Posted on 11/21/2007 11:37:41 AM PST by JZelle
I just don’t get it. Why is this “art?”
even though I didn’t understand it, I knew it had power.”...Yes indeed!...Power to the tune of over 1 million dollars
Because artists say so, I guess.
No, because whoring art critics say so. Because modern art is a massive, cynical fraud that exploits the greed and insecurities of the rich bourgeoisie.
For confirmation and elaboration, visit www.artrenewal.org, where people who understand the beauty of classical means of visual communication have joined together to advance real art.
One of if not the most notable member in Mexican Communist Party history.
Please post a picture of the work of art;all I see here is a pice of trash.
While there is a legitimate critique of modern art, much of the “art” championed on artrenewal.org is ridiculously saccharine and sentimental and deserves to be in the dustbin of art history from which artrenewal is trying to save it. The Tamayo doesn’t look like much in the reproduction here but in person his paintings are a lot of fun—not Michelangelo but an entertaining and pleasurable burst of color and form.
Oops...I meant to say “hosts of Antiques Roadshow”.
My own training leads me to prefer a picture that is “saccharine” or “sentimental”—that is, one that depicts actual human emotions and situations—executed with a correct understanding of anatomy, light, perspective, and paint technique, as opposed to pointless blobs of color thrown at a canvas for the purpose of exploiting rich, ignorant people. Tom Wolfe had it right about modern art. After hearing some of Picasso’s extremely cynical remarks about how he had ripped people off with his own work, I have zero faith that modern art conceals treasures of hidden meaning that ordinary people are just too too unsophisticated to understand.
I agree with much of what you say but it’s more case by case for me. Picasso’s Blue Period paintings are full of emotion and meaning, as are Matisse’s deceptively simple collages, and Tom Wolfe—whose book on modern art I loved—had no beef with those works. On the other hand, Art Renewal fave Bougereau’s paintings have in them, for me, nothing that remotely resembles “actual human emotion”; his skillfully drawn but ultimately lifeless figures are as far from the real thing—Caravaggio, Rembrandt, Titian—as the emptiest abstract art. Also, interestingly, Art Renewal entirely leaves Impressionism out of the equation—they make no mention of the staggering works of Monet or Van Gogh or Manet, which remain the most popular art in the world. I’ve written to ask them about that but I’ve never gotten an answer.
There’s no accounting for taste.
But more importantly perhaps - there’s yes accounting for tax purposes. A steady supply of “art” that is “worth millions” functions as a reliable vehicle for a tax write off for the wealthy. You can donate some blobs of ink (that the learned elite all agree is wonderful, and worth more than small cities) and canvas to a university thus reducing your taxable income, etc.
As I understand it, the Art Renewal folks don’t represent the impressionist school because they figure it has a big enough cheering section of its own and doesn’t need any help in achieving popularity. They want to promote the classical and academic schools. Nothing against Impressionist art, it’s just that impressionism requires a wholly different skill set, and the skills demanded by highly detailed, accurate, “realistic” academic art are in danger of being lost.
I am not the greatest fan of Bougereau either, but some of the other masters whose works are represented in their online museum are very great, and the folks who are winning the contests they sponsor do some thrilling stuff. It’s a joy to see that there are people like that working. Look at the part of the site devoted to Salon Winners and you’ll be amazed at the beauty, the vision they command. Asian artists particularly.
I looked at the salon winners. As a poster above stated there’s no accounting for taste. So of course I’m just stating an opinion when I say that the winners’ work kind of depresses me. There’s so little grappling with anything. The great academic masters dealt with emotional conflict—there’s conflict and anguish and hope and striving in every portrait by Rembrandt and every one of Caravaggio’s dark masterpieces. Looking at these salon winners is like going to see a production of Romeo and Juliet in which there’s no feud between the Capulets and the Montagues and Romeo and Juliet meet at the ball and instantly live happily ever after. It’s like Cinderella without a wicked stepmother. There is contemporary art which is figurative and well drawn as well as emotionally involving—Lucien Freud and David Hockney come to mind (though I’ll skip Hockney’s thesis on Vermeer.)
I’m afraid I would have left it in the garbage.
Was he the guy that started Sam’s Club? or the original owner of the Houston Oilers?
Looking up the art records on your Elvis on Black Velvet, I find it’s worth $10.49 with a $1.50 reward.
Finally! Someone says something worth saying on this thread!
Now I don’t have to scroll down in disappointment anymore.
While I’m not familiar with the artrenewal site, it sounds like it exists to promote yet another bogus “either/or” controversy that continues to be
exploited these days, the most current one being Intelligent Design/Creationism VS. Evolution/Science.
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.