Art History: Chapman, Bouguereau, Hirst, Makart, Rippl-Ronai
Brian Shapiro
lot of publicity lately, on the Chapman brothers, who painted clown
and teddy bear faces over prints of Goya's disasters of war series,
and generally produce things like mutilated bodies with penises for
noses; and of the Turner prize winner who dressed up as a little girl
with balloons and typically does things like paint child abuse on
pottery. In fact, I wrote a lengthy message about this, which took at
least an hour, but which was lost by a mistake in my browser. I don't
want to repeat all of it, just make a few of my points succinctly. All
these two artists are doing is juxtaposing incongruous elements, in an
attempt to produce an effect in some sort of irony, no great act or
genius in it. In fact, using clowns and teddy bears for grotesque or
horrific purposes has been used a lot in popular culture already, just
look at Stephen King. You can find many grown men dressed as little
girls if you search the Internet, and a very amusing site about a man
who dresses like Peter Pan. Someone threw red paint over one of the
Chapman brothers and one of their works, saying just as they
incorporated Goya's work he incorporated theirs. Even though in an
earlier interview, they discussed having a healthy distrust of the
establishment, they called this 'cheap', and brought him to court
under litigation. Another artist wrapped Rodin's Thinker in string,
and when someone cut the string to make an equal artistic statement,
he was arrested. Some people on this newsgroup made comments like that
these artists are impossible to not like, and there were also comments
on liking the photographer who did nothing but took photos of masses
of nude bodies. In some part I guess they expect it to be shocking,
but my guess is most people are just bored with it and when they decry
it they decry its stupidness. This isn't about being against modern or
postmodern art. People who like Cezanne and Picasso are mistaken to
think a man dressed as a girl, the winner of the Turner prize, will be
remembered as great. And, at least Damien Hirst produces more
thoughtful and evocative works--so much so that they were included in
the movie The Cell, along with some images from Odd Nerdrum paintings.
If you appreciate modern and postmodern art, fine, but don't be naive
or pretentious and go to ridiculous extremes.
I also wanted to comment on new art history books, and the state of
art books in general. Just like before, I wrote a long message on it,
which got lost. So I will try to repeat the meat of what I said here,
even though a lot of it will be lost. Most art history textbooks give
you a very cliched and standard account of the 19th century, which
moves from Romanticism to Realism to Impressionism, mainly focusing on
France. Some textbooks earlier in the century even left out
Neo-classicism, but thats another issue. This is a misleading and
conventional account which was designed to make Modernism look like
the apex of history. The most obvious blemish, of course, is the
absense of the history of academic art, the artists, the theoretical
basis--ie, the hierarchy of genres, attention to allegory, debates
over copying nature vs classics, the eclectic attempts to synthesize
romantic and classical tendencies, and historicism. Its the most
obvious, because, after spending years of studying art history
independently from text books, I find it impossible to tell the story
of art without including them. I also admire many academic artists,
but this isn't the point. And it isn't just academics that are not
included. In the beginning of the century, there were conflicts
between neo-classicism and romanticism already emerging in the
Nazarene movement in Germany--which later influenced the Lyon School
in france and had great effect on the Symbolists. The historicism of
the Nazarenes worked its way into the style of some Belgian historical
painters, who influenced later artists like Tissot. There was also the
Purist movement in Italy, which had similar influences, and the
troubadour painters in France. Then along the century, different
artists tried to synthesize neo-classicism and romanticism, one after
the other being hailed as critics as doing so; Chasseriau, Hayez,
Decamps, and Couture, who declared that this was his purpose--to
revitalize French art. Historicism reared itself in many 'revival
styles', mostly in architecture, but often in art, in neo-Grec,
neo-Renaissance, neo-Gothic, neo-Baroque. Even books which start to
include academic artists limit themselves to France mainly, and don't
include historically important and great painters like Makart in
Austria who was friends with Wagner, revered by Klimt, and a boon to
Jugenstil. Austria actually has a very unique history of art different
than France, which used watercolor a lot, and became centered on
design and decoration. Fortuny in spain like Makart inspired an entire
style. There are important realists who are ignored, like Ribot, who
tried to bring out rough textures in his paintings, and others that
are non-French, like Munkcacsy. Honfleur painters like Isabey which
were precursors to impressionism aren't discussed much. I didn't pay
attention to whether symbolists like Puvis are well represented. The
Jugenstil then is only focused on Austria, leaving out Hungarian
representatives. Nobody knows where to place Naturalists, who tried to
incorporate impressionist and realist techniques into academic
subjects. In Italy, there was the Machiaolli movement which was
pseudo-impressionist, and then artists which followed them. Then there
are avant-garde artists who are not French and are ignored, like the
members of Young Poland. There are of course other periods which have
complexities too, like in the Renaissance, with the Ferrara school
where you find painters like Dosso Dossi. The 19th century, and most
other centuries were as diverse and dynamic with different art
movements as the 20th.
In regard to Paul Johnson's new book, which ignores modern art,
calling it 'fashion art', it has many of the same flaws regarding
other periods of art. For the 19th century, at the same time it
doesn't include prominent academic painters, like Bouguereau, it gives
a fair deal of attention to pre-Raphaelites (the author is English and
uses it to point out examples of good English artists), and in
addition to that, shows some of their worst works. The example of a
Whistler work is also one of the least relevant of his paintings. His
choice of Repin's painting as the best of the century, whatever merits
it has, is very speciously argued. I disagree, though, with the
comments of outrage that the book 'contains only a page[!] on
Cezanne'--as influential as he was, he was only one artist. I had an
art history book, for a course I'll mention later, that was nothing
but a collected set of biographies of artists the author liked. I want
a history, not the personal favorites of an author, when I can look up
any biography I want on an Internet encyclopedia.
There is also a new book called Nineteenth-Century European Art by
Petra ten-Doesschate Chu, which is so generous to neglected academic
artists, that it includes Bouguereau's painting Young Girl Defending
Herself Against Eros, as the cover image; it also includes other
paintings by academics. But, skimming through the book, it does this
in a haphazard way, without looking how it fit into the scope of
history, and also makes the same mistake of narrowly focusing on the
French art scene, ingoring influences from elsewhere. This depletes
its value in its discussions of both academic and avant-garde art.
I once commented on all of this to an art history teacher I had, who
responded that it was a survey course and they could not include
everything. But, besides the fact that I considered it misleading and
inaccurate to ignore the trends of the century, and impossible to tell
the story while not mentioning the salon and academics; the course
gratuitously included an obscure Canadian landscape painter (the class
was in Canada, in Montreal), women artists who were aesthetically
deficient compared to their male counterparts of the eras, and
extremely bad and unnoteworthy examples of postmodernism, again from
Canadian artists. An history survey course should do its best to give
people an accurate picture of history, not something neatly fashioned
for narrow tastes.
This also brings me to a more general point about art books--at any
bookstore, I will find maybe eight books on Klimt and eight on
Picasso, and in order to find a book on a lesser known, but important,
artist I have to search in university libraries, where I finally find
a book from the 70s with black and white images. I will maybe have to
order an exhibition catalogue from Europe, if I cant find good
resources at the Getty Center Library. Some of these artists are still
well known and respected within their birth countries. But, at any
rate, the point is this: there are hundreds of books on Picasso, very
few of them offering any new insights, any better representations of
his oeuvre, better quality pictures, or any fuller historical
information. Why create the five thousanth (conventional) book on
Picasso instead of looking at lesser known artists? Not for reasons of
erudition or scholarship. Not even for love of art, as a social
phenomenon.
Over time, I've contributed a lot of images to the Art Renewal Center
website, after research and looking for pictures in books. But ARC
includes very weak academic artists, who were maybe justly thought of
as oversentimental and with poor aesthetics, alongside good ones (I
like Bouguereau, I don't like Merle or Meunier); and would not include
lesser known artists and movements in the avant-garde of modernism and
postmodernism. Because one of my main interests is having a good
account of the history of art, I've been collecting images on my own.
