Is Art Deco and Art Nouveau true art?
Bailey
I have recently begun to personally study the Art Nouveau and Art Deco
movements, and have found the work in them very visually stimulating,
and very artistic. As one who sometimes designs, I can also relate to
the graphic aspect of the movements as well.
My question is: Do you think 'decorative' arts, such as these, can be
considered true art in the same manner as the impressionists or the
modernists? And if so or if not, then why?
My opinion so far is, even though most of this work served for
commercial purposes, it still allowed for much personal creativity. It
broke new ground by combining strong graphic qualities with modern,
sometimes minimal, asthetics. While the structure of these movements may
have not provided for the strong personal expression of more 'fine' art,
one cannot deny their impact on all of the visual arts. Is it true art?
I do not have a real opinion yet, as I have yet to study these movements
in detail.
Okay, guys, opinion time!
Bailey
Charles Eicher
> I have recently begun to personally study the Art Nouveau and Art Deco
> movements, and have found the work in them very visually stimulating,
> and very artistic. As one who sometimes designs, I can also relate to
> the graphic aspect of the movements as well.
>
> My question is: Do you think 'decorative' arts, such as these, can be
> considered true art in the same manner as the impressionists or the
> modernists? And if so or if not, then why?
>
> My opinion so far is, even though most of this work served for
> commercial purposes, it still allowed for much personal creativity.
Yeah, but does that mean it is art? Let me give you an example..
Back when I used to work at the Getty museum, I was always astonished by
their huge collection of "French Decorative Arts".. Their collection always
struck me as hideous and garish. Of course, I'm not a fan of old Louis XIV
furniture, or anything else of that ilk. It struck me as "art" only in the
sense that someone collected it, its old and almost an "antiquity" but
other than that, it really isn't very interesting. Meanwhile, downstairs,
unseen to anyone but the staff, was a huge collection of Greek sculpture
and painted pottery. I often wondered why they kept this collection hidden
from public view, while the French furniture galleries were usually devoid
of visitors.
At that time, the Getty was acquiring huge amounts of 20th century Italian
arts of all types, particularly Futurist works. There was a joke at that
time, they would all go into the vaults for 2 or 3000 years, until they
became an antiquity worthy of exhibition at the Getty.
So, what I'm basically saying, in 4 or 500 years, museums will be proudly
displaying 20th century decorative arts like Art Nouveau or Art Deco.
Critics will wax lyrical over the designs of mundane toasters and
lampshades. It will all seem precious due to its rarity. And possibly ONLY
due to its rarity. Despite that, art historians with an interest in these
items will go to great lengths to justify their opinions about these items,
and discover new ways to relate them to the historical record. But that
will all be mostly B.S.
> It broke new ground by combining strong graphic qualities with modern,
> sometimes minimal, asthetics. While the structure of these movements may
> have not provided for the strong personal expression of more 'fine' art,
> one cannot deny their impact on all of the visual arts. Is it true art?
> I do not have a real opinion yet, as I have yet to study these movements
> in detail.
Well, I think you've got it backwards there. Deco and Nouveau drew
inspiration from art movements, not vice versa.
Let me ask some related questions..
Is a Faberge Egg art? Is a Tiffany Lamp art? Is a Frank Lloyd Wright
stained glass window art? Is the Hope Diamond art? If so, what is it that
makes these items art, and not mere decorations?
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
zi...@interport.net
Art Nouveau was a style based on stylized foliage and plant forms
which were asymmetrical. It started outside painting and sculpture in
architecture, furniture design, interior design and advertising.
Many artist-advertising people like Cheret and Mucha used it
successfully,but not as artists. Who are the most famous painter of
Art Nouveau? Well, they are not called Art Nouveau because they
transcended the syle in their best works. Van Gogh, Gauguin and
Seurat. In other words, the post impressionists.
But, was Art Nouveau useful to them? I think it was. take for example
Gauguin;s painting "The White Horse". It is a vertical painting in
which the foliage makes a kind of all over pattern artnouveau design.
But in this and several other paintings of that sort, the all over
linear pattern is interrupted by color which takes on spatial readings
and turns the flatpattern into a modernist method for producing a
space. It was this elementin Gauguin whiuch had an enormous influence
on Matisse. So, Art nouveau as an element within a painting could be
a source for complex and wonderful work. Just as an over all linear
arabesque in the work of an international Gothic school master like
Fra Angelico could use it that way. But, when I see it in the hands of
Mucha or Cheret, I see a simplistic formula which is good for quick no
brain posters but bad for good art.
Art Deco is a continuation of Art Nouveau in which the artists
involved turned Cubism into a decorative pattern. This decorative
pattern completely mistakes the forming and the rationale behind
cubism, which was a style made in artist's studios. Big name art deco
artists would be the American muralist Savage, Lempicka, Ert'e, The
sculptors of Radio City Music Hall and the Nebraska State Capitol Etc.
These are hardly the artists any serious artist would look at from the
period 1920-40. What is wrong with looking at the cubists if that is
what you care about? Gris, Picasso, Braque and Leger still exist and
they include art deco qualities, which they originated within their
own styles, within a much richer and more serious picture making.
There is a Leger retrospective at the Modern, now. Either go take a
look or get the catalog. He was a metaphoric artist from the
beginning. The painting "The City" which was once turned down by every
museum in New York and by New York University, which is his first
important statement is in the show [it now hangs in the Philadelphia
Museum]. What is it about? There are themes and metaphors in his work
as well as robust forming. None of this turns up in art deco painters.
