Artist Scott Burdick has posted a four-part video presentation of the impassioned editorial speech he delivered to attendees of the Weekend with the Masters Conference recently held in California. In his speech titled "The Banishment of Beauty," Burdick discusses the role of beauty in realist art, and why the so-called "progressive" Modern art movement eschews creating aesthetically pleasing works - and why the latter type of art is favored by curators, collectors, and critics. Though at times Burdick allows his frustration with the current circumstances in the art world to come to the forefront, and despite the criticism he has received in some arenas because of his bias towards realism, the hour-long presentation is very good, and should be listened to for Burdick's erudite analysis of the politics of the art world.
To read a transcript of Burdick's speech, visit the artist's website.
97 comments:
This is a tired and boring argument. I love this blog for its historical and technique related content but this angst at not being included in today's art world is a turn off.
Definitions of beauty have changed. While there has obviously been some intellectual inflation over the years, the work is not valueless as the narrator's sarcastic tone would have us believe. Contemporary artist's use theory to comment on and alter the world in far more profound ways than traditional figurative practice would allow. An artist's choice to explore the theoretical rather than illusionistic technique should not automatically discredit their work. The opposite is true as well.
However... Many of the images chosen to illustrate the superiority of traditional painting represent ideals of beauty that are quite outdated and in a few cases clearly racist. To many, nubile young girls and glamorized exotic figures are offensive. This may partially explain the exclusion of traditional subject matter from the museum setting...
Hopefully this spurs some discussion and consideration. I love much of painting's rich history but feel that many argue for tradition as blindly as some of those who argue for contemporary methods.
What a great video. More people need to be able to speak openly and honestly about how they feel. I would argue against Spencer that one can take theory use it along side drawing and painting skills. I find that 'modern' art rarely communicates anything without a speech next to it, let alone comment on the world or life. I would argue for a future where beauty and content are seamless.
On a side note, I had the same feeling the first time I saw a Bouguereau. It just hit me in a way not many things have.
Matthew,
Thanks for posting the article and videos. It was amazing that somebody finally indicted the fine art establishment. I would have liked to attend the "Weekend with the Masters", but moved to Georgia last year. It's ironic I worked a few miles from the area the event was being held.
~John
Spencer-
Thank you for your comment and for your support of the blog.
I disagree that definitions of beauty have changed, with the exception of physical beauty (eg. Reubenesque vs. Twiggy, etc.), which is not what most realists are addressing. Many of the images Burdick shared were landscapes, even when the photos were of other artists painting en plein air. I found those images beautiful, and I am quite sure those same locations have been considered beautiful for a considerably long time.
The idea that this argument is 'tired and boring' is tired and boring. It seems to have become a knee-jerk reaction to realists speaking up. The truth is, and what many people forget, is that this a cyclical event; the Impressionists rebelled against the Academy, the Modernists rebelled against the Impressionists.
What has changed is the art environment. In the last century the world has become smaller. We still have art centers like New York and London, but ideas are exchanged so quickly now, that ideas can originate almost anywhere and be known around the world in moments. Museums are not the same attractions they once were; tourists still flock to them, but just to say they've been there. And the idea of noblesse oblige is gone, or ridiculed; when a wealthy collector's pieces are in a museum, they are there to increase the work's value. We don't see new public museums popping up all over based around the gift of a patron's vast collection. All of these factors play into the politics of the art world.
I have long felt that Modern art is philosophy with a visual element. As such, there are some very intriguing ideas worth expressing. However, the visual element in most of this work is secondary at best. In most fields there are skill sets - skill sets which, through humanity's natural inclination to compete, force the results to improve over time. I feel this happened with Impressionism- by the time it reached the American West, it had grown incredibly. The visual element in Modern art hasn't improved much over time, and in many cases, has only gotten worse. The ideas, however, have had a better track record.
I don't think that Modern art has chosen to portray beauty. Mostly it portrays the problems of the world, drawing focus to what is wrong with society (in theory, at least). Realists have done this too, but to a lesser degree. Most often, realists try to portray a world that doesn't exist, but a world as they'd wish it to be. It's funny that some artists use abstraction to show reality, and others use reality to show fantasy. We all know that the world is far from perfect, but when we are surrounded by beauty instead of the reflection of what is ugly in the world, we thrive. Perhaps that does support the idea that ignorance is bliss, but it also permits the possibility of hope, which when it takes hold might spread improvement faster.
And if museums really were concerned with not offending the public, would they take down a Bouguereau nude to make space for Piss Christ and a can of feces?
Best- M
This reminds me of the PBS program that aired last night called "God In America", where they talked about the friction between the Evangelicals who believed that they were able to interpret the Bible themselves, verses the more established Anglicans, who thought that it must be interpreted for the people, rather than by the people. The dynamics appear to be about the same.
Personally I'm not that attracted to the modern, but would have no objection to it coexisting peacefully or otherwise, with realism. Let them have their squabbles, but give realism some space in the museums. Some of the most interesting paintings to me are those which combine abstract elements with realism, such as Oleg Stavrowsky, with his very abstract backgrounds that morph into very sharp focal points, or the landscapes of Elio Camacho, which are abstracted to a high degree, yet still very beautiful.
Realism needs to make a stand for itself in modern day society (modernised realism). Perhaps heading in new directions with techniques etc. is what is required.
What is beautiful is for the individual to decide. If you are moved by something and you like it, dont let someone make you think differently on this.... this is what makes up you as a unique individual.
Realism needs to make a stand for itself in modern day society (modernised realism). Perhaps heading in new directions with techniques etc. is what is required.
What is beautiful is for the individual to decide. If you are moved by something and you like it, dont let someone make you think differently on this.... this is what makes up you as a unique individual.
great work!
thanks
Grazie mille for sharing!
I agree with David. Realist art has to stand up for itself. Not in words but in images. And as Franz Klein said: "Do it with meaning and it will mean much."
Beauty can not only be skin deep; only beautiful on the outside, It needs to be beautiful on the inside as well.
I agree with a lot of scott's points but if I could make a suggestion, it could use less bitterness/ snarkiness. Insulting viewers will never get the point across. I don't think anyone who isn't a representational painter will get it.
I also think a couple of points could be revisited, for one Thomas Kinkade is representational artist and he is very successful. Can't escape the fact the majority of people rather watch reality TV than go to an opera.
Also while I agree modern art is a giant scam, representational artist can suffer from boring subject matter. A bowl of fruit is a bowl of fruit. People like it on their walls, but they don't go to museums to see it.
Representational artist are also victims of technology. At its height representational art was the only way to reproduce an image. Now a teenager can do amazing things with a $100 camera and photoshop.
I liked Scott Burdick's point about the teen's reaction to Bouguereau's “Young Woman defending herself from Cupid”- He was amazed that this 100 year old painting could still affect a generation like mine "far more bombarded by flashier and technologically risqué displays".
I can certainly say I was never exposed to good 19th century art in my teens in any class curricular or extra-curricular. I found it myself, trying to figure out what had happened to art training after the celebrated Old Masters went to their graves, and where I could get some.
Perhaps Scott Burdick is right, if a painting fails to impress you right off than it had failed on a visual level. I spend one day a week copying in the National Gallery’s Rembrandt room. I get a lot of positive feedback, but I am most impressed by the reactions of teens! They drop their jaws, gawp, and stand spellbound. It’s as if they have never seen anyone paint before. Is this not proof that realism is valid, not too old to teach?
P.S. Here is a funny anecdote about learned- vs. unlearned appreciation. While standing in front of Bouguereau’s “Birth of Venus” I observed a group of adults walk over to admire the painting. They were really impressed, until one of them read the label, did not recognize the name of the artist and said “Oh… he’s not famous” and then walked off abruptly.
He makes some great points, however I think he takes a much to narrow view of realism. In his world to be a good realist painting, you have to express beauty. Expressing beauty is fine, but there are a plenty of other things to show of the real world.
In my opinion, some of the old beauty painting are too sickly sweet. To far to the Hallmark card side of things. It is just that over blown sickly sweetness of painters like Bouguereau that turned people off of realist art, and started the cycle that we have found ourselves in.
Well said, Teresa.
I think it's a question of exposure. It wasn't until going to art school in 1997 that I discovered John Singer Sargent. He wasn't mentioned once in my art history classes at the public university.
It wasn't until later in my life that I learned that there was an art community that was training in the traditional ways of drawing and painting.
I think it is up to us realists to stake claim to our place in history, show our relevance to the people. It won't be given to us and to be honest, I don't want a place at the Modernist Table. We need to set our own table and invite anyone who wishes to come.
Thank you for posting this.
Out with the "new", and In with the "old".
