Rules of Contempory Art
Dilettante
rules, one must know what those rules are. A way to know these rules
is to see common features of works that are now being done by
currently famous and successful artists.
We can get something done in this thread if we try to leave out
debates over individual artists and facile one-liners. We can use this
thread to codify current art rules and then to locate our work within
that canon, if it is found to exist.
Rule 1. Pure abstraction seems to be out. A form of naive realism may
still be in vogue, but the last picture I can find in this style by
Philip Guston is 1979, which may be too old to define a current trend.
The figures on Turner Prize winner Grayson Perry's vases are drawn
in a crude realist style. Jason Rhodes work, Swedish Erotica and Piero
Parts, exhibited at MOCA in Los Angeles
(http://www.moca-la.org/museum/imagerotator.php?exid=7&id=588&PHPSESSID=aba4dc728ec363bde7e592482bef481f)
would also be included in naive realism. See also "We Swam amongst the
Fishes" by Julian Opie, at the Museum of Contemporary Arts in Chicago
(http://www.mcachicago.org/MCA/exhibit/ex-frameset.html).
Rule 2. Surrealism appears to be in. Philip Guston again is working in
this mode. The works of Jeff Koons, whatever one may think of them,
are surrealist (http://www.xs4all.nl/~exadega/koons/banality.html).
The Chapman brothers' current work is surrealist. Here is arguably
another exemplar:http://www.moca-la.org/museum/imagerotator.php?exid=344&id=750,
done in 2001.
Rule 3. The reason for realist or one could say objective imaging is
due to the commentary on society, that is in vogue these days. This is
not exemplified by Guston but it can be seen in the 2001 Leipzig
Exhibition (http://gfzk.de/doublevision/).
Rule 4. Sacrifice of aesthetic beauty: the social commentary, or a
pretense of it, mentioned above justifies a sacrifice of aesthetic
beauty. While beauty can be achieved, as the Chapman brothers have in
their mutation sculptures, neither Grayson does not try to achieve it.
While an artwork may have physical beauty, it is by no means a
requirement these days.
Rule 5. Intent to attack society or some aspect of it. The reason for
abandoning physical beauty may be that it would imply the subjects of
contemporary artwork are worthy of approval. But so often the subjects
of modern pieces, either the satires of Koons, or installations, are
meant to point out, or presume to point out, defects in their
subjects. For this reason, much of contemporary art cannot be
beautiful. It often must be deliberately dumpy or awkward to convey
this message about its subject, although we see this is clearly not
the case with Koons.
----------
Anyone is free to disagree with the incipient theory stated here and
present an alternative view.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>>>
>> Surrealism appears to be in. Philip Guston again is working in
>> this mode. >
>
>This is major information, since Guston has been dead since 1980.
>
>
>> Anyone is free to disagree with the incipient theory stated here and
>> present an alternative view.
>
>Gee, thanks. You appear to know as much about art history as my golden
>retriever, and he is more fun.
He knows Modern Academic art school history which is a legend that all
art is an merely evolution to the glories of the Modern Academic
variety. Anything else, namely that which constitutes most all artwork
and doesn't have a hint of so called modernity is off limits. This
accounts for the astounding ignorance of art history of most Modern
Academic Art fundamentalists.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
keith o'connor
ideas are you ready to contribute to the dialogue topic under question.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Mani Deli" <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:n2at00h247g0nk94e...@4ax.com...
keith o'connor
for a while.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
<marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20040121073256.754$y...@newsreader.com...
> hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
> >>
> > Surrealism appears to be in. Philip Guston again is working in
> > this mode. >
>
> This is major information, since Guston has been dead since 1980.
>
>
> > Anyone is free to disagree with the incipient theory stated here and
> > present an alternative view.
>
> Gee, thanks. You appear to know as much about art history as my golden
> retriever, and he is more fun.
>
> --
> Marcus
Mani Deli
>personal attack - just not capable of putting your smart ass mouth aside
>for a while.
>
Poor keith is irritated.
He's just not capable of putting his dumb ass mouth aside.
If you don't like what is said, either refute it or shut up.
><marcus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:20040121073256.754$y...@newsreader.com...
>> hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>> >>
>> > Surrealism appears to be in. Philip Guston again is working in
>> > this mode. >
>>
>> This is major information, since Guston has been dead since 1980.
>>
>>
>> > Anyone is free to disagree with the incipient theory stated here and
>> > present an alternative view.
>>
>> Gee, thanks. You appear to know as much about art history as my golden
>> retriever, and he is more fun.
>>
>> --
>> Marcus
>
Mani Deli
>In order to either conform to or rebel against a set of aesthetic
>rules, one must know what those rules are. A way to know these rules
>is to see common features of works that are now being done by
>currently famous and successful artists.
>
>We can get something done in this thread if we try to leave out
>debates over individual artists and facile one-liners. We can use this
>thread to codify current art rules and then to locate our work within
>that canon, if it is found to exist.
the Modern Academic art format is a gradient between pure
abstraction no and No-skill realism. Started at around 1890 No-skill
realism has slowly deteriorated from the good intentioned failures of
Cezanne to the incompetence stressing ugliness and bestiality of de
Kooning and Guston etc.
By realism in this I mean simply that an object in the painting can be
named, as in the goo-goo eyes of de Kooning etc.
>Rule 1. Pure abstraction seems to be out. A form of naive realism may
>still be in vogue,
It was for the last 100 years.
>Rule 2. Surrealism appears to be in.
