The Rise and Fall and then Rise Again of 19th Century Traditional Academic Humanist Art
Iian Neill
"academics" and in those who condemned it, I think you may find this
internet site of some interest. Presented on this page is a
transcription of a speech given by collector Fred Ross on the return to
fame of various 19th century artists.
Contained therein is an eloquent, well-researched, logically argued
analysis on the greatness of certain 19th century Masters who fell into
obscurity and disrepute for some fifty years in this century. Such
painters as Bouguereau, Meissonier, Gérôme and Burne-Jones feature
prominently in Mister Ross' speech - but this gentleman has not
restricted himself to merely discussing their works (although such an
undertaking in itself is momentous enough!), he has also proposed his
own theory as to why their collective reputations suffered during the
height of Modernism, and also why they are still criticized by some
Post-Modernist critics in our own decade.
Even if you disagree with Mister Ross' conclusions, I am sure that you
will find the speech fascinating reading.
You can find this work - "The Rise and Fall and then Rise Again of 19th
Century Traditional Academic Humanist Art" - at this address, on Richard
R. Gandy's well-presented and eclectic site of Classical Realist art:
http://www.gandynet.com/art/Ross/Rise_and_Fall.htm
Regards,
Iian Neill.
______________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in fine art from its greatest masters, then feel
free to visit my art archive, the Renaissance Café.
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
http://members.spree.com/sip/gerome/index.html
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
<snipped>
>
> Even if you disagree with Mister Ross' conclusions, I am sure that you
> will find the speech fascinating reading.
> You can find this work - "The Rise and Fall and then Rise Again of 19th
> Century Traditional Academic Humanist Art" - at this address, on Richard
> R. Gandy's well-presented and eclectic site of Classical Realist art:
>
In some sense I found Ross' essay fascinating. For example not even
mentioning Karl Marx in the context of this historical period. It confused
me on several counts: 1) how can the French Academy, The PreRaphaelites, and
the Barbizon painters be lumped into the same breath; 2) when I studied art
history these painters were well represented; 3) In most art museums I have
visited these painters are well represented; 4) most 'modern' artists I have
known or known of appreciated these painters, and I guess the list could go
on and on. As art history, I found Ross' essay lacking. He didn't convince
me on any of the points he tried to make. It seemed to me his intent was to
disparage 'modernism' rather than make meaningful statements about the group
of painters in the exhibit. It was a pretty silly argument, and not
particularly well informed.
But I do believe he does not like 'modern' art, whatever he thinks it may be.
That was pretty clear. It's just that that isn't art history as I understand
art history to be.
I was amused by his attention to price tags -- that's a very post-modern
argument. He ought to get his schisms straightened out.
But personally I like those French academics -- but I also like those Mexican
beer posters of the Aztec maiden being carried up the stairs of a pyramid.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
G*rd*n
| ...
| But personally I like those French academics -- but I also like those Mexican
| beer posters of the Aztec maiden being carried up the stairs of a pyramid.
I mentioned this before, but it didn't get a rise out of
anybody -- a major vehicle for the style and values of late
19th-century academic art are contemporary "serious" comic
books. One might add highly stylized forms of popular art
like van and motorcycle painting (although these are
sometimes abstract). Abstraction, impressionism,
expressionism, and photorealism are generally put to use
only in the "arty", marginal forms of these arts. About
the only modern influences I can see are film and video,
which show up in unusual points of view and more
occasionally in activity around the edge of the image.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
peter nelson
>In article <36AC7871...@microtech.com.au>,
> Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> wrote:
><snipped>
>>
>> Even if you disagree with Mister Ross' conclusions, I am sure that you
>> will find the speech fascinating reading.
>> You can find this work - "The Rise and Fall and then Rise Again of 19th
>> Century Traditional Academic Humanist Art" - at this address, on Richard
>> R. Gandy's well-presented and eclectic site of Classical Realist art:
>>
>
>In some sense I found Ross' essay fascinating. For example not even
>mentioning Karl Marx in the context of this historical period.
Why should thay? The essay was about artists. The only
sort of artist Marx was was a bullshit artist.
> 2) when
I studied art
>history these painters were well represented; 3) In most art museums I have
>visited these painters are well represented;
I agree with this. I think Ross was attacking a straw man. Of course
artists go in and out of favor but when they're out of favor they're
not forgotten. For the last 5 or 10 years the classical music
crowd has been on a Dvorak kick. I like Dvorak well enough
but if I hear the Slavonic dances one more time I'm going to
shoot my radio. This too will pass, but in another 10 years
when they're on a Rachmaninoff kick, or whatever, I'm sure
I'll still find plenty of Dvorak discs on the shelf.
