| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 Dec 2004 01:14:06 PM |
| Object: |
Finally, real ideas! (& what I've been talking about) |
http://www.artrenewal.org
Sample:
Equally ironic is the charge that academic painting is "uninspired," a
proclamation issued by critics who are unable to see beyond the
technical virtuosity for which they condemn it, to see what is being
said. This rich visual language is wasted on eyes that will not see. It
would be no different than dismissing out-of-hand a piece of music as
soon as it was determined that notes, chords and keys were used, or
dismissing any work of literature upon noticing words arranged in
grammatically correct sentences.
That is not to say that all academic art is great, or above criticism -
certainly, it is not. It would be no less fallacious to issue blanket
praise to an entire category than to condemn it. Academic painting
ranges from brilliantly conceived and deeply inspired, to trite and
silly, depending on the subject and the artist.
That being said, I find even the worst of it more meaningful than art
based on the ridiculous notion that it is somehow important to prove
the canvas is flat, and/or that one needs no skill or technique to be
an artist - views generally embraced by those who condemn the entire
category of academic art. Their point seems to be to elevate to
legitimacy that which has removed all standards and prior defining
characteristics of art. In other words, by defining non-art as art, the
logical conclusion is that art is non-art.
Modern artists are told that they must create something totally
original. Nothing about what they do can ever have been done before in
any way shape or form, otherwise they risk being called "derivative".
How utterly absurd.
These critics like to say Bouguereau's work is really only derivative,
harking back to earlier artists. Only in the 20th century has such a
thing ever been scorned. To this I have one thing to say:
WHAT, dear friends, IS WRONG WITH BEING DERIVATIVE?
That's one of the core beliefs of modernism that must be soundly
vanquished by common sense and logical analysis. Nobody can accomplish
anything of merit if they are in fact not derivative. Only by mastering
the accomplishments of the past and then adding to it can we go still
further. Every other field of endeavor recognizes this truth. Without
the knowledge of the past we are doomed to everlasting primitivism.
And, as far as holding our works up to the old masters, that's what we
want to have happen. If we are to accomplish things of true merit and
excellence, we must germinate and nurture great masters in the next
millennium, too. Bouguereau was quite aware that his work would be
compared on the altar of past accomplishments, as did his
contemporaries. It was precisely because they mastered the techniques
of the past, built upon them and then opened them up to an avalanche of
new subject matter and Enlightenment ideals, that they accomplished the
greatest half-century of painting in art history.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Finally, real ideas! (& what I've been talking about) |
30 Dec 2004 01:56:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
http://www.artrenewal.org
Sample:
Equally ironic is the charge that academic painting is "uninspired,"
a
proclamation issued by critics who are unable to see beyond the
technical virtuosity for which they condemn it, to see what is being
said. This rich visual language is wasted on eyes that will not see.
It
would be no different than dismissing out-of-hand a piece of music as
soon as it was determined that notes, chords and keys were used, or
dismissing any work of literature upon noticing words arranged in
grammatically correct sentences.
[snip]
THANK YOU for posting this! I'm going to the site now ... can't wait
to read more ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
