Dead but not Forgotten
arn...@my-deja.com
In the magazine section of the NY Times, the writer Tom Wolfe
discussed the atrocious treatment of the late Frederick Hart by the art
establishment.
Hart used skill and genius to express his art through realistic
figurative sculpture.
This, of course, is contrary to what the New York City poseurs
define as "art"!
Great art is not about toe-ing the line to every effete wind
given off by Gotham's critics.
It is not made while hob-nobbing with the trust-fund-babies in
their galleries; either Uptown or Down.
Too many universities have swallowed the detritus of despair
ladled out by the New York "scene"; dismissing talent and work and skill
as the province of artisan, not artist.
The public knows the smell of the rat.
Artists can tell when crap is underfoot.
But when the soup is given out by the foundations, the "altruistic"
boards look East, and pour a very thin broth for talent; reserving the
substance for those they know.
Arne
http://www.nytimes.com/
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Elijah
dmor...@my-deja.com
semi...@hotmail.com (Elijah) wrote:
> I think he stinks.
>
Jealous!
:)
But it is certainly understandable.
A big thank you to the original poster--it was a very informative
article. I had assumed that Frederick Hart was of the Remington
generation(certainly he was never discussed in art history
class--instead we were treated to artists who used soiled diapers in
their work--good thing I dropped out)..I had never seen much of his work
before...wouldnt have been able to place it. The Maya Lin incident cited
in the article was particularly amusing..as well as being pathetic.
Hart might have been snubbed by the art society--but who cares? His work
speaks for itself--and he certainly made his worth in $$$$$.
The NY times article also introduced me to the work of Audrey Flack.
Amazing.
PS
At the Artcyclopedia they have a ranking for the most popular artist
searches. Who is number one?
Picasso.
However--if you check out the most interesting modern art poll..all five
of the top choices are representational.
arn...@my-deja.com
Hi,
Picasso was a great artist. But his use of the line and much of
the other abilities he used in abstract art, were learned as he
perfected his representational art.
I KNOW that the human figure is the most difficult object which
I can sculpt. But it is also the most rewarding, since we wrap our
emotions and dreams into a gesture or expression.
From what I learn on the figure, I can go to a specific idea,
and represent my INTENTION with skill and satisfaction.
The point of the Times article was really the Closing of the
American Art Mind. Hart was the representation of Wolfe's idea.
Critics or academics who claim to be able to discern good art
from bad, accomplish nothing at all if they do not look at the entire
range of a period's styles.
Arne
Elijah
>In article <3870b30...@news.cloud9.net>,
> semi...@hotmail.com (Elijah) wrote:
>> I think he stinks.
>>
>Jealous!
>:)
>But it is certainly understandable.
>
Naah, not jealous. What's there to be jealous of, his money? What's
there to do with 100 million dollars besides give 99 million to
charity? Not jealous of his skill because I don't think he was very
good. He sculpted idealized human figures with exaggerated physiques,
without any body hair, with angelic expressions on their faces, gazing
off into the distance or looking longingly at each other or some
equally trite and saccharine expression and them gave them boring
patinas and sappy titles. His work is as psychologically complex as an
apple. He was very good at catering to the lowest common denominator,
which if you hadn't noticed isn't the most subtle palate. His work is
Lite FM.
>A big thank you to the original poster--it was a very informative
>article. I had assumed that Frederick Hart was of the Remington
>generation(certainly he was never discussed in art history
>class--instead we were treated to artists who used soiled diapers in
>their work--good thing I dropped out)..I had never seen much of his work
>before...wouldnt have been able to place it. The Maya Lin incident cited
>in the article was particularly amusing..as well as being pathetic.
>
He wasn't mentioned in art history class because he didn't contribute
to the dialogue of ideas. As sucky as soiled-diaper art is it is at
least original, unlike Hart's style.
I think he stinks.
prime...@my-deja.com
> Hi,
> Picasso was a great artist. But his use of the line and much
of
> the other abilities he used in abstract art, were learned as he
> perfected his representational art.
