 
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| |
Iian and Brian, Rather than saying art is about an idea, it might be more beneficial to concieve of it as being about human experience and human emotions. Thus a still life or landscape is about how we experience the world, and the human emotion of awe or beauty. Figurative works can explore far more complex human experiences and emotions. But modern art is about none of these things. It has nothing to do with human experiences and the expression of feelings, ideas or experience. Modernism celebrates creativity for its own sake. Thus newness of medium and/or method is the only parameter of value to modernists. But all human emotions and feelings and experiences are not new, and the most powerful are as old as humanity itself. Therefore all representational fine art by its very nature cannot meet the "newness" criterion of modernism, and is therefore ad hominem relegated to being nothing more than being derivative. To be worthwhile, every living artist is put in the impossible position of having to create an entirely new art form or medium to be considered relevant. You can't dribble paint any more since that would be copying Pollock. You can't just have large fields of color on other large fields as that would be copying Rothko. No form of modernism can be done better by subsequent artists, none of whom would be taken seriously due to copying. So all realism is seen as nothing more than copying. Of course that's as absurd as saying all of today's writers are worthless because they are all copying others in the past, by using words, phrases and sentence structure that was developed by others before them. Modernism on the other hand, cannot meet the fine art criterion of being about humanity and our experiences. So the two are mutually exclusive. If you accept the precepts of modernism, you can't be consistent and say that Leonardo, Rembrandt, Bouguereau and Michelangelo were artists. Fred
I seriously beg to differ here. A constant complaint on this forum has been that Modernism is all about "feeling" and nothing about craftsmanship and realism. What about Chaos, Serenity, Order, Turbulence, etc. I have seen all of these emotions in non-objective and abstract work. You may prefer these emotions conveyed by realism, that's fine, but it doesn't in any way invalidate the other approach. New emotions, or new ways of expressing them? Yes, the innovation celebration can certainly be a trap - and has been for a generation of art students who would have been better served mastering the craft before attempting "innovation". We would certainly have far less garbage masquerading as fine art. You are making the assumption that all artists and art lovers who are not strictly realists follow the "party line". There may be a ten percent them vs. us in print - and these may be the most vocal - but it certainly is not all. Again, you are assuming that the "Modernist" (meaning not strict realist) movement is homogeneous and that the art world can be divided between them and us. Many believe, myself included, that a work does not have to be realist to do so. I do not follow. This applies more to joining a political party where pure ideology is demanded than to art. Jonathan Grimm
Jonathan, I would like to believe that you are the rule and not the exception from the modernist camp. I was on a symposium at the Bouguereau retrospective in 1984, along with Robert Rosenblum, Greg Hedberg of the Wadsworth Atheneum (the third venue for the exhibit) another well known art historian (I can't recall her name at the moment) and a Modernist critic from the major Hartford daily newspaper. When I commented that his vituperative attacks on Bouguereau would be equally applicable to Carravaggio, Michelangelo and Rembrandt, and that if WB was not an artist, for the reasons he stated than they weren't either. I said to suggest so could only mean he was more interested in sounding shocking than in honest analysis. His comment was, "They weren't any good either and were all derivative and unoriginal". I gestured towards the reporter, looked at the audience and said, "I rest my case," and received a huge round of applause. But from what I've seen, a great many of the modernists who control the art establishment are totally against any realism ... at least by living artists. That's why you don't see any major museum exhibitions of living realists. And realist instruction is an after-thought at most university art departments. You claimed here that some feelings can be captured by abstract painting, and mentioned a few like serenity, turbulence, order and chaos. While I believe that these things can indeed be expressed far more successfully through realism, I might point out here, that these are only a few of the emotions experienced by human beings, and at minimum, wouldn't you say that realism is far more capable ... perhaps the only means capable of expressing most of the others, far more complex ones, like love, hate, jealousy, joy, fear, avarice, tenderness, anticipation, poverty, thirst, hunger, excitation, alienation, murder, exaltation, pomposity, relief, anger, etc. etc. So the only way modernists can deal with this consummately important and fatal void, is to dismiss such things as petty sentiment or story telling. Yet all the greatest art, theatre, literature, and poetry in history deals with all of these other emotions, the expression of which is the most essential single requirement for fine art to function in its primary purpose. Fred
Well said Chris. The sad reality is that no truly skilled artists can get work in a university art department, where they would most surely be seen as quite threatening to the clueless, talentless, and skill-less cretins who fill and control the art departments there. Fred
Fred,
I have slightly mixed views on this topic. I believe what you said to be true (well said too, by the way), however I was lucky enough to have an excellent draughtsman and painter as a studio professor at the university from where I received my BFA [Bachelor of Fine Arts], and I can say that in general most all of the studio professors excelled in their craft. I don't know if it is just that there is always an exception to even the most obviously true explanation of a situation, or what, but as much as I agree that students and professors in university art departments are talentless and fraudulent, I cannot say this from my experience. However I can say that it is very difficult for a painter of my style to become accepted into an MFA program [Master of Fine Arts], this from experience. "Splash and drip", abstraction, on and on ... these are the ones reviewing prospective students. One time, while trying to gain entry into an MFA program, I found after my BFA professor made some calls that there was only one painter in the "realist" style on the jury board - and he was very new, and didn't have very much influence in these things.
Jon, Were they master painters? They were endeavoring to teach others upon whom they would bestow the title of "Master" of Fine Art. Certainly they would have to be masters themselves to be able to do that. Or were they just somewhat competent, compared to the rest of the profession? - and in truth would need a few years themselves at an atelier to become just half-way decent apprentices? The word "master" gets thrown around in a rather cavalier fashion in today's university system, it seems to me. And if your answer is "Yes, they were masters," then perhaps you could refer us to some of their work? Fred
Fred, You are absolutely correct. I see now in the light of "Master" of Fine Arts, that the word "master" has absolutely been thrown around, and has obviously lost a lot of integrity. I, too, didn't register "Master" of Fine Arts as the term it really is, but more as a degree, a stepping stone of some sort. I don't know if I could call them all "masters" of their craft. I am hesitant to do so, which I guess is enough of an answer, as is. I do, however, believe that you would all very much enjoy and respect the paintings of John Hubbard, Drawing and Painting Professor at Northern Michigan University. Unfortunately, I don't have any paintings of his to post, and I know of no website that contains his work. Perhaps I can work something out. I do know, however, that there are zero of my colleagues from that university, many of whom have earned or are working on their MFA, that I would ever title "master", and ... I do believe the ateliers to be of far greater integrity than any university in painting. Jon | |
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
-small.jpg)