---peter
mdeli
>emat...@tomatoweb.com:
>| ...
>| But personally I like those French academics -- but I also like those Mexican
>| beer posters of the Aztec maiden being carried up the stairs of a pyramid.
>| ...
>
>I mentioned this before, but it didn't get a rise out of
>anybody -- a major vehicle for the style and values of late
>19th-century academic art are contemporary "serious" comic
>books.
You have this impression because you have hardly seen any academic
painting, drawing or idea sketches (which are impressionism) and your
idea of technique may relate to the web site you mention below.
> One might add highly stylized forms of popular art
>like van and motorcycle painting (although these are
>sometimes abstract).
You might.
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
>{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
I took a look:
Alfredo Arcia has interesting paintings but the technique is poor.
The rest varies between really bad no skill realism to net site
abstraction. The usual incompetence.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments.
at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <78k3lc$don$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> sort of artist Marx was was a bullshit artist.
I don't think I'll get anywhere arguing this point. Just one thing. I think
what Ross' speech missed was that the unpopularity of the Barbizon painters
was really based on a general French rejection of the 'working stiff' as a
subject matter. I think at least part of the impetus behind these painters
choosing such a subject was the general discussion of Marx and Engels that
was fashinonable in Europe at the time. I really don't think their
popularity suffered because of the onslaught of modernism, especially since
they contributed so much to breaking away from the hegemony of the French
Academy.
An interesting aside. It is generally assumed that the volumetric figures of
the Mexican painters is attributed to the "Indian" half of their synthesis.
After studying precolumbian art, however, I began to doubt it. I discovered
that Rivera, Orozco, Goita and Sequeiros were all hanging around Paris in
1912, rubbing elbows with Picasso, Gris, Braque etc. I'll bet anything that
the Barbizon painters were being exhibited then in Parisian galleries, and
the Mexican's loved them (especially ideologically insofar as the dignity of
the working man is concerned). I see a lot of connection between Mexican art
and the Barbizons. Maybe just wishful thinking (although I don't know why I
would wish that.)
>
> > 2) when
> I studied art
> >history these painters were well represented; 3) In most art museums I have
> >visited these painters are well represented;
>
> I agree with this. I think Ross was attacking a straw man. Of course
> artists go in and out of favor but when they're out of favor they're
> not forgotten. For the last 5 or 10 years the classical music
> crowd has been on a Dvorak kick. I like Dvorak well enough
> but if I hear the Slavonic dances one more time I'm going to
> shoot my radio. This too will pass, but in another 10 years
> when they're on a Rachmaninoff kick, or whatever, I'm sure
> I'll still find plenty of Dvorak discs on the shelf.
>
> ---peter
>
Yes, wasn't this the fate of Pachabel's Canon in D about a decade ago? The
straw that broke this camels back was when the lovely piece became frequent
background music in TV ads.
jha...@om.com.au
As art history, I found Ross' essay lacking. He didn't convince
> me on any of the points he tried to make. It seemed to me his intent was to
> disparage 'modernism' rather than make meaningful statements about the group
> of painters in the exhibit. It was a pretty silly argument, and not
> particularly well informed.
>
> But I do believe he does not like 'modern' art, whatever he thinks it may be.
> That was pretty clear. It's just that that isn't art history as I understand
> art history to be.
>
> I was amused by his attention to price tags -- that's a very post-modern
> argument. He ought to get his schisms straightened out.
>
> But personally I like those French academics -- but I also like those Mexican
> beer posters of the Aztec maiden being carried up the stairs of a pyramid.
>
> Erik Mattila
Hi Erik,
I find your email offensive in the extreme. I also find in it a side-stepping
aggorance, a sneering embrace of the human sentiment that bedevils society so
much today. Why?
Let me give you a portion of an interview I gave recently:
Journalist: Remember me, Mr. Hagan?
Hagan: Look, Phil, the rodent returns.
Cornford: And the dog returns to its own vomit. He stirred his bourbon with
his pinkie and sucked it loudly. You know, Hagan, I feel sorry for you. You
will never have my fame.
Hagan: I don’t want your fame. I prefer my own.
Cornford: That’s exactly my point. How do you expect anyone to take your work
seriously when you to go to popular movies?
Hagan: Would it help if I went to unpopular ones? I just rented “The Postman”
last night and loved it—sort of a ‘Land World’ sequel to the classic ‘Water
World.’
