Modern art is junk

[eyeresist]

Those are not by Courbet, they are from the type of "academics" he used to rave against (the artist is William Adolphe Bouguereau). 

Hmmm. Well, in that first picture, the arms and hands look ungainly to me, and the feet seem mismatched. And from these pretty pictures I think the painter may have been a short-eyes

[Florestan]

I saw a very interesting documentary about 19th century painter Auguste Courbet recently.

Yes, Auguste Courbet is supposed to be the fore runner of modern art.

Just a small correction: it's Gustave, not Auguste.

A lot of modern and contemporary "art" certainly looks like junk to me. My own position is basically in agreement with drogulus (reply #1) and eyeresist (reply #2).

[Florestan]

Pretty please? 

Seems to be a common theme lately...when it comes to modern art, those who declare that the emperor is naked are attacked, dismissed as "brown shirted", and declared to be, quite simply, wrong.  To be right, just see the clothes, applaud madly, no questions asked.  That mentality in and of itself makes me question the entire movement...

Brown or black shirts are the marks of Hell, while red shirts are still revered in some academical and mass-media environments. I even remember a French Communist member of the parliament declaring that the major difference between Fascism and Communism is that the former committed crimes out of hate for people, while the latter committed crimes out of love for people. Oh how sweet...

[Herman]

The Diner was for fun topics.

Not for sophomoric hate threads.

[Egebedieff]

Those are not by Courbet, they are from the type of "academics" he used to rave against (the artist is William Adolphe Bouguereau). 

And thanks for posting these stunning masterpieces. It is most reassuring to see proof that, ultimately, the truth of art so pure as Bouguereau's can speak through all of the noise to strike the eternally, universally human chord, and live on to be shared and to influence others great art:



Das ist die ewige kunst '

[DavidRoss]

Sticks and stones. I'm not afraid of any of those things. I love Mark Rothko's work. I always have, even before I knew what it was, or who he was. Richard Diebenkorn is someone I've started to notice more recently. I've never really enjoyed a lot of paintings that are, I don't even know what it's properly called, "realistic," "representational"? I've always liked work that's about color rather than someone's trying to do what a camera can do better. Gaugin and Van Gogh are about as realistic as I like.

I don't really care what you like. But someone needed to respond to such twaddle as "modern art is junk." Of course, the possibility exists that you posted that just because you thrive on attention, and if you can't get positive attention, you're more than happy to settle for the negative kind. Just a possibility, mind you.

Excellent taste, Mr. Brisk!  Diebenkorn is classified as a member of the "Bay Area Figurative" school, a loose but connected group of painters who applied the sensibilities of Hoffman's abstract expressionism to depiction of traditional painterly subjects, i.e. still lifes, landscapes, and the figure.

Some twaddle doesn't merit a response.  Neither do some twaddlers, certainly not after establishing that they're just tiresome nutcases lacking even entertainment value.

Are you new here?  Or are you an old-timer using a new nom de guerre?  In either case, welcome (back) to GMG!

[DavidRoss]

I don't think photo realism has ever been the mark of the great artist, else, we would have to place this painting over anything made by a Rembrandt, or a Vermeer.

Now that's unintentionally hilarious, given that Vermeer was a photo-realist working with the camera obscura!

[karlhenning]

Now that's unintentionally hilarious, given that Vermeer was a photo-realist working with the camera obscura!

!!!

[Josquin des Prez]

Now that's unintentionally hilarious, given that Vermeer was a photo-realist working with the camera obscura!

You do know that that's just a theory, right? Even then, i'm not sure a painting like this can be considered great due its photorealism:



Virtuosity has never made a genius.

[Josquin des Prez]

Oh my, a real "entartete Kunst" (degenerate art) thread...

The Nazi were partially right, particularly considering much of the art of those times was specifically created to either piss off the "old establishment" or to destroy western art to begin with (I.E., dadaism). Hitler reacted to what he perceived to be an attack to German art, and by extension, the German national spirit. The fact he was a mass murdering bastard doesn't mean the onslaught against western art wasn't real, or motivated by anything other then an impulse to destroy. After all, that side of the conflict turned out to be victorious, and we all know who it is that writes history books.

[DavidRoss]

You do know that that's just a theory, right? Even then, i'm not sure a painting like this can be considered great due it's photorealism:

Virtuosity has never made a genius.

