Posted on 06/16/2002 3:34:48 PM PDT by vannrox
"...The art of painting, one of the greatest traditions in all of human history has been under a merciless and relentless assault for the last one hundred years. I'm referring to the accumulated knowledge of over 2500 hundred years, spanning from Ancient Greece to the early Renaissance and through to the extraordinary pinnacles of artistic achievement seen in the High Renaissance, 17th century Dutch, and the great 19th century Academies of Europe and America. These traditions, just when they were at their absolute zenith, at a peak of achievement, seemingly unbeatable and unstoppable, hit the twentieth century at full stride, and then ... fell off a cliff, and smashed to pieces on the rocks below.
Since World War I the contemporary visual arts as represented in Museum exhibitions, University Art Departments, and journalistic art criticism became little more than juvenile, repetitive exercises at proving to the former adult world that they could do whatever they damn well wanted ... sadly devolving ever downwards into a distorted, contrived and contorted notion of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression? Ironically, this so-called "freedom" as embodied in Modernism, rather than a form of "expression" in truth became a form of "suppression" and "oppression." Modernism as we know it, ultimately became the most oppressive and restrictive system of thought in all of art history..."
THIS is a cross link to related subject matter in the News Section of Free Republic. Since a majority of Free Republic participants ascribe almost exclusively to the News/Activism Forum. The subject matter here is equally significant to this forum.
Please kindly view the cross linked article HERE.
It may be contrived, but it certainly remains
undistorted freedom of expression, pure
and simple. Whether or not it is art, is another
matter altogether. Let's not blur the issue by
insinuating the creator of the work somehow
does not have the right to create it.
It's utter arrogance to suggest that these self-absorbed dilettantes have somehow advanced beyond the masters who preceded them. It's a paradox that they stand on the shoulders of giants, and still can't see beyond their own rectums. They can't be "derivative" because they flatout lack the talent. So to compensate, they denigrate the achievments of their betters, discard them as antiquated, and anoint themselves as the arbiters of taste.
And the sad thing is, the so-called Art Establishment plays along with the charade.
Ironically, by forcing "artists" into a rigid eschewal of form, modernism effectively enslaves artists to THAT school of thought. How "original" is it to do the same thing that a thousand other no-talent hacks are doing?
It is possible that this is the popular interpretation of modernism. I'm sure that many artists would vehemently disagree with modernism structured around anything so unprincipled--as many as there are others who aspire by doing whatever they want. But modernism is not a distinct school when defined by a ubiquitous empty willfulness. It has features and characteristics. One of these, which Ortega Y Gasset explains, is the private tendency of art. It is aristocratic, clubby, purposefully separate and purposefully abstract and shielded from knowledgeable penetration by the masses. When the popular mind aspires and pretends membership, only so many can see the humor in that.
No doubt at the Googenheim in New York City right now, patrons are surely advised by signs not to bother flushing the toilet -- it's effluent has already been coveted by thousands of excited "collectors" who require veerrry "modern" art.
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
Full text here.
Why would a wealthy benefactor pay a small fortune to a painter when he could get a more accurate, less expensive and far more "high-tech" photograph? Why would a rich adventurer bring a painter when he could commision a photographer?
If painting didn't evolve into abstaction or fantasy, it would have vanished as a relevant art form.
Sure....something that would look good on my wall.
But I'd call them "Knicknacks" or "Decorations"....not "Art".
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths
15. Capture one or both of the political parties of the United States
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights
17. get control of schools...
20. Infiltrate the press
21. Gain control of key positions of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promescuity as "normal, natural, healthy"
27. Infiltrate churches...
It is truly chilling how far they've come to meeting nearly ALL their goals.
Photography is inherently two-dimensional -- the "flat canvas" as noted in the original article we're talking about. To some extent you can attempt to affect the perspective by using oddball lenses -- the Leitz 35mm PA Curtagon parallax correcting lens comes to mind -- or manipulation of the negative, but a good painter can achieve effects that the lens cannot. Take a look at Harvey Dunn's painting of the AEF machine gunner up above. He's used what is called "heroic perspective" to give the man a tremendous presence and solidity - the camera can't do that.
And my beloved spouse is an excellent photographer, both 35mm and large format, so I'm fairly familiar with the art, having washed more than my share of negatives and prints!
Here it is. Harvey Dunn is one of my all time favorite painters: American Machine Gunner
Go have a dekko at the other thread. Nice stuff there from a lot of posters.
That will be $4 million dollars, please.
Vannrox: It is a really excellent article and gives us an insight into the minds of the Lemmings that call themselves "Democrats".Democrats are responsible for running up prices for fraudulent art? What about the heartbreak of psoriasis? One suspects you might see mountebanks and hucksters on both sides of the political spectrum in the art world.
You can do that these days with the manipulation available with a computer -
My youngest does this all the time. His senior year in highschool was quite happy when he discovered that the football player's girlfriends were immensely appreciative of his "enhanced portraits". So were the football players!
Photography and portraiture are not remotely the same thing. A photo can be made of someone in motion. An artist can make a picture seem to be in motion. These are far, far different things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