Hey Matthew,
As for the "tired and boring" comment, I should have been more specific. It is Scott's sarcastic attitude that is tired, overpowering whatever arguement he makes. His goal is not to carve a place for realism in the modern museum but to excite people who already agree with him. It is unprofessional and belittles modern work, mirroring the distaste of the establishment he perceives toward traditional practices.
As for the rest, you are correct, museums are not supportive of beauty in the traditional sense today. This frustrates me as well. The idea of beauty itself is suspect and not without good reason. The concept of essential beauty suggests that some aspects of humanity are fundamental, an idea completely demolished by increasing multiculturalism. When we are surrounded by beauty that bases itself on existing sexist and racist tendancies we will fourish, but only within the confines of our existing social structure. I belive that in the best circumstances, art incites reflection beyond what we are currently capable of as a society. Contemporary and realist practice often fail to acheive this. People do not realize how imperfect the world is. There is beauty in the practice of revealing this imperfection, an aspiration
of many contemporary artists.
Serrano's Piss Christ is THE object of contention in debates like this. I believe he does fall into the "shock" school of contemporary art. Just to test all of your tastes, what do you think of this-
http://www.culture24.org.uk/art/sculpture+%26+installation/art30597
Its marble! What could be more traditional?
This is a beautiful post Matt! I want to say Bravo to beauty. If it is in the eyes of the beholder, than I'm glad to say I am blessed to able to behold beauty!
My first visit to the museum (at seventeen) allowed me to see Bouguereau for the first time. I was enthralled. "Bohemianne" was the title of this painting. It spoke to me, and I knew then I wanted to persue the arts.
40 years have past, and I still persue the arts. I still behold beauty.
Entertaining, enthralling, and enthusiasm is what art does for me.
It give hope to the viewer. I know I'm not alone in my feelings when I see beauty.
Unfortunately, I do have to agree that I wish Scott had left out the bitterness. He spoke so calmly and evenly, and his analysis was very well-reasoned- it made for a good, rational argument - but the injection of the sarcasm and a few other vitriolic comments gave the speech a little less power. Had he presented the same information without those elements, it would be harder for Modernists to counter-attack it. I can relate to Scott's frustration though, and I guess we should consider that the speech was intended for a very specific audience at the Weekend with the Masters who would already be aligned to Scott's point of view.
I think I should amend my response about contemporary ideas of beauty. Though I think the idea of beauty in the larger sense has not changed, I do think society has changed enough in the past century to make beauty less emotionally moving. Our lifestyles have altered so much; life is faster-paced, there is more media, etc.. I think fewer people can appreciate beauty today. It all falls under the same de-sensitization we have undergone that led to the formation of shock artists trying to elicit a response from their audience- any response. Shock, however, is a cheap way to reach that goal.
I feel education is very important, and surely the world's imperfections should be laid bare so that we may know what to improve. I don't think contemporary art in its attempt to reveal the world's shortcomings has been very effective in creating positive change however (this isn't necessarily the fault of the artists- perhaps the audience is to blame too).
Contemporary realists can't claim to be making much of a change either, though, with one exception- if their object is beauty, then they are adding to our lives. In the study of Blue Zones, those areas of the world where residents have a longer-than-average lifespan, there are common elements. One is a beautiful environment with plenty of green, recreational space for the area's citizens. The other is open access to art- sculpture, painting, music, dance, and theatre. Though the type of art is not specified (Modernist vs. Traditional), I suppose that if a beautiful environment is essential to better life, then beautiful art is probably the "art" in the Blue Zone equation. (ie. non-beautiful music, atonal or randomly chosen staccato notes, for example, has never caught on, so I am assuming we are speaking of all things aesthetically pleasing).
I don't think paintings like Bouguereau's were so saccharine as to turn people off traditionalism. Not all of Bouguereau's paintings were that sweet- Dante and Virgil in Hell and The Flagellation of Christ come to mind. Messionier was also rebelled against, and I don't think his military scenes could be considered that sweet. The rebellion was against the rigidity of the Salons and the Academies. That started it, and the ugliness of World War I spurred on the creation of early Modrnism.
I'm not against Modern art, per se. I just don't like the politics surrounding it. The museums seem to say that EVERYTHING IS ART- except for contemporary representational work. Most realists just want the equal opportunity to show in the major institutions. No one likes being invalidated.
As far as the sculpture by Marc Quinn goes, it isn't my favorite, but I can certainly appreciate the craftsmanship it took to make it, and the message that it delivers. Ms. Lapper is a beautiful woman, and I like that Quinn chose to challenge our ideas of beauty with this sculpture.
Hey Matt-
Always interesting here..
Was the video created solely for the WWM, or is Scott planning on somehow presenting his viewpoints to the museums in some way?
thanks in advance..
Hi Stanka! I think Scott has always had plans to take a presentation such as this to a larger audience, though museums were probably not the intended group. WWTM was probably the goal for having it ready, and for testing reactions. Having more and more arguments in favor of traditional art available on the internet will eventually reach the many people out there who are afraid to express an opinion on what they like or don't like in art, and perhaps convince them that it's okay if they like realism.
I empathize with Scott's point in general, except that I think his point is weakened rather than strengthened by using the most extreme examples of beauty vs. non-beauty.
Although I was never moved to create art that was not representational, I do think that some modern painting and sculpture is beautiful and was, in fact, created to be aesthetically pleasing. My parents were both modern architects and I can tell you that beauty was always a concern, even when they designed housing developments.
The traditional art he shows to illustrate his point is sometimes just too sweet for my taste, though again I can appreciate it and admire the skill of the artists. There are many other representational works that could have illustrated his point and appealed to a wider audience, if that is what he desires.
Also, I have to say I am annoyed with the repeated use of the word "traditional" as though it were synonymous with ALL representational art being created today. That is just not the case. There are so many ways to honor tradition--by using traditional methods, or by studying the artists of the past for inspiration--and still make art that is of and about the 21st century. The word "Contemporary" means "of the present time." I align myself much more with contemporary realism though I use traditional methods and some might say my work looks traditional in certain respects. And yet my work (or realist work like mine) doesn't have any more chance of getting into museums than more traditional realism.
The main reason today's realism movement is not represented in museums is that museums lag behind the latest art movements. It's just going to take time. In 50 years, all the museums are going to start selling off a lot of their modern art and buying up realist work.
That said, I appreciate what Scott and others are doing for the realist movement.
I might be among the few here who don't feel much for Burdick' speech and work. Please forgive me if my English's not as good as everyone's here, for I am French (and French people are famous for their bad, bad English language).
I'd just like to explain how I see all this, with a European point of view (or maybe just French, I don't know). Seen from here, I think Burdick's art and speech don't look convincing at all. I believe I am quite a classical painter myself, not a classical realist as we call some of the young painters, but since I am not especially fond of contemporary art, I think people see my work as classical figurative paintings.
The American fondness for Bouguereau's work is still some kind of a mystery here. Museums are so full of the most exquisite pictures by Rembrandt, Hals, Botticelli, Raffaello, Velazquez, Degas, Titian... that Bouguereau seems here a rather poor man's picture maker when compared to these ones. The new Bouguereau room at the Musee d'Orsay looks like it was done for ARC lobbyists. Truth is Orsay hates Bouguereau, and people there have always despised it (it doesn't deserve so either).
Sure his technique is clean, accomplished, but it is often so clean and neat that it's mostly boring and formulaic and if you don't consider the neat realistic look of the figures, the pastry-like flesh tints of his nudes, they seem rather poor when compared to the boldness of painters like Degas, Whistler, Dewing, who were still realistic painter, but modern too.
/...
I don't feel much emotion when looking at a Bouguereau, and frankly, most people here tend to laugh when looking at one. They find it almost as kitsch as Jeff Koons. I may disagree with sarcasm, but truth is many of his paintings are so pompous or sweet they're just plain dumb. His nude figure often look bored or stupid, and you can't think of a single Bouguereau's woman who looks as bright, smart or provocative as in a Rubens, a Goya, a Degas, or a Van Dyck. Neither as charming, meditative, pretty and beautiful as in a Waterhouse, a Thayer, a Prud'hon or an odalisk painting by Ingres.
Of course, if you see in Bouguereau a one-of-a-kind master as important as Michelangelo, Hals or Degas, I won't try to convince you that he's not. But I see in Burdick's art the same failures that make of Bouguereau a technician of great ability, but not a great painter. They lack of truly felt emotion. His sketches are often impressive, but the realism in Burdick's larger pictures reveals a lack of choice, of air, of charming mystery. His composition and themes are far too sickly sweet, like bit, fat cakes covered in icing sugar. It drips with good feeling. The exotic quality is like a tourist's point of view who has just landed in a foreign country. Never does the subject of the paintings seem much felt or interpreted through the artist's mind. It's a rather uninspired, overworked, simplistic, academic depiction of commonplace themes. They seem to care too much for anecdotal, incidental things.
