I can't seem to access the web page, but a resound, "AMEN!" on the post!
<ilya_shambat2004@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:1104434184.910543.205380@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.artrenewal.org
>
> Sample:
>
> Equally ironic is the charge that academic painting is "uninspired," a
> proclamation issued by critics who are unable to see beyond the
> technical virtuosity for which they condemn it, to see what is being
> said. This rich visual language is wasted on eyes that will not see. It
> would be no different than dismissing out-of-hand a piece of music as
> soon as it was determined that notes, chords and keys were used, or
> dismissing any work of literature upon noticing words arranged in
> grammatically correct sentences.
>
> That is not to say that all academic art is great, or above criticism -
> certainly, it is not. It would be no less fallacious to issue blanket
> praise to an entire category than to condemn it. Academic painting
> ranges from brilliantly conceived and deeply inspired, to trite and
> silly, depending on the subject and the artist.
>
> That being said, I find even the worst of it more meaningful than art
> based on the ridiculous notion that it is somehow im****tant to prove
> the canvas is flat, and/or that one needs no skill or technique to be
> an artist - views generally embraced by those who condemn the entire
> category of academic art. Their point seems to be to elevate to
> legitimacy that which has removed all standards and prior defining
> characteristics of art. In other words, by defining non-art as art, the
> logical conclusion is that art is non-art.
>
> Modern artists are told that they must create something totally
> original. Nothing about what they do can ever have been done before in
> any way shape or form, otherwise they risk being called "derivative".
> How utterly absurd.
>
> These critics like to say Bouguereau's work is really only derivative,
> harking back to earlier artists. Only in the 20th century has such a
> thing ever been scorned. To this I have one thing to say:
> WHAT, dear friends, IS WRONG WITH BEING DERIVATIVE?
>
> That's one of the core beliefs of modernism that must be soundly
> vanquished by common sense and logical analysis. Nobody can accomplish
> anything of merit if they are in fact not derivative. Only by mastering
> the accomplishments of the past and then adding to it can we go still
> further. Every other field of endeavor recognizes this truth. Without
> the knowledge of the past we are doomed to everlasting primitivism.
>
> And, as far as holding our works up to the old masters, that's what we
> want to have happen. If we are to accomplish things of true merit and
> excellence, we must germinate and nurture great masters in the next
> millennium, too. Bouguereau was quite aware that his work would be
> compared on the altar of past accomplishments, as did his
> contem****aries. It was precisely because they mastered the techniques
> of the past, built upon them and then opened them up to an avalanche of
> new subject matter and Enlightenment ideals, that they accomplished the
> greatest half-century of painting in art history.
>
|
