This is simultaneously incredibly impressive and annoyingly uncanny valley, since most of the landscapes are "ruined" by a cluster of churches right next to each other that is completely nonsensical.
I think Evening Tide, Barge off the Marsh looks really interesting because there is a jaggedness to the edges that is interesting to my taste.
What is the reason for a Burroughs cutup? One could argue almost the entire 20th century of art was a reaction against the idea of artistic choice you are referring to.
It is very strange to me too because when I actually lived in the 20th century, the idea of algorithmic music composition was considered the outer heights of serious artistic musical expression.
I did not expect the generations 25 years later to have an artistic taste that seems to have regressed to a type of pre-impressionism sensibility. The way Monet's critics considered his art a lesser form of wallpaper compared to the "old masters".
It is really one of the most disappointing developments because it is not like we have this cultural obsession with some neo-Rembrandt movement.
It is the cultural triumph of the art critic who produces nothing beyond critique.
I'm a painter. I work hard to learn to control paint to represent things I want to. I have given up career opportunities so I'd have more time in my life for it. I was in the DIA last night holding one of my sketches in my hand and comparing my mark making to Winslow Homer's, searching for clues on how he achieved them. I really care about making paintings.
To me, lots of 20th century art 'developments' really seem to boil down to using pseudo-visual-philosophy to justify laziness about technique. I think it's cool that we've arrived at a place where it's ok to put cool chapes on a wall and enjoy it! Rothko's color fields are good cool shapes. But these same developments meant the art schools my teachers went to did not teach them strong fundamentals that were considered par for earlier generations. Acquiring the skills my soul aches for has been infinitely harder than it should have been.
Additionally, painters who work like Rothko are truly expressing so very little. It requires mental gymnastics to see it as something other than wildly derivative and barely expressive. The art is no longer the piece but the required-reading artist statement. I know a lot of people who love this kind of stuff, all the intellectualism about it. Good for them. But I think this type of 'art' has reached its peak and young people now want paintings that explain themselves. Rule of thumb: if reading something or receiving an explanation is necessary to appreciate a painting, it kinda sucks.
There are some people who actually think we should just make Rembrandts again, and I agree it's boring. But understanding how he made those paintings so we can learn and apply those skills to make new paintings that we want to make, to express things about what we experience in our lives that's actually exciting. And the establishment art-thought is that this isn't art anymore, painting things you see is 'low' and unoriginal. I couldn't care less about being an 'artist'. I just like making paintings and looking at paintings. And the ones that conceptually pat themselves on the back for not being very good paintings are typically very uninteresting to look at.
cronin101 · · focus · HN ↗
bel8 · · focus · HN ↗
usef- · · focus · HN ↗
lutanista · · focus · HN ↗
I think Evening Tide, Barge off the Marsh looks really interesting because there is a jaggedness to the edges that is interesting to my taste.
What is the reason for a Burroughs cutup? One could argue almost the entire 20th century of art was a reaction against the idea of artistic choice you are referring to.
It is very strange to me too because when I actually lived in the 20th century, the idea of algorithmic music composition was considered the outer heights of serious artistic musical expression.
I did not expect the generations 25 years later to have an artistic taste that seems to have regressed to a type of pre-impressionism sensibility. The way Monet's critics considered his art a lesser form of wallpaper compared to the "old masters".
It is really one of the most disappointing developments because it is not like we have this cultural obsession with some neo-Rembrandt movement.
It is the cultural triumph of the art critic who produces nothing beyond critique.
sm-silversight · · focus · HN ↗
To me, lots of 20th century art 'developments' really seem to boil down to using pseudo-visual-philosophy to justify laziness about technique. I think it's cool that we've arrived at a place where it's ok to put cool chapes on a wall and enjoy it! Rothko's color fields are good cool shapes. But these same developments meant the art schools my teachers went to did not teach them strong fundamentals that were considered par for earlier generations. Acquiring the skills my soul aches for has been infinitely harder than it should have been.
Additionally, painters who work like Rothko are truly expressing so very little. It requires mental gymnastics to see it as something other than wildly derivative and barely expressive. The art is no longer the piece but the required-reading artist statement. I know a lot of people who love this kind of stuff, all the intellectualism about it. Good for them. But I think this type of 'art' has reached its peak and young people now want paintings that explain themselves. Rule of thumb: if reading something or receiving an explanation is necessary to appreciate a painting, it kinda sucks.
There are some people who actually think we should just make Rembrandts again, and I agree it's boring. But understanding how he made those paintings so we can learn and apply those skills to make new paintings that we want to make, to express things about what we experience in our lives that's actually exciting. And the establishment art-thought is that this isn't art anymore, painting things you see is 'low' and unoriginal. I couldn't care less about being an 'artist'. I just like making paintings and looking at paintings. And the ones that conceptually pat themselves on the back for not being very good paintings are typically very uninteresting to look at.