Losing our vision

New Statesman ^ | Oct. 9, 2006 | Richard Cork

[Republicanprofessor]

By now, six years since the arrival of the new millennium, we might reasonably expect to feel challenged, invigorated and even unnerved by the advent of a fiery new spirit in art. But the zeitgeist of the present decade has yet to appear. Does anyone else share my sense of disappointment about the unfocused character of art today? Where are the young talents whose work is not just promising, but alive with an audacious vision of the world? Who, among this emergent generation, will deserve to be remembered as the artists responsible for setting the pace in the 21st century?

Looking around, I can find no equivalents to the precocious titans who, precisely 100 years ago, overturned all existing ideas about the future direction of art. The young bloods of today cannot compare with the insurgents responsible for shattering tradition and erupting in a blaze of adventure in 1906. Back then, everyone on the lookout for fresh talent was astounded by the high-keyed colour and bold simplification of Henri Matisse, André Derain and their fellow Fauves ("wild beasts"). The Fauves were given their provocative nickname by a critic who condemned their daring. Around the same time, the expressionists were making sure that German art was quickened by an equally rebellious force.

[Republicanprofessor]

Very interesting article.

This is my idea: I think artists of the 21st century are assimilating all the radical forms of the early 20th century. I think the best artists are adding their own personal content to that radical abstraction (which was often more about pioneering abstraction of forms than it was about other ideas).

I remember that it took 100 years for the art world of the 14th century to truly absorb Giotto's innovations before the Renaissance took full force.

Perhaps we are in waiting for a new "Renaissance" of abstraction.

[Republicanprofessor]

Art ping.

Let Sam Cree, Woofie or me know if you want on or off this ping list.

[bert]

It is my view that the artists of today are so self absorbed in their own narrow vision they will starve to death before completing anything worth selling.

[Mamzelle]

I believe what you are looking for can only be found in unexpected places. Galleries are like liberal-arts curricula--the door is shut to everything but dogma.

For instance, my own personal favorite art experience is in one of these mega-bookstores with coffee and cushiony chairs--where I pull down not books of art history--but instructional books. I am amazed and delighted at what can be found in technique books. Unfortunately, the illustrations are undersized (but are still far "bigger" than what you'd see in galleries.)

There are marvelous experiences, sadly brief, in many television commercials. One makes a spoof of pretentious art by featuring kitchen faucets..."design a house around this"...but what they come up with is still pretty cool.

The other place art will find you is in children's video. I stood behind a child playing this stunning Japanese game where the object was "stickiness" and the protagonist would roll around the world, sticking to stuff and gathering it up--first thumbtacks and pencils, finally clouds and continents. Very Escher.

The other place where artistry has surprised me is television, via Netflix. For years, I just never bothered with network television. I detest sitcoms. Then I experimented with TV series that I rented, mostly fantasy adventrue series, and discovered that not only is television far better than movies, it is better than most modern literature offerings.

I believe its out there, but is utterly invisible to the magisters and martinets...

[DejaJude]

All our millennial hopes were confounded, within a year, by a terrorist atrocity on a hitherto inconceivable scale. The threat shows no sign of diminishing, and may even become a great deal more widespread over the years ahead. Perhaps young artists, like everyone else, are still struggling to come to terms with this protracted nightmare. But I have no doubt that, when their work finally coalesces, it will be darkened by the trauma of the world crisis affecting us all.

This reminds me of Dr. Ala Bashir. Living in Saddam's Iraq, he seemed to be portraying forbidden ideas as abstraction.

[ClaireSolt]

What comes after deconstruction? chaos.

[Rembrandt_fan]

I thought the article was poorly written, overblown and simplistic. The author, Richard Cork, is plugging a book. Badly.

Note how Cork slyly inserts the little promo line in about the middle of the essay:

"Looking back now, I realise that one of the most challenging moments occurred in 1974 when the Rowan Gallery mounted an exhibition of Michael Craig-Martin's work."

Michael Craig-Martin is a joke, a poor man's Marcel Duchamp. By loading the essay with Matisse, Braque, and Picasso references, the author managed to slip the subject of his biography, Craig-Martin, within the same name-dropped company, as if Craig-Martin is/was somehow a peer.

It gets worse. Truly, was Braque 'dismayed' by Picasso's 'Les Demoiselles d'Avignon'? He was excited by the possibilities the painting implied, he was inspired by the visual approach employed by Picasso, but 'dismayed', in my view, misses the mark by a mile. Or is that particular painting really the modernistic landmark the author thinks it to be? Personally, I find 'Demoiselles' viciously misogynistic, and don't care for it regardless of its historical importance and stylistic innovations, but that's just me, I guess.

'Where, oh where is the new Matisse? The new Picasso?'

