What artistic period are we in?
mdeli
Towards the end of the 19th century artists began rejecting the use of
academic subject matter. By the first quarter of this century academic
subject matter became extinct and was never again revived. This led to
anarchy in the choice of subject matter and 20th century artists
separating into two distinct factions.
While both factions rejected the former subject matter one retained
the old reliance on a foundation of skill and technique in its
creations. The other faction gradually rejected not only academic
subject matter but all its former reliance on skill and technique and
regarded this as something utterly new. Presently except for a few
vestigial remainders, skill and technique is almost entirely absent
from the artwork of this faction.
This latter faction won out in the eyes of the critics and produced
what I call Modern Academic Art. It is now considered the only great
art of this century worthy of enough intellectual interest to inhabit
the modern sections of our museums.
Early in this century Modern Academic Art because of its outrageous
subject matter, its diminished skill and questionable technique
necessitated a good bit of talk for intellectual support. For those
who see art historical periods in terms of isms, the age of
Bullshitism had begun.
Presently what counts in art is large amounts of inventive talk,
while the artwork is of practically no interest whatever. We have now
ponderously arrived at a period whose most appropriate title is Post
Bullshitism.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Keith O'Connor
time. In this one you start off with some valid
comments you continue with some interesting
points, but then you fall into the personal
attacks. If you could control your anger I think
you could produce some very thought provoking
postings.
________tinman end______
Alison A Raimes
writes
>What artistic period are we in?
No one will know until next century. Or later.
>
>Towards the end of the 19th century artists began rejecting the use of
>academic subject matter. By the first quarter of this century academic
>subject matter became extinct and was never again revived. This led to
>anarchy in the choice of subject matter and 20th century artists
>separating into two distinct factions.
>
>While both factions rejected the former subject matter one retained
>the old reliance on a foundation of skill and technique in its
>creations. The other faction gradually rejected not only academic
>subject matter but all its former reliance on skill and technique and
>regarded this as something utterly new. Presently except for a few
>vestigial remainders, skill and technique is almost entirely absent
>from the artwork of this faction.
Predictable over generalisation ignoring everything that goes on in the
arts outside the Western Mainstream, of course, but some very valid and
worthy points slipped in also. The most important thing now is to
consider *why* the split in Mainstream Art has happened.
Skipping straight to the faction that reject academic subject matter
then to ask *why* the rejection of the academic subject matter. Consider
first that Western reflection on art, until the mid nineteenth century,
remained within the confines of the Greek theory of art as
representation from Plato's ruling of the dubious worth of art, to
Aristotle's challenge on Plato with the idea of art as a form of self
expression. There was, therefore, always two factions of the function of
art and not one that has developed as part of what we understand to be
*Modern Art*. Giotto's work is a clear example.
If one is then to believe in Darwinism we must now seriously consider
how the human mind has evolved over the last two centuries as a result
of the enormous leaps in scientific enlightenment and psychological
investigations of the human mind. Both of these have played major roles
in our evolution. The result has been, above all, the human need for
*interpretation* in an attempt to make our existence intelligible. We
have become excavators - archaeologists of the human existence.
In terms of art, the faction that now rejects academic subject matter is
no longer content to be a reporter of this existence - they desire to
excavate - to dig below the surface and find that which the human eye is
not capable of viewing.
>
>This latter faction won out in the eyes of the critics and produced
>what I call Modern Academic Art. It is now considered the only great
>art of this century worthy of enough intellectual interest to inhabit
>the modern sections of our museums.
This may be true in North America but it certainly is not in Europe -
please feel free to visit the Tate Gallery in London and you will see
the two sitting side by side perfectly happily. Let us just skim over
this careless statement of pure ignorance and return to the matter in
hand.
