Arty Farty ?
Jon°
myself, is the appreciation of art governed by a persons political viewpoint
?
For example would most advocates of modern forms of art be natural left
wingers ? Then again would impressionist admirers be Lib/Dems ? Finally,
are those whose admiration is only for strict classical forms, Rembrandt,
Van Gogh etc., the traditional Tory voters ?
If my above point has some basis it gives an interesting insight into the
mind workings of the different areas of political thought.
For example, left wing modernists would seem to prefer a world without
control, form or substance. They are only interested in making an impact, an
impact that is brought about by clashing colours with indecipherable
messages that can be interpreted in any way the observer of the day wishes.
One of Blair's speeches, if examined in this light gives an indication of
this. Full of hyperbolic promises and absolutely no substance.
The Lib/Dems however love to see things as they wish, impressionism grants
them this. Listen to any of their parliamentary speakers, they give the
"impression" that they believe the Garden Of Eden will return if we all just
love one another and that lions can be made to play with lambs.
The Tories though (particularly the members who are Pre-Major in their
views) do not allow their thought to become clouded with false and fanciful
aberrations. They prefer the real world, where one can see what one gets
and tries to understands the shape of things to come. Not for them dabbling
in hues and lines that are completely unfathomable and impossible to make
use of. They prefer a picture that makes sense.
........Telegraph letter below.....................
DAILY TELEGRAPH
Date: 21 January 2002
Readers letters
An 'artist' confesses
SIR - I read with interest your report on the row in the art world over the
value of conceptual art (Jan 18). I feel in a small way responsible. Please
accept this as a confession.
In the late 1980s, I helped a friend complete his fine art exhibition at
Leeds Polytechnic. I painted eight canvases in one night in his cellar,
fuelled by a crate of beer supplied by our local pub.
I splattered, smeared, crawled over, sat on and even named these canvases.
Two days later, with a mixture of guilt, glee and pride, I observed people
looking at my "work", and for the most part making favourable comments.
My friend passed his finals and I sank into obscurity.
Joseph Hutcheon
news:cPQ28.6721$fl7.42...@news-text.cableinet.net...
> Below I show a letter in today's Telegraph. After reading it I wondered to
> myself, is the appreciation of art governed by a persons political
viewpoint
> ?
>
> For example would most advocates of modern forms of art be natural left
> wingers ? Then again would impressionist admirers be Lib/Dems ? Finally,
> are those whose admiration is only for strict classical forms, Rembrandt,
> Van Gogh etc., the traditional Tory voters ?
Erm, Van Gogh could hardly be described as adhering to 'strict classical
forms'; he was a Post-Impressionist, whose painitings represented a move
*away* from realism towards abstraction.
> If my above point has some basis it gives an interesting insight into the
> mind workings of the different areas of political thought.
>
> For example, left wing modernists would seem to prefer a world without
> control, form or substance. They are only interested in making an impact,
an
> impact that is brought about by clashing colours with indecipherable
> messages that can be interpreted in any way the observer of the day
wishes.
> One of Blair's speeches, if examined in this light gives an indication of
> this. Full of hyperbolic promises and absolutely no substance.
This seems to imply that Blair is in some way left wing.
> The Lib/Dems however love to see things as they wish, impressionism grants
> them this. Listen to any of their parliamentary speakers, they give the
> "impression" that they believe the Garden Of Eden will return if we all
just
> love one another and that lions can be made to play with lambs.
'The lion shall lie down with the lamb, but the lamb shall not get much
sleep'
(Woody Allen)
> The Tories though (particularly the members who are Pre-Major in their
> views) do not allow their thought to become clouded with false and
fanciful
> aberrations. They prefer the real world, where one can see what one gets
> and tries to understands the shape of things to come. Not for them
dabbling
> in hues and lines that are completely unfathomable and impossible to make
> use of. They prefer a picture that makes sense.
<snip article>
Hmmm, interesting thought. Taking the analysis to extremes, the Nazis were
very much in favour of representative art, as was Stalin. Perhaps the more
autocratic and brutal the regime, the more the need for grandiose, life-size
sculpture and realistic paintings.
--
Joe
Jon°
that he was a Post-Impressionist but he had studied Rembrandt in early life
and in general did follow classical patterns of "recognizability". During
his last two/three years (he only painted for around ten) a modification of
his style came about, his moving from Holland to where the northern light
gave fresh tonalities affected his output. His brushwork became broader and
more expressive and his pictures in fact became more alive. This I thought
warranted my using Rembrandt and Van Gogh as expressing a period of
classical painting, through which change occurred but shapes and backgrounds
were still understood by the average person.
"Joseph Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a2gnc2$10vvcq$1...@ID-102840.news.dfncis.de...
Joseph Hutcheon
> The reason I included Van Gogh was to give some period depth. I realised
> that he was a Post-Impressionist but he had studied Rembrandt in early
life
> and in general did follow classical patterns of "recognizability". During
> his last two/three years (he only painted for around ten) a modification
of
> his style came about, his moving from Holland to where the northern light
> gave fresh tonalities affected his output. His brushwork became broader
and
> more expressive and his pictures in fact became more alive. This I thought
> warranted my using Rembrandt and Van Gogh as expressing a period of
> classical painting, through which change occurred but shapes and
backgrounds
> were still understood by the average person.
Ah. So where would you place Turner on the
realism/impressionism/abstraction spectrum? His early pictures were
interpretations of classical themes, with 'realistic' depictions of
buildings etc, to impressionistic works, to almost pure abstraction.