The evidence is compelling, despite the lack of you tube videos by Vermeer showing his working methods.  Reasonable people would not likely consider any painting great solely because it can be classified as belonging to one or another school. 

Virtuosity is genius.  Here is Webster's on-line definition of the relevant sense of the word:

a: a single strongly marked capacity or aptitude <had a genius for getting along with boys — Mary Ross> b: extraordinary intellectual power especially as manifested in creative activity c: a person endowed with transcendent mental superiority  ; especially : a person with a very high IQ

[Josquin des Prez]

Hmmm. Well, in that first picture, the arms and hands look ungainly to me, and the feet seem mismatched.

I think it's because she's supposed to be a child, but her expression makes her look older, so that the proportions appear to be out of balance. Or maybe he just made a mistake. 

[karlhenning]

The evidence is compelling, despite the lack of you tube videos by Vermeer showing his working methods.  Reasonable people would not likely consider any painting great solely because it can be classified as belonging to one or another school. 

Virtuosity is genius.  Here is Webster's on-line definition of the relevant sense of the word:

Always enjoy your posts, David;  Mr Clemens left word to wish you good luck with teaching the pig to sing 

[Josquin des Prez]

Virtuosity is genius. 

Only one who never really experience genius could utter such nonsense. And i'm supposed to be the fraud here. 

[DavidRoss]

Always enjoy your posts, David;  Mr Clemens left word to wish you good luck with teaching the pig to sing 

Thanks, Karl...likewise!  BTW, your comparison is unflattering to pigs, who are reasonably intelligent creatures quite capable of learning.  I've a cousin who once taught pigs to swim for a water show.  I never saw it, but apparently they staged a pretty impressive porcine water ballet.

[Herman]

The Nazi were partially right, particularly considering much of the art of those times was specifically created to either piss off the "old establishment" or to destroy western art to begin with (I.E., dadaism). Hitler reacted to what he perceived to be an attack to German art, and by extension, the German national spirit. The fact he was a mass murdering bastard doesn't mean the onslaught against western art wasn't real, or motivated by anything other then [= than] an impulse to destroy. After all, that side of the conflict turned out to be victorious, and we all know who it is that writes history books.

One problem is you understand as much of art as Hitler did. For the entirety of art history there has been competition between generations, except in periods of stagnation. Early 20th C art (such as dadaism, or surrealism) was not an "onslaught against western art" as you term it (and maybe Hitler did too, who knows). It was just another generational form of western art.

People with sufficient sense of art and culture have always been aware of this generational conflict, and patrons have always encouraged artists to be different. You can see this is in classical Greek art, in Renaissance art (please read Cellini's autobiography, and please read it slowly, if only to give us a week's break) and in Modern art. It's always different because artists want to be different, just like Beethoven wanted to sound different from Mozart.

The problem with Hitler and you is philistinism, i.e. you're scared of art but you desperately want to control it, by saying stupid things about it, and in the case of Hitler, destroy art and artists.

What I'm wondering: isn't there some quasi-nazi board somewhere out there that would be much more suitable to your proclivities?

[karlhenning]

Well said, Herman.

One corollary:

The problem with Hitler and you is philistinism, i.e. you're scared of art but you desperately want to control it, by saying stupid things about it . . . .

As another thread shows, we can substitute genius for art, and the resulting statement is about equally true.

[Wilhelm Richard]

It is outrageous how quick many are to throw around "Nazi" these days.  I can respect those who have a different opinion from my own when they can make a strong argument for their cause without tying my views in with a political party associated with crimes against humanity as if it is the ultimate trump card.  Whether or not it is is intentional, this attitude comes across as "Well, you shouldn't be dismissive of modern art, because members of the Nazi Party were dismissive of modern art."  I find this sort of commentary (and, my personal favorite, the Variations on the Theme Richard Wagner Can Be Blamed for the Final Solution) especially low and ignorant.

It would be foolish to alter our thoughts and pleasures in any way based on what Adolf Hitler did and didn't like.  Hitler was a vegetarian!  When was the last time a member of PETA was accused of being sympathetic of the Third Reich?

[karlhenning]

It is outrageous how quick many are to throw around "Nazi" these days.

Possibly.  In this case, the use of the term is well advised.

[Wilhelm Richard]

Possibly.  In this case, the use of the term is well advised.

Please explain