The new forces in art which have accompanied the growth Modern Art of
mass media and art critics have not only boosted its progress by making
art accessible to the public by notorious figures such as Herbert Reed,
Clement Greenberg and Ernst Gombrich, but also by a faction of criticism
that has seriously hindered and damaged the natural progression of
Modern Art. In Britain, the ubiquitous Brian Sewell has done unmeasured
damage to British Art during the latter half of this century. In 1993 he
won the *Critic of the Year* award - the same man that declared that by
throwing every painting by a woman into the Atlantic "the only complaint
would be that together with much futile dross a few pretty boudoir
things [would be] gone". The very man when advising the minister for
education, Chris Patton in 1994, on the teaching of the arts in schools
this decade was that as "we are predominantly a white society rooted in
Christianity, ancient Greece and Rome" our responsibility to immigrants
is "to bring them into mainstream European Culture". He also told the
minister that children would have to learn that homosexuality is an
"affliction".
In Britain then, it could not in any way be considered true that the so
called faction of Modern Academic Art has won in the eyes of society but
it is clear from Modern Art Museum attendance that the demand is there.
>
>Early in this century Modern Academic Art because of its outrageous
>subject matter, its diminished skill and questionable technique
>necessitated a good bit of talk for intellectual support. For those
>who see art historical periods in terms of isms, the age of
>Bullshitism had begun.
I think you may have a very good point here. If, as I have suggested and
as Susan Sontag has written so much about, the work of art has suffered
as part of this human condition which necessitates investigation and
excavation, then we certainly are in such an *ism*. Sontag calls for a
return to the sensibility of art as an experience rather than a
statement or answer to a question. In other words: ask the questions,
consider the options, but don't expect to find answers and art may
return to the original passage of Modern Art - one that delves deep into
the human mind and celebrates the joy of its evolution in an age of
discovery.
>
>Presently what counts in art is large amounts of inventive talk,
>while the artwork is of practically no interest whatever. We have now
>ponderously arrived at a period whose most appropriate title is Post
>Bullshitism.
Which means ?
Alison
Keith O'Connor
giant metal slabs at least 4 inches thick by 8 feet long by 8 feet
high. forming the corner of a wall. A man was standing in the corner.
Two friends of his a male and a female were asking him, don't you feel
anything? He responded no! This question was repeated a number of times,
until at last he said yes I think I feel something. His friends happily
responded with: see you can understand modern art, that's what it is all
about.
I recall on another visit to our national gallery; looking at a
representational (academic) painting. Two older women in front of me -
one said to the other look how this artist made a mistake in his
painting and painted that picture crooked.
I could not resist saying to my companion - look how the artist had
introduced variety in an otherwise boring composition by introducing a
crooked picture into his painting. The older woman who had made the
comment to her friend turned and glared at me. I just glared back at
this bourgeois know nothing. I can blame my behaviour on my youthful
period of life, (some 45 years ago), but I would probably do the same
today.
have fun
_______tinman end
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Here's an oldy I wrote referring to the subject
>
>
>Rothko is definatly Modern.
>
>The category is Modern Bullshitism.
>
>The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
>artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
>than all the other examples of similar practically-nothing-art created
>by that mass of failures doing much the same thing.
>
>I regard any painting which exhibits little more than a bunch of
>stripes, a few color patches, or a mass of cacophonous schmiers, no
>matter how big, whatever its shape or color or repute, which needs a
>load of bullshit to proclaim it art (what so many here imagine is
>philosophy) to be utterly stupid, repeatable and having no more
>aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In most cases usually less.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
This is where you fall, Mani. Firstly, it is purely subjective ... as
well as very badly written. Unfortunately very few people are interested
in one individual's point of view - to think otherwise implies a super
ego - the sort of thing that make people publish books on their
opinions, for instance. Secondly, it reeks of jealousy.
You would do much better if you were able to give a balanced and
rational argument, preferably written in way that could convince others
that you learned the skill of writing at some stage, and in a way that
would convince you actually knew anything of the subject you denounce.
--
Alison A Raimes
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
writes
>This isn't quite true. All sorts of theories sprung up.
