The Death of Western Art By Hagar From 1610 to 1678 Gian Lorenzo Bernini produced some of the most incredible works of stone in the world. From the simple "Apollo and Daphne" and the incredible "Throne of St. Peters" to the suggestive "Ecstasy of Saint Therese", Bernini, among many other incredible talents, brought early Europe into a conscious recognition of itself as a unique culture with a tangible Hellenic heritage stretching back to the Greek age. In the centuries to come greater innovations in art, music, and literature would bring Europe and the new world to the forefront of world domination and cultural perfection. In the arts: Tiepollo, Delacroix, Girardon, Boticelli, and Pozzo. In literature: Byron, Shakespeare, and Dickens. In music: Montiverdi,Beethoven, Handel, Vivaldi, Mozart. The obsession with the magestic and heavenly was the all-consuming impetus behind such a remarkable culture. Surely, such an obsession with the utopian was bound to, as in Chantal Delsol's words, cause Icarus to fly too high and burn his wings. Fast forward to 2005. The works of the late Jackson Pollock are paraded about from gallery to gallery throughout America, while Maya Angelou is hailed as the greatest voice of contemporary literature. On the radio the thumping beat of 50 Cent's "P.I.M.P." can still be heard after a naseuting two years on every top ten countdown. In the theaters we are treated to a sequel to The Mask while degenerated college kids in shower shoes and backwards hats drink CoronaTM and watch internet porn. Why the contrast? Dramatic change. We went from a society stultified by superstition, chivalry and profound class division to a world of almost limitless material resources (except gas), freedom, and expression. The values, meanings, and drives behind the archaic western world have been completely eclipsed and in its place lies a cultural dark age where the mundane and depraved are celebrated. History shows that as our civilization nears its end, artistic expression becomes more surrealistic, more meaningless and degenerate. Abstractions become more frequently detached from real symbolism and those abstractions in turn become warped by uncritical perceptions. Take the music of Mars Volta or the online series, Salad Fingers, as gateways into the future of "entertainment"; purely absurd and animalistic, appealing to the primitive human instincts. Egalitarian ideals lend credence to the commonly held assertion that all art is equally appealing, thus equally excellent. All meaning and purpose are equally real, thus equally meaningless and purposeless. What a wasteland we live in, where flashy lights and tribal beats bring us joy, where we act like ADHD crazed kids who move from one tangent to the next without taking a deeper look at what is truly beautiful. Therefore I pose the question: where the hell did the art go? Nature is the purest art and can bring a pleasure no human art can ever immitate. In the ages of old, cultures the world over built their temples and sculpted their gods from the images they found in nature and created those relics that appealed to our strongest aesthetic sensibilities. Modern art focuses on the artificial, the disposable, it was bred from the horrors of two world wars and a liberal revolution that paradoxically removed critical thought from society. When we reject the modern and find ourselves in tune with the harmony of the natural world, when we find ourselves emboldened by the art of our fathers, then we can say we have returned to what is truly beautiful and timeless.
I haven't seen you around, welcome. The issue with today is I think people are too smart, busy, or occupied with information. In earlier times our creative side explodes from age eight to about 16, where it slows down and we become less expressive. In the ninties to the present age we ave been bombarded with too much information due and technology. We are bred to surpress the creative side and use to analytical side more often, I mean kids these days are finishing high school at tender ages like sixteen. You can't compare today with a time when people had to have their pictures drawn instead of taken. Anyway I think there are still a lot of proud art works out there in music, drama, and culture. Check out NY, London, and Paris. Its just modern art is all.
Thank you for welcoming me. What I meant to convey and perhaps did not do such a good job at, is the fact that there is no real appreciation for this art. The closest America comes to such a realization is the Library of Congress, which was built in the 1800s. Your point is correct in that efficiency and numbers are the importance of today. After all, why go out of the way and money to make your cafe look like Versailles? Then again, the declining interest in high culture comes with a decline in education. Have you ever read Closing of the American Mind, by Alan Bloom? The change of time periods is something I pointed out and that is the obvious factor. There is no tradition in this society anymore primarily because we find it trivial and pointless in a lax consumer age. Utility too, the use of photography and computers instead of portraits alters the need for such art.