Even before the ARC site started, I was planning a website on my own,
to be a type of encyclopedia of cultural history, to include not only
images of paintings, but texts of literature and philosophy, and mp3s
of music. And to arrange it intelligently by timelines, influences,
and other methods. I also want to include information and images of
popular culture from other periods in history, to show the full range
of what was occuring.
It will be a while before I put anything formal up; I think though in
a short while I'll upload a selection of thumbnails from some
important artists I think have been neglected. I'm currently studying
the later half of the 19th century so it will be from there. Among
academicists, there will be Couture, Chaplin, Decamps, and Henner from
France; Makart and Canon from Austria; Leys from Belgium; Scheffer
from the Netherlands. Among realists, there will be Ribot from France;
Leibl, Trubner and Schuch from Austria; Munkacsy from Hungary. Among
naturalists, the Bastien-Lepage and Breton from France, and Thoma from
Austria. Among the art-nouveau, Rippl-Ronai from Hungary. And for
symbolism I'm including images by Carriere from France. Probably will
include the Polish Slewinski for expressionism. If I have time I'll
include other artists from differing movements, like Fattori and Lega
(Machiaolli artists), Fortuny, etc.. but this list is just what I'm
currently working on.
Before this, I may put up a page with some of the pictures with the
creators unidentified, to see how many of them can be recognized. I've
also been thinking of how I will eventually include Nazi art in my
project, and considering putting up a page on that. I find most of
Nazi art bad, even by classical or academic standards. For example,
Breker, who is used all the time as an example of Nazi art, creates
men that are muscular and athletic in an over the top cartoonish way.
Nazis weren't the only ones guilty of things like this--if you look at
Proud'hon, even though he has some beautiful works, many of his
paintings have madonnas which are cartoonishly doll-like. There are a
few Nazi artists which are decent, but mostly are clearly just second
rate. Hitler himself, I read, privately confessed that most art
produced by Nazi germany was bad; and spent his time collecting da
Vinci, Rubens, Brughel, Watteau, and some German-Austrian work like
Makart and Waldmuller. Most of the art was just produced as state
propaganda, with no more good sensibility than Thomas Kinkade. In
trying to present art history inclusively I run up against problems
like this. The effort should be to have an insightful presentation, I
guess; and I would defend to extreme ends, for reasons I wont get into
here, that even taking an appreciative view of modern art, Bouguereau
should stand next to Picasso in value. It remains to be seen whether
much of this century's modern art will be preserved as important;
though I think it would be a mistake for ideologues to remove it from
textbooks as much as it was a mistake to remove academics. I've found
that history books, and art history books, are best when they give a
lot of details, organize them in rational ways according to history,
and then leave it up to the reader to interpret for value judgment.
Brian Shapiro
G*rd*n
> ... People who like Cezanne and Picasso are mistaken to
> think a man dressed as a girl, the winner of the Turner prize, will be
Why is this man's dress so important? I've seen it
mentioned several times. Lots of men dress like girls --
the artist is hardly unique in this regard, just somewhat
eccentric. What's the big deal here?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
keith o'connor
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
"Brian Shapiro" <brian....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2c6bf269.04010...@posting.google.com...
Aunt Cee Pants
>Lots of men dress like girls --
Hmmmm... I forget - Where do you live?
Dress like a girl in MY town and you'll
find yourself hanging by your thumbs
over a charcoal pit. Or even worse, drinking
from a spitoon while riding one of those
mechanical bucking bulls - in the nude!
Mani Deli
Shapiro) wrote:
>Most art history textbooks give
>you a very cliched and standard account of the 19th century, which
>moves from Romanticism to Realism to Impressionism, mainly focusing on
>France.
The whole thing is essentially backwards. It harks back to the past as
a justification for Modern Academic Art. Of main interest is anything
that historians think might justify the incompetence of the modern art
inhabiting museums.
snip
>The most obvious blemish, of course, is the
>absense of the history of academic art, the artists, the theoretical
>basis--ie, the hierarchy of genres, attention to allegory, debates
>over copying nature vs classics, the eclectic attempts to synthesize
>romantic and classical tendencies, and historicism.
The most obvious blemish is the result of five generations of utter
incompetence resulting in the absence of the accumulated knowledge of
five hundred years of the craft.
> Its the most
>obvious, because, after spending years of studying art history
>independently from text books, I find it impossible to tell the story
>of art without including them.
Its as if everyone who wrote a 20th C. history devoted only one page
to the first and second world war. !9th century art history as
presently taught is truncated legend..
> Even books which start to
>include academic artists limit themselves to France mainly, and don't
>include historically important and great painters like Makart in
>Austria ---snip
>
If the are at all mentioned they include the names of about three
artists and a crappy reproduction and a page hinting that they were
bad guys.
The fact is, that today the information is there for anyone who wants
it. More and more books, posters and internet information is know
available. When I went to school and lived in Europe there was hardly
anything in sight. Especially in France. I remember going to an art
auction and a large Bouguereau sold for just over a $1,000. It was a
time when I hadn't the money to buy it. Those days are over and even
the artzy fartzy critics are beginning to complain about it. At that
time in the past hardly anyone even knew the name of one academic
painter.
>There is also a new book called Nineteenth-Century European Art by
>Petra ten-Doesschate Chu, which is so generous to neglected academic
>artists, that it includes Bouguereau's painting Young Girl Defending
>Herself Against Eros, as the cover image; it also includes other
>paintings by academics. But, skimming through the book, it does this
>in a haphazard way, without looking how it fit into the scope of
>history, and also makes the same mistake of narrowly focusing on the
>French art scene, ingoring influences from elsewhere. This depletes
>its value in its discussions of both academic and avant-garde art.
Bad as it is, it is the beginning of a vast change which in the end
will enhance the reputations of the best 20th C. artists who are
presently not allowed into museums. Art critics can no longer prevent
people from comparing artwork.
>I once commented on all of this to an art history teacher I had, who
>responded that it was a survey course and they could not include
>everything. But, besides the fact that I considered it misleading and
>inaccurate to ignore the trends of the century, and impossible to tell
>the story while not mentioning the salon and academics; the course
>gratuitously included an obscure Canadian landscape painter (the class
>was in Canada, in Montreal), women artists who were aesthetically
>deficient compared to their male counterparts of the eras, and
>extremely bad and unnoteworthy examples of postmodernism, again from
>Canadian artists. An history survey course should do its best to give
>people an accurate picture of history, not something neatly fashioned
>for narrow tastes.
Each country has its own set of Modern Academic Art local yokels.
>This also brings me to a more general point about art books--at any
>bookstore, I will find maybe eight books on Klimt and eight on
>Picasso, and in order to find a book on a lesser known, but important,
>artist I have to search in university libraries, where I finally find
>a book from the 70s with black and white images. I will maybe have to
>order an exhibition catalogue from Europe, if I cant find good
>resources at the Getty Center Library. Some of these artists are still
>well known and respected within their birth countries. But, at any
>rate, the point is this: there are hundreds of books on Picasso, very
>few of them offering any new insights, any better representations of
>his oeuvre, better quality pictures, or any fuller historical
>information. Why create the five thousanth (conventional) book on
>Picasso instead of looking at lesser known artists? Not for reasons of
>erudition or scholarship. Not even for love of art, as a social
>phenomenon.
I do bookstores counts. The holy trinity Picasso, Matisse and Cezanne
now have to share shelf space with Rockwell, our best illustrators,
Dali, Art nouveau and Deco artists etc. That's a big advance. In
poster stores the trinity is hardly noticeable.
