Skip to comments.
Why it's OK not to like modern art
The Times (UK) ^
| 5/8/03
| Julian Spalding
Posted on 05/10/2003 5:02:44 AM PDT by jalisco555
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
To: solzhenitsyn
Just out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Andrew Wyeth? Artist or illustrator? Hey, you really want to take some heat? Just remark that Norman Rockwell was not an "artist" per se, but was simply an illusrator.Here, in New England, that could get you shot!
41
posted on
05/10/2003 7:11:27 AM PDT
by
PaulJ
To: xJones
the artists proceeded by averting their eyes from whatever their predecessors, from da Vinci on, had discovered, shrinking from it, terrified,...It's probably natural to shrink from such divine and awesome talent as da Vinci and Michelangelo, they're the Jefferson, and Franklin of the Art sphere, but still van Gogh didn't shrink from it, Andrew Wyeth doesn't appear to have either. Beauty matters no matter what the nihilists say.
42
posted on
05/10/2003 7:12:02 AM PDT
by
AlbionGirl
(A kite flies highest against the wind, not with it. - Winston Churchill)
To: wardaddy
Redux-wait
You mean Thomas Kincaid? Thought you were referring to someone else, then I proceeded to include his name in my own reference.
That's greeting-card stuff. Can't stand it. But how're the good artists to rise beyond the tyranny of the Emporer's New Art?
43
posted on
05/10/2003 7:12:33 AM PDT
by
Mamzelle
To: jalisco555
bump for later
44
posted on
05/10/2003 7:13:32 AM PDT
by
Ditter
To: jalisco555
Bump for later
To: wardaddy
A big problem with canvas "art" today is that are too many illustrators posing as artists. Thank you for saying that. There is a difference, and while I might not be able to describe it in words, my eyes can sure tell.
There are those that can capture the essence of a subject, whther that be by photography, oil, watercolor, charcoal or ink, and those are the artists.
There is another group, that can faithfully follow a mechanical process, and those are mere illustrators.
To: MWS
I can't stand modern art. I am of the philosophy that good art really ought to objectively represent something- an idea, an emotion, an object, etc. Modern art is all about subjectivism. It is reflective of the emergence of relativism as the mainstream philosophy, which strikes me as dangerous.What he said... I think the greatest artist of this century was Norman Rockwell..He not only painted a beautiful picture but it always told a story that anyone could understand.
47
posted on
05/10/2003 7:18:27 AM PDT
by
my right
To: solzhenitsyn
Because even a camera can be used artistically in the right hands (Ansel Adams comes to mind here). Capturing the right light, the right look, making the right composition at just the right moment makes the purveyor of any visual representation a true artist, as opposed to the recorder of detail.
To: FreedomPoster
"
I was one of them."
I guess we are "art ignorant".
49
posted on
05/10/2003 7:19:55 AM PDT
by
cibco
(Xin Loi... Saddam)
To: Incorrigible
My verdict is official - that one is just crap. Whoever did it has a little skill as an illustrator, but is not an artist.
To: Mamzelle
Yes a Bev Doolittle with all the Indian Ponies...again greeting card stuff but not as bad as Kincaid....big yuck on Kincaid....hell I'd rather have a Velvet Elvis..lol There is a living landscape(impressionist) artist in Chicago whose name escapes me but he works heavily in purply/periwinkle shades. He owns part of a gallery in Banner Elk North Carolina and I love his work but it's quite pricey. On the Indian "style", I like Frank Howell (I think he passed away). I like Terpning too but he's way overplayed. There is a german fellow who does Indian subject matter which I love and he really does great Michaleangelo style "hands" (doing good hands is a benchmark in rep. art) anyhow, I've been trying to remember his damned name and it's escaped me. I have not been in the business in 7 years and don't keep up admittedly. I was just looking for what has "frequently" been my all time favorite portraiture:
Real Art
51
posted on
05/10/2003 7:31:14 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(My dog turned to me and he said " Let's head back to Tennessee Jed!")