Gabriel
Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have recently begun to personally study the Art Nouveau and Art Deco
>movements, and have found the work in them very visually stimulating,
>and very artistic. As one who sometimes designs, I can also relate to
>the graphic aspect of the movements as well.
>My question is: Do you think 'decorative' arts, such as these, can be
>considered true art in the same manner as the impressionists or the
>modernists? And if so or if not, then why?
>My opinion so far is, even though most of this work served for
>commercial purposes, it still allowed for much personal creativity. It
>broke new ground by combining strong graphic qualities with modern,
>sometimes minimal, asthetics. While the structure of these movements may
>have not provided for the strong personal expression of more 'fine' art,
>one cannot deny their impact on all of the visual arts. Is it true art?
>I do not have a real opinion yet, as I have yet to study these movements
>in detail.
>Okay, guys, opinion time!
>Bailey
MiH...@ibm.net
In article <34E920...@hotmail.com>,
mailhost/iamerica.net wrote:
>
> I have recently begun to personally study the Art Nouveau and Art Deco
> movements, and have found the work in them very visually stimulating,
> and very artistic. As one who sometimes designs, I can also relate to
> the graphic aspect of the movements as well.
>
> My question is: Do you think 'decorative' arts, such as these, can be
> considered true art in the same manner as the impressionists or the
> modernists? And if so or if not, then why?
>
modernists, thier art was more, Art for Lifes sake rather than Art for
Arts` sake.However, I would call it art,after all, the designers
exorcised creative licence while under utilitarian confines, not
always that easy a thing to do.Yes, we can dismiss it as decorative
whimsy, but it has (does?) fill a need, consider current web page
design.I`m not a fan of "decorative" arts, nor will I bash it.I
recently worked as an art consultant in soho, and sold my fair share
of ERTE`, so I can attest that, over time you can find something good
to say about "Art" that your really not crazy about, this is not an easy
thing to either.I`ll end by saying that I consider "decorative" art
to be generated by the head rather than the heart and soul, in this
sense it is not a truly free art, there`s no room for unanounced
random elements. Regards
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
mdeli
On Mon, 16 Feb 1998 23:31:46 -0600, Bailey <bcbai...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I have recently begun to personally study the Art Nouveau and Art Deco
>movements, and have found the work in them very visually stimulating,
>and very artistic. As one who sometimes designs, I can also relate to
>the graphic aspect of the movements as well.
>
All modern Academic Abstraction is really a downhill continuum of Art
Deco. It is nothing more than design, mostly nothing-special-design.
>My question is: Do you think 'decorative' arts, such as these, can be
>considered true art in the same manner as the impressionists or the
>modernists? And if so or if not, then why?
There were many Nouveau and Deco painters. Many were very fine
artists. Most of the best were superior to any Impressionist or
abstractionist..
Nouveau and Deco are the last grand styles They are really the styles
that influenced Modern Academic art, realistic and abstract. Their
influenced is almost entirely overlooked.
Bauhaus is Deco. When Picasso came to Paris he painted schlock
paintings in the fashionable Nouveau style and some of his later stuff
is pure Deco.. Van Gogh and Dali etc. came under its influence.
Mondrian is pure Deco and not original in any sense.
Dali defended the N. style at a time when it was considered obscene by
the Avant Garde. When I first visited Barcelona in the 60's, Gaudi was
considered a nothing. You could purchase N. bronzes and Tiffiney
lamps, Nouveau furniture, for near nothing. While attending school one
of my teachers complained that my drawings looked like Beardsley. I
bought his originals at auctions with the little money I had and owned
his best books.
Today in spite of our idiot art historians and critics who still give
it a scant mention, N. and D. are fast regaining popularity.
N. and D. have gone thru their out-of-fashion transition. The best of
these periods is thoroughly admired today, without the benefit of
Artspeak or even the names of most of the artists.
These periods also produced the finest architecture, crafts and
industrial arts. Today all we have, if the critics are the are to be
believed, is Bauhaus abstract ersatz, no skill realism and cheap crap
municipal architecture, designed by minimalists who are dependent on
a silent engineer. All this is occasionally decorated with Moore style
mega-klunks and incompetent abstract minimal giganticism designed for
a fifteen second glance by the man in a rush.
The continuum of N. and D are with us in spite of this.
>These movements
>My opinion so far is, even though most of this work served for
>commercial purposes, it still allowed for much personal creativity.
All artwork is commercial.
> It
>broke new ground by combining strong graphic qualities with modern,
>sometimes minimal, aesthetics. While the structure of these movements may
>have not provided for the strong personal expression of more 'fine' art,
>one cannot deny their impact on all of the visual arts. Is it true art?
>I do not have a real opinion yet, as I have yet to study these movements
>in detail.
The main problem with N. and Deco styles is that they are not
presented as art. Europe and US cities have whole N and D sections.
Furniture, stain glass, moldings paintings etc all integrated. Many of
the finest buildings in NYC are N. or D. I recall when all this was
totally ignored and occasionally roundly pooh poohed by critics. Deco
even influenced the Bauhaus stuff when a bit of decoration had to be
added. The Trade Centers are Deco-ized. People are getting tired of
modern erzatz-minimal-nothing.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art