Posted on 06/29/2002 5:33:04 PM PDT by LadyDoc
The writers on the ARC web site don't particularly seem to like Impressionism, but nonetheless seem to deem it worthy of respect, in start contrast to much of the "modern art" which they rightly regard with utter scorn.
I do think that they are overly critical of a lot of twentieth-century art; while some of it is truly worthy of scorn (e.g. rigging a room to randomly switch lights on and off) some of it is nonetheless interesting. WIth the era of photography and mass-produced prints, there is generally much less focus on the technical aspects of production and more on subject matter and composition.
At right, btw, is a picture of a Department 56 Snow Village (plus a few miscellaneous items) layout I set up. As a photographic composition it's pretty good, though by no means perfect. The flagpole in the center is a little harsh, but a rule of thirds composition doesn't really work without blocking either the moviegoers or the trolley. Still, I think it beats the pants off some Turner Prize winners.
I have never seen the intense greens of Degas'The Dance Class. The sleeve on the painting of "A Roman Lady" looks like you can reach out and feel the silk.
These artists are supurb!
Interesting. They appear to have assimilated the very characteristics of the institutions they despise.
I agree. I love Southwestern art myself.
Speaking of Monet, I had a bizarre experience a couple of years ago. My wife prevailed on me to take her to a special Monet exhibit at the Museum of Fine Art in Boston, since she won't drive or take the T into Boston alone. The entire exhibit was permeated by a regilious atmosphere, surpassing anything I've experienced in any house of worship. I have learned to behave in these situations.
The pièce de résistance though had to be an entire large room given over to water lilies. There were scores of identically sized paintings of the exact same water lilies, differing in tint, hue and saturation. The outlines in all the paintings was identical. None was particularly moving, beautiful or clever. I couldn't help being overcome by the thought "This guy was a total hack."
Monet suffered from poor eyesight in his later years. His disciples remind me of the old saying about the Puritans, "They mistake the rumblings of their bowels for the voice of God." In this case they mistake an old man's nearsightedness for the hand of genius.
Maria Vos Savant speaks for me when she says that in 500 years the most remembered contemporary artist will be Norman Rockwell. I always felt that the world of art faced a crisis with the invention of the camera. The best craftsman could not match its unerring accuracy. But as Rockwell reminded us, the eye of the artist could invent the telling details that the camera never saw.
Yes, painting can do alot that the camera cannot. Representational (realistic) painting throughout history has always been strongly interpretive, though. Otherwise, paintings by different artists would look pretty much alike, and they don't and never have.
I really enjoy and admire the impressionists, though, I do not at all put them in the same category with some of the 20th century "hacks," to borrow your word. I think they will stand the test of time. I do agree with most here that much of modern art is self conscious, self important, and (mainly) not really art.
IMHO, an important purpose of art (painting) is to evoke a feeling. If the painting is, for instance, of a landscape, it should evoke something of the feeling of that landscape, as Homer's do. The same goes for aviation, military, portrait, etc.
These art posts are getting to be one of my favorite parts of FR.
"Art changes", well, yes and no. The ways and means of "art" in history have evolved with the tastes of the patron. To take the polish off it up until the late 19th century artists were essentially "caftsmen" who, subject to the open market, created those objects d'arte that would appeal to the potential buys. Far and away those patrons were aristrocrats and/ or those aspiring to patina of aristrostcracy.
Then came the Industrial Revolution complete with the upper class scorn of "crass millonaires". Snobbery, in the worse sense of the word, came into being; b/c there was no way the aristo. could compete with the indstrialist when it came to money and posession.
The snooty attitude of "ar-teests" is merely a spin off of this contempt: You know, "Well, anybody who is anybody knows that this is a work of art. You DO agree don't you?"
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.