I've often wondered why Ruskin, who supported Turner's move away from
realism, took such offence at Whistler's work, which seemed to approach the
problem of depicting light in much the same way as did Turner's.
--
Joe
Jon°
in Ruskin Park as a kid.
I would put both of the artists you mention in the Romantic period but
strictly speaking, I have been told by an expert in art, that I am wrong in
classifying Turner in this way. However I m not just going by time and dates
but by the very works of these artists. Both produced dynamic and idealistic
scenes and seemed to show the more positive aspects of life. So much of
modern art seems to delight in devaluing the principles that most human
beings wish to adhere to.
Romantic period paintings were a change and a certain reaction against
Neo-classicism but not necessarily the classicism of Greece and Rome.
I have been thinking about your previous remarks shown below:
"Perhaps the more
autocratic and brutal the regime, the more the need for grandiose, life-size
sculpture and realistic paintings."
That sounds smart but don't you think, on reflection it is a little trite.
You seem to be saying that the more normal and well run a society is the
more brutal and bestial it becomes. The statement in actuality condemns just
about every past civilisation known to man. It ain't necessarily so Mr
Hutcheon, some of the ancient art found in the South America's was bordering
on insanity, it even looks to the uninitiated, such as me, to be similar to
modern European art. Yet these civilisations were amongst the most brutal,
cruel and savage that man has yet discovered. So I do not think your theory
is watertight, do you after due thought ?
"Joseph Hutcheon" <j.hut...@jisc.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a2gt0f$113442$1...@ID-102840.news.dfncis.de...
Joseph Hutcheon
> Ruskin eh! that brings back memories, I grew up near Denmark Hill and
played
> in Ruskin Park as a kid.
We used to have a cat called Ruskin, named after that park, where he was
found as a stray.
> I would put both of the artists you mention in the Romantic period but
> strictly speaking, I have been told by an expert in art, that I am wrong
in
> classifying Turner in this way. However I m not just going by time and
dates
> but by the very works of these artists. Both produced dynamic and
idealistic
> scenes and seemed to show the more positive aspects of life. So much of
> modern art seems to delight in devaluing the principles that most human
> beings wish to adhere to.
>
> Romantic period paintings were a change and a certain reaction against
> Neo-classicism but not necessarily the classicism of Greece and Rome.
>
> I have been thinking about your previous remarks shown below:
>
> "Perhaps the more
> autocratic and brutal the regime, the more the need for grandiose,
life-size
> sculpture and realistic paintings."
>
> That sounds smart but don't you think, on reflection it is a little trite.
> You seem to be saying that the more normal and well run a society is the
> more brutal and bestial it becomes.
Eh? where do you get that from? Unless you're assuming I believe that
either Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia were 'normal and well run' (which I
don't).
>The statement in actuality condemns just
> about every past civilisation known to man. It ain't necessarily so Mr
> Hutcheon, some of the ancient art found in the South America's was
bordering
> on insanity, it even looks to the uninitiated, such as me, to be similar
to
> modern European art. Yet these civilisations were amongst the most brutal,
> cruel and savage that man has yet discovered. So I do not think your
theory
> is watertight, do you after due thought ?
It's not my theory at all; I was just taking your own theory about realistic
v abstract art as it applies to political affiliation to its logical
conclusion.
In my experience, those who like abstract art tend to be of an artistic bent
(no pun intended) themselves, in the same way that those who like modern
atonal music tend to be musicians or to take a great interest in musical
theory. Maybe such knowledge is necessary to understand what the
artist/composer is tring to do. The ordinary layperson (such as myself)
simply reacts to the painting or piece of music on a like/dislike basis.
Personally I don't much care for abstract art, but I've never thought that
had anything to do with my political beliefs one way or the other.
--
Joe
Jon°
Camberwell end, not far from Kings College Hospital. I went there last
November for the first time in several years, it had not changed that much.
I was told though, that walking around after dark, particularly on the other
side of the green in the centre of Camberwell was not to be advised.news:a2h0f0$119kqc$1...@ID-102840.news.dfncis.de...
Joseph Hutcheon
> You must have lived there as well, I lived in Coldharbour Lane, at the
> Camberwell end, not far from Kings College Hospital. I went there last
> November for the first time in several years, it had not changed that
much.
I lived for a while just off Champion Hill, though most of the 15 years or
so I was in London was in the Greenwich/Blackheath area. My wife worked at
KCH for a couple of years.
> I was told though, that walking around after dark, particularly on the
other
> side of the green in the centre of Camberwell was not to be advised.
It was a bit rough even when I lived there, which is getting on for 25 years
ago.
--
Joe
Jon°
as Green lane to all the kids, we used to go newt fishing there, its all
built up with new estates now.news:a2h1i9$10uq9c$1...@ID-102840.news.dfncis.de...
Joseph Hutcheon
> Years and years ago the area around Champion Hill was undeveloped and
known
> as Green lane to all the kids, we used to go newt fishing there, its all
> built up with new estates now.
>
I know it's a cliche, but the area I grew up in 'was all fields' when we
moved there. By the time I left home, they'd built a factory, a motorway
and several housing estates on the fields.
Similarly, the taxi driver who drove me back home t'other night pointed out
the new-ish block of flats nearby and told me how he used to play on the
fields that were there 20 years before.
--
Joe
wilfred.anderson
meaning, hidden depth. What's so wrong with a nice picture?
--
Darren Anderson.
Jon° wrote in message ...