I can't speak for all artists everywhere, only myself, but this 'giant genius' hunt gets tiresome. Usually, time--and only time--sorts out the great from the good, the good from the mediocre. Personally, I think Picasso will fade from prominence, and Modigliani--and a few others--will take their proper place in art history. Matisse, of course, stands alone in the 20th Century in terms of color--his 'Escargot' cutout painting is simply magnificent.

Lastly, you spoke of a new renaissance of abstraction, Republicanprofessor. Maybe, could be, but I tend to doubt it. If there's a renewal, I think it lies in a continuation of modernist painters such as Matisse, Braque, and Picasso rather than abstract expressionists such as Rothko (whom I adore), Pollack, DeKooning, and Hoffman (among others). But that's probably my own personal prejudices coming forward. I simply believe the human form is too beautiful to disappear for long from serious art movements.

I think, though, that any serious student of art would conclude that post-modernism is a creative and aesthetic dead-end. The only reason that dreck is seriously considered by anybody is because the value of those multi-million dollar works would (and someday will) take a nose-dive when people realize their true worth. The art industry is working hard to postpone that day, I'm sure, but it's coming.

[TradicalRC]

Looking around, I can find no equivalents to the precocious titans who, precisely 100 years ago, overturned all existing ideas about the future direction of art. The young bloods of today cannot compare with the insurgents responsible for shattering tradition and erupting in a blaze of adventure in 1906.

Perhaps the REAL innovators will be those who Shun the destroyers of the 20th century and re-discover the traditions of representational art.

[TradicalRC]

I can't speak for all artists everywhere, only myself, but this 'giant genius' hunt gets tiresome. Usually, time--and only time--sorts out the great from the good, the good from the mediocre. Personally, I think Picasso will fade from prominence, and Modigliani--and a few others--will take their proper place in art history. Matisse, of course, stands alone in the 20th Century in terms of color--his 'Escargot' cutout painting is simply magnificent.

Not a Matisse fan. Prefer Vermeer to Rembrandt. I think that the 20th century will be remarked upon as a floundering generation of artists. Destroying tradition for the sake of destruction. The so-called innovation is tiresome and pathetic. Goethe remarked that art goes through three distinct stages: the Classic, the Romantic and the Decadent. We are most definitely in a decadent stage.

[Republicanprofessor]

Many thoughtful comments.

You know, I have to admit I didn't even know what Craig Martin's work was like. Now that I've looked it up....

...

boy do I agree with you. This is awful.

As I travel around and visit various hotels, the art on the wall if often abstract, and semi-sophisticated, but it's more about interior design than it is expression.

Now, you misunderstand me about abstraction. I see abstraction as anything that moves away from realism to exphasize something the artist wants to express. So Picasso and Matisse (and even Modigliani) create abstractions. Pollock and Rothko took this to the furthest possibilities that still have meaning (in my opinion....Minimalism seeming more dead as each year goes by). So I don't think the human form will disappear, but I think it will be redone with more personal takes on abstracting it. Yes, you are right, it is too beautiful to disappear. But it can be changed, twisted, simplified, etc., according to the artist.

Actually, there is an interesting article by Leo Steinberg called "Plight of the Public." It is in Other Criteria, a collection of his essays. It says that it is the artists who reject some of the most avant-garde art right in the beginning. Seurat rejected Matisse's Joy of Life because the babes were too flatly painted, and Matisse rejected Braque's "little cubes" in his early L'Estaque cubist works. I think the premise is interesting: the artists rejecting others' new works.

You are right about time being the only thing that will sort the good from the bad. But opinions will also change in time, and then the "good" will be ousted, and then it will return.

And I do agree on Postmodernism, and all those fools who are buying it as "an investment." Postmodernism is like the academic art of the 19th century: accepted, valued, and no one can see what a deadend it has become.

I think great art is being done, but it is not being shown because the critics and dealers are blind to new possibilities, and scared to try new styles.

[Bernard Marx]

Galleries are like liberal-arts curricula--the door is shut to everything but dogma.

We are most definitely in a decadent stage.

True words, you two! It's depressing and I'm thankful for the local museums where art from other times, free of dogma and decadence (at least in art), can be seen.

There's another kind of contemporary artist. They're the art world counterparts of the doctor Tom Lehrer wrote a song about who specialized in the "diseases of the rich." Salvador Dali may have had enormous talent but he quickly learned how to make a buck.

I met him briefly years ago at Harkness House in New York. Rebekah Harkness had commissioned him to sculpt and cast three gem-studded trees in gold. They stood about a foot high each and were heavily encrusted with high quality sapphires, rubies and emeralds. They must have cost dear Rebekah what even other rich people would consider a bloody fortune. But Rebekah was VERY rich. They served as mere hall ornaments and were totally mundane in concept and execution. Salvador swished around in his dramatic cape and seemed very pleased with himself.

[Rembrandt_fan]

You wrote, "I think that the 20th century will be remarked upon as a floundering generation of artists. Destroying tradition for the sake of destruction."

I disagree with every point you made, although someone who likes Vermeer (even over Rembrandt) is aces, in my book.

