Posted on 06/26/2019 6:05:33 AM PDT by C19fan
Old, recurring theme.
The one epi of the 1960s "A Family Affair" that I remember has the kids surreptitiously adding a clay animal they made to a display of pre-Columbian artifacts, and the "expert" highlighting it as an fantastic example in the newly unearthed trove.
Probably the script writer being jealous of physical artistes, having been unable to rise above mechanically producing droll, but at least one memorable, tv plots.
Exactly. Every time I go to the National Gallery, more classic Western art is missing, replaced by crap by wymin and POCs.
The Cultural Revolution in the U.S. will be frogs-in-the-pot style rather than burn-in-the-street. But it will be just as thorough.
A Sunday Afternoon on La Grande Jatte...had a college professor for some sort of communications class have all his students dress, pose as one of the characters in the painting and then he took a photograph of it. We had to introduce ourselves, explain what we were doing there that day and then take our place on the “set”. Don’t know what the point was (probably to satisfy some academic fantasy of the prof’s).
Personally, I dislike pointillism...didn’t care too much for the class either.
It is just a different version of the PC silencing of opinion that they don't agree with, now, they must remove beautiful artwork that they disagree with.
How did we raise such a group of censors?
“That is extremely well put, and being able to consider what went on there and transfer it to other cultural contexts so that one can overcome things that one finds offensive in people who have good things to offer is not only not taught, it is generally actively obstructed.”
It IS being actively obstructed.
If you take any given great person in history, they said or did bad things, too. Doesn’t matter who it is. And yet, those bad things are the sole focus of liberal society.
If we keep tearing down statues/art/memory of such great people because they weren’t perfect (or were far from perfect), we aren’t going to have any history at all.
Which, I suppose is the real agenda.
I’d like to say accepting great people, warts and all, is my idea, but it’s simply part of Judaism.
If you look at the patriarchs of my people, each one of them did pretty crappy things, along with great things.
We know this and chose to focus on the great things.
That was me a while back. If you look to the upper left above Cameron’s left shoulder, you will see an object that looks like a rock with a perfectly round object sitting on top of it. When the children’s group started to move on from the Grand Jatte painting, I took the opportunity to ask the docent what was sitting on top of that roundish rock. She said ‘that is the man’s (with the umbrella, sitting next to ‘the rock)’) wife’. Not a rock, the man’s wife. It made me laugh out loud at my own ignorance. I found the explanations of the paintings very informative.
Here are a few off-the-tv snaps an Aussie took:
http://au.rrforums.net/forum/messages/16947/22770.html?1479246125
I’d like to say accepting great people, warts and all, is my idea, but it’s simply part of Judaism.
If you look at the patriarchs of my people, each one of them did pretty crappy things, along with great things.
We know this and chose to focus on the great things.
Very good. Some of the early Christian writers do attempt to interpret the patriarchal and Davidic behaviour as if it were always good, but I have come to the conclusion that this is unnatural and forced, and have largely adopted the approach you describe, with the twist that we too should expect to have some warts that need to be worked on.
That’s so weird. That individual you are referencing in the painting was the character I had to portray in my college class (see my post 65). I made the character out to be some Muslim dropping down in the park for a little rest.
Refreshing to read about Art for a change!
Remember when this kind of stuff mattered? I recall a time when educated people where expected to know these kinds of things.
Well, like the frog sez: Plus ca change...:” It looks like conservatives are once again called to save liberal tradition. This should be twice-weekly feature on FR. Here’s a suggestion
for the title: “ART IN THE DARK”
It’s how, back in the day, students referred to college art history surveys which relied on projected slides.
Art history is a rigorous field, but at least the textbooks have a few pictures!
Thanks for posting.
By the way, I originally meant to post a term for R’s later period— the one where he seems to have lost his mojo.
He tried to go from conceiving the subject from the center out—as mass, if you will—to depicting it from it’s edges. He was no Boticcelli and later referred to this as his “manière aigre” or sour style.
Of course the paintings that followed— in his old age while suffering from rheumatism and nostalgia— were worse. These were a millstone around his neck and undermined his reputation. There may be a moral here.
He painted all his friends. The girl with the puppy is his wife.
Agreed.
Warhol was the worst.Soup cans? Really?
FMCDH(BITS)
I’m glad you amended that. I was beginning to feel unsafe.
I’ve seen the same thing locally. An annual juried exhibit that I used to always attend and even purchased some paintings from in the past, now has a very large number of abstract works and a “formula” of including at least a half dozen showing POCs, regardless of the quality. They just want to make sure they are “edgy and diverse” enough. Blah.
Since the overall exhibition has stayed the same size, it means the paintings I tended to like, such as still lifes and landscapes are being squeezed out.
And I like Renoir, I guess he’s just a convenient target.
Renoir-loathing is a default position in today’s art world
Anyone who follows a default position has no business claiming to be an art critic. Groupthink kills.
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.