>Over time, I've contributed a lot of images to the Art Renewal Center
>website, after research and looking for pictures in books. But ARC
>includes very weak academic artists, who were maybe justly thought of
>as oversentimental and with poor aesthetics,
I couldn't agree more. Most 19th C. academics are dull and not
technically up there.
The problem with ARC that they are trying to revive the 19th C. in
subject matter. I think they will eventually evolve out of this.
Nice to read someone who is informed here!
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Erik A. Mattila
Hmmm...I've seen quite a few women w/ 5 O'clock shadows out your way,
Jack. Are you sure some of them cowboy's ain't pulling it off w/o being
barbequed?
Erik
>
>
palmer.william
"Brian Shapiro" <brian....@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:2c6bf269.04010...@posting.google.com...
> lot of publicity lately, on the Chapman
From your subject line, I thought you were going to
talk about Charles Chapman (1879-1962) a very
great illustrator. I have seen some of his pen and
ink illustrations for books published early in the
20th century, and they are most impressive. He
also did outstanding work in oils. I wasn't even
aware of this other Chapman, so I appreciate your
sharing your information.
[....] I have snipped some of your material
to save space, since it is still current
on this thread.
>[...]
> Most art history textbooks give
> you a very cliched and standard account of the 19th century, which
> moves from Romanticism to Realism to Impressionism, mainly focusing on
> France. Some textbooks earlier in the century even left out
> Neo-classicism, but thats another issue. This is a misleading and
> conventional account which was designed to make Modernism look like
> the apex of history.
I agree. Many of those same textbooks and courses
ignore Symbolism entirely. Symbolism flourished at
roughly the same time as Impressionsim, so many
such critics and historians seem to find it expedient
to pretend that Symbolism did not exist at all. Part
of the reason for this, as I have argued before, is that
Impressionism was more commercially viable than
Symbolism. Impressionist art could be churned
out in great quantities, and in general it was "safe,"
pleasant, and not at all challenging the way Symbolist
art often was, meaning that Impressionist art was
much more welcome in middle-class homes. And
as to Modernism, you are onto something there. For
instance, many Modernist critics took the position
that Picasso was far greater than Dali, a position
that is far harder to push today, due to the very wide
interest in Dali
[...]
> This also brings me to a more general point about art books--at any
> bookstore, I will find maybe eight books on Klimt and eight on
> Picasso, and in order to find a book on a lesser known, but important,
> artist I have to search in university libraries, where I finally find
> a book from the 70s with black and white images. I will maybe have to
> order an exhibition catalogue from Europe, if I cant find good
> resources at the Getty Center Library. Some of these artists are still
> well known and respected within their birth countries. But, at any
> rate, the point is this: there are hundreds of books on Picasso, very
> few of them offering any new insights, any better representations of
> his oeuvre, better quality pictures, or any fuller historical
> information. Why create the five thousanth (conventional) book on
> Picasso instead of looking at lesser known artists? Not for reasons of
> erudition or scholarship. Not even for love of art, as a social
> phenomenon.
Frankly, I and others have posted very close to
same observation here quite a few times. Once
I became aware of Symbolist art, I tried to find
monographs on some Symbolist artists which
especially interested me, and I could not do that,
even though I live in a large city with many book-
stores. I have never been able to locate a book
on Fernand Khnopff, the great Belgian Symbolist
painter, for instance. I have not even been able
to find a book on Bocklin, let alone Lucian Levy-
Dhurmer. (And I mean "find" at an affordable
price; I realize that if money is no object you can
find just about anything--for instance, one used
bookstore in L. A. had a wonderful out-of-print
book on Kubin on sale for a "mere" $250! Er,
sorry.) Of course, there are many affordable
books on "crossover types," such as Gauguin,
Munch, Klimt, and Mucha (who were important
parts of other movements besides Symbolism),
but almost no books on artists whose fame rests
almost entirely on their Symbolist art. The situation
is sad and disturbing. I would think that at least a
few publishers would want to take the challenge of
introducing the public to neglected artists, rather
than merely churning out art books on safe bets,
artists who have been featured in dozens of books
already. What really drives me up the wall is when
they keep publishing these expensive, beautifully
printed and manufactured books on third-rate
modernists, while totally ignoring so many
fascinating artists of earlier times, who have
rarely, if ever, had a book featuring their art
published..
>
palmer.william
<marcus_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:20040105223821.054$K...@newsreader.com...
> And, let me guess: the Insect People are controlling your brain through
> your microwave oven. Hoo!
>
> Marcus
Marcus, your snipe is shabby and uncalled for.
I found Mr. Shapiro's post interesting, and in
fact quite thought-provoking.
>
> brian....@comcast.net (Brian Shapiro) wrote:
> > I first wanted to comment on some of the art that has been gaining a
> >[huge snip]
palmer.william
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:btepcm$4sd$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> brian....@comcast.net (Brian Shapiro):
> > ... People who like Cezanne and Picasso are mistaken to
> > think a man dressed as a girl, the winner of the Turner prize, will be
> > remembered as great. ...
>
> Why is this man's dress so important? I've seen it
> mentioned several times. Lots of men dress like girls --
> the artist is hardly unique in this regard, just somewhat
> eccentric. What's the big deal here?
Well, I guess we could begin by observing
that the difference between a dress and a
kilt is in the mind of the beholder. (And in
fact, a few years ago a man was actually
cited in a Southern Califonia town for
wearing a kilt. Seems there was a city
ordinance that forbade a man appearing
in public in women's clothes. Some people
are always whining about prejudice--THAT
incident was an ethnic slap in the face to
every Scottish person. I don't remember
how it came out, if the charges were
eventually dropped or whatever, but it
caused quite a stir at the time. People
need to be more sensitive about other
cultures.)
Aunt Cee Pants
>Hmmm...I've seen quite a few women w/ 5 O'clock shadows
That doesn't mean a thing "out this way!"
Women of the 'wild west' are like that
oftentimes. Comes from all that machoism
they've have bred into them for generations.
Tough women need tough hides - and hairy
hides too, sometimes. Sucking tit will get
a man hair in his teeth at times. And
don't even think of expecting bikini shaves
in this part of the world!
Aunt Cee Pants
palmer....@sbcglobal.net says...
>(And in
>fact, a few years ago a man was actually
>cited in a Southern Califonia town for
>wearing a kilt.
Well, it's difficult to tell if a kilt is
involved, and "police" is spelled "policie"
so it's not California (I don't think),
but check out this:
http://www.buzzkirtley.com/pursuit/
Be sure and scroll below the photo for
more information.
G*rd*n
> >Lots of men dress like girls --
2...@dontemailme.com (Aunt Cee Pants):
> Hmmmm... I forget - Where do you live?
>
> Dress like a girl in MY town and you'll
> find yourself hanging by your thumbs
> over a charcoal pit. Or even worse, drinking
> from a spitoon while riding one of those
> mechanical bucking bulls - in the nude!
So it's popularly encouraged? Here in New York City we find
that unnecessary.
Lauri Levanto
Living in a small country, far from Paris aand NY, I understand your
concern
of peripheral art. How little is written about Russian avnt garde!
On the other hand, academic art of 19th century was sort of a dead end
while the seed for 20th century art were sown elsewhere.
If your interest really is in "the theoretical basis--ie, the hierarchy of
genres"
academic art is a sideline.
I understand that you like academic art, but in your own words:
" but don't be naive or pretentious and go to ridiculous extremes."
Seriously, an attempt to write "The History of Art I Like" is a great
idea.
many of us might benefit of hers/his own version.
To do some research, write it down can't harm you.
> . Why create the five thousanth (conventional) book on
> Picasso instead of looking at lesser known artists? Not for reasons of
> erudition or scholarship. Not even for love of art, as a social
> phenomenon.
>
The reason is the same why they churn out the million'th rock CD.
Not for reasons of scholarship, not for love of music
only because they know where the money is.