There were a few 20th Century innovators, such as Duchamp, who were artistic anarchists in the truest sense--destruction for its own sake, Bukarin-like, but they were thankfully few. As it happens, I am a huge admirer of Mark Rothko, and recently read his (just-published) book, 'The Artist's Reality'. I view Rothko as the quintessential 20th Century artist--perhaps, when the smoke settles a few centuries from now--THE most seminal 20th Century artist. His thought and practice has had a huge influence on my own work--yeah, I know, who am I? In any event, the man who wrote 'The Artist's Reality' and produced the body of work he did was not decadent. Besides, I've read Goethe's book on color. A painter 'wannabe but couldn't', Goethe was great at making grandiose pronouncements about plastic, visual art, but contributed very little to its advancement. Even a genius of his stature was capable of sour grapes, at times.

[TradicalRC]

I view Rothko as the quintessential 20th Century artist--perhaps, when the smoke settles a few centuries from now--THE most seminal 20th Century artist.

Interesting. I never really thought about who the most quintessential 20th century artist might be. I think Cezanne pretty much paved the way for the whole century but he was 19th, not 20th. I am tempted to say De Kooning but really Picasso (although I do not care for him) seems to embody the fractured 20th century more than most.

[Mamzelle]

Well, nice things do happen. I mentioned earlier that you find drop-dead breathtaking art in strange places.

I just rented "Carnivale" from Netflix, and saw the first episode...I could barely pay attention to the story (which is looking good) for marveling at the art direction! Salvidore Dali meets Paper Moon and Brother Where Art Thou...

[Bernard Marx]

I just rented "Carnivale" from Netflix, and saw the first episode...I could barely pay attention to the story (which is looking good) for marveling at the art direction! Salvidore Dali meets Paper Moon and Brother Where Art Thou...

That's interesting. We just finished watching "Carnivale's" second season and were intrigued with the art direction throughout. The opening montage for each episode is brilliant IMO.

Now the sad part...the series was cancelled so it's like being allowed to read only half a book. Still it's a great series. It deals starkly with the problem of good vs. real evil in a way that modern secularism has glossed over. I hope it'll be finished somehow eventually. BTW, "O Brother" may be my favorite movie of all time for many reasons, even though George Clooney stars.

I did some Googling on Harkness after I'd posted last night, wondering if she was still alive, etc., and if her ballet company still existed. For some truly entertaining writing and a scary look at how the rich elites get on, have a look at Harkness I saw the Dali Chalice of Life when I visited.

[Mamzelle]

O Brother is also in my top ten--and not only for the music. If you let the self-adoring fautuity of artists like Clooney get your goat, you won't be able to enjoy the decent stuff our culture has to offer. I wish the old studio system was in place and they were treated like talented cattle again. Shut up and lip-sinc, George.

I'll check into Harness.

[Bernard Marx]

If you let the self-adoring fautuity of artists like Clooney get your goat, you won't be able to enjoy the decent stuff our culture has to offer.

Well, there are limits. Not to suggest she's ever done anything worth watching but there's no way I'd ever go to a Barbra Streisand movie. And there's no way I'd pay to see one of Clooney's flat-out propaganda movies like "Syriana" or "Good Night and Good Luck." I will, however, see any and all Coen Bros. movies despite any political differences with them or the casts they choose. They make wildly original and memorable films with very talented actors, including Clooney. I can't think of any other directors who've even begun to use the full talents of Frances McDormand, John Goodman or John Turturro like they have.

[Jane Austen]

bttt

[nicollo]

Just back from the Musee d'Orsay, the Louvre, and a few other galleries in Paris -- re-living the human experience from 3,000 b.c. to 1900. Sorry, we didn't get to 20th cent., but we sure did love getting at least that far.

I love that the Orsay has Couture's "Romans of the Decadence," for all that history has given to Manet and Impressionism and les fauves, and all that followed, here I am before that huge, amazing screen, and it's damned impressive. I guess the world, for me, anyway, has rotated once or twice, and I'm impressed. What a painting!

It takes nothing away from the Orsay's prizes, Olympia and Dejuener sur l'Herbe, but neither do those take away from Couture. "Decadence" would be just another extravagance at the Louvre. At the Orsay, it's yet alive. They want it for the contrast to Manet & etc. I love it for that same contrast, but not b/c it's dead. It's so very alive for me.

So, to the question of this thread: what will we see years from now? Beauty, above all, I suggest, and not trite. Most of Impressionism seems old to me, and not pretty. I wonder if the moderns will fade, too, or grow again. Can Couture yet live, or only by counter-example?

Anyway, the most impressive thing I saw this weekend, to which I hadn't paid any attention in previous visits, was Hammurabi's Code: the first written law, and an impressive, beautiful piece of rock unto itself.

[Valin]

But the zeitgeist of the present decade has yet to appear

That's because Dick Cheney has it hidden in an undisclosed location.