RMG
"The contrivances and mind games that pass for art need to be recategorised into some new, separate genre, (perhaps "contemporary airs", "modern mentalities"?), so that society can reclaim the work of beauty and inspiration that contributed to the spiritual civic advance of our forebears."
Beautifully put and much needed. What is taught as "art", especially in State Schools, is a disgrace and worse, the kids hate it. They won't teach enough of the traditional skills or any proper understanding of the underlying narrative of the western traditions in art and what drove them. If you know something of the background you can glimpse something of the "emotional centre" that drives art beyond mere decoration. You see, at least partly, what the artist felt and what they meant. You cannot do this through a Marxist fog of Race, Class and Gender.
My nephew in Perth is 13 and having enjoyed the discipline of learning piano and a love of classical music thought High School Art might be good. He hates it with a passion, "stacks of stupid exercises where the only talent you need is being capable of breathing". His words not mine.
I know exactly what you mean, Ian. It's all such a waste, and depriving whole generations of inspiration and instead giving them tat.
ah, rm, you need to read my old post:
I do know Art, but it's not what I like
sadly, the photo of the absurd and absurdist accidental-self-pisstake 2nd example has evaporated.
google has re-found it: http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/...lation/
art13875
but consider also: http://www.guardian.co.uk/
artand...louisebourgeois
or
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/ne...eath/
article.do
orrrr... (sorry)
http://www.artsjournal.com/artop...sized%
20new.jpg
i just read the linked article.
"it's behoven"? NOT the OVERwhelmingly (once)normal phrase-usage of the word? ie
"it behooves"?
faux-grammar inserted into normal language is a telltale of the statusobsessed/statusneedy.
it's one thing to dig yourself a hole and throw yourself into it.
it's quite another to scream "i love digging myself into a hole and throwing myself into it!" as you do so.
I hadn't read that post, Sal, but the confluence of ideas with what I wrote is extraordinary. And you know what, contemporary art is entirely about pretension and vanity. I haven't met one person in the industry who's insightful and grounded, with nothing to prove.
The Tate is a complete joke. I have absolutely no regard for what's happening in the Northern Hemisphere's scene, as it's utterly shallow and - again - cloyingly pretentious. For instance, that Marsyas "sculpture" is simply nothing more than a scaled-up prop from Farscape ( I should know, I've worked on the set). Yet the art establishment considers it a great work.
Contemporary art has no talent because it requires none. To summarise your post, it's just the vain trying to impress the vain.
Nonetheless Warhol was a great shopper though.
Modern Art is a good sign that the world is coming to an end. Its total rubbish yet the elites hail the works as something approaching the works of the ancient Masters. Its extraordinary how some people who are otherwise smart and intelligent can also be so stupid and adopt a herd instinct.
i saw something on the telly last year where they took the "art" (mishmashes of random colour) produced by a chimpanzee and put it on the wall during a major modern art gallery showing.
then they asked one of the major buyers/gallery owners what they thought of it and what it was worth.
she was in RAPTURES. exclaiming about a new genius on the scene and how she was amazed and horrified she hadn't heard of him before. and she said it was worth "at LEAST!!" a quarter of a million pounds even now at this stage of his career.
"what if i said it was painted by a chimpanzee?"
"no... what?"
"it was painted by a chimpanzee"
she froze, panicked, and fled without another word
Commenting by HaloScan
