The fastest way to end a marriage is to enter an Ikea store with your significant other, where soon enough, one spouse is stubbornly defending their claim that there are no other drawer door that call so deeply to their soul then GRIMSLÖVS, while the other spouse storms away in rage and disgust when so obviously it is the bright orange JÄRSTAS that are the only one true drawer door. Good taste is the most contentious conviction that everyone claims expertise on. This is especially true within the art world where there are those that expresses unapologetic incredulity towards the validity of Jackson Pollock’s murals as significant works of art, and there are those that expresses this same unapologetic incredulity towards the convictions
…show more content…
These ideas are illustrated for example in Joan Miro 's “Women and Birds at Sunrise,” which tests the viewer 's pareidolic sensibilities by its representation of quotidian images with only abstract compositions of spindly lines and blocks of color. There is no perspective, there are no human figures in the bodily sense, and yet somehow, many viewers bashfully recognize hands in the rounded rectangles protruding from the larger ‘figure’, a pair of two toned lips and perhaps curled eyelashes. It demolishes the notion that there is a correct way to see and understand art by allowing the viewer to question the notion that images must contain explicit forms of the objects it would be understood to represent. Modernity established that there is no one way of experiencing and understanding art, with each conviction as valid as the next. Berenson on the other hand, relied heavily on the belief that his subjective observations qualified his expertise in attribution. It is of no wonder why he feverishly discredited the “whole of contemporary art as degenerate” (Schapiro, 212), and even more so in relation to cubism, a misunderstanding of his notion of “tactile values” (Schapiro, 212). Modernity exposed the illusory foundation on which Berenson 's profession operated, thus denying itself from ever holding true
These ideas are illustrated for example in Joan Miro 's “Women and Birds at Sunrise,” which tests the viewer 's pareidolic sensibilities by its representation of quotidian images with only abstract compositions of spindly lines and blocks of color. There is no perspective, there are no human figures in the bodily sense, and yet somehow, many viewers bashfully recognize hands in the rounded rectangles protruding from the larger ‘figure’, a pair of two toned lips and perhaps curled eyelashes. It demolishes the notion that there is a correct way to see and understand art by allowing the viewer to question the notion that images must contain explicit forms of the objects it would be understood to represent. Modernity established that there is no one way of experiencing and understanding art, with each conviction as valid as the next. Berenson on the other hand, relied heavily on the belief that his subjective observations qualified his expertise in attribution. It is of no wonder why he feverishly discredited the “whole of contemporary art as degenerate” (Schapiro, 212), and even more so in relation to cubism, a misunderstanding of his notion of “tactile values” (Schapiro, 212). Modernity exposed the illusory foundation on which Berenson 's profession operated, thus denying itself from ever holding true