Grace Happens

Lest I rant indiscriminately, I feel the need to make comment upon the non-ugly, meaningful art made in the last century. Micheal mentioned a few artists (see comments on Feb 23) and I'll deal with them one at a time, starting with Lucian Freud. I must admit a great bias on my part toward figurative art, making Freud an artist of some interest to me. Dealing with my own current concerns, I can't help but admire his luscious use of paint first and foremost. In an age saturated with photographic imagery, there seems a certain necessity to justify and exploit the nature of one's medium, which Freud has certainly done. At the same time, this also causes me to hesitate. There is a terrible self-consciousness to the modern act of creating, as seen in Freud's technique, his composition, the general feeling of his work. There's a need for that "edge" that makes you different from your forebearers (both cronologic and thematic.) Freud doesn't allow one to sit comfortably with his work like the figurative artists of the past. His figures are exploited and vulnerable to the point of making the viewer feel downright itchy in their own skin. I suppose, this is the genius of his work but it leaves me a little sad to see the human body as just so much crumbling flesh. That, of couse, is my fatal flaw - I am too much of a idealist. I want artist to attempt to seek some meaning beyond the form and process of a physical world. I have a lot to think about, I guess. Until tomorrow....
|

Sometimes I really wonder why I ever put up with studio visits when they almost always leave me wishing I had opted for something more enjoyable and enlightening...Like, chewing off my own foot or something. Perhaps, my predominate problem with the modern art world is that there absolutely no rules to go on. If you paint something that gives the appearence of illusionistic space are you suddenly bound by it's rules? What if you deliberately make the depth of field shallow? Shouldn't that be just fine too? Who has the right to tell me otherwise? At this rate, any haphazard mark, mistake, intuitive work, whatever, could be just as valid any intentionally made. If contemporary art is so concerned with process, why should I ever go back and fix anything just because it's not quite right, not quite round and the depth of field is shallow? They can't even prove to me that I didn't do it on purpose. Maybe, it's an internal intention coming out. It's enough to make one find a dark corner to rock back in forth in.
|

I hate modern art. It's terribly unfashionable to say this, I know, but let's be honest - no one else really likes it either. At best, they endure it because it's supposed to be so sophisticated and intelligent. At worst, they simply go along so as to prove themselves sophisticated and intelligent. Maybe, that's the same thing. I, for one, can't stand this Emperor's New Clothes charade any longer.

THE ART IS UGLY AND DOESN'T MEAN A THING.

Meaning and beauty are passe, of course. Only small minded artists make good looking art that actually tries to SAY something. I would like to raise a toast to the "small minded artist." If we can't make the world more beautiful or say something significant, what good are we anyway?

There's so much more to say about this, but I'll save that tirade for another day.
|

I laugh at Sarah for doing this...and here I am. I don't know what's gotten in to me. The internet is definitely one of those things you need to stay away from on a Friday night.
|