The examples of Dante & Virgil or the Flagellation as some not-too-sweet paintings by Bouguereau is interesting, since I think these two pictures are among his most ridiculous compositions ever. There used to be paintings done for orientalist parisian bordellos, and these ones seem to be done for gay bars. The outrageously funny postures of the figures, the sniggering look on the winged devil's face of "Dante & Virgil", added to the solemn attitude of the two writers, are far too much for a single painting! In a way, it's a Monty Python's parody.
Burcick's references show industrious picture making, labor, but very little inspiration and panache. I may be a figurative painter myself, and may not be an indefectible Rothko fan, but I see much more beauty and panache in a Rothko painting than in a drudged painting. I won't take a Rothko over a Waterhouse to hang on my wall, but I'll take it over a Burdick or a Bouguereau.
I'm sorry for the multiple comment publishing. I think my computer went completely mad - and I look stupid, now.
@Armel We'll just say you look emphatic. ;-)
Your writing is wonderful, and had you not pointed out that you were French, I doubt anyone would have given it a second thought.
I don't think of Bouguereau's work as being too sweet. Polished and stiff at times, sure (my own work suffers from the same stiffness, and I can't seem to rid myself of that drawback). He represents for us a high-level of draftsmanship, and among those who paint tightly, a very successful depiction of flesh. But he also represents for us the point where art diverted from academic training; the point where training had been passed down and improved upon for centuries, then stopped. I think many hope to start there, then continue the growth promised through those many years of inherited knowledge.
I think both examples I gave are far from saccharine, but I will admit Dante and Virgil in Hell is a bit ridiculous. I don't care for the expressions or composition- it's overly theatrical.
I think from your other comments on artists whom you like, you'd be pleasantly surprised by seeing Burdick's work in person.
I'd take a most Waterhouses over most Bougueareaus; Waterhouse's work resonates more with me. If you have a Bouguereau or Burdick on your hands you want to get rid of, I'm sure I can make a reasonable copy of a Rothko to give you in exchange, though.
Best
@Armel I've removed your duplicate posts.
Do you actually disagree with Burdick's research and message, or just with the examples he showed (other than the Thayer and Dewing examples he included)?
BRAVO! It is entirely ridiculous that one cannot enjoy modern masters of realism in publicly supported galleries and museums.
Matt,
Thanks for reposting Scotts essay. What representational painters don’t get is there is no middle ground with post modern apologists. They don’t like ‘the tone, they don’t agree with the image choices, how you dare question our motives. Burdick is not qualified to make these statements. They will chastise representational art for being boring or tired or all the same in as smarmy and condescending tone as they can muster but question the veracity of their art and you are ignorant or aren’t qualified to judge. How dare artists be indignant for being marginalized for 60 years.
It is modernism that is dead and bankrupt and people like Lipking, Burdick and Silverman and company are being called to task for having the audacity to say the corpse now smells.
I was not sure if on responding to this. After reading a few comments I saw that some people hade some of the same critiques that I had about the tone of Scotts’ video.
I like some of Scott Burdick' work and think he’s a very talented artist. But, I had trouble watching and listening to this on many levels. I agree with the premise about beauty becoming almost a forbidden word in context to art and in particular painting. As I listened and watched I started to become uncomfortable with the whole tone of this. Was he trying to be sarcastic and overly pissed off with the whole situation? I kept thinking that if this had this effect on me would it not turn off anyone who is not remotely in his camp? So is this designed for the choir? Then there is the content of a lot of the work used to make the visual arguments. He lost me at cute children holding baby animals and I’m not sure how to respond to the kitsch that undercuts cute genre paintings of this ilk. It's a kind of Lake Wobegon world where all the peasants are well fed and the children are strong and have all their teeth. The cute peasant girls carrying small farm animals are romantic ideals that I have always found problematic.
The reality of these peasant children was anything but bucolic. I think realism needs more than this in context to the contemporary scene, I’m not advocating for every realist to run and so social realist paintings; but there needs to be more substance other than making pretty pictures if one is going to make arguments like this on the whole spectrum of the art world. This is coming from someone who mostly paints still lives and landscapes (me). I found myself thinking of Steven Assel, Max Gisnburg, and Ilya Repin in contrast.
I think this opens up the argument for this reading more like a complaint than a debate on the direction of art since WW2. The work of social realist such Repin and Max Ginsberg are about the human condition and not the fantasy world of idealized peasants. What we see in these painters is realism about real social ills and everyday life. Put Repin's realism against Bouguereau's and you can see the difference. Why the idea of beauty as an aesthetic device in art had fallen out of grace in modern art is conveniently left out of the conversation in terms of the how and why. The historical context is missing that beauty in art was hard to deal with after two devastating world wars that defined generations of European and American artist, writers and philosophers. You can’t discuss this without understanding the why.
This context is important in understanding how this came to the norm. I'm not defending modernism; I’m merely pointing out that context needs to be established.
Sorry I had some strange posting problems and I ended up posting to many times.
Armand I don't think anyone has said what you are alluding to. I'm not saying Scott is not qualified to make his comments at all. I'm just not convinced by the delivery.
It put me off and I agree with him!
Not everyone is going to like Bouguereau. I happen to find his technique amazing but his subject matter sometimes is a bit over the top. That said you're right about the post-modern folks, they will dismiss your work as decorative.
I had someone do that the other day and he was a friend who is a photographer. We don't talk about art to much as it always end up in an argument. We meet at gardening.
It's a mind set, and they have been brain washed in a sense. To admit they are even a little wrong means that their whole education was a joke. I have the same education (MFA) but I always thought I was behind enemy lines.
The response, both negative and positive, to my video presentation on the Banishment of Beauty has surprised and heartened me. Because of the limitations of length, there was a lot left unsaid. There is no way I can keep up with the amount of e-mails and the numerous online discussions that have sprung up around the video, so I thought I might distill a lot of the criticisms and questions raised in this post.
Let me first thank all of you who have offered support to my views. I was especially touched by the many people who told their sad story of having quit the pursuit of art for another career in college due to the constant persecution received by professors pursuing the anti-beauty agenda of modern art.
As for the modern art critics, that was to be expected. I don’t see much chance in changing many minds in this deeply entrenched establishment, but I did want to delve further into some of the criticisms that I find worth discussing further.
First is the charge that I’m claiming art shouldn’t have any deeper meaning. I'm not saying that there cannot be a deeper message associated with paintings, or that the story, history, and philosophy behind a painting doesn't matter at all in its appreciation. Certainly many of the paintings I do contain such things - Hypatia being a prime example, as well as the paintings of native cultures. However (and this is the key) if that is all you have, then you are not making visual art, but a mere symbol to go along with the idea, like a word, or a swastika, etc. In my opinion this is not art, but philosophy, or a verbal art, at most. Words and the subject matter can add to a work of art, as with Michelangelo's David, much of Repin’s work, or countless modern aesthetic painters like Steven Assel, Mary White, Dean Mithcel, and on and on, but all these examples would be recognized as great works of art even without the story to go along with it. My point is that painting and sculpture should move you on a purely visual level. Think of the thousands of artists who have done the same subject with the same “message” but not reached the emotional depth of Michelangelo's David, or Mary cradling the dead Jesus. The same is true with Goya's painting, where you can feel the emotion visually before you even know what it is about.
This is what I think is lacking in Picasso’s Guernica and most all of modern art (though there will always be a few, isolated exceptions). In my opinion the work itself is merely an illustration of the words -- something that would not hold up without them. The sentiment behind the painting is laudable and to be commended, but if I were to do a scribble and say that it represented the struggle for gay rights, it wouldn't make the scribble profound. If I did a painting that encapsulated the pain and suffering of someone being oppressed for being gay, it would only be a "beautiful" work of visual art if you felt that emotional power just from looking at it, before you even read the written story, which might certainly enhance this emotion.
I definitely think the greatest works of art exist on many levels, as does literature -- as I said in the video about a poem being both about the lyrical beauty of the arrangement of the words themselves, combined with what they are saying. But would a poem be great if the poet merely said something directly like "nature is great?" No, it is the skill of crafting the words so that we feel the emotion conveyed to a far deeper extent. This is what is lacking in the blue panel, Picasso, etc. It is all about the words and the images are secondary and slovenly representations of the ideas, as Thomas Wolf points out in "The Painted Word."
I couldn't agree more with Spencer's argument. I'm not sold. This is a tired argument and this video was a tad offputting. I love figurative well crafted classic art as much as anyone but the influence and beauty of modern art has it's place. Just an example: My favorite building in Los Angeles, the Department of Water and Power HQ just sings with lightness and beauty. I drive by it every day. http://commondatastorage.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/1958577.jpg And it wouldn't have been possible without the Bauhaus. The bold design of some modern commerce, the interesting textures and the democratic idealism that initiated modern art are beautiful in a deep level as well regardless of whether the art establishment made them the "orthodoxy" and even if they have become repetitive, snob and self-fulfilling.
