The full story is in Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book I, 457-556
Posted on 06/12/2005 6:08:39 PM PDT by vannrox
One of the enduring myths about the so called modern "art" is the need (?) to understand it. According to its apologists without understanding there is no real or proper appreciation of the painting/sculpture that one is looking at. In other words a process that naturally begins and ends at the heart must begin in our brain. That means we have already made a wrong start. I remember a quote from Renoir, a painter who is not a favourite of mine but who, nevertheless, hit the nail right on its head when he said: "... art is about emotion, if art needs to be explained it is no longer art." With these words in mind we may proceed to unravel this web of lies that pretends to create something out of nothing.
The innate desire of the European soul for an honest, truthful representation of Nature in all its aspects has resulted in what we call Western art; a process whose origins can be traced back to the XV century in Italy and that reached its zenith in the late XIX century with the striking realism developed by masters like Meissonier, Leibl, Bonnat and Repin. Like all genuine manifestations of an unpolluted culture, it does not need any explanation to make it understandable. It is a feeling born of a deep yearning for beauty and harmony. A typical Flemish or Dutch still-life of the XVII century could, and can be, fully appreciated and enjoyed without any need of obtuse explanations about its "psychological meaning" or the "state of mind of the artist"; misleading expressions that have served to confuse people, pervert our appreciation of art and, last but not least, to justify the production of hundreds of books, some of them fairly expensive, which are not worth the paper they are printed on.
Some could, or would, say that this is not exactly true; that many Dutch still-lives, for example, carry a subtle but clear religious message expressed through the use of certain emblematic flowers or objects. The purpose of these subtle allegories was to remind the viewer the basic tenets of the Calvinist faith. This kind of painting could only be fully appreciated by educated connoisseurs who were familiar with emblematic iconography. Whereas all this is very true, it does not detract from the fact that the primeval virtue of a Dutch still life was its intrinsic beauty (as it is still today). Those who try to use the case of the allegorical Dutch still-life as an example of sophisticated art in need of elucidation miss completely the point when they forget that this genre (still-life) was already a firmly established and thoroughly popular Netherlandish form of art. The fact that many wealthy and, usually, highly educated Dutch art collectors commissioned large and sumptuous still-lives, devoid of any religious or moral messages, makes very clear that the main reason behind their commissions was an aesthetic one.
Some could also say that most of European paintings that represent historical or mythological episodes fall into the same category; that is, they need to be "explained" since most of its narrative content remains a mystery to the average viewer who does not possess an encyclopedic knowledge. That is also wrong since the main reason that makes us to stop and stand in front of a painting is its beauty; expressed in its skilful composition, sound draughtsmanship and beautiful colouring. We do not need to know Greek mythology to enjoy Frederick Leighton's Daedalus and Icarus (Buscot Park, Oxfordshire) or Perseus and Andromeda (Walker Art Gallery, Liverpool), neither do we need to know who was Napoleon to admire his magnificent equestrian portrait by David known as Napoleon crossing the Alps (Louvre). It is irrelevant if we know, or if we do not, who was St. Matthew when we look at Carlo Dolci's beautiful painting St. Matthew writing the Gospel (Paul Getty Museum). Needless to say the same principle applies to sculpture. One does not have to be a Catholic to be moved by Bernini's masterpiece The Ecstasy of St. Teresa (Church of Santa Maria della Vittoria, Rome), neither an expert in Greek mythology to admire his superb Apollo and Daphne (Galleria Borghese). We could go on indefinitely.
European traditional painting and sculpture have this attribute in common: They appeal to our senses because they are a mirror of Nature; therefore we can easily identify ourselves with the persons or objects portrayed, because they belong to the same three-dimensional world we inhabit. It is their formal beauty, conjured by the magical brush, or chisel, of the artist, that attracts us to them. The degree of knowledge of History, Classical mythology, Christian theology and symbolism that we may, have does not have any relevance in the actual enjoyment of the work of art in itself. It can only enhance our critical appreciation of it as a representation of a certain historical or mythological episode, but it would never replace or influence our aesthetic judgment. We would like it, or not, purely on emotional terms; and to do that we do not need any explanations or theories. There is nothing to "understand" but plenty to feel.
