Something new to argue about!!

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

http://www.artrenewal.org/articles/Philosophy/PullingBacktheCurtain/pullingbackthecurtain.php

Interesting regardless of opinions I think!

Boris01 · Joined: 18 Jun 2008 Posts: 228 Location: Western Australia

wow , I completely agree with everything he wrote there . pity he's trying to flog his cr4p

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

I didnt actually look at any of the other stuff... I just thought the article was too long to cut and paste!!
I found some of the points really interesting and most of the pictured art really beautiful.

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

Yeah that mob. Remember reading that some years ago. Simply a Pre-Raphaelite philosophy rehashed. It basically argues that only Realism is true or pure art. I'm a Realist painter but I disagree.

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

I can see beauty in many things with out being taught!

AvG · Joined: 17 Sep 2005 Posts: 1912

I agree with you Pook.
By holding up his particular brand of realism up as 'the only ART', he not only discredits all artistic developments from the late 19th century onwards but also undermines the importance and developments of the 'pre-realists' (for want of a better term).

I notice almost all images were of works by academic painters from within a similar time period that being the 19th century.
Is he as affronted by the works of Bosch, Giotto, El Greco and so many artists who don't fit his mould, but without whom (individually or collectively) artistic practices wouldn't have developed into 'realism'?

The main argument as to why techincally brilliant artists like Bouguereau were left behind in history was because he was replicating the style and imagery that had been painted for about 300 years (give or take) and adding nothing new. (See the image Naissance de Venus from 1879 as an example).There is nothing wrong with that, but history is not made by people who repeat so closely earlier developments, no matter how well they do this.
History tells us about innovation, new ways of thinking, seeing, being, making. It doesn't always get it right at the time (just look at any 100 year old encyclopedias, or even 50 year old encyclopedias to see that) and no doubt some artists feted in their day were quickly forgotten afterwards, academics, modernists and others alike. As no doubt some artists revered today will also be left out of the history books in time.
But those innovations have opened up possibilities to artists that have branched out into other interesting, insightful and beautiful works.
You need a very narrow view of modernism to believe that, as the author says "Modern and Post-modern Art is nihilistic and anti-human. It denigrates humanity along with our hopes, dreams, desires and the real world in which we live"

No matter the merit of the individual artworks and artists he holds dear, to pit his very narrow ideal of art/beauty against the entirety of modernism (and yes post modernism) as if art is all either/or, to me is just retrograde, shallow and not the sign of a robust intellect. As someone already suggested be does seem to have his own agenda to his own ends.

Stefan Maguran

Darian is right - you are the voice of reason - nice to see you back with such a well articulated argument. Thank you, Amanda.

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

Amanda, that was beautifully written! Very Happy

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

This opens up the whole tiresome argument over Objectivism v. Subjectivism in deciding the definitions and relative worth of art, etc. It's an open ended debate that will never be resolved. Is "good art" determined by a preset series of scientifically measurable criteria? Is it like the legal definitions surrounding courtroom evidence? Does it depend on some kind of notion of an average "reasonable person" who would conclude "beyond reasonable doubt" after looking at the objective evidence of the artisan's skills, etc, that something is or is not good art? Is good art anything that evokes a strong subjective emotional response? Is it something that is unique and stands out as novel or clever or different? Or is it entirely whatever anyone thinks it is without any wider referent than the individual?

I do think some common sense realism needs to kick in at some point. And maybe the following principles may be useful:

1. It's useless to try to compare apples and oranges. Some people like apples some don't. Some cubist paintings are superior to other cubist paintings, or some impressionists to other impressionists, but it's meaningless to say that any Realist painting is objectively better art than any Modernist painting. That's opinion and taste, not objective science.
2. Tempering the first principle is common sense and intuition. We know intuitively that at the extreme ends of the scale some art is just bad art. For example, if a famous artist stops applying his skills and experience and brilliance and just cynically scribbles something meaningless on a board that takes five seconds or submits a blank canvas with his signature on it because he knows people will pay thousands for it because of his name, that's not art, that's commerce. Well maybe it's good performance art, but it's not good graphic art. Wink

thecatsgrin · Joined: 18 Apr 2009 Posts: 2181 Location: Gippsland

Another beautifully written response! Very Happy

I like oranges!! Very Happy

Stefan Maguran

I like both apples and oranges.
Jim, on his blog:
http://intherealartworld.blogspot.com/

presents a compelling argument about how there are apples and there are apples. A very interesting insight, I believe.

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

And I meant to say, btw, that the thread is misnamed. It's really something old to argue about! Laughing

The Pook · Joined: 01 Feb 2007 Posts: 2904 Location: Tasmania

white · Joined: 23 Mar 2010 Posts: 1

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions and ideas.I find this forum pretty good with lot of ideas and blogs.

Dug · Joined: 04 Jul 2005 Posts: 4837 Location: Gippsland

I have always subscribed to the Patrick Cook view

Truth is beauty
Beauty truth

Do da do da

Sung to the tune of Camptown ladies