Why do art teachers push modern art?
Richard
Why do so many art teachers try to push modern art on students and
discourage them from traditional skills?
I went to see a sketching demonstration by a very good artist today,
Deni Ponty. He said he wishes he had been more assertive against his
college art teachers, because they strongly discouraged him from
traditional skills and thereby delayed his progress. He has tremendous
skills now though. I've seen his work. He said that many art students
today want to learn traditional skills.
-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Why do so many art teachers try to push modern art on students and
>discourage them from traditional skills?
They don't know traditional skills and have no skills themselves.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Herbert Ward
> discourage them from traditional skills?
Modern life is empty. Traditional inter-personal roles have been
taken over by government social programs, electronic entertainment,
and highly sophisticated big business techniques. All a person really
needs is a bank account and a TV set. We don't need "you" -- in fact,
the opposite is true. This hurts, deeply.
For example, people give kids caffeine at age 6, and then wonder why
then take up Ecstasy at age 14.
A broad generalization, certainly with exceptions. But, the suicide
rate for adolescents and young adults has tripled since 1950. That's
not a judgement or opinion, or the viewpoint of a bitter aging man.
It's a fact which must be incorporated into any understanding of
modern life.
People don't want to be reminded of this stunning emptiness by beauty
in art or music. So the need for skill and talent goes out the
window. And you get "sculpture" which any idiot with a blow-torch can
make, and popular "music" whose goal seems to be plumbing the depths
of aural banality, and overbearing modern classical music of endless
non-sequiturs. Often ridiculously presented as if the artist had the
talent and humanity of Beethoven or Michelangelo.
I think that Walt Disney has cause more nightmares than Boris Karloff.
But what do I know?
John Ng
>
> Why do so many art teachers try to push modern art on students and
> discourage them from traditional skills?
I believe it is because that is what they themselves have been taught.
I still have this guilt feeling when I look at some beautiful
paintings because some lingering message from my art school past keeps
telling me that this is not art... art must be arty farty... like
modern and funky, man. Only when you conscious think it through that
you see how wrong they were.
This goes to prove that the word is more powerful than logic. If a
painting gets printed in three different books under important names,
they become "art". Your opinion is unimportant.
This brings me to Goth Witlam, the former PM of Australia and a
dick-head. He bought Pollock's Blue Poles for millions in the sixties
(or seventies) under much criticism. And because it was so much
talked about, everybody wants to see it... not because it is good but
because of all that talk. Ironically the painting can now fetch
millions. It is unimportant whether the painting is crap or not...
publicity is all there is to art. Sigh.
John Ng
Willa Catheter
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Richard <cool_a...@z.com> wrote in message
>news:<62gusu8qed4502a0d...@4ax.com>...
>>
>> Why do so many art teachers try to push modern art on students and
>> discourage them from traditional skills?
>
>
>I believe it is because that is what they themselves have been taught.
> I still have this guilt feeling when I look at some beautiful
>paintings because some lingering message from my art school past keeps
>telling me that this is not art... art must be arty farty... like
>modern and funky, man. Only when you conscious think it through that
>you see how wrong they were.
My own theory is that the stuff that makes it into the history books
is noted simply because it is different than what you have seen
before. If we were still doing flat 2-D medieval ink drawings a la
The Hours of the Duke of Berry or the Book of Lindisfarne, there'd
be Nothing to Report (move along, nothing to see here.) However,
the books always note who changed art and shows representative
pieces showing how those artists changed art. They also pick people
who represent that school of thought.
There is some mass consensus among consumers of art ("patrons") as to
what is likely to wind up in a museum, be noted in an art history book,
and be talked about in the street. The consumers of art are half art
buffs and half investors. Some folks collect because they love the
stuff they have. Some of those get lucky (like the lady I heard about
who trotted around after O'Keffee in New Mexico, scooping up things
here and there until her heirs got a pretty dandy estate when she
"went over the Rainbow Bridge".) But, a lot of art collectors are cynical
investors.
If you are an investor, what would you rather have? Something that is
mildly entertaining right now or something that could get your name
on a plaque at the Metropolitan Museum or a few gazillion simoleons?
And it is the lucky artist who is also a canny marketer and business
person who can figure out what these investors want in their homes and
galleries.
ER
--
"Arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics - even
if you win you're still retarded."
Kramer Wetzel, home of the Texas Shakespeare Massacre
John Ng
> My own theory is that the stuff that makes it into the history books
> is noted simply because it is different than what you have seen
> before.
It would be true that books and critics document what is different
(which may not mean "GOOD"). However, the bulk of the books are not
saying nor suggesting that. They seem to teach that what they print
is "GOOD" art and not just novel (or gimmicky) art.
> There is some mass consensus among consumers of art ("patrons") as to
> what is likely to wind up in a museum, be noted in an art history book,
> and be talked about in the street.
There is consensus all right -- that is he who shouts the loudest and
(pays the most) defines art... Honourable Confusion says.
> If you are an investor, what would you rather have? Something that is
> mildly entertaining right now or something that could get your name
> on a plaque at the Metropolitan Museum or a few gazillion simoleons?
Agreed, as an investor, I don't see art. I see a big bank note.
Investment has nothing to do with art. Yet they are actually what
authors take to be de facto. Don't get me wrong... investors can be
connoisseurs but they are usually not so when it comes to money. I
will pay high prices for a Picasso or Matisse just so that I make a
quick buck off the other sucker, but ask me what I think anything of
them, and the answer is obvious. They are just hot potatoes.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Andrew D
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote:
>e...@idiom.com (Willa Catheter) wrote in message
news:<1037217197.558251@smirk>...
[snip]
>> If you are an investor, what would you rather have? Something that is
>> mildly entertaining right now or something that could get your name
>> on a plaque at the Metropolitan Museum or a few gazillion simoleons?
>
>Agreed, as an investor, I don't see art. I see a big bank note.
>Investment has nothing to do with art.
Philatelists will tell you the most expensive stamps are the often bad ones.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
paul dray
"I think it is because they have no talent themselves. I mean, an
artist who has failed turns to teaching. I have seen so much rubbish
called art it makes me wonder......"
Paul