Thank you. My example of Plato and Aristotle was intended to show that
we cannot perceive things as simply being split into only two factions.
We can, however, recognise two dominant factions which monopolise and
that in turn means excluding lesser theories.
>Only if you claim modern abstraction is something unique. It isn't.
The uniqueness of modern abstraction was to claim abstraction as it's
subject matter. Historically this is true of all art - landscape artists
claimed the landscape; religious art claimed religion; figurative
artists claimed the human figure. There was nothing unique about any of
those subject matters.
>I agree, but none of this gives any reason or justification for the
>absence of skill and craft in most Modern Art.
I also agree. The domination of thought over practise does seem to be
threatening the education of art today. One cannot produce good abstract
art, for instance, until one has trained both the eye and the mind - and
that includes learning the basics. Without that training (whether self
taught or art school educated) it becomes obvious that attempts at
abstraction are shallow.
>Well that's where the Emperor's New clothes comes into the picture.
>Much "digging" is just an expression of vanity. Furthermore, where it
>is possible to "dig below the surface," you can do it for any artwork,
>not only modern.
I referred here to the development of the human mind rather than art,
but yes, let us then see how this *has* affected art. You refer to
*vanity* as if it were a new condition ! Today, the human necessity to
excavate has lead to the need to translate - to look for meanings other
than what we immediately perceive (just as Freud delved into the human
psyche to find that which was hidden from sight). You are right that any
artwork can be excavated and increasingly it is, as part of today's
demands - ancient texts and religious symbols have all been reconciled
to meet *modern* demands (the Bible stands as proof of this). The
necessity to interpret then implies that there is something other than
that which is clear - a demand of the later reader to resolve the
dissatisfaction from being of another era, I suspect.
In regards to today's art, Susan Sontag denounces the necessity to
interpret Modern Art as " ... the revenge of the intellect upon art".
Sets of elements are plucked from the works and used as translation as
if each artist complies to a stringent vocabulary. Each gesture or line
or colour is used to denote a meaning, to the extent that some artists
adopt the vocabulary deliberately. That, I think, is where abstract art
starts to fail. You speak of boredom being the reason for the move away
from academic subject matter - I suggest it was a move away from
interpretation and that in the process, the human necessity to
*understand* has prevented us from accepting abstract art, for instance,
as the subject matter it has always been.
>Take any book on the history of modern art and point out what sits
>side by side. What you point out is the exception. The Tate has some
>of the finest Dali's I hope they hang near Picasso. I haven't been
>there for a long time so I don't know.
In the same room in fact.
>I don't believe that art can be "damaged" in this sense.
>
The masses like to be lead by what they believe are authorities. They
draw their opinions from listening to experts and believe that which is
in print or spoken from the mouths of the hierarchy must be worthy.
>Hardly anyone ever heard of Sewell and non of this is taken seriously.
>>
Hahahhahahaha. Maybe not in the USA. Brian Sewell is known by anyone in
Britain who has the slightest interest in the arts. To such an extent is
he considered an authority that he was brought in as advisor to the
future of arts education in Britain in 1994 - which is when the art
world lodged their own attack. Of course people listened to him and his
Victorian sets of values - he epitomised the old Britain !
>How does Kandinsky "delve" any deeper into
>the human mind than Disney or Norman Rockell?
Nobody says he does. He just used a different means - and in a world
where no two minds are capable of the same thoughts the Kandinsky's and
Disney's must each be given their place.
>What it says.
Post Bullshitism implies that Bullshitism is over ... I presume that is
what you mean by the term.
mdeli
wrote:
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>--------------A968C3AFC1F2A5E11BAB2A51
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=x-user-defined
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I have read some of your postings over a period of
>time. In this one you start off with some valid
>comments you continue with some interesting
>points, but then you fall into the personal
>attacks.
WHere is there a personal attack below?
I usually answer personal attacks in kind.
> If you could control your anger I think
>you could produce some very thought provoking
>postings.
