What artistic period are we in?
Elf
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:38f937d2...@news.psi.ca...
> What artistic period are we in?
>
> Towards the end of the 19th century artists began rejecting the use of
> academic subject matter. By the first quarter of this century academic
> subject matter became extinct and was never again revived. This led to
> anarchy in the choice of subject matter and 20th century artists
> separating into two distinct factions.
>
> While both factions rejected the former subject matter one retained
> the old reliance on a foundation of skill and technique in its
> creations. The other faction gradually rejected not only academic
> subject matter but all its former reliance on skill and technique and
> regarded this as something utterly new. Presently except for a few
> vestigial remainders, skill and technique is almost entirely absent
> from the artwork of this faction.
>
> This latter faction won out in the eyes of the critics and produced
> what I call Modern Academic Art. It is now considered the only great
> art of this century worthy of enough intellectual interest to inhabit
> the modern sections of our museums.
>
> Early in this century Modern Academic Art because of its outrageous
> subject matter, its diminished skill and questionable technique
> necessitated a good bit of talk for intellectual support. For those
> who see art historical periods in terms of isms, the age of
> Bullshitism had begun.
>
> Presently what counts in art is large amounts of inventive talk,
> while the artwork is of practically no interest whatever. We have now
> ponderously arrived at a period whose most appropriate title is Post
> Bullshitism.
>
>
>
>
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
F B
If you read many messages in many different art newsgroups carefully you
will find the believe in the so called contemporary art as an institute is
declining. Unfortunately institutes have nothing to do with the living or
alive (how you say?) art. It would indeed be splendid if it did but for the
artists it was never like that!
Fons
my site http://www.cuci.nl/~fbloemen/
Tooloose Lowtec
in the period of Post Bullshitism".
-
-
-
Tooloose Lowtec
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Erik A. Mattila
Tooloose Lowtec wrote:
Actually, when I read this thread title, "What artistic period are we in?" I
think of my favorite Incredible Huld comic book. The Hulk was traveling
underground through rock and soil and all sorts of strata, and eventually
surfaced into a very nice jungle-paradise type of place, and announced "Hulk
is Here!" but added "But where is "Here?"
Erik Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> Actually, when I read this thread title, "What artistic period are we
in?" I
> think of my favorite Incredible Huld comic book. The Hulk was
traveling
> underground through rock and soil and all sorts of strata, and
eventually
> surfaced into a very nice jungle-paradise type of place, and announced
"Hulk
> is Here!" but added "But where is "Here?"
>
realise that one has been happy than to recognise that one is truly
happy at the moment. It is easy to see where art has been, and, if you
are of a taxonomic bent, attach labels to periods and movements, but it
is indeed difficult to see where we are at present [and it probably
always has been, and always will be so].
In this sort of discussion, people usually are overly pessimistic about
how dreadful the current situation is [as a letter from a Roman Govenor
in the Roman Empire remarked], or overly optimistic about how incredibly
ground breaking and different everything is. The middle way between the
two usually claims that everything has been done already and what we see
today is simply derivative - again, as it always has been.
Ecclesiastes observation that all is vanity and that there is nothing
new under the sun is worth remembering.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
The world would be a far happier place if it were rid of people who wish
to do good.
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
lake
matter? You can see it even in Corot.What was happening? What did
"subject matter" mean, and why was it neccessary to abandon it?
These are questions which have not YET been well-answered, after a
century-and-a-half of art criticism which has been mostly, as you say,
bullshit.
I assume that you would condemn "abstract art", wholesale, as lacking
in "skill and technique". You divide 20th-century painters into two
groups - those who maintained the time-honored craft, and those who did
not. Surely, "abstract art" or "non-representational art" derived from
the second group, those who scorned skill and technique.
But my question to you is, skill and technique at WHAT? And WHY? This
is not a new question. I'm sure Schiele asked it, and Munch, and
Matisse, and so on. In fact, it's been the main question of the 20th
century.
So why are you continually harping on it, mdeli? Do you think skill and
technique have some kind of indepenent existence, apart from
circumstance? Would you revere a shipwright in the desert?
And if so, why?
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Sinhue
I am trying to understand what you're writing but I just cant get past
what you are typing. Youre posts often seem vague and unclear and I
don't quite know what you're tlaking about. You make a lot of good
points butinstead of elaborating on them you seem to quote from random
passages in you're book.
