Changes in art and cultural history have never been easy to assimilate to political or economic changes. But perhaps we have enough evidence to show that particular sub-ideologies, combined with or supported by a bureaucratic upsurge, have caused, or been associated with, what appear to be downhill trends. Different generations naturally engender different styles. No harm in that. Still, it can be argued that some fashions in the field are less troublesome than others.
In an analysis of this sort, one cannot exclude subjectivity. When a writer finds spokesmen of a new generation not susceptible to his or others' earlier work, several notions may occur to him. First, that tastes change. To judge art and culture is indeed, in part, to make a more subjective assessmet of the aesthetics, which is of taste. And if one asserts that a current trend or current trends are negative, one is, of course, open to the retort that, in various epochs, changes of taste have emerged delored by the representatives of earlier trends but later seen as having their own value. True, but it is equally true that some striking and popular new art has soon proved no more than a regrettable and temporary fad.
Moreover, our cultural people, in the sense of producers of the arts defined as creative, are now in a strong and unprecedented relationship with the bureaucratic world discussed earlier. Of course, there is no reason to think that sections of the intelligentsia are any sounder on the arts than they are on politics or history. And, here again, they, as a phenomenon, form. a far larger social stratum than at any time in the past. It might be argued that, as with the personnel of the state, apparatus proper, there is now such a superfluity of the artistically and literary "educated" class that their very number is part of the means of coping with, and employing part of, the product.
There comes to a point, hard to define specifically but more or less obvious, when a regrettable general impression is unarguably convincing—well, not "unarguably," yet beyond serious debate, Still, an organism, or a polity, may present faults seen as lethal that are in practice confortable contained and do not require therapy. Nor would one want there to be any implied use of power from outside institutions or individuals.
Even apart from analytics, a great deal of nonsense has been talked or written about art, or rather art. Some reflections seem to be in order. The question of what constitutes "art", and what distinguishes good from less good art, is an old one. We can be certain that humanity was creating what we call art long before the word or the concept existed. And—a further complication—how is it that we all accept that some Paleolithic paintings are among the best of their kind and excel by any standards? Well, not all; there are presumably those who are beyond such acceptance. And in considering the 15 paintings of Lascaux, Altamira, and elsewhere, the question arises: What did their creators think they were doing?
Not decorating—they did not live in the caves. So why did these men go deep into them, too deep to see, and paint by the light of cedar wicks set in grease-filled hollow stones'? Why are the hooves of many, but not all, the cattle shown in twisted perspective?
"Magic" is a word often used of all this. But it is indisputable that this was not the "hunting magic" found in later, and more distant, "primitive" depictions. "Religious" is also often applied. But magic or religious in what way? We simply don't know—but one thing seems obvious: they did not think of their painting as something called "art". This point was reinforced a few years ago by an interview with a Nigerian village Sculptor of some fine formal statuettes. I suppose you would call them. Asked why he carved them, he could only reply that this is what he did.
Human beings are creative and art existed before, __
A．politics and economics
B．sub-ideologies
C．the notion of it
D．a bureaucratic upsurge
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
如搜索结果不匹配，请 联系老师 获取答案