Cornford; You don’t take things seriously enough, so no one will ever take
you seriously. Your just a Falstaff wannabe.
Hagan: Who the fuck is he?
Cornford: Oh, never mind. You’re hopeless. I’m outta here.
He stood and pulled a fawn trench coat around his huge frame. Then he pushed
through the swinging doors, taking out two cigarettes as he left, and lit them
both.
Journalist: What’s with the cigarettes?
Hagan: Ever since they passed that law about smoking inside he tries to make
up for his deprivation afterwards as soon as possible. He’s not a bad guy,
if you like the guilty type.
Journalist: At least we’re back on the topic of art and artists.
Hagan: Ah yes, that vanishing species, terminally infected by the twin
viruses of originality and profit. Better to be original than good; better to
make a profit if you’re not original, or at least marketed as original,
whatever the great unwashed believe, which amounts to the same thing.
Journalist: If I might change the subject, I think our readers would like to
hear more about your condemnation of the “intimately conversational piece” in
post-modern art.
Hagan: You mean the social message art, ‘VD’ art?
Journalist: We don’t have to go right there, Mr. Hagan.
Hagan: Is there some place you’d rather go?
Journalist: How do you rank today’s artists?
Hagan: I won’t pander to those who want me to name names, but think of the
best-selling artists:, and any celebrity who paints the stuff— from Sylvester
Stallone to Prince, from Madonna to Michael Jackson.
Journalist: But would you call them artists?
Hagan: What do you call them? They work in studios, for God’s sake. Is
there another requirement, some kind of cultural quality control?
Journalist: You mean you admire these people?
Hagan: What are you, dumber than a Hollywood script writer? This is the
Great Society. Of course I admire anyone who makes more money than me.
Journalist: Don’t you think it strange, though, that no celebrity suddenly
presents themselves as doctors or lawyers in the twilight of their careers,
but to become an artist seems to require no training?
Hagan: I see you are of the elitist school. Of course there’s some truth to
what you say, but given the money, most good classical artists sell out.
Journalist: What does that have to do with skilful painting?
Hagan: What are you, a conversational foil? Get some fucking lines! Who’s
writing this interview, anyway? As I was saying, publicity is more important
than quality. Do you think Warhol or Pollock or Picasso made it on talent?
Hell no, they massaged the public persona of an artist for their fame, much
like Picasso did. Dali used to wander around in bell diving helmet waving a
billiard cue. All he needed was a feather up his arse to complete the outfit.
These guys were shrewd publicity hounds.
Journalist: And what about you?
Hagan: I’m a good painter but a bad actor.
Journalist: And your agent?
Hagan: Do you know how demeaning it is to remind a post modern artist of his
two-dimensional existence? That’s really rude! I have an agent but he just
won’t kiss arse enough. To comfort himself Hagan sucked on a fried shrimp
head, from which the meat had been already removed. Then he chewed on its
shell with annoying crackle. Hagan fidgeted, then slid toward the end of the
booth while the table creased his gut as if it were marking an muffin.
Journalist: Before you leave, Mr. Hagan, could you just comment once more on—
Hagan: VD art?
Journalist: No, not that-- I mean our readers I think understand that by now—
Hagan: Understand that it’s a terrible, terrible thing in the history of
art, I hope. I could change my uncontroversial metaphor to something not
politically correct, you know, and maybe make a splash in the academic
world-- call it, “the intimization of art, the gossipization of art, the
nuclear socialisation of art, the art that likes to get emotionally close so
fast you feel guilty whether you spend the night or not, or something equally
clever. Journalist: Talking about spending the night what do you think of
the art of the women’s movement? Hagan: Ha! feminine principle paints the
social message, whining at third world poverty to attract pity and interest,
while all the while attempting to reverse a man’s aggressive instincts into a
fathering mode. Thereby is a potential mate checked for requisite
compassion. If the victim passes the test and expresses any interest in the
work, the relationship may proceed as the woman planned.
Journalist: But what does this have to do with art?
Hagan: Everything, my boy, everything. Wait until we discuss the romance
between the hemispheres, the ultimately narcissistic duo.
Journalist: I’ve travelled a bit myself.
Hagan: I was speaking of the human brain, you fool! With that he bulled his
way out the door. He left a rather large tip, but I had no idea how much
he’d eaten, or how many times the table had been served before I arrived. I
do know for a fact that Hagan did not eat Mexican food. He can’t stand the
stuff.