>
I suspect that when my messages depart from your viewpoint you become
unable to distinguish between anger and humor.
>________tinman end______
>
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> What artistic period are we in?
>>
>> Towards the end of the 19th century artists began rejecting the use of
>> academic subject matter. By the first quarter of this century academic
>> subject matter became extinct and was never again revived. This led to
>> anarchy in the choice of subject matter and 20th century artists
>> separating into two distinct factions.
>>
>> While both factions rejected the former subject matter one retained
>> the old reliance on a foundation of skill and technique in its
>> creations. The other faction gradually rejected not only academic
>> subject matter but all its former reliance on skill and technique and
>> regarded this as something utterly new. Presently except for a few
>> vestigial remainders, skill and technique is almost entirely absent
>> from the artwork of this faction.
>>
>> This latter faction won out in the eyes of the critics and produced
>> what I call Modern Academic Art. It is now considered the only great
>> art of this century worthy of enough intellectual interest to inhabit
>> the modern sections of our museums.
>>
>> Early in this century Modern Academic Art because of its outrageous
>> subject matter, its diminished skill and questionable technique
>> necessitated a good bit of talk for intellectual support. For those
>> who see art historical periods in terms of isms, the age of
>> Bullshitism had begun.
>>
>> Presently what counts in art is large amounts of inventive talk,
>> while the artwork is of practically no interest whatever. We have now
>> ponderously arrived at a period whose most appropriate title is Post
>> Bullshitism.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>In article <37f671e9...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
>writes
>>What artistic period are we in?
>
>No one will know until next century. Or later.
>>
>>Towards the end of the 19th century artists began rejecting the use of
>>academic subject matter. By the first quarter of this century academic
>>subject matter became extinct and was never again revived. This led to
>>anarchy in the choice of subject matter and 20th century artists
>>separating into two distinct factions.
>>
>>While both factions rejected the former subject matter one retained
>>the old reliance on a foundation of skill and technique in its
>>creations. The other faction gradually rejected not only academic
>>subject matter but all its former reliance on skill and technique and
>>regarded this as something utterly new. Presently except for a few
>>vestigial remainders, skill and technique is almost entirely absent
>>from the artwork of this faction.
>
>Predictable over generalisation ignoring everything that goes on in the
>arts outside the Western Mainstream, of course, but some very valid and
>worthy points slipped in also.
You are correct. I'm certainty addressing what is loosely labeled
Modern Art.
> The most important thing now is to
>consider *why* the split in Mainstream Art has happened.
>
>Skipping straight to the faction that reject academic subject matter
>then to ask *why* the rejection of the academic subject matter.
It got boring and many people recognized the great chasm between
sentimental myth and hard reality.
> Consider
>first that Western reflection on art, until the mid nineteenth century,
>remained within the confines of the Greek theory of art as
>representation from Plato's ruling of the dubious worth of art, to
>Aristotle's challenge on Plato with the idea of art as a form of self
>expression.
This isn't quite true. All sorts of theories sprung up.
>There was, therefore, always two factions of the function of
>art and not one that has developed as part of what we understand to be
>*Modern Art*. Giotto's work is a clear example.
Only if you claim modern abstraction is something unique. It isn't.
>
>If one is then to believe in Darwinism we must now seriously consider
>how the human mind has evolved over the last two centuries as a result
>of the enormous leaps in scientific enlightenment and psychological
>investigations of the human mind. Both of these have played major roles
>in our evolution.
>The result has been, above all, the human need for
>*interpretation* in an attempt to make our existence intelligible. We
>have become excavators - archaeologists of the human existence.
I agree, but none of this gives any reason or justification for the
absence of skill and craft in most Modern Art.
>
>In terms of art, the faction that now rejects academic subject matter is
>no longer content to be a reporter of this existence - they desire to
>excavate - to dig below the surface and find that which the human eye is
>not capable of viewing.