>
> I was planning a website on my own,
> to be a type of encyclopedia of cultural history, to include not only
> images of paintings, but texts of literature and philosophy, and mp3s
> of music. And to arrange it intelligently by timelines, influences,
> and other methods. I also want to include information and images of
> popular culture from other periods in history, to show the full range
> of what was occuring.
Please do it! Just a beginning, and the internet community
will come and build it with you.
-lauri
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Interesting post Brian,
>
>Living in a small country, far from Paris aand NY, I understand your
>concern of peripheral art. How little is written about Russian avnt garde!
>
Lots is no available
>On the other hand, academic art of 19th century was sort of a dead end
>while the seed for 20th century art were sown elsewhere.
>If your interest really is in "the theoretical basis--ie, the hierarchy of
>genres" academic art is a sideline.
>
"the theoretical basis" of modern art is art school baloney. Its a
fabrication, much of which is expressed in meaningless double-talk.
Academic art is a sideline when art education ignores it. However it
is popular when seen. More museums are now taking their long hidden
academic art out of the basement and exhibiting it. There are new
books on artists who were formaly unknown and scholars are at last
looking into the details of this supressed period.
This will lead to an acceptence of the finest 20th C. artists who are
still not generally represented in museums and will puncture the myth
that 20th C. art is only represented by the Modern Academic variety.
Brian Shapiro
Of course my interest in academic art its not only pure theoretical
interest (the importance, basis, and whatever truth behind the
theories); but aesthetic (I appreciate am attracted to many of the
best paintings), historical (historical and social importance), etc;
but I think these different interests are all related in the end, I do
think that art, to some degree has to occur in movements--one
development opens the doors to another--and authentic and
intellectually perceptive expressions will carry the most aesthetic.
One of the plain reasons the theory and history should be known, of
course, is to understand history and understand the cultures and ideas
of past eras. Apparently we can have critical sensitivity for foreign
cultures, like the Africans and Asians, but no empathy for past
European cultures, like the Victorians. Its also obvious, that as
African and Asian art were ignored and then served as a major
influence for the avant-garde; the interest in older European theories
that are now being looked at again with new eyes can serve as an
influence for a new avant-garde, whether or not the past ideals are
exactly replicated. Every cultural revolution goes a little too far in
excess in the attempt to define things clearly. You can argue that
some of its ideas have already over time been reappreciated.
But, anyway, one of the things I would say about theoretical and
historical importance, is that it is a myth that academic art was a
dead-end and the avant-garde was a complete break from the past. One
component of this myth is the common portrayal as the academics and
avant-garde as opponents; that the academics were some sort of
reactionary set caught in the past. The truth is that the academics
were a generation older than the impressionists and realists, and
taught and instructed many of them.
In turn, many of their practices, ideas, etc. about art helped create
the environment for the avant-garde. The most obvious is that though
intellectual theory and ideology behind art was important since the
Renaissance (and of course it happens in other cultures), when it was
placed above craft, it culminated in the 19th century in different
historical self-styled movements. Aside from Romanticism and
neo-Classicism, which some could call early academic, academic art was
full of sub-movements, though they aren't well known. A lot of them
were 'Revival Styles' like neo-grec and neo-gothic, etc, because the
19th century was dominated by historicism and eclecticism--in art,
philosophy, and politics--in different ways. I could get into the
theory about this more.
But, even when they looked to the past, many were precursors to
avant-garde movements--like the Lyon School and some 'Deutschromers'
who were deep in symbolism, mural painters and Nazarenes who flattened
planes more than ever before, to suit the medium, and there were other
painters who simplified forms to bring attention to them. Academic
paintings in general have a noticeably flatter appearance, due to
interests in formal harmony, than previous paintings; its no surprise
that pure form and flatness became issues in Modern art.
Pre-raphaelites, who are often considered academics, were actually the
first to revolt from them. Eclecticism in combining romantic and
classical tendencies also lead to stylistic expermentation, many
academic painters developed a free spontaneous brush-style and
attempts to convey naturalism. Thomas Couture's style was transmitted
to his student, Manet. In Austria, Makart's interests in decoration,
sensuality, and theatricality influenced the Seccession; Klimt
worshipped Makart. Even Bouguereau's peasant paintings can be seen as
a precursor to Realism (though probably not a real influence, as other
things I've mentioned).
The plain fact, of course, is, that Modern art occurred as a revolt.
But how is it possible to see all these influences in avant-garde
painters from academics? I think because it was one of the most
dramatic changing-of-the-guards in history, the culmination of certain
ideas in Western history, in art, philosophy, literature, and other
areas; which opened up the door for Modernism. Easy things to point
out is the liberty and critical theory opened up by the west. But
there are deeper things: the 19th century was interested in
historicism, in building up from history's sucesses to syncretize what
was best--the avant-garde realized that to -continue- this effort,
they needed to define the new moment and break from the past. History
painting idealized subjects to present universal forms. In order to
represent the present, but to have the same universality they had to
break from idealism and focus on direct visual experience.
The many different avant-garde movements can be analysed as different
aspects present in academic works. Academics valued using reality to
express ideas--this broke off into Symbolism. They valued formal
harmony in color and line--this broke off into Aestheticism. They
valued direct evocativeness--which broke off into Expressionism. They
valued observation of nature--which broke off into Realism and
Impressionism. All of these were foundational for modern art.
But this can be put in simpler terms. Academic art and theoretical
aspects became widespread and popular, dogmatic methods in teaching
and practice became entrenched. What art was supposed to be, according
to Western thought, was clear and widespread, defined very tightly,
especially because of the strict convention, rules, and rationality of
the Victorian age. Idealism, allegory, harmony, etc, were to be
admired.
In fact, academic theorists were the first to define the boundaries
between 'high art' and 'low art'; singling out high art as interested
in form and idea, and having an intellectual basis; even though they
often tried to ennoble low art subjects by subjecting them to their
disciplines. The avant-garde would later have to separate themselves
from a closely related phenomenon, kitsch.
All the avant-garde did was react to the constrictions and take
different aspects of academic art in different directions. As an
example, landscape painting and still life were bad as genres, so they
attempted these genres by defying proscribed practices. Landscape
artists went outside of studios, where academists thought art should
be kept. The best ones adapted techniques developed by academicist
experiments. The reuse and overuse of past themes from art made it
look spiritually dead, so there are symbolist and aesthetic movements
which tried to separate themselves by defining new aesthetics. The
strict conventionality, yet ardent intellectualism, of the Victorian
era challenged and begged an avant-garde to emerge.
Even Clement Greenberg said, that the reason the avant-garde rose, was
not because there was something inherently good about newness and
innovation, but to preserve aesthetic standards and the continuity of
the development of art.
The masses appreciated and, under the appreciation and justification
of conventions, made many poor quality examples of academic art;
intellectuals needed to separate themselves from the masses.
I would end by saying, if Academic art hadn't developed and suceeded
on a wide scale; Modern art wouldn't have come about.
Anyway, I hope you will appreciate my website when I put it online.
Thanks,
Brian
Dilettante
> I first wanted to comment on some of the art that has been gaining a
> lot of publicity lately,
I would hate to miss any of that.
on the Chapman brothers, who painted clown
> and teddy bear faces over prints of Goya's disasters of war series,
> and generally produce things like mutilated bodies with penises for
> noses; and of the Turner prize winner who dressed up as a little girl
> with balloons and typically does things like paint child abuse on
> pottery.
This just confirms the prodigious and neverending contribution of the
British not only in art practice but also in establishing standards of
taste.
In fact, I wrote a lengthy message about this, which took at
> least an hour, but which was lost by a mistake in my browser.
Damn!
I don't
> want to repeat all of it, just make a few of my points succinctly.
Well, I guess we'll have to be satisfied with that.