......... Get the point Eric? You philosyphise about art.... but you don't
paint. Your are a commentator not a painter. Us painters know about talkers
and painters. I forgive your ignorance .... still find your comments
offensive to painters. John Hagan PS if not show me your hand.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
jha...@om.com.au wrote:
> Hi Erik,
> I find your email offensive in the extreme. I also find in it a side-stepping
> aggorance, a sneering embrace of the human sentiment that bedevils society so
> much today. Why?
> Let me give you a portion of an interview I gave recently:
Hi John,
It puzzles me how you find my post so offensive. Maybe it was my reference to
the Mexican posters. At any rate, it is merely a discussion, an exchange of
ideas and opinions.
While your interview was interesting on its own merits, I couldn't quite make
the connection between it and what you are saying to me in your post. The
'gist' of what I understood you to be saying was that you are either cynical
or uncomfortable about discussing art, or opposed to the fact that art is
discussed at all. Am I close?
<snipped>
> ......... Get the point Eric? You philosyphise about art.... but you don't
> paint. Your are a commentator not a painter. Us painters know about talkers
> and painters. I forgive your ignorance .... still find your comments
> offensive to painters. John Hagan PS if not show me your hand.
I don't understand your point, unless you are simply saying that one shouldn't
talk about art. Maybe you could be clearer on this issue.
Philosophy? Not by a long-shot. "Philosophy" is actually a real thing, in
spite of the fact that the popular use of the term refers to many things that
are not, in the proper sense of the term, 'pholosophy.' Philosophy is not a
particular useful way of taling about art, because, as Arthur Danto said,
"Philosophy takes from art that which interests philosophy." So reading and
discussing philosophy about art is a read and talk about philosophy, not art.
I don't paint? How did you conclude that? Very strange bit of reasoning
evident here. "Us painters know about talkers and painters"? Remarkable. I
think I can easily prove you are incorrect about this imaginary schism, but I
doubt that you are interested in being correct about it.
As far as my comments being offensive to painters, let me say that's a pretty
bold statement. Are you somehow speaking for 'painters'? Come on, John. Why
don't you think about why you have personalized my post so dramatically.
Anyway, I think you should try to 'distance' yourself from this subject
matter, to depersonalize it a bit, and be clearer about what your concerns
are. I'm actually very interested in the issue of the geneaology of the idea
that several 'artists' have about why it is not appropriate to talk about art
in critical, social or historical terms.
Erik Mattila
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <78o1n6$nsn$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...[snip]
>Hi John,
>It puzzles me how you find my post so offensive. Maybe it was my reference
to
>the Mexican posters. At any rate, it is merely a discussion, an exchange
of
>ideas and opinions.
** True, I found a bit of humor refreshing. You were both very interesting.
I loved the bit about the Mexican posters!
>While your interview was interesting on its own merits, I couldn't quite
make
>the connection between it and what you are saying to me in your post.
** He's got a point. While entertaining, I seemed to have missed the point.
The
>'gist' of what I understood you to be saying was that you are either
cynical
>or uncomfortable about discussing art, or opposed to the fact that art is
>discussed at all. Am I close?
>
><snipped>
>
>> ......... Get the point Eric? You philosyphise about art.... but you
don't
>> paint. Your are a commentator not a painter. Us painters know about
talkers
>> and painters. I forgive your ignorance .... still find your comments
>> offensive to painters. John Hagan
**Whoa! Is this John who is making this statement? Do you speak for all
painters? I'm a painter. Why didn't you let me know you were our
spokesperson? I'll let the other painters know, O.K.?
[snip]
>
>I don't understand your point, unless you are simply saying that one
shouldn't
>talk about art. Maybe you could be clearer on this issue.>
Everyone should talk about art and everyone should look at art and painters
sometimes know a lot about art and should discuss it and painters sometimes
know diddley about art and shouldn't discuss it but do anyway. Sometimes,
non painters have looked at my work and made statements which made the whole
thing clearer to me. John shouldn't discount non-painter's remarks and we
just held a meeting (us painters) and we voted John out as our spokesman.
Please feel free to join in the dialogue even if you aren't a painter in
this n.g.! (Don't get angry John - there's another election next week and
the painters may re-elect you again because you were doing a pretty good
job, you just went too far).
Kay Kane
>As far as my comments being offensive to painters, let me say that's a
pretty
>bold statement. Are you somehow speaking for 'painters'? Come on, John.
Why
>don't you think about why you have personalized my post so dramatically.
>
>Anyway, I think you should try to 'distance' yourself from this subject
>matter, to depersonalize it a bit, and be clearer about what your concerns
>are. I'm actually very interested in the issue of the geneaology of the
idea
>that several 'artists' have about why it is not appropriate to talk about
art
>in critical, social or historical terms.