Sometimes they even require a little mental work, yes.
A few of the pieces shown in the video as "beautiful" traditional art are overly sentimental and make me cringe a little in the same way that those commercials for senior's insurance do: Where are these white haired and toothed seniors that spend their Halcyon days gardening and strolling? Or for that matter: These ever-happy exotic locales so full of color and joy? (National Geographic doesn't even do that any more, it's too patronizing). These allegorical angels drenched in syrup? These nubile limp-wristed harp players in sun hats?. Some of these works lack depth no matter how pretty. "Beautiful" goes beyond craft and prettiness (as much as those things help). Velazquez's dwarves or Rembrandt's self-portraits are an example of towering beauty and craft without the waxed paper. Zorn, Sorolla and Sargent were masters unparalleled -especially when they were capturing their life an times - which included sunhats. Their paintings feel effortless and natural (save for some society portraits) and betray amazing technique but they might have looked spastic to Bourgereau's enameled eye for example .
In the same manner, many traditional artists of today find beauty in their surroundings and elevate it to miracles of craft and vision. Jeremy Lipking, Tony Pro, Sean Cheetham, Jennifer McChristian etc... they are all ragingly contemporary and traditional at the same time. But there is plenty of room to admire Picasso or Miro and their playful approach and bottomless experimentation, mental or visual. I know they opened anything and everything to beauty's realm.
Beauty is only one goal in art. I think Scott focussed on it because, in the latter part of the 20th century, and in the early part of this, much of the focus in Modern art has been about ugliness. He isn't telling us that we should all paint like Bouguereau, or that we should only paint sweet, sentimental pictures. Scott is speaking about an aesthetic beauty derived from truth, craftsmanship, and a communicable message which elicits emotion in the viewer through a visual medium, and not through written or verbal philosophy (there is nothing wrong with such philosophy, and it can be quite profound, but that doesn't make its visual component visual art).
This is all secondary to the message I took from Scott's discourse, however. I heard the question that if Modernists feel "EVERYTHING" is art, then why is contemporary realism excluded from our public museums? There is a demonstrable bias against realism that Scott is rallying against- he's not advocating the formation of a mob to tear Modernist works from the museum's walls.
If you feel that contemporary realism should have equal representation in our schools, museums, and other institutions, then you're on the same side as Scott.
sorry, I guess my earlier post got clipped because it was too long.
I do not personally feel Guernica would be recognized as a masterpiece of visual art on its own, or that many would even be able to tell it was worth saving in the proverbial junkyard if found there, but if you do, I respect your different viewpoint.
Many have claimed that the blue panel is beautiful in a simple way. Maybe there is a simplistic beauty in a flat, blue panel, or the splatter of paint. But if this is truly profound art that deserves being in a museum, then why have museums at all? Surely every wall is a work of art then, and every bit of spaghetti spilled on the floor. But even with this concession, few modern works even aspire to this limited qualification of beauty, where the ugly, shocking, or controversial is mostly what makes it to the pedestal.
Many critics of my video emphasize that the "meaning" of art is of the utmost importance, and what was lacking in the examples I used to illustrate the talk. This reminds me of this quote. "If I want to send a message, I'd just send a postcard." To me, this is the essence of the debate with the modern art establishment. Painting is a visual language and the really great ones cannot be put into words. If they can, why bother doing the painting?
Several people have pointed out that my landscapes have a greater meaning because of my efforts to preserve the environment. Yes, I’m a life-time member of the Sierra Club and do a lot of fundraising and radio interviews for my local Land Conservancy. I do use my landscape paintings to illustrate the beauty that is worth preserving, but I don’t think this is what makes those paintings works of art. If Clyde Aspevig said nothing at all about environmental causes, I might think less of him as a person, but it wouldn’t make his paintings any less powerful as visual masterpieces that had the power to inspire others merely through their beauty.
Paintings like Church and Bierdstat are not important because they were used in political and environmental causes. They were important in those causes because they were powerful visually, conveying meaning and ideas that could not be though words.
I reject the modern establishments very reasoning as to what is "meaningful" when they limit art to that which depicts social or political issues. In my mind, Fechin and Repin are equally masterful, despite the differences of the subjects. This is an artificial construct of the modern art movement. Beauty uplifts the spirit of the viewer, gives hope, reminds us of what the point of life is -- this is meaningful and just as valid a subject as well.
Would you say this about music, for example? Is not creating a beautiful symphony a worthy goal by itself? Yes, a song with words can be deeply moving by combining music with profound words, but does that mean that a purely instrumental work is meaningless, or that songs with words are inherently better? Would we care about the words of a song if the music and singer were off key or amateurish? Some of my paintings are pure visual representations that have no story to go with them, while others are a combination, but the visual element must be powerful for any of the words that go with it to matter. I do not think my painting of Hypatia is superior to others I've done because it has more of a story behind it.
This is not to say that I am advocating the banishment of Picasso, or any of the modernists. If someone finds their work meaningful to them, fine, let them have their place in the museums and the art history books as well. I am not advocating an art dictator of taste like the Salon system or the Modern system of today. But I am saying that the banishment of beauty as something superficial and meaningless is simply wrong.
So many people have advised me not to defend beauty in the pure sense, but to instead emphasize all the in-between paintings that are aesthetically pleasing, but also contain a "deeper meaning" as well. They say to defend pure beauty makes me look superficial. The logic expressed is that this would be more paletteable to the Curators and Critics, but I'm reluctant to go down this path too far, since it plays into the hands of the modern art establishment, who seeks to make visual art a verbal exercise.
Andrew Wyeth's "Christina's World" does have great meaning behind the story of the girl in the painting, which is probably why it is included in the MOCA, but it still has a power even if you don't know that story. For me, the pendulum has swung so far the other way, that the more powerful symbols are the masterpieces that are profound on the purely visual level of stunning beauty. Yes, there are all shades of gray in between, but once we can get the purely instrumental Symphony to be recognized as worthy as art again, all the ballads will have found their place as well.
I hope you understand what I'm saying. I must argue the purely beautiful with no meaning other than just its beauty to make my point that beauty itself, in its pure form, is of value. This is the essential point. It is what the modern establishment most despises. It's like championing the Untouchables in India, even though reforming the caste system will ultimately benefit everyone. By arguing that a beautiful painting is important mainly because of its social message, then you have accepted the Modern Establishment's definition of what art is, and I don't.
Finally, many are simply upset at my tone, at the sarcasm I use when talking about so many of the modern works that I find so ridiculous. Well, it’s very hard not to be when you go through two and a half decades as a painter and see cans of excrement, piles of bricks, decapitated cows heads, and blank canvases lauded as masterpieces. I’m tired of the politically correct tone so many people use when discussing such works. I don’t think everything is equally valid and I really see no reason to sugar coat it. Certainly everyone is also welcome to say what they think of my work, and many have said very bluntly that they hate it – especially those in the museums – which is fine with me. But I know I am speaking the opinions of a lot of people who have kept silent, either from fear of the persecution of a professor or the larger art establishment, or out of a fear of being labeled ignorant. By saying it exactly as I see it, I want them to know they are not alone in their contempt for what is going on.
Spencer, your accusations of Racism and Sexism were utterly unwarranted and offensive. Skip the self-righteous arrogation of The Power to Judge, and just make your argument. The whiff of politically correct dogma around you stinks.
Wanted to share this article from 1915 by Joseph Pennell on Modern Art:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E03EFD81739E233A25756C0A9649D946496D6CF
Thank you, Scott, for the interesting and in-depth post. I am glad you are speaking out on behalf of realism. I think the museums will eventually catch on, but it will take time.
I like the fact that someone is saying something in the art world.
Stirring the pot as some call it. If you compare all the artwork hanging in museums which is modern, how much is out there that is real, hanging in someones home or office?
How do we who appreciate realism get to compare the norm with the excellent?
Modern realism should attain some space in public galleries for those that appreciate it, I am sure there are many. Take a shool tour to a gallery with only modern work in it and well you might have to think of an alternative to keeping the kids occupied.
We need SNL or a comic book artist to make a spoof about all this endless word fighting here there and everywhere.. Go back to your easels, and quite worrying about what the art world is doing.
Peace out folks-
"non-beautiful music, atonal [...] has never caught on"
That's patently false.
Billboard Hip-Hop Ranking: #1
Billboard Hot 100 Ranking: #1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaCodgL9cvk
Billboard Hot 100: #10
Billboard Hip-Hop Ranking: #16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCvXzjGRnKc
Billboard Hip-Hop Ranking: #1
Billboard Hot 100 Ranking: #6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8Uhn-dU3Gg
"Would we care about the words of a song if the music and singer were off key or amateurish?"
