Greek art history
david_brake
Robert Hahn
sculpture by only a hundred years) is not atypical. The dates you have
provided seemed off just enough (5800BC?) and/or you didn't mention dates
as examples, so you have to be content with a general answer.
There seems to be a link in art (not just Greek art, though it is
certainly relevant here) that the more advanced, or educated, or richer a
nation is, the more realistic the art becomes. Such a trend is obviously
not applicable today, but that's irrevelant to this topic.
Also true is that as a conquerer in war takes over another country, the
art significantly regresses to more primitive forms. You may have
noticed such shifts in your history lessons.
I'd supply you with a more thorough answer (I have some greek history
books here) if you could give me dates, and maybe even exapmles of the
art you have in mind.
Robert Hahn
rwh...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca
Alan B. Beck
In a previous article, rwh...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Robert Hahn) says:
>
>There seems to be a link in art (not just Greek art, though it is
>certainly relevant here) that the more advanced, or educated, or richer a
>nation is, the more realistic the art becomes. Such a trend is obviously
>not applicable today, but that's irrevelant to this topic.
>
>
Bob:
An intriguing observation! In your opinion, why is modern
Western society the sole exception?
--
-- Alan Beck San Diego, California USA
Gordon Fitch
| >>There seems to be a link in art (not just Greek art, though it is
| >>certainly relevant here) that the more advanced, or educated, or richer a
| >>nation is, the more realistic the art becomes. Such a trend is obviously
| >>not applicable today, but that's irrevelant to this topic.
I don't see this in Chinese, Japanese, or Egyptian art.
Realism does take a large amount of technical expertise
and a lot of labor, which means it is unlikely to appear in
a culture in which slavery, colonialism, or industrialism has
not been introduced, but it does not seem required to appear
simply by the possiblility of its appearing.
ds...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alan B. Beck) writes:
| > An intriguing observation! In your opinion, why is modern
| > Western society the sole exception?
byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder):
| Actually, I think the real thing going on is that in all of those historical
| cases the quality of the intellectuals in the humanities is directly related
| to the quality of the culture. The "official" humanities intellectuals in
| modern western culture have not had anything to do with the real culture of
| modern society for over 100 years. They are all off in corner of their own
| showing one another what kind of paint smears and junk piles they have
| constructed. The REAL artistic culture of modern western civilization is
| movies, TV, photography, Rockwell, Parrish, and so on (in that these are what
| people ACTUALLY look at, hang on their walls, an so on). In that sense, the
| modern western artistic culture is actually so far advanced beyong the realism
| of the Greeks as to make comparisons difficult (their sculptures were very
| nice, but our movies are moving and talking!).
|
| It is important to distinguish between art and the stuff that comes out of the
| "art world".
The problem I have with this formulation is that when I go
to the art store in the mall I notice a melange of
realistic, impressionistic, expressionistic, and abstract
art. I have inquired as to whether the non-realistic stuff
sells and have been assured that it sells very well indeed
-- they wouldn't stock it if it didn't. In the last few
years I've begun to see "postmodern" stuff as well,
probably helped along by the legitimization, so to speak,
of pop culture beginning in the 1960s. As usual, "reality"
depends on who you're talking to and which way you're
looking.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
Brian K. Yoder
>In a previous article, rwh...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca (Robert Hahn) says:
>>There seems to be a link in art (not just Greek art, though it is
>>certainly relevant here) that the more advanced, or educated, or richer a
>>nation is, the more realistic the art becomes. Such a trend is obviously
>>not applicable today, but that's irrevelant to this topic.
> An intriguing observation! In your opinion, why is modern
> Western society the sole exception?
Actually, I think the real thing going on is that in all of those historical
cases the quality of the intellectuals in the humanities is directly related
to the quality of the culture. The "official" humanities intellectuals in
modern western culture have not had anything to do with the real culture of
modern society for over 100 years. They are all off in corner of their own
showing one another what kind of paint smears and junk piles they have
constructed. The REAL artistic culture of modern western civilization is
movies, TV, photography, Rockwell, Parrish, and so on (in that these are what
people ACTUALLY look at, hang on their walls, an so on). In that sense, the
modern western artistic culture is actually so far advanced beyong the realism
of the Greeks as to make comparisons difficult (their sculptures were very
nice, but our movies are moving and talking!).
It is important to distinguish between art and the stuff that comes out of the
"art world".
--Brian
--
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "The children who know how to think for themselves, spoil |
| byo...@netcom.com| the harmony of the collective society that is coming, |
| US Networx, Inc. | where everyone (would be) interdependent" --John Dewey |
+------------------+-----------------------------------------------------------+
Alan B. Beck
In a previous article, byo...@netcom.com (Brian K. Yoder) says:
>... The REAL artistic culture of modern western civilization is
>movies, TV, photography, Rockwell, Parrish, and so on (in that these are what
>people ACTUALLY look at, hang on their walls, an so on). In that sense, the
>modern western artistic culture is actually so far advanced beyong the realism
>of the Greeks as to make comparisons difficult (their sculptures were very
>nice, but our movies are moving and talking!).
>
>It is important to distinguish between art and the stuff that comes out of the
>"art world".
>
Brian:
I respect this view but don't agree with it. Although the
use of advanced technology is widely (& justifiably!)
appreciated, does that make it art? Are aesthetics and
technics invariably congruent?