>
>Erik Mattila
>
Marilyn
>
> In article <78mpej$ka2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> jha...@om.com.au wrote:
>
> > I find your email offensive in the extreme. I also find in it a side-stepping
> > aggorance, a sneering embrace of the human sentiment that bedevils society so
> > much today. Why?
> > Let me give you a portion of an interview I gave recently:
>
> It puzzles me how you find my post so offensive. Maybe it was my reference to
> the Mexican posters. At any rate, it is merely a discussion, an exchange of
> ideas and opinions.
>
> 'gist' of what I understood you to be saying was that you are either cynical
> or uncomfortable about discussing art, or opposed to the fact that art is
> discussed at all. Am I close?
>
> <snipped>
>
> > paint. Your are a commentator not a painter. Us painters know about talkers
> > and painters. I forgive your ignorance .... still find your comments
> > offensive to painters. John Hagan PS if not show me your hand.
>
> talk about art. Maybe you could be clearer on this issue.
>
> spite of the fact that the popular use of the term refers to many things that
> are not, in the proper sense of the term, 'pholosophy.' Philosophy is not a
> particular useful way of taling about art, because, as Arthur Danto said,
> "Philosophy takes from art that which interests philosophy." So reading and
> discussing philosophy about art is a read and talk about philosophy, not art.
>
> I don't paint? How did you conclude that? Very strange bit of reasoning
> evident here. "Us painters know about talkers and painters"? Remarkable. I
> think I can easily prove you are incorrect about this imaginary schism, but I
> doubt that you are interested in being correct about it.
>
> bold statement. Are you somehow speaking for 'painters'? Come on, John. Why
> don't you think about why you have personalized my post so dramatically.
>
> Anyway, I think you should try to 'distance' yourself from this subject
> matter, to depersonalize it a bit, and be clearer about what your concerns
> are. I'm actually very interested in the issue of the geneaology of the idea
> that several 'artists' have about why it is not appropriate to talk about art
> in critical, social or historical terms.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Erik,
Substitute the word "challenging" for "offensive." You are one
of the posters who I read with interest and have never found you
to be offensive.
Hagan is a flamer that's all.
Marilyn
-N.
> Anyway, I think you should try to 'distance' yourself from this subject
> matter, to depersonalize it a bit, and be clearer about what your concerns
> are. I'm actually very interested in the issue of the geneaology of the idea
> that several 'artists' have about why it is not appropriate to talk about art
> in critical, social or historical terms.
While not intending to speak for J.H. (or others) one possible explanation
for a resistance to talking about art (of course, nearly everyone involved
with art, except the mute, talk about art to one degree or another),
especially in a manner that analyses meaning, is a result of historical
tradition. There is, for example, in some aspects of modernism a fierce
opposition to extra-pictorial material, i.e., a belief in the exclusive
optical and visual aspect of artworks. Such an ideology invests in the
notion that there is a strong seperation between the optical (or visual)
essense of an artwork and the conceptual world of words (verbal material,
talk), ideas, and cultural mythology that 'explains' the art. Ironically,
this point of view is simply another 'verbal' mythology culturally
embedded in the work of art, adopted and defended (often verbally) by
those that claim not to believe or tolerate verbal mythologies in art. It
amounts to a strong defining concept of what art is by those that wish to
beleive they are avoiding the traps and snares of concepts, when dealing
with art. Such a stance posits a strongly prejudicial, theoretical,
culturally determined conceptual model of art and culture, while claiming
otherwise...and repressing that fact. As long as the repression is firmly
in place, it is easy to believe that art and the artist is not influenced
by words or ideas, that the art is 'purely' 'VISUAL' (as if the latter
term itself was conceptually self-evident). This mechanism I attribute to
repression could also be a product of ignorance (I do not use the word in
a pejorative way...i.e., if an artist is never made aware in the first
place, of the ideologies that he has inherited, either through historical
understanding, education, or experience, then there would be no knowledge
to 'repress' [I am limited in psychological theory so the following is as
much a question as a specualtion]). Without the knowledge of ones ideology
to subsequently repress, then one is ignorant of the positions and
concepts pre-built into their paradigm of art...opposing talking (or more
to the point, opposing the ideas behind the talk...talking is never the
real culprit) is then more easily self-justified (more talk, more ideas):
there is no recourse to a historical/critical understanding of ones
position. To attempt to understand one's position is considered a
conceptual crime against the cannon of modernist concepts.
-N
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.