>
Well that's where the Emperor's New clothes comes into the picture.
Much "digging" is just an expression of vanity. Furthermore, where it
is possible to "dig below the surface," you can do it for any artwork,
not only modern.
>>
>>This latter faction won out in the eyes of the critics and produced
>>what I call Modern Academic Art. It is now considered the only great
>>art of this century worthy of enough intellectual interest to inhabit
>>the modern sections of our museums.
>
>This may be true in North America but it certainly is not in Europe -
>please feel free to visit the Tate Gallery in London and you will see
>the two sitting side by side perfectly happily. Let us just skim over
>this careless statement of pure ignorance and return to the matter in
>hand.
Take any book on the history of modern art and point out what sits
side by side. What you point out is the exception. The Tate has some
of the finest Dali's I hope they hang near Picasso. I haven't been
there for a long time so I don't know.
>
>The new forces in art which have accompanied the growth Modern Art of
>mass media and art critics have not only boosted its progress by making
>art accessible to the public by notorious figures such as Herbert Reed,
>Clement Greenberg and Ernst Gombrich, but also by a faction of criticism
>that has seriously hindered and damaged the natural progression of
>Modern Art.
I don't believe that art can be "damaged" in this sense.
>In Britain, the ubiquitous Brian Sewell has done unmeasured
>damage to British Art during the latter half of this century. In 1993 he
>won the *Critic of the Year* award - the same man that declared that by
>throwing every painting by a woman into the Atlantic "the only complaint
>would be that together with much futile dross a few pretty boudoir
>things [would be] gone". The very man when advising the minister for
>education, Chris Patton in 1994, on the teaching of the arts in schools
>this decade was that as "we are predominantly a white society rooted in
>Christianity, ancient Greece and Rome" our responsibility to immigrants
>is "to bring them into mainstream European Culture". He also told the
>minister that children would have to learn that homosexuality is an
>"affliction".
Hardly anyone ever heard of Sewell and non of this is taken seriously.
>
>In Britain then, it could not in any way be considered true that the so
>called faction of Modern Academic Art has won in the eyes of society but
>it is clear from Modern Art Museum attendance that the demand is there.
>>
>>Early in this century Modern Academic Art because of its outrageous
>>subject matter, its diminished skill and questionable technique
>>necessitated a good bit of talk for intellectual support. For those
>>who see art historical periods in terms of isms, the age of
>>Bullshitism had begun.
>
>I think you may have a very good point here. If, as I have suggested and
>as Susan Sontag has written so much about, the work of art has suffered
>as part of this human condition which necessitates investigation and
>excavation, then we certainly are in such an *ism*. Sontag calls for a
>return to the sensibility of art as an experience rather than a
>statement or answer to a question. In other words: ask the questions,
>consider the options, but don't expect to find answers and art may
>return to the original passage of Modern Art return to the original passage of Modern Art - one that delves deep into
>the human mind and celebrates the joy of its evolution in an age of
>discovery.
How does Kandinsky "delve" any deeper into
the human mind than Disney or Norman Rockell?
>
>>
>>Presently what counts in art is large amounts of inventive talk,
>>while the artwork is of practically no interest whatever. We have now
>>ponderously arrived at a period whose most appropriate title is Post
>>Bullshitism.
>
>Which means ?
What it says.
mdeli
Rothko is definatly Modern.
The category is Modern Bullshitism.
The only art Rothko ever performed was the art of convincing
artzy-fartzy curators and critics to accept his huge schmiers rather
than all the other examples of similar practically-nothing-art created
by that mass of failures doing much the same thing.
I regard any painting which exhibits little more than a bunch of
stripes, a few color patches, or a mass of cacophonous schmiers, no
matter how big, whatever its shape or color or repute, which needs a
load of bullshit to proclaim it art (what so many here imagine is
philosophy) to be utterly stupid, repeatable and having no more
aesthetic value than a towel or bedsheet. In most cases usually less.
Mani DeLi