To: jalisco555
In my case, I guess I just don't get it... But then, even though my mother tried with all her might to get me to appreciate art, I never did, and would up the "heathen" that I am today...
One of many pieces of "modern art" that I've never "gotten" are the shuttle cocks on the lawn of the Nelson-Atkins museum of art in KC.
This may look like it's been retouched, but it's not! There are actually a bunch of big shuttle cocks (AKA badmitton birdies) laying at different angles on the lawn of the museum. While it's somewhat amusing, as I said, I just don't get it.
Or, for that matter, the Bartle Hall Convention Center "Sky Stations." Although they do look sort of cool when lit up at night.
Mark
52
posted on
05/10/2003 7:41:37 AM PDT
by
MarkL
To: Mamzelle
Modern art functions like a prestigious wallpaper or fabric, making a colorful decorative statement. Indeed....I'd rather have a Flemish tapestry or a large impressionst landscape...wouldn't you?
53
posted on
05/10/2003 7:43:47 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(My dog turned to me and he said " Let's head back to Tennessee Jed!")
To: cibco
I was waiting for someone to bring that building up..any architecture critics out there!
54
posted on
05/10/2003 7:43:48 AM PDT
by
MEG33
To: Chancellor Palpatine
good description.
55
posted on
05/10/2003 7:44:22 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(My dog turned to me and he said " Let's head back to Tennessee Jed!")
To: jalisco555
56
posted on
05/10/2003 7:51:08 AM PDT
by
uglybiker
(Fishing: The only sport one can engage in while sitting down and drinking beer....I like to fish.)
To: jalisco555
When you see "art" that consists of a few carelessly
scribbled black lines and green splatters that my dog,
Dixie, could do, if you consider buying it let me know
and I'll have Dixie paint one for you for free. It's
such a slap at true artists that spend hours really
using real techniques and painting something genuine.
If you want to see real work, look at some of Jim
Gray's art. This isn't advertising, it's just truth.
57
posted on
05/10/2003 7:58:45 AM PDT
by
Twinkie
To: Miss Marple
"It isn't about art. It is about how much BS you can spin to explain the 'meaning' of whatever piece of dreck you hang on the wall." That's the darn truth. That's why the only "modern" art that hangs on my wall are from the likes of Chuck Jones and Friz Freling. Not much spin you can put on Bugs or Daffy.
58
posted on
05/10/2003 8:12:31 AM PDT
by
kstewskis
(It's wabbit season!)
To: jalisco555
Well, certain things are seen with the hand and not the eye. Other things cannot be seen at all, like emotions, hardwiring experiences, rythms, jurisdiction, time and truth. Of course, conveying these abstract texture onto a painting is difficult work and does require some programation of the viewer, but once the language is acquired for a certain cult following, it works.
Of course there is a difference between genuine abstract art and modern art, modern art being this replacement of pure pristine youth beauty with something utterly sterile, as if sterility was synonymous with purity. Modern artist are utterly deranged and castrated and it shows in their autistic works. The omnivorous extravagant consumption sought ends up being like eating brown herbs in a bowl of cold water as a diet.
What is worse is that the obsession of modernity with the seeking of eternal life through technologies or make up masks of sterility only accentuate the necrosis despite the attempt to hide it. No doctor can produce a miracle cure the way a pregnant woman can produce a miracle child with young cells coming out of the old.
As for having a Ph.D to comment art or blaming ignorance, this is preposterous, since accreditation is not synonymous with truth. Quite the contrary, accreditation is most often used effectively to hide the truth. Modern art would be the epitomy of modern progressist superstition in people and in their art, denying God, yet pretending to be this iconoclasm that is in fact very idolatrous.
Gives credence to seeing with your heart and not your eyes and hence God can take any eye visible shape form.
To: kstewskis
I love those Warner Bros type cartoon art.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 121-130 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson