Is this the best painting in the world? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And is this the best sculpture? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Or do we think they are because everyone tells us so? Is the term Masterpiece just a glib term that elitists use to exclude others. Yes they are very nice, but are we judging them more on what they represent then what the actually are. Let me do a little remodeling: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Are they still masterpieces?
NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR (and coincidentally also the Moderator of Arts & Culture) Masterpiece (excerpted from Dictionary.com as relevant to this discussion): 1. An artist's greatest work 2. A consummate example of skill and/or excellence Both of these pieces qualify under both definitions. They do not have to be the best pieces of art in their medium. Just much more than "very good."
"Masterpiece (or chef d'œuvre) in modern usage refers to a creation that has been given much critical praise, especially one that is considered the greatest work of a person's career or to a work of outstanding creativity, skill or workmanship. Originally, the term masterpiece referred to a piece of work produced by an apprentice or journeyman aspiring to become a master craftsman in the old European guild system. His fitness to qualify for guild membership was judged partially by the Masterpiece, and if he was successful, it was retained by the guild." That's the definition in Wikipedia, which also has pictures of the Mona Lisa and David, notably both of these artist were Renaissance Italians. So the yardstick by which all other visual art is measured originates in 15th–16th centuries, in Italy. What I’m suggesting is that the Mona Lisa and David represent the birth of a concept of humanism they are the works of individuals. The first “Artist as Super Hero’s”. If you doubt this assertion just ask anyone who is not an art aficionado if they can name an artist who was famous from a time before Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo? The very word Masterpiece I.e. the best that can be produced by a master reeks of humanism the artist becomes the focus, not the church or the body politic. So now coming to the subject matter, forget who the artist was and forget their symbolic connection to humanism and look at them as objects. David: “In the High Renaissance, contrapposto poses were thought of as a distinctive feature of antique sculpture. The figure stands with one leg holding its full weight and the other leg relaxed. This classic pose causes the figure’s hips and shoulders to rest at opposite angles, giving a slight s-curve to the entire torso. In addition, the statue faces to the left while the left arm leans on his left shoulder with his sling flung down behind his back. Michelangelo’s David has become one of the most recognized pieces of Renaissance Sculpture, becoming a symbol of both strength and youthful human beauty.” “The proportions are not quite true to the human form; the head and upper body are somewhat larger than the proportions of the lower body. The hands are also larger than would be in regular proportions.” So lets say that the fat version of David was also done Michelangelo and had all the so called humanist connections does the fact that it no longer represents youthful beauty demote it from being a masterpiece basically I’m saying I can something that’s not attractive be a masterpiece? Is it about the skill involved or the artists touch or because it satisfies an inner need in the viewer.
The period loosely delineated by the Reformation, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment could arguably be defined as a Paradigm Shift, in a class with the Agricultural Revolution, the Dawn of Civilization, the Bronze Age, the Industrial Revolution and the Age of Electronics. By loosening the stranglehold of Christianity it caused a fundamental change in the way humans lived. If it fails to qualify it's only because it was limited to Europe and there are still many places where it hasn't happened yet. One of the technological advances it made possible was better paint. Paintings from earlier eras are rare so we're not familiar with the artists. In addition, Christianity was the only motif that was allowed to guide the art of the Dark Ages, so we are easily bored by it. We do have museums full of sculptures and ceramics from the Classical period in Europe and Egypt, as well as works from our species' other four civilizations (India, China, Inca and Olmec/Maya/Aztec) but the names of their creators are lost in the mists of time. Homo sapiens is a social species and art is one of the ways we communicate with each other. No matter how much creativity, skill, insight into the human condition, etc., goes into a work, if nobody considers it worth a second look (read, listen, watch, or whatever), it's not art. Certainly not great art, anyway.
Yes I actually thought of Guernica when I was writing my last posting, I the like the painting pictorially even though the subject matter is unpleasant its still a nice graphic work of art. And it does fill a inner human need even if that is a cry of anguish. Piccasso did some great work and also a lot of overrated rubbish. That is one of his great paintings.
