One conclusion I took from reading Robert Hughes's The Shock of the New is that avant-garde envelope pushing is not a sustainable phenomenon. The period from the late nineteenth century to the middle twentieth saw a lot of bold art movements, starting with Impressionism and winding up with Abstract Expressionism, with Pop Art being a kind of denouement. This was something of a result of historical circumstances. You had a conservative art establishment at the beginning, sure to take scandalous notice of Impressionist and Post-Impressionist innovations. At the same time it was an artistically literate crowd. The fact that the Bourbons' collections had been made public after the French Revolution helped a lot here.
The art world wasn't as innocent as all that for long, but there was still enough pent-up energy to sustain itself for 80-100 years. But that couldn't go on forever. Successive generations couldn't have the same impact, even if they had brilliant artists among them, because it was already understood that they were free to do anything.
The above picture is by a young painter (born 1993) named Louis Fratino. It made enough of an impression on me that I looked him up. His Wiki page says that he's part of something called "New Queer Intimism" which is "a contemporary art movement inspired by the immediacy and colorwork of Impressionism paired with the intimacy of everyday queer life." And I like some of what I've seen of his painting, but...Fernand Leger and Henri Matisse would have been about as shocked by his style as by his being gay, which is to say not at all.
Which is to say that this "New Queer Intimism" has some talented people associated with it, but the term is by definition tied to aspects of identity more than the process or intent of the work itself. With or without labels, the most rewarded artists of our time have gone all the way back to being Neoclassical. Not, as Jerry and George would say, that there's anything wrong with that.
2 comments:
I see by the title that this book is about very modern art history rather than an overall view of art, a huge subject to tackle but one worth considering in view of the fact modern art is essentially a product of contemporary society. By that I mean it's become less and less meaningful to ordinary people with every passing year.
Of course we don't usually think about how art originally came to public attention. For the most part paintings, sculpture, and stained glass works were meant to be either inspirational or to instill awe in mostly illiterate viewers. So the venues were churches for the most part while palaces, opera houses, and associated museums were frequented by the very rich, who were also the sponsors of the artists.
Louis Fratino's painting is interesting enough in itself but I balk at the name of the movement: 'New Queer Intimism'. No wonder you noticed Fernand Leger and Henri Matisse would have been about as shocked by his style as by his being gay, which is to say not at all. It's a little too narcissistic to be taken seriously by the world at large. If the most rewarded artists have gone back to Neoclassicism it's because people relate to the subjects.
It makes me happy to look at the work of Juliet Aristides and Robert Armetta, Cesar Santos, and others of the 'New Classical' school. Art evolves as do the artists who practice their craft with skill and attention.
Jer asks: Has anybody ever seen Robert Hughes and Albert Finney in the same room?
The history of art in toto goes so far back it's almost as old as bipedalism, so any book tackling it has to limit itself. In Hughes's case that's by focusing on the period roughly 188-1980. Creation and appreciation of art are an inherent part of us, but that's been something of a blocked impulse of late. Lot of those going around.
It is good that churches be beautiful. That's something that more extreme Protestant crusaders have wrongly opposed, while technocrats and activists also seem not to appreciate it. In the old days the aristocrats and robber barons would pay to have beautiful things built and made, although I'm sure they assumed that appreciation of such was beyond the hoi polloi. Now their equivalents have abandoned any kind of cultural ennobling altogether, at least as far as anyone can tell.
"New Queer Intimism" also sounds like something a committee dreamed up, perhaps with the help of a consultant. Artists with talent and vision should probably steer clear of this kind of jargon-fest. If you're going to be a narcissist you're better off being your own narcissist.
Hadn't heard of the New Classical school as such but I can believe that it exists and that it has raised some interest. I like what I see of Aristides, especially her still lifes.
The resemblance between Hughes and Finney is so uncanny I can't believe I never thought of it before. Sharp!
Post a Comment