Because of its intrinsic ugliness and lack of purpose according to our traditional concept of beauty and decorum, the phenomenon known as modern art needs an intellectual structure or theory to support something that, left to itself, would disappear among derisory laughter. Hence this need "to understand" it. Once we have been foolish enough to accept the validity of such nonsense we are lending ourselves open to an unbearable barrage of words that have precisely the same purpose of the artillery shells employed in a real one: that is to leave you in a state of shock (if they did not kill you before). This display of pretentious intellectualism has a purpose: to convince you that you are ignorant and unable to "understand" modern art; therefore you need tuition. This will take the shape of flashy exhibition catalogues or "serious" art books that are a combination of Freudian nonsense and wishful thinking. Since modern art is about anything you can imagine except art (in the classical sense), it can be anything; in fact is anything you may want it to be. If we carry out a survey among 500 people that have been shown an abstract painting and asked them their opinion about the subject of it, most probably we would end up with 500 different answers ranging from: "It is my mother's cat ..." to "it is an expression of the artist's anger against the destruction of the rainforest ..." More likely, most of them would agree that "it is a beautiful painting" because there is nothing as embarrassing as to confess our ignorance; such is the effect of the modernist brainwashing techniques. Very few would have the courage to say: "it is rubbish" following the time-honoured practice of calling things by their name.
Since modern art is no more than "a high sounding nothing", to use Metternich's famous expression, this nothing needs a perpetual choir of apologists and elucidators, the noisier the better, to ensure that the crowds of pretentious fools that visit modern art exhibitions, and buy the ridiculously expensive catalogues, keep doing so. On the other hand it must be said that this whole farcical structure rests on solid foundations: the unbearable stupidity of the snobbish Western middle-class nitwit that would die before admitting he does not understand a word of what is said in that useless art book he, or she, has just purchased and that would end on the coffee table, to the sheer delight of like-minded visitors (isn't it magnificent...?). Once this people are forced into a tight corner, in a metaphorical sense of course, they either fell apart or start getting angry at you. The fact is: these people are living in a state of perpetual contradiction. Let's begin for the expression modern art which is an oxymoron, because art (according to The Concise Oxford Dictionary) means: "Skill, especially human skill as opposed to nature; skilful execution as an object in itself; skill applied to imitation & design, as in painting etc." The only skill exercised by the modern "masters" is the one applied to marketing and public relations, because without the support of a huge network of subservient art critics, cynical art dealers, powerful museums and institutions that have great interest in its promotion, this glorified high sounding nothing would have disappeared long time ago destroyed by its own sick nature.
Modern "art" is an abomination that can be duplicated by hogs, chimps, and elephants.
Seriously! I've seen video of a chimp doing paintings that look just like that splatter crap done by Jackson Pollard.
Everyone perceives the cosmos in a unique and personal way. The goal of the artist is to relate to another human being his own particular perception of the cosmos, and do it in a way that his own experience is reproduced in the mind of the person beholding his work. Deliberate obfuscation, of the type seen in modern art, is antithetical to the concept of art. The idea is to communicate things that are too personal and abstract to communicate by way of simple narrative.
They turn their backs on such works, go home, and watch television, and it's magic pixels, all arrayed in lines and columns, mixing only 3 colors to produce millions of colors, and feel smug in their assurance that they know all there is to know about how images are created, and what they mean.
Beat me to it.
Great minds and all that.
Today's artists seem to be more concerned with 'statements', 'expression' and self absorption than with beauty or art.
bttt
Printed out for further study (and I bookmarked your homepage for further study too).
Pollock.
And a great Pollock story is that of the Jackson Pollock dropcloth (paint-spattered, of course} that was on exhibit in the lobby.
The custodians, knowing a good dropcloth when they saw it, took it and stored it with their other painting equipment.
Needless to say, quite a furor ensued...
Whoops!
This occurred in the Richard Russell Federal Building in downtown Atlanta, GA.
fyi - (plus you usually post such interestingly wonderful images on these threads)
Meanwhile, real art is tossed aside as bourgeois, common. Yes, the Emporer has been without clothes for quite some time. The money and the mutual admiration society they have keep modern art going. Even those who feel they've been taken won't give up the facade (what? and cheapen their 'investment'?). Why would they want to give up on a good thing? Ch-ching.
well put.
Seems the patrons' appreciation of this "art" was based solely on how weird the artist was.
I'm sorry. His work WASN'T gathering much attention until his flower eating episode.
The full story is in Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book I, 457-556
It wasn't a Pollock, it was some no-name artist that had conned somebody into a federal grant (they set aside X million dollars for money for the ugly lobby of this extremely ugly building). Naturally he was beside himself with anger (actually shame) over the working stiffs throwing out his "dropcloth".
We all sided with the painters. We have SOME shame.
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.