Thank you, Ottbmare for your thoughtful, well stated argument, I rarely have the chance to discuss my thoughts on art. I concede to the body of your argument, with some reservations around the margins.
In full disclosure, I offer a Mea Culpa; I am a former deluded, self-educated, left-leaning dolt. However thirteen years ago, I experienced a volte face, though I am still a liberal, in so much as Churchill; was conservative because he was (a classic) liberal. I am frightened at the prospect of a Marxist-Islamic axis of power being implemented in government. How we repair and reset our constitutional rights is more important than any discussion on art. But I also believe that culture and politics are not mutually exclusive.
In my limited understanding, I believe Picasso was “messed-up” as a human being, not unlike Andy Warhol. et,al. I wish not to dismiss the amorality of their parasitic relationships with the intelligentsia, in which Picasso and others, enthusiastically embraced; nevertheless I share this disposition, and therefor, am unqualified to judge their lives.
As I understand, the main thrust of your argument, it is different from my poorly articulated claim, namely that, as a talent, Picasso squandered, and misspent his talent. My opinion is that Picasso’s artistic strategy was similar to a gold miner, he would dig tons of pay dirt in order to find only a few nuggets. I believe it is apparent that he was unprepared to evaluate the possible consequences of mining this gilded cage, also I am uncomfortable laying on his shoulders the condemnation of fraud, my contention is; that those around him, were like modern day talent agents, who purchased his talent and celebrity, not unlike the engaging in an act of Simony.
I now consider myself a Christian, although not a Catholic, I gravitate towards this language. Consequently, I am trying to apply my principles at past dislocated and incoherent conclusions. I concede, I am not naturally bright, but am willing to learn, even though, I am a very tardy soul.
“But the fundamental premise—the idea that what is original is good despite its evident ugliness—is a corrupting, decadent idea.”
On this thought, I am uncertain, Originality itself, was the new cause-celebrity of the day and apparently, merely a selling point for the greedy art dealer. This may seem unconnected, but when I think about the horrific struggle of the people of North Korea today, for example, how would an artist express this reality? I can see no beauty which could be expressed. Picasso also lived in times equally horrific and confused, On this point, I am willing to give him a pass.
Now I would like to discuss a possible bridge between our different conclusions. And because I am confident that almost nobody is reading this post, I would value your opinion on a personal project, a project, I have all but abandoned.
I believe in an artists language! There I said it. (not a solipsistic or personal language; or self referential drivel, but a logically coherent, fully productive, growing and yet definitional imaging referential language.)
No, I do not believe in Damien Hurst’s unicorns, or the facile yet brilliant utensils of the technically crafted pop art of Jeff Koons. I believe in the “unoriginal” extension of Catholic Iconography, expanded to include a secular language, as an exciting and fecund font for the artistic expression of the nature of being human. Agreed, that sounds dangerously decadent and easily confused as dung, but I enjoy drilling into the materialistic, adamantine core of the leftist determinists caves.
All language needs an anchor and at least two people who share its meaning. Realistically though, it must assume the suspension of social convention by incorporating empathy as communication, or obviously it will not communicate.
I am a follower of Rodger Kimball @ PJMedia, my opinion of Mr. Kimball is well esteemed, and I defer to his observations regarding the disassociation of personhood in art. But I digress, given enough time. He has written on the subject of Post modern art with great wit. I recommend his books.
I believe that an artist’s language is only possible with the input of “non-artistic individuals”. (By Non-artistic, I mean, those who’s interests do not include the production of objects de art, but have interest or ideas regarding the arts per se; Philosophers, historians, scientists, the aesthetically inclined, etc.)
Because I cannot presume to know which category you may occupy, I will only add, regarding the participation or insights that you may render, would be met with sincere gratitude.
In conclusion; I welcome any input, observation or suggestions which forwards my goals.
You and I may be using the term "beauty" in different ways. When you doubt that traditional techniques and a traditional vision can convey some of the horrific evil of our current century, you raise a valid question. But don't assume that "beauty" in this application means something pretty and saccharine. It does not necessarily imply that. Beauty can also be the accurate examination of a hard reality. There are a number of emerging artists who use historically-proven technologies and sophisticated techniques to reflect some of the harsh realities of life. Just as Turner's The Burning of the Houses of Parliament (1834) and Meissonier's Souvenir of the Civil War (1851) depict violence and horror in strongly evocative but highly representational ways, do you not think that the new crop of superbly trained, highly gifted artists can show human misery? I do. I see this capability among some artists who are winning the prizes of the Art Renewal Center's semi-annual salon competition. There are a few whose contributions to the landscape division are not of pretty trees and lakes but gritty Chinese cities and urban poverty.
If the purpose of art is to communicate, then artists like this are certainly creating art, while cheap cynics who randomly smear feces on a canvas are not.
More anon, if you like.