All
> these two artists are doing is juxtaposing incongruous elements, in an
> attempt to produce an effect in some sort of irony, no great act or
> genius in it. In fact, using clowns and teddy bears for grotesque or
> horrific purposes has been used a lot in popular culture already, just
> look at Stephen King. You can find many grown men dressed as little
> girls if you search the Internet, and a very amusing site about a man
> who dresses like Peter Pan. Someone threw red paint over one of the
> Chapman brothers and one of their works, saying just as they
> incorporated Goya's work he incorporated theirs. Even though in an
> earlier interview, they discussed having a healthy distrust of the
> establishment, they called this 'cheap', and brought him to court
> under litigation. Another artist wrapped Rodin's Thinker in string,
> and when someone cut the string to make an equal artistic statement,
> he was arrested.
But Rodin already put the string in in the Burgers of Calais.
Some people on this newsgroup made comments like that
> these artists are impossible to not like, and there were also comments
> on liking the photographer who did nothing but took photos of masses
> of nude bodies. In some part I guess they expect it to be shocking,
> but my guess is most people are just bored with it and when they decry
> it they decry its stupidness.
Sorry, I only decry stupidity.
This isn't about being against modern or
> postmodern art.
Whew! that's a relief.
People who like Cezanne and Picasso are mistaken to
> think a man dressed as a girl, the winner of the Turner prize, will be
> remembered as great. And, at least Damien Hirst produces more
> thoughtful and evocative works--so much so that they were included in
> the movie The Cell,
Its basic plot motive rather fatally shallow, however: the abusive
father, more male bashing, more titillating child abuse...
along with some images from Odd Nerdrum paintings.
> If you appreciate modern and postmodern art, fine, but don't be naive
> or pretentious and go to ridiculous extremes.
I'll watch myself carefully in future.
>
> I also wanted to comment on new art history books, and the state of
> art books in general.
You know, I was just wondering what your thoughts were on those
subjects.
Just like before, I wrote a long message on it,
> which got lost.
Yes, thanks for reminding me. (Are you on some sort of stimulant, by
chance?)
So I will try to repeat the meat of what I said here,
> even though a lot of it will be lost. Most art history textbooks give
> you a very cliched and standard account of the 19th century, which
> moves from Romanticism to Realism to Impressionism, mainly focusing on
> France.
Are you sure standard is the word you want here? just asking.
Some textbooks earlier in the century even left out
> Neo-classicism, but thats another issue. This is a misleading and
> conventional account which was designed to make Modernism look like
> the apex of history. The most obvious blemish, of course, is the
> absense of the history of academic art, the artists, the theoretical
> basis--ie, the hierarchy of genres, attention to allegory, debates
> over copying nature vs classics, the eclectic attempts to synthesize
> romantic and classical tendencies, and historicism.
Perhaps you could post your own interpretations of these subjects in
separate posts.
Its the most
> obvious, because, after spending years of studying art history
> independently from text books, I find it impossible to tell the story
> of art without including them. I also admire many academic artists,
> but this isn't the point.
I should hope not.
And it isn't just academics that are not
> included. In the beginning of the century, there were conflicts
> between neo-classicism and romanticism already emerging in the
> Nazarene movement in Germany--which later influenced the Lyon School
> in france and had great effect on the Symbolists. The historicism of
> the Nazarenes worked its way into the style of some Belgian historical
> painters, who influenced later artists like Tissot. There was also the
> Purist movement in Italy, which had similar influences, and the
> troubadour painters in France. Then along the century, different
> artists tried to synthesize neo-classicism and romanticism, one after
> the other being hailed as critics as doing so; Chasseriau, Hayez,
> Decamps, and Couture, who declared that this was his purpose--to
> revitalize French art. Historicism reared itself in many 'revival
> styles', mostly in architecture, but often in art, in neo-Grec,
> neo-Renaissance, neo-Gothic, neo-Baroque. Even books which start to
> include academic artists limit themselves to France mainly, and don't
> include historically important and great painters like Makart in
> Austria who was friends with Wagner, revered by Klimt,
Not necessarily a point in anyone's favor.
That would take one finger and two seconds.
and in
> addition to that, shows some of their worst works. The example of a
> Whistler work is also one of the least relevant of his paintings. His
> choice of Repin's painting as the best of the century, whatever merits
> it has, is very speciously argued. I disagree, though, with the
> comments of outrage that the book 'contains only a page[!] on
> Cezanne'--as influential as he was, he was only one artist. I had an
> art history book, for a course I'll mention later, that was nothing
> but a collected set of biographies of artists the author liked. I want
> a history, not the personal favorites of an author, when I can look up
> any biography I want on an Internet encyclopedia.
But biography might be the raw material of history anyway, movements
being a theoretical synthesis of a number of individual biographies.
>
> There is also a new book called Nineteenth-Century European Art by
> Petra ten-Doesschate Chu, which is so generous to neglected academic
> artists, that it includes Bouguereau's painting Young Girl Defending
> Herself Against Eros, as the cover image; it also includes other
> paintings by academics. But, skimming through the book, it does this
> in a haphazard way, without looking how it fit into the scope of
> history, and also makes the same mistake of narrowly focusing on the
> French art scene, ingoring influences from elsewhere. This depletes
> its value in its discussions of both academic and avant-garde art.
>
> I once commented on all of this to an art history teacher I had, who
> responded that it was a survey course and they could not include
> everything. But, besides the fact that I considered it misleading and
> inaccurate to ignore the trends of the century, and impossible to tell
> the story while not mentioning the salon and academics; the course
> gratuitously included an obscure Canadian landscape painter (the class
> was in Canada, in Montreal), women artists who were aesthetically
> deficient compared to their male counterparts of the eras, and
> extremely bad and unnoteworthy examples of postmodernism, again from
> Canadian artists. An history survey course should do its best to give
> people an accurate picture of history, not something neatly fashioned
> for narrow tastes.
No such thing as accurate if you mean object, because there is so much
information it has to be selected.
>
> This also brings me to a more general point about art books--at any
> bookstore, I will find maybe eight books on Klimt and eight on
> Picasso, and in order to find a book on a lesser known, but important,
> artist I have to search in university libraries, where I finally find
> a book from the 70s with black and white images. I will maybe have to
> order an exhibition catalogue from Europe, if I cant find good
> resources at the Getty Center Library. Some of these artists are still
> well known and respected within their birth countries. But, at any
> rate, the point is this: there are hundreds of books on Picasso, very
> few of them offering any new insights, any better representations of
> his oeuvre, better quality pictures, or any fuller historical
> information. Why create the five thousanth (conventional) book on
> Picasso instead of looking at lesser known artists? Not for reasons of
> erudition or scholarship. Not even for love of art, as a social
> phenomenon.
I am certainly going to refrain from writing any books on Picasso.
>
> Over time, I've contributed a lot of images to the Art Renewal Center
> website, after research and looking for pictures in books. But ARC
> includes very weak academic artists, who were maybe justly thought of
> as oversentimental and with poor aesthetics, alongside good ones (I
> like Bouguereau,
We may have a problem here.
But this may make us feel bad.
I've
> also been thinking of how I will eventually include Nazi art in my
> project, and considering putting up a page on that. I find most of
> Nazi art bad, even by classical or academic standards. For example,
> Breker, who is used all the time as an example of Nazi art, creates
> men that are muscular and athletic in an over the top cartoonish way.
> Nazis weren't the only ones guilty of things like this--if you look at
> Proud'hon, even though he has some beautiful works, many of his
> paintings have madonnas which are cartoonishly doll-like.
British Victorian neo-classicism was basically the same as Nazi art,
although with an added funereal aura.
