{Culture (continued)}[11th December 1969]

[Redbook1:107-108][19691211:1145]{Culture (continued)}[11th December 1969]

Thursday 11th December, 11.45 a.m.

[continued]

           

            ,,, [which se]es it as a part of man's historical development in the context of his history as a whole, is what I might have been going to say.  I think that the history of art as I was taught it to ‘O’ level is irrelevant. (N.B. I didn't get the ‘O’ level!).  What is wanted is an examination of culture as I defined it (above) -- bringing psychology into it as well?  A simple examination of artistic development for its own sake is practically useless unless applied.

            These people who go around galleries -- what do they look for?  There are students, taking notes on art for its own sake.  There are those who seek “culture” for its own sake -- often with quite genuine eagerness to improve their minds. Poor fools!  They merely fill themselves with cocktail-party culture.  But they do try.  There are those who add galleries to their collections of cathedrals, museums, and Places of Interest.  How many go there for a reason which is not connected with the furtherance of the ideal which caused the gallery to be set up? [sic]  In other words, how many are not part of the closed circle of art produced for consumers who consume it because it is produced?  A man who goes there to find peace of mind, surrounded by the physical expression of the thoughts of men long dead, is somewhere near a real reason for visiting an art gallery.

[PostedBlogger30112012]