />>He has repeatedly emphasize humanism and empathy in his writings <br /><br />I didn't take you for the kind of a guy who thinks it's acceptable to claim that you can't understand a painting without reading what somebody wrote about it.<br /><br />continued...Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-65354016697448877692010-07-18T17:38:11.784-04:002010-07-18T17:38:11.784-04:00Daniel I have to agree with Richard here. Odd is n...Daniel I have to agree with Richard here. Odd is not evil nor is he endorsing evil.<br /><br />I'm not supporting Odd Nerdrum's comment, which I still think was a bad idea and now in retrospect and to many hours of trying to understand what it was all about I have come to the conclusion that the vagueness of it's intention lead people down paths that were based on our own concepts of what we thought on this subject. Maybe that was the intent. However it did not seem to work. At least to me it was dismal failure. <br /><br />That said I think the explanation Richard is giving here about Odd wanting to speak in the language of the modernist and post modernist makes sense. When I was in grad school I heard a professor call one very fine realist painter, who happened to be Jewish, "a card carrying fascist". This was how this artist was talked about. I was pretty offended as happened to know that he was not. Anyway this kind of language is used more than people know in academia in context to realism.jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03014751431677271423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-90554323474626442732010-07-18T09:49:26.870-04:002010-07-18T09:49:26.870-04:00They will never read a calm and respectful essay, ...They will never read a calm and respectful essay, they will never acknowledge something that doesn't grab their attention in the first place. They don't take an artistic statement seriously if it's not ironic.<br />So, Odd attempted to speak to them in their own language. Will it help or harm? Could he have done it another way that didn't reference Hitler? I don't know. That's just the tactic he chose. You obviously think that this tactic doesn't help battle moral relativism and you seem to say that even if it did, the means doesn't justify the end. There is certainly room for debate about that and the answer is not obvious. But calling Odd a Nazi or evil is illogical, and slander, and knowing that you typically would be more thoughtful about such things, I can only logically conclude that you have written this for self promotion. <br /> <br />Though, with all due respect, it's insulting to my intelligence (and other readers') for you to suggest that you didn't know this article would generate a lot of hits. Seriously? <br /><br />I don't blame you for trying to promote yourself. But why use the same tactics of shock, insult, and twisting the facts for self promotion if you reject those tactics? You could have generated just as many hits by writing a more balanced article without making unsupportable claims about the character of someone you've never met based on your outrage. I understand and share your outrage at this mentality of moral relativism and shock Art, but you're directing it at the wrong person and you're undermining the advancement of figurative Art and humanism by calling him evil. I'm not saying you should just be silent. Certainly, criticize him if you disagree with him! But calling him evil is equally irresponsible.<br /><br />Why not write an article asking Damien Hirst to apologize? He repeated Stockhausen's statement about 9/11, and he actually believed it! That would also generate a lot of hits, and they would be more honestly gained.New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-30068331283198567032010-07-18T09:47:17.846-04:002010-07-18T09:47:17.846-04:00Evil lies both in one's intention and one'...Evil lies both in one's intention and one's actions. Words are not actions, so logically you must consider the intention of the words. Thus, you cannot rationally consider a statement to reveal someone is "evil" without considering the intention for making the statement. For this reason you cannot rationally reject an explanation of his intention as being beside the point. It may not be the whole point, but it is indeed relevant to choosing whether or not to call someone "evil". This is not a logical trick. The logic stands by itself. Simply think about it for a while.<br /> <br />I think you are mistaken about asserting that Odd has not defined himself in terms of morality. He has repeatedly emphasize humanism and empathy in his writings and tries (in his Scandanavian way - think of Ingmar Bergman) to represent empathy and dignity for man, even when they are surrounded by an apocalyptic world. This is obvious in how carefully he applies his technique to paint the body. Humanity is the most important subject in all of his paintings, in direct contrast with much of the Contemporary Art world. The words "humanism" and "empathy" inherently reject "evil". These ideas are mutually exclusive. So, with the reasoning you used to say Odd was evil, you seem to be agreeing with him that Contemporary Artists are evil. You agree with the idea that this mentality of moral relativity is dangerous, while saying that Odd should not use it to point this danger out. Odd's statement was not just about