Replies

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.

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.

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.