There are a
> few Nazi artists which are decent, but mostly are clearly just second
> rate. Hitler himself, I read, privately confessed that most art
> produced by Nazi germany was bad; and spent his time collecting da
> Vinci, Rubens, Brughel, Watteau, and some German-Austrian work like
> Makart and Waldmuller. Most of the art was just produced as state
> propaganda, with no more good sensibility than Thomas Kinkade. In
> trying to present art history inclusively I run up against problems
> like this. The effort should be to have an insightful presentation, I
> guess; and I would defend to extreme ends, for reasons I wont get into
> here, that even taking an appreciative view of modern art, Bouguereau
> should stand next to Picasso in value.
Not a chance, pal. why don't you include cheap pornography too then.
It remains to be seen whether
> much of this century's modern art will be preserved as important;
> though I think it would be a mistake for ideologues to remove it from
> textbooks as much as it was a mistake to remove academics. I've found
> that history books, and art history books, are best when they give a
> lot of details, organize them in rational ways according to history,
> and then leave it up to the reader to interpret for value judgment.
>
> Brian Shapiro
Interesting essay, but should have started at "Some textbooks earlier
in the century even left out
> Neo-classicism,..." Your overall tone is whiney, though, in common with so many conservatives. It is better to present your ideas like a shining sun not a resentful flashlight.
Dilettante
Brian Shapiro
There are some problems with my writing style now, but I don't think
you are even touching on it. I dont think its really whiney at all,
its a critical tone. If it was a real essay and not a newsgroup
message, maybe I would have started out the way you suggested. Though,
I'm not sure you should be even giving advice on this, I think there
are bad aspects in your writing style and tone.
I'm not really a conservative either. I guess you think, because I
claim to recognize artistic value in Bouguereau, that I vote for
George W Bush, talk about family values, drink cognac in fine glasses,
and weep when I see babies. I didn't rant against modern art, because
I can see why its appreciated. I think there are problems in it
though, as I guess there are in most attempts at art, and that its
leading in a bad direction. Also, I've found a large amount of the
people who support it, and also a large amount of the people who are
against academic art, have pretentions dont understand much of what
they're talking about. I don't know about whether this includes you,
since I don't know your beliefs. I would say if you think Bouguereau
is equivalent to cheap pornography then you aren't being fair. I'll be
glad to look at your elephant drawings when they're done.
History is based on individual people's lives, of course. I'm sure,
however, you'd find a real difference between what I was talking
about, a selection of life biographies, and a more comprehensive
attempt to look at the history of an era, in their abilities to cover
the subject. And, of course every attempt at writing history has to
select things and there is some degree of subjectivity. But hopefully
when historians attempt to record things, they want to treat things
fairly, and do the selection for the ends of scholarship. If, in the
end, doesnt pretend to be anything else but a book on 'art i like',
thats what the title should be, not 'history'. I know people didn't
include neo-classicism and other movmeents from history for reasons;
but a lot of it was based on an ideology of revolution at the
time--ie, some futurists even wanted to shut down libraries and
galleries--and a lot of it on ignorance. Hopefully, as historians
build their discipline, they will at least have ideals like accuracy.
Brian
hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote in message news:<ba63903f.04010...@posting.google.com>...
Bernard Victor
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
> the Turner prize winner who dressed up as a little girl
>> with balloons and typically does things like paint child abuse on
>> pottery
Have you actually seen these works or are you just going by the
reviews and comments in the papers ?
I went to the Tate today, mainly to see the 'Constable on Venice'
exhibition, but took time to see the Turner Prize exhibits. I think
the pottery really deserved to win the prize. Purely as pottery the
vases were good classical shapes. The decoration however was both
provocative and humorous. It was not erotic, but gave valid comments
on contemporary life. INMHO it really qualified as works of art.
The fact that the artist sometimes dresses in girls clothes has no
real bearing on the validity of his work.
Brian Shapiro
He won the prize for dressing up as a girl, not for his pottery. The
Turner Prize judges are more interested in silly stunts like this.
As for his pottery, I've see in it on his website, some of its design
is nice, but not that great. Its commentary on contemporary life was
very trite, and worked by a standard formula I mentioned of
juxtoposing incongruous themes, by putting fashion models and sports
cars on vases, taking away their glamour and making them appear
rustic. One of his newer pots has the slogan "hip is the new
straight." While that may seem to some to be good social commentary, I
find it trite because everybody knows it and says it, and he does
nothing outstanding by repeating it. Putting child abuse scenes on
pottery is also sort of lame, he does this in part because he thinks
the incongruity brings out some message, I would guess that child
abuse occurs in conservative homes, though I havent given much thought
to it; though in all its hardly pressing any more to raise attention
to the issue of child abuse. His pottery is not that aesthetic,
creative, insightful, or meaningful. It could be appreciated, I guess,
but I don't think that anyone would put him up as an artistic master.
Brian
Bernard Victor <bvi...@HotPOP.com> wrote in message news:<5db0009udcqjog903...@4ax.com>...
Brian Shapiro
some of the ideas he expressed as being behind his pottery is
objectionable. He talks about people in the fashion industry being
cool but boring people. But fashion designers and models shy away from
clothes that are boring and follow art and fashion trends to be
interesting. In my opinion, both the artist and his subjects suffer
from the same disease--that they hold value in whether people are
interesting or boring, instead of caring for more meaningful
qualities.
Leo Papandreou
> Bernard,
>
> He won the prize for dressing up as a girl, not for his pottery. The
> Turner Prize judges are more interested in silly stunts like this.
>
OK then who should have won instead? The reason I ask is he was a popular
choice among the public, _for his craftsmanship and realism_, exactly the
opposite of what the Turner Prize typically rewards and is scorned for.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/3299175.stm
> As for his pottery, I've see in it on his website, some of its design
> is nice, but not that great. Its commentary on contemporary life was
> very trite, and worked by a standard formula I mentioned of
> juxtoposing incongruous themes, by putting fashion models and sports
> cars on vases, taking away their glamour and making them appear
> rustic. One of his newer pots has the slogan "hip is the new
> straight." While that may seem to some to be good social commentary, I
> find it trite because everybody knows it and says it, and he does
> nothing outstanding by repeating it. Putting child abuse scenes on
> pottery is also sort of lame, he does this in part because he thinks
> the incongruity brings out some message, I would guess that child
> abuse occurs in conservative homes, though I havent given much thought
> to it; though in all its hardly pressing any more to raise attention
> to the issue of child abuse. His pottery is not that aesthetic,
> creative, insightful, or meaningful. It could be appreciated, I guess,
> but I don't think that anyone would put him up as an artistic master.
>
There's nothing wrong with disliking the man's work, but your hand waving about
trite "themes" does not connect to ceramics or his iconography in any way that
would qualify your verdict as informed. The portrait is a trite theme. I wonder
if you are prepared to argue portraits can't work as art.
I suppose what I dislike the most about your rhetoric, meaningless statements
like "[modern art is] leading in a bad direction," is the moralizing that you
attempt to conceal behind a dispassionate tone of voice.
G*rd*n
> He won the prize for dressing up as a girl, not for his pottery. The
> Turner Prize judges are more interested in silly stunts like this.
I still don't understand how dressing up as a girl could win
him a prize, unless they have several hundred thousand prizes
to give out.
Dilettante
>
> He won the prize for dressing up as a girl, not for his pottery. The
> Turner Prize judges are more interested in silly stunts like this.
No he did not. The Brits are smarter than that no matter how bad their
art is. The real fault may be in the judges succumbing to this
melodramatic and delusional fad about "child abuse" which he
exploited.
Dilettante
Brian Shapiro
interesting about the aesthetics. Even before Modern art portraiture
was considered less serious art, usually done for wealthy patrons
instead of artistic purposes. Even then, it was talked about in terms
of its use of the medium for the expression of beauty; from using the
line and color to display the sitters intelligence, to using his
personality to create a more universal poetic reflection. Realists and
later modern artists had different goals, but it wasnt thought of the
same as amateur photography.
