“We still hear some talk of ‘art for art’s sake.” The expression is
about as sensible as
‘beefsteak for beefsteak’s sake.’ The artist who
falls back upon any such refuge in
explanation of poor work might just
as well be shown the door.”
Haha! Love it. In undergrad Drawing class, I heard it this way from Leon Parson: "If it don't communicate, it ain't art. Any fool can make a mark." Please don't misunderstand my sharing these quotes- I can appreciate a piece of art that is completely abstract or non-representational, provided it is well- thought out and designed. The idea I find ridiculous is that an artwork can exist without a purpose. If you create an artwork to prove that art doesn't have to have a purpose, then you've disproved yourself already by having a purpose to your puposelessness. If you're one of those people who doesn't believe in absolute truth, or accidentally mistakes a toilet for a museum-worthy sculpture, then please pardon my post and go on back to your curious life. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, then please read on. Early in America's history, American artists produced some widely-acclaimed and impressive artworks, from John Singleton Copley to pieces painted by artists of the Hudson river School. Beginning seriously before and around the start of the 20th century, a counter-culture movement began in the art field worldwide. "Artists" started springing up who claimed that anything could be art, that nothing was art, that everything was art. They encouraged the profane, the hideous, the vulgar, the nonexistent. They put random utilitarian objects in fine art shows as art, and convinced the public to the extent that viewers walked around oohhing and aahhing at urinals and bicycle handlebars while the great paintings and sculptures behind them went unnoticed. This movement spread, and those who subscribed to it decided that any artwork bearing the resemblance of reality was definitely not art. This, of course, included illustration in all its forms, from a portrait of a Quaker on an oatmeal box, to an expertly designed painting in the book Treasure Island. Not only the illustrators were ostracized, though. Any painter who gained the skill to be able to paint a likeness of anything realistic and then actually had the gumption to use that skill was immediately blacklisted. By that I mean, excluded from art shows, slandered, denied recognition and reward, etc. But the traditional skills of painting and design survived, albeit "underground" until a new counter-culture movement sprang up. (Artists like John Singer Sargent and later the western artists were among those who ignored the rejection of reality and meaning in art). This movement has grown increasingly in the past few decades to encourage the "renewal" and "preservation" of representational art. Some of the main centers for this movement are in Scottsdale, Arizona, and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and areas of California where collectors seeking representational art go to pay sometimes over a million dollars for a realistic contemporary masterpiece. Pockets of interest in representational art are thriving throughout the country. There you have my biased, non-politically-correct, narrow and condensed version of Art History in America.
2 comments:
In a way I'm thankful for all the "art for art's sake" people that pushed ridiculous boundaries and threw representationalism out the window, they've made "good artists" a rare thing in our day. Thus allowing artists with excellent traditional training be able to stand out all the more. ;) Good art will always speak for itself. As C.S. Lewis once said, those who strive to be original never will be, whereas those who simply try to tell the truth, no matter how many times it has been told before, will become original without even trying. ;)
Well said, Jenedy!
Post a Comment