>
I think Picasso was interesting for about 5 minutes--then he spent the
rest of the time churning out product to satisfy collectors. Definitely
the most overrated artist of the 20th century. He was a compentant
representational artist(artisan?)--but he never got to the level of say,
a Sir Edward Burne-Jones or JW Waterhouse before he gave it up.
No one debates Rembrandt's worth as an artist--but Picasso is constantly
doubted and questioned--and will continue to be in the 21st century. He
also has the shame of 8 year old kids being touted as the next
Picasso--because it is so much easier for a child to duplicate his
skill-repressed work than say-- Norman Rockwell's.
I think Hart is a skilled artist/artisan(sculpting the human figure
realistically is quite a difficult skill to master--putting dirty
diapers into collages is not--if you can suppress any sense of
revulsion) but I dont find his subject matter anything special. Who
would I rather read about in art school? Him or the diaper maker? Hart
definitely. The latter would be better served in the "People are Funny"
segment of the daily news.
Representational artists are better off than abstract or non traditional
"artists" however--because it is much more difficult for the latter
camps to be innovative(rearranging the diapers upside down perhaps?).
Compare it to narrative fiction. Is someone a writer if he or she
conceives a story which consists of 150 blank pages? Or gibberish?
They may have a clever point behind the work--but cleverness is a very
minor part of the story telling formula.
I have known people who tried to do representational art in art
school--but were criticized by their fellow students("why paint when you
can photograph?" they would say). This shows a sad lack of understanding
and imagination.
Perhaps Modern art and like-minded art schools are really about allowing
people who would not have the natural talent to develop the skills
necessary to attempt a serious art work to participate by explaining
works to others or being creative in a mundane way.
That, and to keep the art world/school lackeys employed.
gruhn
>> However--if you check out the most interesting modern art poll..all
>> five of the top choices are representational.
Yeah, but isn't that just a reflection of where "art" is today? What's hip
and trendy this week and not any reflection of absolute value?
gruhn
> being touted as the next Picasso
That's the Art world's shame, not Picasso's.
David Randolph
> Representational artists are better off than abstract or non traditional
> "artists" however--because it is much more difficult for the latter
> camps to be innovative(rearranging the diapers upside down perhaps?).
>
I'm not sure I can make this argument. I make both. What I find is that
the study of the human form (or of the animal I want to abstract) is
vital to good abstraction. I think that it is easier to do bad art in
abstract form - because once you give up the constraints of the physical
form, fewer people can see the mistakes. When modeling something that
other people can compare it to, then most people can see the mistakes.
So, art students and those who are making lots of mistakes can find
"abstract art" easier to make.
Good art is tough. For me, abstract art is trying to convey a specific
emotion and I need to distill only the basics of the expression out.
That distillation is hard work. Copies of another's distillation almost
always are bad work.
David Randolph
http://www.prairietrail.com/wood/index.html
efa...@my-deja.com
This last century has had some wonderful sculptors. An abstrct sculptor
like Barbara Hepworth made beautiful forms wonderfully finished.
Another that I particularly admire is Ernest Barlach whose figurative
work is deeply moving. In a general way I think that figurative artists
are excited by the biological creature while the abstract artist - by
his toys. I think that an abstract scupture that is not fine can be
boring and trifling while a bad figurative sculpture is a kitche - in
bad taste.
I can imagine that work which is produced for buyers who have no real
artistic values, would center upon a kind skillfulness that can be made
more evident if the object is recognizable. I do not know about Hart,
because I have lived most of my life abroad. But a man who suits his
work to his customers rather than to his vision is no real artist.
Florence Amit
Dan Spector
found out he did have plenty of fans. His Vietnam Soldiers is about as good as
it gets. [Meanwhile, anybody want to buy some Minimalist art from the '70s?
I thought not.]
I am aware he built a stupendous house in No. Virginia, and I am unclear how he
got so rich. Even great sculpture commissions don't put you in that league. If
anyone really knows, do tell. And if you are just wanting to drop a nasty
comment, don't tell. Del morte, nil nisi bonum.
--
Dan <arch...@earthlink.net>
----------