I mentioned that theres nothing special about his work in these other
areas. But, anyway, the artist himself, art critics, and people who
like him, are focusing on his themes, the 'irony' of using them on
pottery, not even other concerns. There are a few comments about how
he uses pleasing design to conceal his social messages, but this is
talk about the the things I mentioned. My few critical comments
directed towards this were not 'hand waving' and don't reveal me as
uninformed in making a judgment. You criticize my rhetoric, but I
think its silly that you casually imply that I may be uninformed.
Of course my statement that 'modern art is leading in a bad direction'
sounds meaningless because I didn't really explain or argue for it, I
just commented that it was my opinion. Morality itself can be talked
about dispassionately, and even politics; but talking about something
being 'bad' is not necessarily more about morals than is any other
statement in art criticism. Leading in a bad direction can mean,
without me explaining these further, that it leads to where less
notable art is being made, or it can mean that it has effects on
society, or many other things.
Brian Shapiro
> choice among the public, _for his craftsmanship and realism_, exactly the
As I said, he was chosen for dressing up as a girl. Even his pottery
isnt generally discussed critically for craftsmanship or realism; and
I doubt people who scorn the Turner Prize care more for the
craftsmanship or realism of Photorealism either. I don't see these as
issues.
One of the other finalists who some critics were urging the judges to
back were the Chapman brothers, who in this case, used the device of
incongruency again by making African looking carvings holding up
McDonalds fries and drinks. A lot of supporting critics are analysing
this in terms of statements about globalization and environmentalism,
something even the Chapmans laugh off. They say they just did it for
its incongruency and picked the corporation most people love to hate.
It even has more interest than some other works that are based on
devices like that because it reminds you of how in many third world
countries people are trying to preserve traditions alongside pop
culture. But its still not that interesting.
I might have chose the woman who tied bundles of fruit to the base of
a trees branches, I forgot the title. But it was more creative and had
a more evocative, and poetic effect.
Brian
Leo Papandreou
I didn't and still don't understand what you were getting at talking about
"formulaic" devices. In a previous message, you spoke of the trite
juxtaposition of incongruous themes. The problem is Perry makes pots, not
"juxtapositions of incongruous themes."
You would be wrong to assume good art is not formulaic. Poor art criticized for
being formulaic is transparently so. That does not mean good art is not
formulaic as well; only that it is executed better. All art recognizable as
such is "formulaic," much the same way that all stories are. Structure is
highly conventionalized. Pictorial or narrative devices structure images and
plot in much the same way syntax structures sentences. Failing to generally
conform to those conventions (metonymy, metaphor, irony, synecdoche, paradox,
antithesis, etc.) would result in work that is, to beg a phrase from one of the
Prize's critics, a haphazard arrangement of refuse on the floor. Modern art
sometimes likes to play with those conventions, one reason, I suppose,
why "normal," properly socialized taxpayers might not always get it. (They
don't get modern physics either, but whatever.)
That brings us back to Perry, whose work they do get.
The objection to your critique is this: first, as I said, your talk of devices
did not connect with ceramics or Perry's pictorial references. The jury
specifically cited his use of the traditions of ceramics, drawing, and his
iconography, all three which you failed to discuss. You dismissed the work in
the abstract, and your opinion that "his pottery is not that aesthetic,
creative, insightful, or meaningful" is uninformative. It may well be that, but
I don't know why I should feel that way about it reading your critique.
Second, I think it is very cynical of you to insist the prize was given to
Grayson Perry for his sexuality. Perry is a transvestite. That is why he
dresses up in women's clothing. It's not a "stunt," as you put it. So although
you didn't like his work, I think you should consider the possibility that
someone must have.
Finally, "I haven't given much thought to it" but "it's hardly pressing any
more to raise attention to the issue of child abuse" is politics fluffier than
what you accuse Perry of in his work. I'm much more interested in the fact that
Perry's imagery is personally informed, imagery you dismiss without reference
or description, as if it were not there.
For those reasons I asked you who you thought should have won the prize.
Personally, I don't care who wins the prize, even less the "reasons" given they
should win it -- "A fantastic win for transvestite potters everywhere!" is good
by me -- only that it continues to annoy the British public:
"I think it is really sad that 'artists' have to depict the direst of
human conditions nowadays for it to be considered art. Art used to aspire
to beauty and perfection. Of course in those days, art required patrons.
Now there is subsidy by quango and taxpayers subsidy they can concentrate
on the foulest aspects of humanity."
The way he puts it, he makes it sound like a bad thing.
Leo Papandreou
>
> Of course my statement that 'modern art is leading in a bad direction'
> sounds meaningless because I didn't really explain or argue for it, I
> just commented that it was my opinion.
Well, you seem to be calling that opinion meaningless (at least as it was
stated.)
> Morality itself can be talked
> about dispassionately, and even politics; but talking about something
> being 'bad' is not necessarily more about morals than is any other
> statement in art criticism.
You mean like people talking about cancer being bad? Yes. OTOH, "modern ART is
leading in a bad direction" is rhetoric based on unwarranted identification and
high-order abstraction run riot.
ART is not a thing. You cannot prove its existence or non-existence except as a
word. The validity of the concept bad art rests on the shoulders of millions of
your fellow beings. Are you suffering because they create "bad" art? If there
is no entity ART, it would seem superfluous to be constantly taking its
temperature. ART speaks. ART says this. ART does that. ART views the NEA with
alarm. ART is sick, jubilant, well.
> Leading in a bad direction can mean,
> without me explaining these further, that it leads to where less
> notable art is being made, or it can mean that it has effects on
> society, or many other things.
I wish you would explain it further. Left to my imagination I would have to
guess "bad art" denotes a picture that has a demonstrated bad affect on the
bodies of good people, or that it refers to undesirable thoughts and feelings
(because all art is either conceptual or it is meaningless.) Artists with a
brain disease are literally in a bad way. Artists who express undesirable
thoughts and feelings are not; they are merely pursuing their own artistic
goals, which may differ from your own.
Equating your preferences with the Good, the True, and the Beautiful strikes me
as worthless intellectually. It would be perhaps more mature to realize that
your goals for ART are not privileged in any objective sense but that you have
the same right to pursue them as anyone else does. Of course, pursuing your
goals may not always be compatible with tolerance, selflessness, and the
welfare of others, but that's the choice you'll have to make.
Brian Shapiro
Some of the things I was leaving vague because honestly I wasn't that
interested in arguing this now, and I assumed you could understand the
gist of what I was saying.
I was under the impression that his dressing up as a girl was the
'entry' for the competition since everything I looked at which showed
and discussed the different finalists focused on that and showed those
pictures for his entry, only putting as a footnote that he also
creates pottery. That his dressing up was an act of performance art
which won, not that the entry was pottery and the judges had ulterior
motives. If this is wrong, its good that I'm corrected.
I have read both his own discussions of his pottery and discussions by
critics. I could bet you anything the jury wouldn't have cared a bit
if it was just a well made aesthetic pot with unironic iconography on
it, like ancient Greek pottery, even though I haven't specifically
read the jury's own critique. In critiques by art critics and the
press, and also in the artists discussions, the focus is the mix of
traditions with what i labeled the 'incongruity' of glamour images.
Greeks put scenes of myth and daily life, he puts fashion models and
cars, because this is supposedly what our society is concerned with
and what the artist was concerned with in his life. Thats about sums
it, whatever other details you can talk about. In terms of craft and
drawing, he's no different than thousands of illustrators and pot
makers, not inaesthetic, just not special. If you want me to go into
this further ok but I'm not sure I have to. For the Prize, it would be
an opportunity to show they are subversive by choosing a traditional
craft, but they wouldnt have chosen it if it were not for the irony of
what he did, and the supposed value of his themes. I addressed the
value of both. I argued my opinion, though briefly, that its not that
interesting, and him being chosen is based on pretense. If you think
there is something more, and believe this to be outstanding art, or
think the jury's reasoning was good, refer me to the jury's critique
or tell me your own view. Going after me further with attacks in
attempts to desconstruct what I'm saying will probably go nowhere.
