Modern Art

When classical or contemporary works employ techniques other than those not generally used by the MODERN ARTIST, the critic very often denigrate these qualities as mere 'gimmicks.' Gimmicks like paintings executed in fine blends or containing unfashionable subjects or works which by today's fashion conventions are considered 'overly' realistic. The term Gimmicks by now refers to almost any classical move that rarely occurs in Modern Academic Art, especially when it amounts to something which required overt skill.

There is now a whole school of art critics and crank art historians who specialize in inflicting Artspeak on the Old Masters. Some of these critics have written coffee-table editions about Renaissance or Baroque Art which tend to mention Picasso, Matisse and Cezanne as often as the artist who is the actual subject. These writers have become specialists in advanced Modern Art detection. They specialize in detecting things like the influence of Brancusi on Michelangelo, Picasso and de Kooning on Raphael and Rembrandt, and Mondrian on Vermeer. Some have even managed to detect traces of the footprints of Cezanne, De Kooning and Pollock lurking in almost all great classical painting. ...no skill no art!

Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?

Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/

Can you provide some examples of critics using this term in articles?

Look forward to hearing from you.

regards

Mani this is old stuff that every serious artist knows - I look at a square inch of Rembrandt's highlights and see an abstract composition - the same with Turner and others. This is where some artists get their ideas. Many modern artists have haunted the old master sections of galleries. It's not what you do (I painted a tree) but how you do it that becomes the question to which artists seek the answer - for every serious work of art is a system of relationships hidden from the viewer.

keith

pretensions of the modern art establishment?

It IS what you do. It is only what you do. If artists seek answers to questions then let them trek off to Nepal or keep their navel musings to themselves. The 'series of relationships hidden from the viewer' are of no importance to anyone. Art goes through fashions and fads and that is right, because it serves the source of art that makes art of any importance. That is, the attention of society, and the funds made available by sales or direct funding to museums and other institutions that promote it. After those fads and fashions have aged enough for them to be viewed more critically, say long enough for their promotors to have died out, then a more sensible and objective view may be made. Mani's concerns regarding the current population of art critic and commentator will be taken care of by the Grim Reaper.

+When classical or contemporary works employ techniques other than +those not generally used by the MODERN ARTIST, the critic very often +denigrate these qualities as mere 'gimmicks.'

Or worse. One Perth critic dismissed one of our most recognised landscape artists as employing 'amateurish square brushstrokes'. This is the same critic who, when describing a local abstractionist, wrote: 'He pours and dribbles his paint with great energy and control, making, in effect, grand gestural musings, which are decorative but also very much images of the actual act of creation'

The realist/impressionist artist produces large works, usually seasides, with water you could almost dip your toe in. It is beyond real. The abstractionist produces work which looks like someone poured and dribbled paint on canvas. Yet according to our local newspaper critic, the former is amateurish while the latter is a veritable artistic God.

Andy D.

'I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!'

'keith o'connor wrote

[snip] + I disagree with you - I think composition is an important component in art + work.

Not bad coming from someone who previously insisted that learning or applying rules wrecks creativity.

Andy D.

'I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!'

Will it forever after be thus?

Yippee! A refreshing alternate medley of semantic extrapolation.

+ + +>The realist/impressionist artist produces large works, usually seasides, +>with water you could almost dip your toe in. It is beyond real. The +>abstractionist produces work which looks like someone poured and dribbled +>paint on canvas. Yet according to our local newspaper critic, the former +>is amateurish while the latter is a veritable artistic God. + +Will it forever after be thus?

To this and other art critics, yes. To the non-elites who appreciate genuine skill and ability, no.

Andy D.

'I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!'

Are you from Perth Australia? I am here.

I know exactly what you mean because Perth's (or for that matter Australia's) art critics are appalling. They have the poorest taste imaginable... seems that they are bloated with too much arty-fartiness.

I just attended the Victoria Park art competition, and there were some entries which were surprisingly good but the winner was a child-like drawing by an art student! I took pictures of some entries and showed it around and everyone's jaws dropped to the ground when they saw the winning entry... just couldn't believe it was possible!

John Ng ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE

+> Or worse. One Perth critic dismissed one of our most recognised landscape + +Are you from Perth Australia? I am here.

+I know exactly what you mean because Perth's (or for that matter +Australia's) art critics are appalling. They have the poorest taste +imaginable... seems that they are bloated with too much +arty-fartiness.

From comments made in this group, it appears it's a worldwide trend.

+I just attended the Victoria Park art competition, and there were some +entries which were surprisingly good but the winner was a child-like +drawing by an art student! I took pictures of some entries and showed +it around and everyone's jaws dropped to the ground when they saw the +winning entry... just couldn't believe it was possible!

Same happens at a lot of exhibitions. Joondalup tops the lot for elevating the weird and meaningless. I understand Rockingham employs judges with some sense of artistic taste.

(BTW, you shouldn't photograph other people's art without their permission)

Andy D.

'I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!'