So9
I walked out of a recent "art" exhibition, between laughter and contempt.
There is a particular "stance" poseurs use at these follies, to impress their dates. You have all seen it.
Ten rules for him who wishes to be a painter1. Painter, it is better to be rich than poor; so learn how to make gold and precious stones come out of your brush.
2. Don't be affraid of perfection; you'll never attain it!
3. Begin by learning to draw and paint like the old masters. After that, you can do as you like; everyone will respect you.
4. Don't throw to the dogs either your eye or your hand or your brain, for you will need them all if you are to be a painter.
5. If you are one of those who believe that modern art has surpassed Vermeer and Raphael, don't read this book, just go right on in your blissful idiocy.
6. Don't vomit on your picture, because it is the picture which can vomit on you after you are dead.
7. No lazy masterpieces!
8. Painter, paint!
9. Painter, don't drink alcohol, and chew hassish only five times in your life.
10. If painting doesn't love you, all your love for her will be unavailing.
In 1936, in Paris, I visited an exhibition of so-called abstract painting in the company of the late Maurice Heine, the erudite specialist on the Marquis de Sade, and he noticed that during the whole visit my eyes kept coming back to a corner of the exposition room in which no work was being exhibited. "You seem to be systematically avoiding looking at the paintings," Heine said to me, "It's as though you were obsessed by something invisible!" "It's nothing invisible," I replied to reassure him, "I just can't help looking at that door--it is so well painted. It is by far the best painted thing in the whole exposition."
This was rigorously true. None of the painters who had hung their canvases in this room would have been capable of painting that door. And on the other hand, the house painter who had painted the latter would have been able very creditably to copy any one of the paintings exhibited! I myself was quite overcome by that door, and I wondered, with genuine curiosity, how many layers of paint there were, what proportion of oil and turpentine, to have produced a surface so homogenous, smooth and even, so noble in its material solidity, which had demanded a minimum of honest workmanship which none of the exhibiting artists came anywhere near posessing. Let us beware then, of that kind of would-be painting, whether abstract or non-abstract, surrealist or existentialist, whatever may be the pseudo-philosophic label it bears, but which a painter of doors would be capable of reproducing and copying satisfactorily in less than a half hour.
I may not be a great artist, but by God, I give it my best-- I pay attention to composition, accurate drawing, realistic color, and all the rest that goes into making a landscape you might want to walk into, or a still life that draws you to linger over it.
He nailed it when he said: when everything is art, nothing is art. Exactly. And, I believe that nothing has killed off the popular market for art more than these 20th century charlatans. People look this garbage and don't like it, but they don't want to say so, so they just keep quiet and buy prints of older artists work that they do like. Since they don't like it, but they know it is supposed to be "great" art, they just don't buy original art at all.
[as I posted on the other thread] 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.
Interesting post, vannrox
Bookmarked.
In fact, the article sets up a false comparison. Where are the impressionists? Where the expressionists? Why reduce art history to a conflict between empty academicism and wild primitivism? It distorts our view to reduce a continuum to two opposed extremes.
I suppose most modern art is "bosh." But that's also true of most academic art. It would be a good idea to revive the tradition of representational art that strives for accuracy. There is something primitive about 20th century art. But I'm not sure what's gained by forcing art into narrow rules. Anyway, here is someone who'd agree with you.
The paintings here give me something for which to strive.
:-( ALl red x’s for me.
Great post. As a painter (not the day job, mind you) I paint very realistic work, especially things that have lots of reflections. But there is a sense that if you are not “out there” and ‘edgy’ you are not cool and part of the elite, so to speak.
I visited the Met and MOMA last year. MOMA was the biggest disappointment ever and actually made me slighty angry at what was called art.
My son (16) was totally unimpressed and said “I will scream if we see a canvas that’s all black that passes for art.” So what do you imagine was around the next corner?
There was one installation that was yarn taped to a wall. So he stood there, stroking his chin, walking back and forth and loudly exclaimed, “oh, I feel it! Amazing! This is incredible!” He made his point.