philosophy, it's about exactly what you mentioned: the moral relativity and the shock tactics of the Contemporary Artist. You can say that Odd was incredibly insensitive, deeply mistaken, or even had some kind of mental problem. (Actually, he does have Turrets Syndrome... though that doesn't excuse a written comment.) But you cannot rationally say, based on this statement alone that he is either a Nazi or is evil. I understand that you will disagree about his tactics, but I think you know as well as I do that he is trying to use the shock value of the Art world in order to point out the danger of this mentality, and indirectly to actually advance the ideas of humanism, empathy, the acceptance of representational work and yes, we cannot deny, to advance his own career. But it's incorrect to say this is his only goal. My first question is: how do you caution people against a tragedy without mentioning it? My second question: how do you reach the people who have this mindset and try to change their minds and actions? <br /> cont.....New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-40557922874161796062010-07-18T08:21:37.249-04:002010-07-18T08:21:37.249-04:00Daniel,
First let me apologize to you about the ca...Daniel,<br />First let me apologize to you about the caps. I absolutely never let myself get carried away in such a fashion. And if you would be kind enough, I would ask that you remove that comment.<br /><br />A little context about why I reacted that way: following Odd's statement, as you might have guessed, I had received a great number of e-mails from people. Some of them expressing support, some of them asking me to explain, and some simply calling him a Nazi. These few people repeated their statement whether or not I responded and harassed me about it. This was before even wrote the explanation, which tried to present, not as a defence, but simply as an explanation of what he intended to say. I did not make the statement. Odd did. And so, I understand why people might have written to me after I wrote the explanation, it was very aggrivating to receive rude and threatening e-mails from people, unlike you, who really didn't understand anything about this. Even more insulting, some ignorant neo-nazi sent me an e-mail voicing his support! This, above all infuriated me, as you might guess. This, coupled with the fact that an Art critic in Sweden called my work "Nazi-Art", before I even met Odd... simply because I am a representational painter, and solely based on Greenberg's theories, who said that all representational art was evil, and socially destructive. He called it "Kitsch" - sentimental or emotional Art as opposed to "Camp" - cheesy Art. <br /><br />So, when I saw your article here, and based on your response on his page which I had previously read:<br /><br />"I'm sorry, I find this unbelievably offensive, and I will be deleting you from my friend list now. This kind of pathetic wit is harmless enough until you start treading on the dead bodies of my relatives. You can go to fucking hell."<br /><br />And also based on the opening statements of your article, I assumed that you were also blindly calling him a Nazi - instead of just calling him evil. And from meeting you before, I thought you were a rather kind and thoughtful person. I also assumed that like myself, you were reacting based on your immediate emotion and not a thoughtful response. So, when I wrote in all caps, I wasn't exactly intending to yell, I was intending to make the most important statements very clear so that the people who refused to read my response with any degree of patience would at least understand the basic assertions from the beginning.<br />continued.....New York Cityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05807506312905707802noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-27092006262479741672010-07-16T09:02:31.925-04:002010-07-16T09:02:31.925-04:00Thank you very much, Anonymous! I don't think ...Thank you very much, Anonymous! I don't think we need to live all the time as if we were already picking sides in, say, France in 1941. But, like you, I think it's worth considering and preparing for making the kinds of fatal decisions that arise in situations like those. Compared with those sorts of situations, everything I have written here is nothing at all.Danielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15597234920324948705noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2293319073550947163.post-89032929358131297222010-07-15T17:18:45.033-04:002010-07-15T17:18:45.033-04:00Daniel, it took more than Hitler to commit his cri...Daniel, it took more than Hitler to commit his crimes. "evil happens while good men do nothing" or a german proverb that "there is not anything so evil but to not do any good." <br /><br />I believe you have felt something disturbing and promulgated that. Scorning apathy or peer reaction, you are standing for all who are not here to do so, as we all should. Had Hitler been so fortunate as to use his power of persuasion for good, and had his brothers's conscience what could he have gifted us with ? <br /><br />Would I have stood by ? What would I have done ? The real question is now when we are confronted with evil or evil disguised - what do I do.<br /> <br />Thank you Daniel - stand tall.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com