Of course! Have you heard of "the blues"?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dePAOtt5Ys
"If you feel that contemporary realism should have equal representation in our schools, museums, and other institutions, then you're on the same side as Scott."
Should it have "equal representation"?
Shouldn't it have as much representation as it deserves and doesn't it deserve what room curators and the public are willing to afford it?
I hear a lot of complaints about how the Modernists are keeping down the Realists.
Has it occurred to y'all that the public gets Realism all over the place in the media as "Illustration"?
Has it occurred to y'all that the significant difference between the realism that gets famous and the realism that doesn't is usually content?
Has it occurred to you that the whole reason that the sort of Realists who feel held down are actually down is because they don't have shit to say?
If you can paint masterly, but you're still painting kitsch (children, sailboats, mountains, horses and flowers) and the intellectual elites and most of the public don't take you seriously, well, you only have you're own ignorant, tasteless, and soul-less selves to blame.
The main difference between those realists who were, and get famous (i.e. from Waterhouse to Wyeth), and those that don't (i.e. the people that fall for this anti-Modernist Establishment garbage) is content.
If you don't have a message, I don't care how fucking nicely you tell it, it doesn't effect me or my life.
Yes, the Modernists work is garbage aesthetically, but at least there is usually something behind it beyond nice color relationships, textures, gestures, and the rest.
It's a shame that content has to hover off in a little blurb, but it's better content in a blurb than no content at all.
And because someone mentioned Wyeth, Halloween is coming up, and I'm from Chadds Ford, I am going to share one of my favourites that I am sure most of you are familiar with.
The Witching Hour
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZzhKqCSNjzw/S5ersw1BZYI/AAAAAAAAO7Q/rK7smwh5Nu8/s1600-h/15809.jpg
@ Richard- Here is an example of atonal music. What you posted had identifiable key signatures and rhythmic pattern (Jeez, by its nature rap music is very rhythmic).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGrAQ3Iq82Y
Also, a definition of atonal music based on one manner of creating it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5tmK6xcDws
The general public doesn't like Modernist work - if it did, perhaps museums would have more successful shows.
Let me amend "equal representation" to "equal opportunity." Contemporary realism is being made, yet if you were to examine the contemporary works in museums, you would not get that impression. Cultures are evaluated by their art- museums as repositories don't reflect the art of our times.
What you say is behind Modernist work can often be summed up in describing the work; In other words, if I plan to expose the proliferation of Starbucks in our nation, and how it has used its commerciality to overthrow individual taste (by relying on marketing over flavor) by creating a towering heap of Starbucks cups placed next to a looping video of Starbucks customers walking out of those coffee shops, then you can picture the entire installation through just my words. Why would you actually need to make it? Couldn't you just say it?
I have said repeatedly that there are Modern works with valid ideas, even excellent ideas, but the execution is awful. Art is a synonym for craft, and the craftsmanship in many Modern works is inferior to the concepts, and is often unnecessary to the idea.
So basically, you don't like art? I mean, you don't like Modernist work (just the challenging ideas behind them), and find realism vapid.
@ Richard - You live in Chadds Ford and work in publishing? No wonder YOU feel surrounded by illustration.
Do you ever go to Longwood Gardens, or is that beauty not challenging enough for you? Is there not enough meaning behind it?
Have your daughters danced ballet, perhaps? Or does that not have meaning either?
Do you see where I'm going? Maybe beauty has its own value.
innisart said,
"Here is an example of atonal music. What you posted had identifiable key signatures and rhythmic pattern (Jeez, by its nature rap music is very rhythmic)."
First, Atonality says nothing about a lack of rhythm. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Secondly, Atonality means without a single tone that acts as a tonic note, or tonal center. For this reason, just because there are tones and tonal shifts doesn't mean a piece is tonal. Atonal does not refer to a lack of tones in general. Any and all sounds have tone, even the most grating possible machine noise you can imagine is inherently is a tone, a pitch. Again, it refers to the lack of a tonic. Without a tonic you don't have the musical relationships that make "music" different from "sound".
"The general public doesn't like Modernist work - if it did, perhaps museums would have more successful shows. "
No, the public doesn't like museums. Period. Why would I want to go to a museum with a little limited and perpetually outdated selection of images when I have the full scope of media, always current, at my fingertip's disposal on the internet?
"Contemporary realism is being made, yet if you were to examine the contemporary works in museums, you would not get that impression."
Museums are not there to have a full display of a cultures output. Art museums also aren't repositories of LOLCATs despite that LOLCATs is a far more vibrant artistic movement (in terms of actual growth, and awareness) than contemporary realism is.
The fact is, the small selection of contemporary realists that the Art Renewal's movement are concerned with suck ass. They're god awfully boring.
The fact that they think any of that crap is deserving of attention is ludicrous.
The masters of Realism weren't fighting their time, they embraced it. The realists that art being defended here are doing the exact opposite. They're construction paintings like they think those paintings are medicinal.
People don't want art that let's them know better, they want art that is f-ing exciting.
Most contemporary realists (illustrators aside), god bless their soul, cannot even bring themselves to create a more interesting image then even a novice photographer -- and yet photographs are forced to work with what is real. Realists can make up as much as they want as long as it feels tangible!
"Why would you actually need to make it? Couldn't you just say it?"
Because it is more powerful when it is seen, in the same way I could describe a pretty girl picking sand off of her feet but that doesn't mean it will have the same effect as 'The Bather'.
"So basically, you don't like art? I mean, you don't like Modernist work (just the challenging ideas behind them), and find realism vapid."
First, I didn't say I don't like Modernism -- I love lots of Modernism.
Second, I didn't say realism is vapid. I said the particular strain of realists today who couldn't create an interesting image if it killed them are vapid.
I personally think representationalism is the quintessential art-form, but I also think that most "realists" today are too busy pretending to be Waterhouse or Sargent to actually make pictures worth looking at.
If you look at the images that won the Art Renewal Center's Salon, if those images were photographs they would scarcely be considered better than amateur.
That's a big problem.
These artists have all the power in the world to make your image look anyway they want it to. If their pictures are coming out looking like bad photographs then something is wrong.
If as a realist you aren't beating Thisimage in novelty, nor This Image in mere vivacity, nor This Image in pure humour, nor ThisImage in imagination, nor This Imagine in design sense... well... where do you think you fit in?
If it's merely because you took the time to learn the craft, well, that's not enough. You have to do something with it, and the fact is, most contemporary realists don't.
@Richard Why is it that with all of the words available to us in the English language, that you resort to cursing to try and get your point across? You are an intellectual, and I imagine you fancy yourself a debater, but you seem more like someone who likes to argue rather than offer a counterpoint.
My mistake saying that you didn't like Modernist art; I had assumed when you said it was "aesthetically garbage" that you were making a derogatory statement against it. At least we can agree that most Modern art is aesthetic garbage (and that you like much Modern art and therefore like aesthetic garbage by corollary).
Can you please provide me with an example of realist work from the past that meets with your approval? I think that would go a long way towards me understanding more completely your perspective on contemporary realism.
I feel that the current realism that you dislike the most is that which is academic in nature- purely a representational copy. You can admire the artist's craft in such work, but want them to apply those skills to works which are less about achieving accuracy, and more about presenting a deeper message than "see how well I can paint something which looks real." Is this an accurate assessment?
Do you like fantasy art?
When you mentioned a painting of a woman cleaning sand from her feet, I immediately began picturing a dozen or so interpretations. How many different ways can you picture a pile of discarded Starbucks cups?
Ideas are not enough for art. They are wonderful for philosophy and are interesting for debate, but they don't make the picture.
Have you stood before a Sorolla painting? I can look at the image on my laptop, but the actual experience of being there, and seeing the color, texture, and sheer size is a thousandfold more impressive. If people are willing to eschew museums because they feeling seeing the image online is the same, then I feel sorry for those people. But we still have opera houses, orchestras, playhouses, live band performances, and ballet companies- perhaps people do find more value in being present with the art (rather than through speakers or a computer screen) than you are giving them credit.
"If their pictures are coming out looking like bad photographs then something is wrong"
But this image is a simple head on portrait, but its the technique- the fact that it looks like its alive that makes it incredible.
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/lili/personen/fleischmann/214_freud_selfp.jpg
I think there is definitely that can be said about technique as well.
