Lots of contemporary art is not received well by a public that has become suspicious of the hype that substitutes for talent in our galleries today, and rightly so. But that same scrutiny suddenly disappears when the art is old and featured in a touristy European Capitol or other hallowed museum wings.
Anyone can look at street art, expressionism or an abstract painting and cluck "my kid could do that", but most people are too infatuated with some delusional notion of history to inspect an allegedly "great" old work and understand that their kid could take three lessons, pay attention in two of them and ALSO "do that" ... despite you flying all the way to Europe for bad espresso and a one hour wait to buy a forty dollar ticket to gaze at the wonders of name brand mediocrity hailed as timeless genius. The only thing timeless are the tourists...
|
ThinkArtWorks said on 11 Friday 2011 pm28 10:36 pm: I went to a traveling Impressionist art show that was held in a small Canadian city. The hype around the show was overwhelming. The atmosphere in the galleries was worshipful and hushed. I was greatly anticipating the show until I saw the work in person. These were truly bad paintings done by exceedingly famous Impressionist artists. I excitedly began critiquing the paintings for my friends and the security guard quickly walked over and told me to get away from the paintings. I suppose they wanted quiet and unquestioning admiration more than they wanted a lively discussion. |
Post a Comment
|
Master
Disaster
|
If you enjoyed this (and especially if you hated this), check out Mat Gleason's magazine, Coagula Art Journal at Coagula.net and his new CoaguL.A.radio - internet art world radio - and daily art world blog at Coagula.com if you dare.
Follow Mat Gleason on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CoagulaMagazine
|
In answer to your demands here, nothing i could tell you about myself would ever get your seal of approval. Maybe just don't read things that are on a different level than your rigid need for qualifications and footnotes.
That, or find something meaningful to say.
It wasn't you.
But the condemnation is way out of line.
And, the manner in which the condemnation is presented is also out of line. Why not mock Jefferson for riding a horse and buggy? It would be the same thing.
The people he attacks (not critiques) were the cutting edge of art. Whether Giotto, or cave drawings were first isn't the point. Rather, did they make the distance? Do we see and appreciate them, today?
I'm sorry Mr. Gleason doesn't like to go to church on Sunday mornings.
However, there are tours available for those who want to bask in the beautiful blue windows of St. Stephan's Cathedral. Tours are also available to see Peace, at the UN, another of Chagall's works.
Tuesdays are free at Chicago Art Institute where you can see Turner, Delacroix, Monet, Van Gogh, Seurat, and any of hundreds of wonderful works of art.
But, bludgeoning masters of a millennium ago is outrageous, and quite short sighted.
Perhaps the critic should have stuck with painting instead of quitting so soon?
After all...the great artists of the past did just that. And look what they accomplished.
(I doubt if my luck would bring about a free pass twice, so, if you're interested, just scroll down a bit till you find it. I'm guessing that at least two moderators were itching to erase it...but, it was all in the reply, and not a true statement about global warming, the holocaust, or womens rights)
A different perspective is good. Even better than homogenization.
But Gleason goes beyond critique in his condemnations.
For example, "an inventor was in the service of helping a land baron kill people and few if any of his inventions worked anyway," He helped nobody with his inventions except future generations.
The "failed" inventions? Helicopter, airplane, tank, parachute. Funny how those items played in the twentieth century, yes? uh...and i think they are ALL real. And even more, the designer, Gustave Whitehead, made his airplane almost right off the design of Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci, or, as Mat calls him, LEO of Venice. (a total lack of respect)
Mat slams the master painter for a wall that saw more wars than the US has been in, and painted without instruction, as there were NO guidelines for such, then, overlooks the subtleties of Leonardo's works (for example, The Virgin) in an attempt to sound intelligent, and, by his own words, failed at that, too.