Posted on 06/16/2002 3:34:48 PM PDT by vannrox
"...The art of painting, one of the greatest traditions in all of human history has been under a merciless and relentless assault for the last one hundred years. I'm referring to the accumulated knowledge of over 2500 hundred years, spanning from Ancient Greece to the early Renaissance and through to the extraordinary pinnacles of artistic achievement seen in the High Renaissance, 17th century Dutch, and the great 19th century Academies of Europe and America. These traditions, just when they were at their absolute zenith, at a peak of achievement, seemingly unbeatable and unstoppable, hit the twentieth century at full stride, and then ... fell off a cliff, and smashed to pieces on the rocks below.
Since World War I the contemporary visual arts as represented in Museum exhibitions, University Art Departments, and journalistic art criticism became little more than juvenile, repetitive exercises at proving to the former adult world that they could do whatever they damn well wanted ... sadly devolving ever downwards into a distorted, contrived and contorted notion of freedom of expression. Freedom of expression? Ironically, this so-called "freedom" as embodied in Modernism, rather than a form of "expression" in truth became a form of "suppression" and "oppression." Modernism as we know it, ultimately became the most oppressive and restrictive system of thought in all of art history..."
THIS is a cross link to related subject matter in the News Section of Free Republic. Since a majority of Free Republic participants ascribe almost exclusively to the News/Activism Forum. The subject matter here is equally significant to this forum.
Please kindly view the cross linked article HERE.
The rest was crap. 90% of the people who made the effort to go to this museum made comments like "my kid could do this" or "this is stupid" or "I don't get it". I looked at the exhibits for 3 years, read the literature, discussed it with art students - and I came to the conclusion "my kid could do this", "this is stupid" and "I don't get it". Modern art is suited for a very very very small audience and the pretentious.
Once in a while a fairly interesting show gets mounted like the Calder. The difficulty with most museums is that in most cases the choices for directors are made from elitist insider groups. Normal people never get a chance as they get talked down to by the "experts".
As to "My kid could paint that" Now that he's seen it he could. (derivative) But would he have the creativity to come up with the abstraction on his own?
The NEA knows to turn to the democrats for support.
The mindless chater in the photography class that I took always gravitated to the "correct" liberal position on the issues. These were doctors, lawyers, and architects, not young college students.
There are conservative artists but it may serve them well to keep their mouths shut if they want a magazine cover or museum showing.
They aren't outlandish "can you believe I said that" statements but rather a passionate bit attacking the anyone-can-do-it school of art.
"Found" art factors into this too. "I didn't make this, but my noticing it makes it my work of art."
I made it for a girl who never paid me ($25) and left town. As I retained the painting, I loaned it out to a bar where it sat for about a year. An artist had a show there with large splatter paintings and collages priced from $400-800.
I later learned that an artist-musician who's made the big league ($25,000 museum purchases) thought that it was the best piece in the show. None of the offers that were ventured ever made it to me (I don't even know how much, just that some people expressed interest in buying it) and I still have the painting. I later saw an extensive magazine spread on the artist who exhibited at the bar.
The art "game" isn't that hard to understand but it does take connections to get exposed to the right circles. Some of it comes down to can you stand "proudly" by your work? Do you respect the opinions of those who admire your work?
I've bought works directly from artists I admired when I could.
Sometimes though, those who can paint/draw teach anyway... Burne Hogarth knew the human form, produced some excellent books on the subject, and taught in art school for decades.
There was no acknowledgement of the original photographer or the ad agency involved, just a brief description describing why this was art.
Even in the "fine art illustration/painting" world there are people who are just making paintings of famous photos. You can see examples of this at the art galleries in most of the major league retro ballparks in this country. Some of the photographers involved in the originals have prosecuted some artists for swiping their composition.
FYI
Thanks!
Regarding creativity and art, some interesting things are said on that subject in this essay:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1817366/posts
Art ping!
Let Republicanprofessor, woofie or me know if you want on or off the art ping list.
ARC is a very nice site, somewhat controversial in that it celebrates representational art at the expense of abstract, which is going against the grain these days. Especially Victorian art, which I think is Mr. Ross’ favorite.
I’m inclined to agree, though I also like some abstract stuff.
What laws? Thanks.
I have a simple rule to define what is art, and what is not.
If I can do it, it is not art.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.