Abbreviated list of artists I like, sorry they've run together --
Henry DargerNedroidGHOSTSHRIMPFujio AkatsukaTakashi MurakamiHiroaki SamuraKatsuhiro OtomoSaul TepperPeter De SèveWilliam McGregor PaxtonSergio ToppiJean GiraudIványi Grünwald BélaJoseph Rodefer DeCamp
Close
Sir Lawrence Alma-TademaGeorge Spencer WatsonPascal DagnanHayao MiyazakiThe Flammarion WoodcutWilliam BouguereauJean-Léon GérômeGustave CaillebottePieter Bruegel the ElderLucian FreudGoyaTavik Frantisek SimonVilmos Aba-NovákEugène DelacroixManetJohn Everett MillaisfergussonMary CassattFelice CasoratiPierre-Paul Prud'honWilliam WaterhouseJames Abbot McNeill WhistlerJc LeyendeckerJean FouquetEdgar DegasHonoré DaumierAlphonse MuchaKent WilliamsFrédéric BazilleHelen M. TurnerDaniel SprickPaul RahillyStudio GhibliQuentin BlakeAlexander PetrovMax KlingerJohn Singer SargentPre-RaphaelitesIllustrationYngve Johnson ToreFernando Álvarez de Sotomayor y ZaragozaNicolai FechinBela KontulyAcademic artNikolay Nikanorovich DubovskoyAnna Bilinska-BohdanowiczAuto-TuneLeo PutzPeter SamuelsonCarl LarssonMarc ChagallWinslow HomerHenri de Toulouse-LautrecAlbert BierstadtMichelangeloHarvey DunnIvan BilibinNorman RockwellRodinJoseph Wright of DerbyBalthus
Henry Darger
"How many different ways can you picture a pile of discarded Starbucks cups?"
Well, that depends on how many possible ways are there to pile something. Do you stand by there being only one way? I think you ought to rethink that standpoint -- if they were piled to make a starbucks logo, or a dollar sign that would be different than a pyramid, or a peace sign.
I would agree that your assessment is accurate. No, I don't particularly like much fantasy artwork, although I do have a soft spot for certain artists -- like Moebius.
I agree that looking at art is a very important part of the experience, but you won't convince laymen so easily, and that is afterall who are is made for.
Hey Richard, I get your point, but you're being a bit rude.
You've made your point, you don't like traditional art. By the way that list is illegible. I do see Paul Rahilly on your list. I've taken drawing classes with him.
He's the kind of guy who does not suffer fools lightly and I can hear him telling you to take a long walk off a short pier.
By the way atonal music is based on the 12 tone series, and is not diatonic. What you posted, Snoop Dog is diatonic music, meaning it's based on one tonal center. If you are going to set yourself up as arm chair expert you should at least know the difference. Hip Hop is many things, atonal is not one of them. Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, and Anton Webern were early 12 tone composers. Alexander Scriabin, Béla Bartók, Paul Hindemith, Igor Stravinsky, and Edgard Varèse are all composers who composed atonal music. In the contemporary American music world, I would say Frank Zappa is the best example of a someone who used popular music and atonality.
Snoop Dog is great, but he would not know Hindemith from Varèse.
Which is fine, but you kind of need to music theory to compose 12 tone music.
Sorry, I had a typo.
Snoop Dog is great, but he would not know Hindemith from Varèse.
Which is fine, but you kind of need too know music theory to compose 12-tone music.
@ Richard
I guess I was looking for an artist from the past who you felt had the type of message you are seeking, and who conveys the message effectively simply through the image.
Your list of favorite artists is pretty varied, and I see a lot of my favorites on there too (Saul Tepper is great!). Peter de Sève is an interesting artist to see on there- perhaps I should consider cartooning as a sub-category of realism. He is such an amazing artist, very clever, original, and talented. I am surprised to see Norman Rockwell on there after your comment on kitsch; I think many people would consider Rockwell the epitome of sentimentality.
I think many people would point out that you have several artists on the list whose work doesn't have a particularly deep message; Joseph De Camp, for one. Again, a brilliant artist, and I love his work, but I don't think he was making a grand statement with his art.
Is your first love "words"? Can I infer that from your involvement in publishing? It would also make sense with the number of illustrators on your list, and your comment before about the visual adding impact to the idea.
I think many people feel the same way as you in regards to Academic art. I happen to love it, but I am a technician, and I know I often find more enjoyment in the process of making art than in the completed painting (I also know my work suffers from it). The ability these people have is remarkable and I love just being absorbed in their talent- I find beauty in that.
Certainly people's biases can get in the way of growth. A Modernist might dismiss something because it was realism without trying to find value in it, and a realist might not try to see deeper into a Modern work once he sees the lack of craft. Possibly what would benefit contemporary realism is to have that field receive more input from someone who finds value in the art of the two disparate camps.
We hear so much talk that realism is stagnant, that it is not moving towards the "new." But no one can define what the "new" is. Is it just a matter of "we'll know it when we see it?" Can you tell us what it is? (I'm not mocking; I'm asking seriously). What would you want to see in contemporary realism that would, in your opinion, validate it?
"By the way atonal music is based on the 12 tone series, and is not diatonic."
Atonal music does not need to be based on a 12-tet scale. You're confusing atonality with chromatism.
(Or serialism)
“You've made your point, you don't like traditional art.”
I wouldn't say I don't like 'traditional' art. I am just severely underwhelmed my a very large majority of those 'realists' today.
“I guess I was looking for an artist from the past who you felt had the type of message you are seeking, and who conveys the message effectively simply through the image.”
Messages are as varied as people, to choose a person as effectively having the message I am looking for would be disingenuous. I don't like artists to be locked into an area of message, subject matter, or feeling. This is in part why I am particularly partial to illustrators.
“Your list of favorite artists is pretty varied […] Peter de Sève is an interesting artist to see on there- perhaps I should consider cartooning as a sub-category of realism.”
I'm glad you brought that up. I see the pure cartoonist and the pure realist as not members of genres but, rather, people lacking one side or the other of very important ways of visual thinking. An artist without a full understanding of both “cartoons” and “realism” is in my opinion not a whole artist at all. I would argue that the greatest masters of the past had an understanding of both of these ways of thinking and that their works were edited to the point of being more like very, very advanced cartoons than representations of the real world.
I think the realists of today, in a misguided attempt to create images as tangible as the masters, are placing themselves in the seat of the camera. They no longer interpret as they should, they no longer dream as they should. Most realists today do not pick and choose their techniques for effect as much as to enhance an illusion. That's all wrong. The illusion ought to be slave to the effect. The effect ought to be king.
The illustrator and the cartoonist know that the illusion is merely a tool to the effect. Unfortunately, because of the rather poor nature of art education in this country the students come out not really knowing the full set of tools that they can use to create those effects.
The realists have the tools, but are so lost without a direct connection to culture itself that they end up producing technique for techniques sake. Again, creating artworks no better than novice photography.
Both groups are severely lost. Both groups will need to come together before Art enters a new Rennaisance.
“I am surprised to see Norman Rockwell on there after your comment on kitsch; I think many people would consider Rockwell the epitome of sentimentality.”
Rockwell was expressing sentimentality, but it was sentimentality which was very much of his own time. Rockwell 'The Problem we all Live With' e.g. was current and powerful.
“I think many people would point out that you have several artists on the list whose work doesn't have a particularly deep message; Joseph De Camp, for one. Again, a brilliant artist, and I love his work, but I don't think he was making a grand statement with his art.”
I would argue the opposite. I think De Camp's compositions were VERY communicative. They might not have been political, or even deeply social, but the effects spoke. The lighting spoke. The composition spoke. The anatomy spoke.
Lighting, composition, anatomy; these things, for De Camp, worked more for the effect than the illusion. The illusion was there, but only because those elements that were illusionary were also communicative!
I don't think Art needs a message in a direct and intellectualized sense, but the work should speak to something. I would contrast De Camp's realism's consciousness of effect, composition and liveliness with modern realism's cold and lifeless interpretationlessness.
“Is your first love "words"? Can I infer that from your involvement in publishing? It would also make sense with the number of illustrators on your list, and your comment before about the visual adding impact to the idea.”
No, my first love is the image. The number of illustrators on my list is due to their placement in the arts, which I consider ideal. They don't have the individualistic mindset so common in the Fine Arts, they consciously make work to be viewed by an audience. They also allow themselves a level of freedom, while remaining within the representational. I think this is essential for Art to remain both relevant and lively.
“I think many people feel the same way as you in regards to Academic art. I happen to love it, but I am a technician, and I know I often find more enjoyment in the process of making art than in the completed painting (I also know my work suffers from it). The ability these people have is remarkable and I love just being absorbed in their talent- I find beauty in that.”
I wouldn't disagree that there is real beauty in technique. I merely think that isn't the whole story to what makes a good piece. In the same way, a band can be technically fantastic and, yet, as far as effect is concerned, they can still be dunces. Perhaps sometimes their technique will be mistaken for a real emotionality, but when push comes to shove you realize that it wasn't really felt emotion at all.
“Certainly people's biases can get in the way of growth. A Modernist might dismiss something because it was realism without trying to find value in it, and a realist might not try to see deeper into a Modern work once he sees the lack of craft. Possibly what would benefit contemporary realism is to have that field receive more input from someone who finds value in the art of the two disparate camps.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
“We hear so much talk that realism is stagnant, that it is not moving towards the "new."”
I think this sentence could be construed incorrectly. I'm not arguing that realism today isn't moving towards the novel enough, instead, I think it isn't actually moving towards anything at all. There are examples that I don't think fall into that trap. Examples which are expressive to their cores, but I don't think that is the zeitgeist of realism today. I think as far as the spirit of this age, as far as realism is concerned, well, there isn't one.
If modernism disappeared today I don't think most realists today would know what to do with themselves. They'd have to start thinking about representational-ism as something more than just a reaction to modernism. They'd have to start thinking of those techniques as serving a purpose other than reminding us that art is and was a craft as well.
“But no one can define what the "new" is. Is it just a matter of "we'll know it when we see it?"”
It's not about the new, so much as the human.
I don't think much realism today is human. I also don't think much modernism today is human.
I think the modernists came along and got everyone caught up in Art itself (as opposed to artworks) and so everyone lost sight of what making an artwork is really about.
I think, ironically, that the realists in reacting to the Modernists thinking about Art too much ended up thinking about Art too much as well.
I would argue that most realists today are doing exactly what they were angry at the modernists for doing the whole time!
The realists and the modernists are stepping away from thinking about pieces of art, and instead are caught up in making works of Art which try to define/redefine what Art is; the modernists trying to prove Art is a breaking down of technical thinking, the realists trying to prove Art is a building up of technical thinking.
Both mistakenly thinking about Art.
As far as I am concerned most “Realists” are card-carrying members of the Modern, in the sense that the Moderns make work to try to define Art, rather than works that try to define themselves.
They are just more members of that lifeless corpse.
I think the new birth of art lies in the quiet, often forgotten babe that is illustration. The one place where both representational-ism and expression have embraced one another, and aren't caught up making artworks as ammo in some ridiculous battle for the soul of art. It is going to be a long time before the technique catches up to embrace the illustrator's mentality, but I think it will.
“What would you want to see in contemporary realism that would, in your opinion, validate it?”
I think contemporary realists need to slow down.
Really look at the blank paper/canvas and realize that in that space there are infinite possibilities.
Once you really understand the possibilities, I think contemporary realize will stop creating effects merely in service of the illusion. They will create effects only when those effects are expressive.
Every single element of an image should be expressive.
Richard, Atonality in its broadest sense describes music that lacks a tonal center, or key. The main proponents of this idea used 12 tone systems to compose. Paul Hindemith, Igor Stravinsky, and Edgard Varèse as I previously posted are known fro using atonality in composition.
It's moot anyway the examples you posted are not atonal but are based on sampled R&B tunes which are mostly 1,4,5 progressions and diatonic. I'm wondering how it is that come up with such theories about music based on, well based what seems to be a complete lack of knowledge of R&B.
Anyway this blog is about painting not music.
The idea that realism is static is a red herring. All painting is static, they are done on 2 dimensional surfaces. To equate movement with modernity is an absurd construct based on nothing more than false theories that are used to justify the work. How is the blue painting moving more than the wall it's hanging on? What kind of movement? The movement towards total flatness, which is what that painting is about, nothing more.
If you say you don't like academic painting, whatever that means, is nothing more than a opinion. It's not based on any other criteria as far as I can see. Not liking something does not mean it's bad in general. It just means you do not happen to like it. At least make an attempt to come up with a good argument other than insults.
“If you don't have a message, I don't care how fucking nicely you tell it, it doesn't effect me or my life.”
This above comment pretty much points to the problem, OK but that's not an argument to counter Scott's now is it.
Ellsworth Kelly's Blue painting is about flatness and that's about it.
There is no message, that's the point. This kind of painting is doing away with narrative. Hence no message.
This comment is just plain offensive:
“If you can paint masterly, but you're still painting kitsch (children, sailboats, mountains, horses and flowers) and the intellectual elites and most of the public don't take you seriously, well, you only have you're own ignorant, tasteless, and soul-less selves to blame.”
I'm sorry but how is it that you think you can just insult people like this? Are you like this in person? Or is it that you think you can just say whatever you want because you can. In my book that's a definition of a coward.
Does anyone have a transcript to this film?
Further, on the subject of diatonicism in Hip-Hop and Rap, while there are strong elements of musicality in hip-hop, those notes which do not finally land on or near a justly intoned fractional relationship from the home note are not diatonic or musical notes.
They may be expressive, no doubt, the tones of Chinese or any intonation for that matter can sound lyrical, but if they do not land on a musical note you are experiencing atonality.
That is exactly what is happening in those hip-hop and rap tracks I have provided.
For example, in the snoop song the closest thing to a tonal element is "Snooooo-OOP!", but those sounds are not musical nor diatonic -- merely an expressive use of tone, again, like the intonation in spoken language which rarely lands upon a just tone, but rather is expressive only in its motion.
The tones go:
Up -- Qualitatively how far does the tone go up? A lot? A little bit?
Down -- Qualitatively how far does the tone go down? A lot? A little bit?
Just because these tones are qualitatively moving does not mean they are creating anything approximating the justly intoned motion of 'god's music'.
Further, on the subject of diatonicism in Hip-Hop and Rap, while there are strong elements of musicality in hip-hop, those notes which do not finally land on or near a justly intoned fractional relationship from the home note are not diatonic or musical notes.
They may be expressive, no doubt, the tones of Chinese or any intonation for that matter can sound lyrical, but if they do not land on a musical note you are experiencing atonality.
That is exactly what is happening in those hip-hop and rap tracks I have provided.
For example, in the snoop song the closest thing to a tonal element is "Snooooo-OOP!", but those sounds are not musical nor diatonic -- merely an expressive use of tone, again, like the intonation in spoken language which rarely lands upon a just tone, but rather is expressive only in its motion.
The tones go:
Up -- Qualitatively how far does the tone go up? A lot? A little bit?
Down -- Qualitatively how far does the tone go down? A lot? A little bit?
Just because these tones are qualitatively moving does not mean they are creating anything approximating the justly intoned motion of 'god's music'.
(In the same way, whale "songs" can be expressive, perhaps even emotive, but they are not strictly musical in the sense that they do not revolve musically around the just intonations that referentially lie under any piece of tonal music.)
So what you're saying is that rap is a form of atonal music.
yeah that's an interesting theory and not one that most musicians I know would agree with.
Did you study music? Do you know what rhythm is? Do understand the idea of rap as form of spoken rhyme?
This is all coming out R&B, if you can't understand that I guess that's your prerogative.
If you listen to blues form the 1920's it has some singers who use quarter tones or bent notes. They all resolve to a key however.
Blind Lemon Jefferson come to mind,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3yd-c91ww8
You need to understand the history of African American music, from your comments you don't seem to.
You mistake inflection for a note.
You seem to have no understanding of the blues and how it relates to African American music.
"So what you're saying is that rap is a form of atonal music."
No. I said THOSE rap songs are atonal, not all rap songs, some are clearly tonal.
"Do you know what rhythm is? Do understand the idea of rap as form of spoken rhyme?"
Do YOU understand that rhyme and tonality are two specific terms which are in no way related except that they can both be present in the medium called "music"?
A lack of tonality does not suggest a lack of rhythm in the slightest, for example the driving beat of a sowing machine has rhythm but it is not tonal in a musical sense.
Simply,
This is tonal music.
and
This is atonal music.
Also, I wonder if y'all think modern music is attempting to be aesthetically beautiful, and if you do, why do you think modernist music turned out differently than modern art and post-modern art?
Oh for Pete's sake. I spent over 15 years making my living as a musician and I played with Charlie Musselwhite and in a host of R&B and blues bands as well as a lot of jazz.
You keep digging this huge whole.
What's wrong with you? You seem to have this problem with wanting to be right about everything. Talk about a swell head...
I am only 6 minutes in to the first video and I find the sarcastic and dismissive tone to be an enormous turnoff.
Seriously. It's awful. It makes me want to do an abstract painting with housepaint on cardboard.
And please don't go after my beautiful David Park. You can have Diebenkorn. But not Park.
Pardon me so sorry, but no, they cannot have the Diebenkorns either. Please continue, thank you. ;]
Okay MCG, no Diebenkorns, either :-)
I was thinking about this video and debate last night and there are so many contemporary artists working in the highly-skilled, realist vein these days, you just can't dismiss them, even if you don't like their work because it's not stereotypically "beautiful." See:
John Currin
Jenny Saville
Lisa Yuskavage
Will Cotton
Richard Phillips
And these are just the big names. If you follow NYC art openings at all, you see new young artists every week who use a realist, classical academic technique, even if they eschew the classical subject matter.