The question is quality not subject matter. However you catagorize
Guston's subjects the fact is that he can't draw and produces average
art school no-skill-realism.
>
>Rule 3. The reason for realist or one could say objective imaging is
>due to the commentary on society, that is in vogue these days.
People tend to like fine skillfully done realism no matter what the
subject matter.
>
>Rule 4. Sacrifice of aesthetic beauty: the social commentary, or a
>pretense of it, mentioned above justifies a sacrifice of aesthetic
>beauty.
--To the modern art fundamentalist who hasn't the skill to knock out
anything more then incompetent ugliness.
>Rule 5. Intent to attack society or some aspect of it. The reason for
>abandoning physical beauty may be that it would imply the subjects of
>contemporary artwork are worthy of approval. But so often the subjects
>of modern pieces, either the satires of Koons, or installations, are
>meant to point out, or presume to point out, defects in their
>subjects. For this reason, much of contemporary art cannot be
>beautiful.
The belief that an attack on society cannot be beautifully done is
nonsense. The writer like all Modern Art fundamentalists forgets that
Modern Academic Art is not the only contemporary art. What he is
referring to is the artwork presently allowed in museums which is a
small faction of contemporary artwork.
>It often must be deliberately dumpy or awkward to convey
>this message about its subject,
and the total incompetence of its creator.
> although we see this is clearly not
>the case with Koons.
and I can give you a list of many other artists.>----------
>
>Anyone is free to disagree with the incipient theory stated here and
>present an alternative view.
It is an excellent theory for the Modern academic art school student
as he prepares for a life of failure.
Paul Mesken
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>personal attack - just not capable of putting your smart ass mouth aside
>for a while.
Well Keith, It's quite unusual to see you like this. You seem quite
protective of Dilettante.
walnut earl
What's up with that?
If it does not appeal to you, move on. Leave it alone.
Few and far between are attacks on trite, unskilled, cloyingly
sentimental and visually unfulfilling examples of representational
art.
It doesn't matter where on the spectrum between naturalistic and
nonobjective a work lies, bad art sucks, ok? Get over it.
Anti-intellectualism isn't a cute, brave or funny stand to take, it's
a tiresome one, at best.
Nonobjective art has been attacked as an elitist pursuit and a fraud.
A similar case could be made against representational art. A few
notable representational artist like Kinkade, the "painter of light"
are low-brow, pandering hacks. Does this make all representational art
a sham and a pathetic ruse intended to bilk the uneducated out of
their money? Nope, bad art just sucks. Simple.
Dilettante
> Well Keith, It's quite unusual to see you like this. You seem quite
> protective of Dilettante.
Getting worried? Trying to shame him to get back with the herd?
D.
Dilettante
> Recently there have been a few threads that vilify nonobjective art.
> What's up with that?
there is mainly one poster in this forum who maintains a relentless
crusade to villify modern artists and thereby modern art.
Dilettante
Mani Deli
>there is mainly one poster in this forum who maintains a relentless
>crusade to villify modern artists and thereby modern art.
>Just because classical art shows you recognizable objects from the
>real world does not mean it is good. There is plenty of junk realism
>out there.
Is that like your elephant?
>--painters like Alma Tadema and Maxfield Parrish.
Parrish is a modern artist.
> There is a
>whole industry catering to people who wish we could go back to some
>golden age in the past that never really existed.
Like the glories of Dada.
> Second-rate artist
>who have learned realist technique grind out nostalgic scenes of
>farmhouses, and sunsets and wagon wheels.
Some first rate artists also.
> You don't hear the modern art
>people condemning the classical artists.
In the very next paragraph the Dilettante wrote:
> An example of second rate classical painting are some of the
>paintings by Rubens. All the women look alike, all the same fat
>bodies. One of his works on Hercules is an exact copy of another he
>did or perhaps many because this work obviously sold so he did one
>after another. The brushwork is so bad it you can see through it.
>Rubens developed an easy technique. He was a commercial painter with a
>gimmick.
>---but you do hear some of the
>latter constantly ranting about the former. modern art people
>recognise,if they have any brains, the genius of Giotto and Leonardo.
According to Artzy fartzy logic any criticism of Modern Academic Art
is a "rant" and that is never the case when they criticize Alma Tadema
and Maxfield Parrish etc.
Mani Deli
>there is mainly one poster in this forum who maintains a relentless
>crusade to villify modern artists and thereby modern art.
>Just because classical art shows you recognizable objects from the
Artzy fartzies should note that any criticism of Modern Academic Art
is a "rant" and that is never the case when they criticize Alma Tadema
and Maxfield Parrish.
Paul Mesken
Well, that was the general idea yes. But Keith has always had such
dubious loyalties.
Let me try a different approach : don't you think it's strange that an
old man like Keith so ferociously defends a young man like you? I've
never seen him defending a woman like that.
Sure, we all know Keith the Philosopher but do we _really_ know Keith?
Is there a deeper reason for his behaviour? Can we fathom the darkness
that lies behind his seemingly friendly demeanour? Of course I'm not
implying anything....
Just don't give him your phone number!
Gotta run now, have schemes to plot and my demagogic skills need to be
tweaked more. My prolonged stay at WetCanvas has made them weak ;-)
Dilettante
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>
>> Gotta run now, ...
>
>Yes, you really do.
Owww, search your feelings Luke. Deep in your heart you know you
didn't mean that :-)
Dilettante
>
> Owww, search your feelings Luke. Deep in your heart you know you
> didn't mean that :-)
I was just encouraging you to fulfil your duties.
D.