I have noticed a major war brewing on here so please dont take this the
wrong way I am simply trying to understand what you are on about more
fully, and understanding is one of the reasons I think a lot of us are
here.
Please define skill
Please define modern ( do you mean within the past hundred or so years
or are you refering to contemporary artists?)
Please define "artsie fartsie"
Please define talent
Also when you said " There have been centuries of good abstract art "
what are you referring to? Textiles and crafts? or the All over
compositions of the Baroque periods in relation with those same rythms
and compositions being used by people like Jackson Pollack
Oh and I already know you hate pollack so you don't have to say it
again.
Miles
In order to move forward, one must learn to disregard their own death,
moving boldly and without hesitation. Only then shall they attain
enlightenment. This is the way of the Samurai.
mdeli
>You're gettingdown here mdeli. WHY did they begin to reject subject
>matter?
The didn't. Picasso, Cezanne, Matisse, Dali, de Kooning etc painted
subject matter.
>You can see it even in Corot.What was happening? What did
>"subject matter" mean, and why was it neccessary to abandon it?
---didn't know it was. Try looking at a good comic book for starters.
>These are questions which have not YET been well-answered, after a
>century-and-a-half of art criticism which has been mostly, as you say,
>bullshit.
>
>I assume that you would condemn "abstract art", wholesale, as lacking
>in "skill and technique".
You assume wrong.
There are centuries of fine abstract work. Art Nouveau and Deco
contain very fine Abstract work as does much contemporary
illustration. However, I do believe that most of the "abstract" crap
which inhabits the modern sections of museums lacks skill and
technique.
> You divide 20th-century painters into two
>groups - those who maintained the time-honored craft, and those who did
>not. Surely, "abstract art" or "non-representational art" derived from
>the second group, those who scorned skill and technique.
>
>But my question to you is, skill and technique at WHAT?
---in Modern Academic art its hype.
>And WHY?
Money!
Do you maintain that there is no such thing as superior skill or
technique, in drawing and painting?
Is Dali's drawing on the same level as an average art student? If you
can sense a difference you might begin to sense what skill is. Now try
to state it in words.
>
>So why are you continually harping on it, mdeli?
---because of it is total absent in what is considered the great art
of the period. Its also fun irritating artzy fartzies.
> Do you think skill and
>technique have some kind of indepenent existence, apart from
>circumstance? Would you revere a shipwright in the desert?
Unlike you I don't admire so called artists who lack skill or
technique.
scottvdv
enough. You're a purely mediocre Dali wannabe, your work, your book (Dali
on Modern Art Part Deus), obviously a disgruntled attempt at being something
you're so completely not.
John Ng
involve both skill and emotion. The result should not be easily
reproducible by another person. Simply having emotion is not good
enough... thus eliminating Warhol and the lot who would have us believe
that a splotch of paint is an art. Picasso is better as a craftsman
whose art is more suited to carpet designing. Loud mouth, smooth
talking painters are not artist!
This age is best termed as "Dark Ages Renaissance" -- the rebirth of
the dark ages!
In article <10405393...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>,
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> You're gettingdown here mdeli. WHY did they begin to reject subject
> matter? You can see it even in Corot.What was happening? What did
> "subject matter" mean, and why was it neccessary to abandon it?
>
> These are questions which have not YET been well-answered, after a
> century-and-a-half of art criticism which has been mostly, as you say,
> bullshit.
>
> I assume that you would condemn "abstract art", wholesale, as lacking
> in "skill and technique". You divide 20th-century painters into two
> groups - those who maintained the time-honored craft, and those who
did
> not. Surely, "abstract art" or "non-representational art" derived from
> the second group, those who scorned skill and technique.
>
> But my question to you is, skill and technique at WHAT? And WHY? This
> is not a new question. I'm sure Schiele asked it, and Munch, and
> Matisse, and so on. In fact, it's been the main question of the 20th
> century.
>
> So why are you continually harping on it, mdeli? Do you think skill
and
> technique have some kind of indepenent existence, apart from
> circumstance? Would you revere a shipwright in the desert?
>
> And if so, why?
>
> - Lake
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion
Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet -
Free!
>
>
anna t
in the CONTEMPORARY Bullshitist period, which is where we
will remain until people realize that, when everything's
been said and done, a lot of fancy, jargon-loaded artspeak
doesn't validate anything except snobbery.
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful