|
Original Message
|
"RE: Modernism attempted the murder of other artistic possibilities..."
Posted by SouthernMuse on 20-May-01 at 10:36 AM
|
Modernism has re-invented the language of art and added so many more facets of creativity that we can explore and enjoy. To me, modern art, as well as classical, is "...providing the visual gratifications of color, light, brushwork and subject matter that we have been taught to dismiss." My favorite modern paintings involve new ways of looking at form and light and brushwork and subject matter. And even complete abstraction can be as difficult to execute and involve complex rendering of color, light, and brushwork as classical art. The "subject" is not so much a recognizable object as it is a composition or concept. The problem is that the understanding of art is, as always, far behind the artist's execution of it. Also, the breaking of the rules did open up the doors for many non-artists to enter the art world. In some ways, this is good--exploration of creativity, regardless of technical skill, is healthy. But the breaking of the rules also opened the doors to "charlatanism"--attention seekers and money seekers who saw their opportunity to milk an ignorant public for all they were worth. Since it couldn't be stopped, it was tolerated (though with much resentment). And people who were afraid of repeating past mistakes, and not wanting to be compared to the viewers who rebuked the Impressionists and other now-accepted masters, began to be afraid to criticize any art at all. But now that the rules have been broken, and artists are free to do what they want, then the world is also free to take another look at classical art and techniques and reinterpret and enjoy again. Since academia says, "You are not part of our elite club," then much of the public (and many artists) say, "Fine. Then I'm free to explore whatever I want--outside of your club." What goes around, comes around. I also suspect that many people, both within and outside of the art world, have tired of the attitude of some artists who have tried to raise the idea of "Art" (with a capital "a") to such an ethereal plane that "You" (the "ignorant" viewer, supposedly) cannot POSSIBLY understand such an esoteric, beyond-mere-mortal, concept... In other words, you, as viewer, are forced to be an outsider of the clique--the idea being, "Well, if YOU (viewer) don't understand, then I (artist) am certainly NOT going to tell you."But modernism, for artists, means that we are free to explore any art form--to go anywhere that creativity leads. Regardless of this freedom, some artists (myself included) think that learning method and "technique" (which were such dirty words in art school in the 60's and 70's) are important parts of the whole art experience. Learning the "language" of art--how to see art, both modern and classical--is a necessary part of visual communication. Known classical methods or techniques should be taught to young artists. Giving an artist the ability to master painting or drawing or sculpture, and giving him the freedom to choose the form (whether modern or classical), gives the artist the most freedom of all. To have the methods at hand to get a visual concept or message across is the best freedom of all--to be able to express what an artist wants to express, whether "representational" or "abstract" (or whatever term is in vogue)--is surely good. It might well be remembered that so much of the art that people consider "modern" is now 100 years old--and so many people are still ignorant of the visual language of such artists as Van Gogh and Cezanne, who were accomplished masters of form and color (albeit in their new visual "language") -- small wonder many people cannot understand the art that is being produced today.
|
|