Brian K. Yoder
No, that's not what I'm saying. I see really horrid stuff produced all the
time which uses really advanced, fancy, and expensive technology and form.
I was just pointing out that the "anti-realist" trend in art in the 20th
century has nothing to do with the actual culture of the west. Pollack,
Rothko, and others of their ilk are really indignificant in their effect
outside the "art community" except in the negative sense that it would be nice
if there were more actually good artists who were approved of by the
"serious" art world.
Ron Rizzo
It's a myth that modern (ie, most 20th century) art, music or literature is
unique in being separate from popular culture and in being the preserve of
professionals, intellectuals, aesthetes and other unwholesome types.
For example, music:
From the late middle ages there has been I would claim a marked difference
between serious music and popular: early composers may have used popular tunes
(the Folia) or ubiquitous musical material (the hymn Dies Irae) but a work by
Master Perotin or Palestrina is completely distinct from the folk & pop of
the day.
But, you say, think of all those musical amateurs in the 19th century who
could play the latest published piece by Mendelssohn? But those "amateurs"
were by and large confined to a small % of the middle classes of Europe.
In this century there are many collections of "N Easy Pieces" by Bartok
and others accessible to fledgling musicians.
Alright, you reply, forget about performers. Isn't it true the average
person could follow the serious music of previous centuries? A symphony,
a Chopin nocturne, a Bach toccata, a Brahms lieder ("Wiegenlied" not-
withstanding)? I don't think so.
But for the 20th century, don't we have a watertight case for the
unique snobbery of modern art: we can point to acoustics and nature,
the relation of diatonic music to overtone series, etc. We can cite
the incomprehensibility that regular concert-goers experience
in the face of a piece by Schoenberg or Reich. Aren't the "problems"
of modern art intrinsic? Isn't modern art, and not the listener/viewer
the problem? How can you maintain otherwise without being ludicrous?
Well, consider this: since the advent of talkies, the movie-going public
has absolutely no difficulty in *immediately* "understanding" (ie, accept-
ing, listening in the way the composer intended) the score of any film, no
matter how advanced or unusual the musical language. Schoenberg spent
WW2 in Hollywood and more than a few movie composers studied with him and
used serial techniques in their scores. Penderecki wrote the score to one
of the Exorcist films (shudder!), etc.
Yet when these same people are plunked down in a concert hall or are told
on TV "You are about to hear some avant garde music of our day" they claim
to be completely lost, and not have any clue as to how to listen to this...
...well, sound. Can it really be music?
Something funny is going on here. My explanation is that many people,
including art lovers & collectors, have an oddly proscriptive definition
of art, or more precisely, the experience of art: they impose a rigid, or
more to the point, bizarre, definition of what the encounter with art
*must* be, and then profess surprise, shock or hurt when the experience
unsurprisingly fails to conform to their definition.
I think the situation is analogous in the visual arts.
Exercise for readers: think of an example.
Beatles, Iggy Pop and Axl Rose aren't Art, high art, belli arti, whatever
you want to call it. Neither is most of TV or radio. None of the things
you cited are among the supreme cultural achievements of the present age.
And I believe there are such achievements.
Despite all the predictions of doom, neither the novel nor the painting has
died. They not only remain connected to the life of our time, they are
much more powerful or profound portrayals of it than the mass media or
pop culture (note: film and video aren't necessarily poppular culture:
sometimes they are, sometimes they aren't).
The fact that we:
1) may not understand them, or think we can't (except with a lot
of unnecessary and wasted effort, given their degenerate state),
2) may not appreciate (that is, value) them,
is *basically* irrelevant.
I mean, how many hep cats ever dug Dizzie Gillespie or John Coltrane?
Or Duke Ellington, really? Or Billie Holliday while she was alive?
The problem is the audience. The solution? A real effort to experience
art, not so much to "understand" it. It isn't a mystical or esoteric
thing; it's very real. But it isn't easy and doesn't come with any
guarantees. It probably is *elitist* which as far as I can tell is just
a synonym for difficult, complex, likely to possess quality or great worth.
I think the situation is probably as old as the cave paintings at Lascaux:
I doubt most members of the tribe understood those scratches in the same
way as the ones who did them or tended them. But it was worth trying to.
Regards,
Ron
Robert Hahn
more realistic art becomes...
Actually, I want to take that back... I was reflecting on this century's
history, and have now decided that art always have turned to abstractions
or to a more primitive level just after a major war. I am uncertain as
to why this is so, unless the half baked reason I have is the correct
one: that people want to express their rage, or their emotion so badly
that they are willing to sacrifice realistic means of expression in
favour of a more abstract one...
oh, and BTW, I never liked being called Bob... Rob's fine, or Robert, or
Robbie, or even Ro...
And then I could give you a list of nicknames I have, but that has
nothing to do with fine art...
...yet...
Robert Hahn
rwh...@watarts.uwaterloo.ca
Gordon Fitch
| [ Followup to Brian Yoder ]
| It's a myth that modern (ie, most 20th century) art, music or literature is
| unique in being separate from popular culture and in being the preserve of
| professionals, intellectuals, aesthetes and other unwholesome types.
| The problem is the audience. ...
Are we sure there _is_ a problem? How are we defining
the problem?