Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jalisco555
Hi jalisco555,

Thanks for posting this interesting art article!

I happen to like some modern art but certainly not all of it. However, I do appreciate when artists break the rules traditionally and create something that is actually beautiful or inspiring or thought-provoking; yet, obviously, I do not place all modern art in this category.

This afternoon I was reading an essay titled "What is a Renaissance Painting?" and in this essay, the author makes the point how back in the Renaissance, a 15th centurty painting like "Madonna and Child" was not actually called a "painting."

Rather, people commonly identified works of art by "its subject, type and function."

Consequently, they would discuss this work of art "as a story or narrative depicting Christ, the Madonna and other holy figures" (subject); and explain this was an "alterpiece, an object to be placed on an altar in a church" (type); and its purpose was "to illustrate religious ritual and belief" (function).

In the same vein, I think much of what we commonly call "modern art" needs an entirely new name -- because we truly are moving out of the realm of "art," and into pure marketing.

I am thinking specifically of this show now at The Guggenheim, and I am wondering if you've seen it.

The NYT has lavishly praised the modern artist, Matthew Barney, and his show, "The Cremaster Cycle," by saying he is the "artist of the decade." However, from what I have read of it, I am not yet convinced. I will have to see it. Until then, I keep thinking: This may in fact be the silliest show I have heard of in a long time. Below is one reviewer I found who agrees with me.

The subject "artist" here (Matt Barney) is a marketing genius, that's for sure, and I'll give him credit on that count -- but, I'm still missing the art.

I think his whole show should be newly classified, for it sounds like it's actually this: "Specatator Sport."

In the meantime, I'd rather see other modern art, or Renaissance art like The Madonna and Child, or, a retrospective of that great American painter, Edward Hopper. :)


Matthew Barney: The Cremaster Cycle

From a review posted at www.haberarts.com:

...The avant-garde, the male gaze, collage and contemplation, and big money—they already sound like a history of Modernism. In fact, [Matthew] Barney indulges in all of these. The familiarity of the movies may explain his [high] standing with critics and the public. The Guggenheim has not drawn a crowd like this one in some time. I mean not just attendance, but also a younger audience than at other museums.

His genealogy makes him interesting and challenging, too. It also makes for one of the silliest exhibitions in memory.[...]


Review by: jhaber@haberarts.com

"Matthew Barney: The Cremaster Cycle" runs through June 11, 2003, at The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum [NYC].

88 posted on 05/10/2003 4:54:06 PM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: jalisco555
Make that: "Spectator Sport"
89 posted on 05/10/2003 4:58:17 PM PDT by summer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: summer
Hi Summer. Good to hear from you again. No, I haven't seen the work in question. Frankly, I'd have trouble just getting past the name. I'm really tired of "transgressive" art and I'm just waiting for that phase to past. That being said I'm not as down on all contemporary art as some are. There are some great things at the Museum of Modarn Art in New York and I look forward to seeing their new, expanded space. I admit to a real fondness for Jackson Pollock and I could stare at his drip paintings for hours.

It's the stuff that is deliberately offensive or purposely ugly that I strongly object to. It's not as if there's an excess of beauty in the world after all. Why deliberately create ugliness?

94 posted on 05/10/2003 5:57:39 PM PDT by jalisco555
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

To: summer
That sicko freak is in my texbook! Eeeew!

Hey FReepers, I need help! I have a final exam for my Art Appreciation class on Monday night. The Prof is horrible-no ability to explain this stuff to people who don't have a clue, like me.

The essay question will require us to view a piece of art, place it to time and place and describe it. The only thing we discussed along this vein is sculpture. He talked a bit about early pre-Greek sculpture, moving to Greek, and then Roman.

My text touches on this very briefly and my limited ability to draw and describe what the prof said makes my notes unhelpful.

I've looked for web sites and find pictures but not any kind of explanation for what makes what, what. Can anyone help me?

96 posted on 05/10/2003 7:23:06 PM PDT by Dianna (space for rent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson