The Resurrection of Art: Moving on from Dada

Breakpoint with Charles Colson ^ | April 4, 2006 | Charles Colson

[Killborn]

Ah, thanks. I see the problem now. When I say "worship man" I meant idolatry. A common trait amongst communists and despots is that they believe themselves to be superior. Hence my assertion that these cretins worship themselves as idols. Those with a healthy respect of humanity are not engaged in such worship. They merely recognized humanity's superirority as a culture and species.

Of couse, superiority can not overcome omnipotence.

[garyhope]

"BTW, I'm not much of a fan of the photorealists. To me, imitating a photograph with a painting is pointless. I don't mind if artists use a photograph as a reference, but they need to bring a different reality to the thing. I'm probably making an ignorant comment here, but that's my current perception."

I agree. I think photorealism is boring and sterile. I think it requires no imagination.

[Blind Eye Jones]

If the post moderns have their way art will be pushed even farther into the absurd, for example, art can only be viewed by scientific equipment (a merger of science and art) or art can only be done by the genetically cloned, hence there will be no art until the future, or shocking art can done but only if it can also be undone (mantling and dismantling a bomb)...

OK, I'm making this up but my point is that this approach goes nowhere fast and has make a mockery of itself for almost the last hundred years. I think that 'creativity' and 'artist' are now distinctions that are accessible to everyone so that anyone can be an artist and partake in the activity, an activity generally believed to be a good thing. But these distinctions have now been leveled to the point where they are meaningless: there is no content, everyone feels included and it only encourages self satisfaction. Equality in the arts means a flattery of the public and its tastes: the bourgeois don't want to believe that they are bourgeois. Thus equality has no place for real genius and it rather proclaim what isn't art (whateveryone can do) is now art.

[stacytec]

The notion that art can be re-defined by anyone is absurd. I think of art movements as type of unilateral conformity to a standard made chic by one person. The originator breaks ties with old conventions and all others follow. Does that make the old conventions any less relevant/passé or the new form more desirable? It is demand for art and the tastes of individuals that give relevance to particular works. The movement from which that work comes is a minor accompaniment.

[RightWhale]

Dali has talent

He also had technique, was a great draftsman, and teacher.

[RightWhale]

That's true. Still, a painter with skill and a good eye is still capable of saying a lot more than someone who has a vague itch in the ennui.

[freepertoo]

Okay, here's a good way to define dadaism. Think of any of Yoko Ono's work. That's Dadaism.

Some of the work being put up here on this thread is actually very, very good surrealism or abstract with outstanding design and color theory.

Dadaism, on the other hand, is absolute trash.

[stacytec]

LOL, Yoko just lacks talent and isn't aware of the fact that people mock her for deficiencies. That isn't really Dada, its just sad. The original folks on the Dada movement were rejecting the art culture of the time. The pieces were a big middle finger to establishment, they weren't suppose to be "good".

[maine-iac7]

I used stand in front of Bouguereau's wall size "Nymphs and Satyr" in the Clark Art Institute in the Berkshires in awe - he was a true Master.

I'm a portrait artist and also do miniature reproductions of the Old Masters, Impressionists, Pre Ralphaelites, etc - but Bouguereau was my favorite to do...

[Mr. Jeeves]

I've got a print of "Song of the Angels" hanging in my living room. Bouguereau is the greatest. ;)