I've read a lot of the commentary on this video in various blogs, and I agree with the line of thought that Scott is really stuck in the past and has no knowledge of or appreciation of contemporary art. John Singer Sargent is my favorite painter - his stuff literally makes me swoony - but I love the intellectual engagement that happens when someone like Saville applies his masterstrokes to her own modern content and ideas.
"Oh for Pete's sake. I spent over 15 years making my living as a musician and I played with Charlie Musselwhite and in a host of R&B and blues bands as well as a lot of jazz."
That's great, you should be well prepared to argue the actual theory then.
"
Seriously. It's awful. It makes me want to do an abstract painting with housepaint on cardboard."
Hahaha, Right! It did the same thing to me.
If anything this film makes for a fantastic Modernist indoctrination tool.
hello, I am a selftaught artist and I am studying hard to be able to make modern realistic artwork at high level.
My (19th century) ideals are Zorn, Sargent and Sorolla (the same Scott mentioned) and I do not think they are outdated at all. For me seems outdated baroque, rococo, romanticism and so on, while Tiziano, Velasquez and others are surprisingly modern, at least IMHO.
Anyway, I respect art that is made with serious preparation and honesty, abstract art included, but I get very frustrated seeing real shit in museums promoted to artwork.
It's a shame of our century to abandon the idea of autenthic beauty. I think it has to do with the idea that there is no need to invest in working hard, one can get quick and cheap results, result of an use and throw society...
Also, I think that we have lost the contact with nature. To do a still life, a landscape you have to observe, you have to love the things of nature. I do portraits and I enter in contact with my models. Who does abstract, probably does not feel the neccessity of observing, making contact with the subjects (I may be wrong).
Surely it is very frustrating to realist painters to be considered old-fashioned, snubbed despite their serious preparation and passion for art and generally for beauty
It's absolutely amazing to have so many responses in such a short amount of time.
I think that the internet is now a primary tool for real serious and honest artist to see that they are not alone. That resulted in the last few years in a strong unification, a boost of moral, and also a great deal in exchange of knowledge among the realists.
How many on here follow this blog and are all connected in one way on facebook for example.
On facebook I have over 700 friends and I'm not bombarded with baby pictures. I'm bombarded with beautifully works of art everyday. Not one of my fellow artist friend post any crap. They all are sincere realist artists. The best part about this is I just accept anyone...so why is it that we are all realist artists and we are all so strongly connected? I say something is stirring up and I'm on-board whatever that is!
the number of answers proves that is absolutely not a "tired and boring argument", also that there is some kind of "brotherhood of artists" or at least a desire for quality and beauty (I do not mean polished and kitsch beauty but beauty of realism - for me Velasquez's dwarfs, mentioned by somebody above, are a good example of this).
Me too, I use facebook to be connected with artists I admire and be able to see their works.
I am honoured with friendships like those of Nancy Guzik and Scott himself and other hundreds, maybe not all so talented but honestly working to become better.
It's very encouraging and inspiring to new realist painters like myself and helps to continue on this road despite of all the difficulties and frustration.
Just because people are willing to argue about something doesn't mean that self-same argument is fresh; case in point, the sizable number of educated Americans still willing to argue about whether or not the earth is flat even into the 1960s, or people today who still try to argue that bigfootis real.
:-/
Richard, I already did argue the theory. Rap is R&B. Case closed.
You don't know the difference between a grace note and glissando as you confuse a the pitch inflections of a untrained rap artist with that of “atonal” music.
What is your problem?
I can tell you don't know a damn thing about music and yet you act like you do. Talk about flat earth.
Of course you will have some kind of smart comeback as this is your agenda. Kind of troll like if you ask me.
Richard if your really hip to music theory do you know the answer? What's the V cord of the 3rd of B flat major and what is it's relationship to B flat major?
What's the poly-cord of A flat 7 starting on the forth note?
"What's the V cord of the 3rd of B flat major?"
The *chord*, notice the "h" in chord, A-Major.
"What's the poly-cord of A flat 7 starting on the forth note?"
You can have any number of chords mixed with a Ab7, as such, there is no "the" polychord that can be built on top of an Ab7 starting on the seventh. Given a series of notes extended forever upwards and downwards there are infinite permutations possible of a polychord built on top of an Ab7, although not all of them would be audible.
"as you confuse a the pitch inflections of a untrained rap artist with that of 'atonal' music."
Again, if a rap song is entirely spoken word over a purely percussive beat, and does not contain any other musical elements, it is atonal in the strictest sense of the word, namely, not containing a tonic.
If you disagree, I would love to hear where you hear anything even approximating a line of music in this song?
"More narrowly, the term describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries."
-Lansky, Paul, and George Perle. 2001. "Atonality §2: Differences between Tonality and Atonality". The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, edited by Stanley Sadie and John Tyrrell. London: Macmillan.
The basic problem here is that you are using a far too narrow historical definition for 'atonal', where a theoretical definition would be more appropriate.
Reposted with some revisions:
I find this ironic, from Scott: "Yes, a song with words can be deeply moving by combining music with profound words, but does that mean that a purely instrumental work is meaningless, or that songs with words are inherently better?"
My response to that: yes, a painting that has representational imagery can be deeply moving by combining good abstract design with profound realistic imagery, but does this mean that a purely abstract painting is meaningless or that paintings with representational imagery are inherently better?
Personally, I don't think so, and I find many abstract paintings to be both beautiful and meaningful, just like good music without lyrics.
The A is also the seventh of B flat.
“Ab7, as such, there is no "the" polychord that can be built on top of an Ab7 starting on the seventh.”
Well you could play a Bb minor over a Ab7, that's a poly chord. Voicing it is another issue. On dominant 7th cords there is a lot of freedom. The symmetrical scales are also pretty open.
Not true. Most jazz musicians use these all the time. Charlie Parker used 13ths all the time and Coltrane took this idea and completly reorganized the harmonic sequences used in jazz.
Anyway I'm getting way off the subject of painting.
This is from a talk in which the painter Burton Silverman was on in the panel discussion at the show "Hard Times" in New York. It's on the current "realist revival"... "I am not interested in causation: why there was a modernist century. It happened for a variety of reasons. I really reject the notion of the kind of conspiratorial suppression. I think that all kind of things were happening to make that an inevitable consequence."
I have to agree with him and I guess this is part of the ”tone” in which I object to in Scott' thesis. I have to say I guess we have been around the block on this subject and I feel Mr. Silverman' statement sums it up for me.
Bill --
So right.
It's funny, I would argue we've seen counter movements in music and art this last century.
All the while Art was becoming more abstract, music was becoming less abstract. Notice the way found sound, and an emphasis on lyrics took over; pushing pure abstract music out of it's place as the primary musical concern in the same way that in art we watched abstrction push subject out, and make composition art's primary concern.
Sitting down and watching some of this, I have to say, He does make some really compelling arguments, but one thing that annoys me is that nearly all of the examples of modern "ugly" art he uses are poorly scanned from magazine illustrations, while the images he reproduces of "beautiful" art are culled from much better source material. As a painter, I'm actually more in his tribe, but as a critic and a devil's advocate, I think he ignores a lot of really beautiful modern art.
Wonderful essay.
"All the while Art was becoming more abstract, music was becoming less abstract. Notice the way found sound, and an emphasis on lyrics took over; pushing pure abstract music out of it's place as the primary musical concern in the same way that in art we watched abstrction push subject out, and make composition art's primary concern."
Pure abstract music? What is that?
Jazz? Hindemith?
Lyrics have taken over? When did this happen? Are you speaking to American music in the 20th century?
If so do you mean Gershwin, Rogers and Hammerstein? If you meant Europe, do you mean Bertolt Brecht, Edith Piaf?
Are you talking about popular music now known as pop music?
Words and music have been married in western music for centuries.
This statement is wrong and is based on nothing more than conjecture. There is no evidence whatsoever of this.
If you mention Bob Dylan I will point out to you that folk music has always been driven by lyrics for the most part. The exception would be the folk traditions of Ireland and Scotland for example where you have instrumental dance music. However this genre of music relies heavily on the narrative and lyrics.
Lumping all music genres into one huge basket is a bad idea just like it is in visual art.
I think Spencer Cook makes a good point.
I like Burdick's paintings but I'm not too sure about holding them up repeatedly as examples of 'beauty'. Of course he or anyone else can say they are beautiful but then that just compounds the problem. Beauty has been banished because it lost objectivity.
I recommend Roger Scruton on the subject of beauty.
Really excellent blog by the way.
Post a Comment