[vannrox]

I really enjoyed this article.

[Paul Atreides]

"A lot of the rubbish that we've been handed (in the 20th century) has pretty much played itself out," Mr. Banks says. "I think you're finding generations of (artists) who are really interested in getting back to discipline and tradition."

I really like this part. There has also been a renewed interest in Norman Rockwell.

[SoDak]

Good article

[Lady Jag]

"A lot of the rubbish that we've been handed (in the 20th century) has pretty much played itself out," Mr. Banks says. "I think you're finding generations of (artists) who are really interested in getting back to discipline and tradition."

Thank you for posting this! As an artist, I am heartened to read it. I do enjoy some modern art but frankly have thought most of it crap, especially lately.

[ObfusGate]

Fantastic Post!

For a little more on the sculptor Frederick Hart here is a link to an article about him by the inimitable BS detector, Tom Wolfe. And if you want the definitive work on the idiocy of the modern art world read Wolfe's, From Bauhaus to Our House.

http://www.jeanstephengallerie s.com/hart-wolfe.html

[B-Chan]

As a professional artist myself, I find this heartening. This story is the best news I've read in years. No more bad art!

B-chan

[Sam Cree]

Interesting article. That guy who spoke of pushing the envelope is right, IMHO. It seems that the "powers that be" in the art world emphasize pushing the envelope at the expense of true art.

[SMASH IMPERIALIST LIBERALISM!!]

Modern isn't modern any more.

[macamadamia]

The ARC frankly comes across as shrill and reactionary. What exactly are we implored to reject given that scholars do not univocally agree upon a precise definition of “modernism” or “modern art.” Moreover, opinions vary about modernism’s time frame. When did it really begin? Some even argue that modernism begins with the Renaissance! If we don’t know exactly what it is and we don’t know exactly when it began, how exactly do we know what modernism includes? It is tiresome demagoguery to speak about modern art as a monolithic phenomenon, and, worse, to harangue us with over-the-top comparisons with communism! The queasy irony here is that both the Soviets and the Nazi’s denounced “modern art” as an aberration and they both rejected modern art because it was not populist and uplifting in nature. So, how do we know what is, so to speak, chaff and what is wheat? Are Monet, Rousseau, or Klee really on that same bankrupt path as Basquiat? Does a Henry Moore sculpture deserve to be shoved into the backroom with a Koons vacuum cleaner? Modern art is a lazy, shabby label because there is and never was a unified aesthetic. But the ARC, ironically, joins the long line of groups with their manifestos, decrees and rants about what art “should” be, and like the rest the ARC apparently fails to see the logical end—reductio ad absurdum. I think art needs to be unfettered not just by agenda driven leftists but also by nostalgic Academicians.