|
Poor beauty
Valerie,
Actually I think some clarification is due as to what I meant by that thought. What I mean is that the holders of the power in the contempory art establishment frown on aesthestics. They think it is irrevelant.
I agree with your assessment on contempory art. I toiled at the Rhode Island School of Design for three years. It is one of the major training grounds for these enfants terribles. I won't go into a lenghty discussion of the silly and downright dreadfull stuff I saw.
My beloved veterinarian, who is looking to send her daughter to art school, said to me recently, vis-a-vis the art at RISD, "it's just so ugly". She was bewildered by the trash paraded as art around the buildings. She had the belief so many of us have held that aesthics were somehow an important part of art.
I won't go into a rant about how unjustified it is. However I think some representational artists, and I include myself, are at fault. We endlessly repeat themes. If I see another seaport scene I think I will scream. I will not do another child in a white dress with a big white bow. Diane Arbus a well known photographer said, "If you've seen it before don't take the picture".
We have a tendency toward the trite and easy. We do not push ourselves artistically and compositionally. Some of the contempory paintings I see at ARC are rehashes of the old themes. Pleasant people doing pleasant things in pleasant landscapes.
I do think some of the past artists should "resquiat in pace". For example, Alma Tadema and those overwrought historical scenes.
I am happy for Matisse, Monet, Manet and Cezanne who brought us a fresh view of the world. Otherwise we would still be awash in a sea of sentimental putti.
Sincerely,
|