There is a similar kind of irony I pointed out in the works of the
Champan brothers. Your talk about formula being in every art really
doesn't even address anything; I'm obviously saying there is something
different I am talking about than standard use of techniques. All you
have to do is pick out one symbol, and superimpose something
incongruous on it, or another similar device is to do something
offensive with it. I'm saying its much simpler than finding a good
metaphor. In fact, many of the things this artist did and the Chapmans
did I've done similar versions of in the past for jokes. One example:
in the Chapmans Rape of Creativity show, the gallery had a nazi banner
with the swastika replaced by a happy face. In high school for a
french skit I dressed up as a Hitler figure with the same happy face
design on an arm band, and on a banner behind me, making a speech
about putting old people in jail for driving too slow and similar
things. There were reasons I did it and why it was appreciated. Maybe
I would be liked as an artist doing these things, and win acclaim by
art critics.
At any rate, we can talk for lengths about how all art uses technique
and how all art has precursors in popular culture and whether it needs
skill or not and other sorts of things. But those discussions probably
wont touch what critics are concerned about.
You shouldn't underestimate the ability of average people to
understand modern art, whether its Picasso or Duchamp or Offili. Many
of them do understand whatever appeal is behind it as well as the
admirers do, they just don't value it. I'm sure many at the same time
don't fully understand it. But also, I've found many people both in
the public and among art critics and academics, and among both
admirers and critics, who don't understand a lot of pre-modern art.
Brian
Leo Papandreou
>
> Some of the things I was leaving vague because honestly I wasn't that
> interested in arguing this now, and I assumed you could understand the
> gist of what I was saying.
>
What I'm trying to get across to you is that your reasoning was vague on
details, mistaken in the facts, yet unambiguous in its judgment: Perry was
not awarded a prize for dressing up like a girl, and the message intended
or expressed in the pots is not irony. A transvestite wasn't given the prize
for being ironic, or if he was, you did not make that case.
> I was under the impression that his dressing up as a girl was the
> 'entry' for the competition since everything I looked at which showed
> and discussed the different finalists focused on that and showed those
> pictures for his entry, only putting as a footnote that he also
> creates pottery. That his dressing up was an act of performance art
> which won, not that the entry was pottery and the judges had ulterior
> motives. If this is wrong, its good that I'm corrected.
>
I think it's good that you concede a premise after three people pointed out
it was in error, but I also think such poor attention detail undermines the
credibility of your subsequent reasoning.
> I have read both his own discussions of his pottery and discussions by
> critics. I could bet you anything the jury wouldn't have cared a bit
> if it was just a well made aesthetic pot with unironic iconography on
> it, like ancient Greek pottery, even though I haven't specifically
> read the jury's own critique.
That's like betting on your character if your parents had never met. Such
subjunctive speculations have the potential to inform, enrich, emote, and even
entertain, but it seemed to me that you were much more interested in trying to
debunk Perry's work and the jury's verdict.
Rather than running a simulation of alternatives contrary to fact ("I regret
this decision because what if it were not ironic") it would be more convincing
if you engaged the evidence: the work (technique, theme, artistic devices),
standards for comparison, and the jury's findings.
> In critiques by art critics and the
> press, and also in the artists discussions, the focus is the mix of
> traditions with what i labeled the 'incongruity' of glamour images.
> Greeks put scenes of myth and daily life, he puts fashion models and
> cars, because this is supposedly what our society is concerned with
> and what the artist was concerned with in his life. Thats about sums
> it, whatever other details you can talk about.
You are trying to create an appearance of uniformity and unanimity that does
not exist by making as inconspicuous as possible the difference between
specific details and inferences you have drawn from them. "Whatever other
details you can talk about" is weasel talk for engaging the work, which you do
not do by criticizing an artistic device. It is a logical and semantic error to
think you are criticizing expression and meaning by criticizing irony. It does
not make sense to criticize irony. It is like criticizing the concept of
character.
> In terms of craft and
> drawing, he's no different than thousands of illustrators and pot
> makers, not inaesthetic, just not special. If you want me to go into
> this further ok but I'm not sure I have to.
Be that as it is, and there's no reason you give for me to think it would be,
certainly his pots resemble none that _I_ have seen before, thousands of
illustrators and pot makers were not shortlisted.
> For the Prize, it would be
> an opportunity to show they are subversive by choosing a traditional
> craft, but they wouldnt have chosen it if it were not for the irony of
> what he did, and the supposed value of his themes.
I do not know the jury's secret, subversive motives. I do not doubt they found
Perry's use of irony _well executed_, and the way he expressed his themes
compelling. They might even have used the word ironic to describe his imagery
(because diction matters, that is something everyone with agrees.)
> I addressed the
> value of both. I argued my opinion, though briefly, that its not that
> interesting, and him being chosen is based on pretense.
The only word I agree with in the sentence above is "opinion."
> If you think
> there is something more, and believe this to be outstanding art, or
> think the jury's reasoning was good, refer me to the jury's critique
> or tell me your own view. Going after me further with attacks in
> attempts to desconstruct what I'm saying will probably go nowhere.
>
Yes, obviously there is something more that you represent. I don't know for
certain what; Perry's world is lively and interesting but it's not mine. The
question "is it outstanding art" is gibberish. I am perfectly happy to call it
that if you want. As I said, I don't care who wins the prize, even less
the "reasons" they win it for. I think Perry is a fine artist who deserves the
award. I am not "deconstructing" what you are saying but I suppose I
am "attacking" giving you the opportunity to clarify your thinking. If that
goes nowhere, that's OK.
People can read all about the prize here:
<http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2003/>
There are links to the judges, who seem accomplished for a gang of subversives,
FAQs, discussion forums, etc. Anyone who wants to can piece together a serious
examination and judgment of the work.
Grayson Perry has a site here: <http://www.graysonperry.co.uk/>
> There is a similar kind of irony I pointed out in the works of the
> Champan brothers. Your talk about formula being in every art really
> doesn't even address anything; I'm obviously saying there is something
> different I am talking about than standard use of techniques. All you
> have to do is pick out one symbol, and superimpose something
> incongruous on it, or another similar device is to do something
> offensive with it. I'm saying its much simpler than finding a good
> metaphor. In fact, many of the things this artist did and the Chapmans
> did I've done similar versions of in the past for jokes. One example:
> in the Chapmans Rape of Creativity show, the gallery had a nazi banner
> with the swastika replaced by a happy face. In high school for a
> french skit I dressed up as a Hitler figure with the same happy face
> design on an arm band, and on a banner behind me, making a speech
> about putting old people in jail for driving too slow and similar
> things. There were reasons I did it and why it was appreciated. Maybe
> I would be liked as an artist doing these things, and win acclaim by
> art critics.
>
First, at the risk of flogging a dead horse bringing up _the pots_, there are
metaphors in Perry's iconography. Second, I know what irony is. I wouldn't give
you a prize for clowning around in a Hitler getup in high-school, but I might
be persuaded to give Perry a prize for his pots. Again, it is not the device;
it is the execution, which you fail to discuss. You continuously confound the
graphic device irony with the object Perry's pot, and so give a spurious
validity to the device, making it an art object in its own right. It's not.
You don't say anything about the pots except that they are "not that aesthetic,
creative, insightful, or meaningful." That is not art criticism. Now you say
they are "not inaesthetic, just not special." That is still not art criticism.
I know you don't like the pots. What I don't know is what the pots are about
and why they don't work as intended. What I mean is, reading your comments, I
actually don't _understand_ Perry's pots. Irony I understand, thanks.