I'd say there's many modern artists that emulate nature. Look at Van Gough,http://www.vangoghgallery.com/. or Monet, http://webpages.marshall.edu/~smith82/monet.html , or Gauguin,http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/gauguin/. to name but a few artists that lived only a very short while ago. Here's a link that will let you see more of the living artists and what they have done. There's many that use nature as well as humans to produce their works. All you need do is find them. http://www.zeroland.co.nz/living_artists.html
Thank you for the information Cosmic. Van Gogh is not to my liking, I consider him a bit immature. Monet makes excellent usage of lighting to create dream-state imagery.
Art has changed and has evolved since the age of the masters, Many more people to day purchase art of all kinds for all reasons, The Music world is full of art direction, the Movie world to has to consider every second of filming from an artistic prospective. Artists have become universal and make a living from qualifying as artists in all areas of life. I think you have made the mistake of thinking that just because the age of the maters and big names has gone that art has faded away. Start visiting your local art galleries and looking at new work once a month, and even if you don’t, like I say unless you go around with your eyes closed Art is all around you, you cannot go into a shop with out having Art stand out at you. Art has become Movies, Music, Marketing and thousands of people still paint, draw and photograph everything. Town centres are full of Art installations, Sculptures of all kinds. Modern buildings contain an artistic element, what more can I say, open your eyes!
My cruel philosophy is this: if you can't have a minimum artistic standard that everyone conforms to, then people shouldn't even try. People who create pop art do so because they aren't talented enough to make David, people who make pop music do so because they can't make Strauss. That is not to say that your kid shouldn't make drawings or you shouldn't make art for the fun of it, but the aesthetic sensibility of your personal creations should be taken into consideration. The modern and false misconception that pollutes our minds is the 'everyone is an artist' or 'everyone is a musician' philosophy. Even art that serves no purpose must at least be beautiful. For example, I do not adhere to any religion, but I consider the Vatican to be a masterpiece, and so is China's Forbidden City, and Egypt's Pyramids. It sounds that simple, but other than glass art I can't find anything too appealing about most modern art or folk art. You are correct in that film must be considered as a serious art form and that is something I'll have to meditate on. CG can surely be considered art too. But to me it is not enough to just have something beautiful on a movie screen or in a video game, because it betrays the realities of the external world, it is an escapism from the mundane world of billboards. America has never been particularily known for good taste in art, being a patchwork of immigrants from various backgrounds with no real connection to their countries of origin, so I've never really expected too much in in the fine arts arena.
Okay we make an antire bar and hotel out of ice; Iceland's Ice bar and the ice hotel, thats art to me, thats modern art at its very best. I think you' er being too condescending because there is nothing really amazing about ancient art given that we can still reproduce many of them at any given time, even better. A good example is the honorable Mona Lisa and its duplications. I once argued with a friend of mine on why some art is so expensive. I was being naive, he lamented that good art is better appreciated and valued when there is a story behind the artist or time. Since art is pretty much about expression he was right. But that is the beauty of art, it instigates opinions.
Perhaps you have heard of Oswald Spengler. He was an early 20th century German philosopher who proposed in his book Der Untergang des Abendlandes (The Decline of the West) the concept of "civilization life-cycles." All civilizations have a Spring, Summer, Fall, and Winter (the Spring period, obviously, is a civilization's dawn, while the Winter is accordingly its dusk). Panem et circensis (simply put, the rule of fashion and entertainment) is one of the key events preceding a civilization's downfall. During this Winter period, art is reduced to mere fashion and entertainment. Fashion and entertainment rule the masses. I see the Death of Western Art as the precursor to the Death of Western Civilization itself.
Your point about a minimum artistic standard, I would admit that the standard of some shows is less than others, however to show your work is the best way to improve your standard, to stand in the background and listen to comments without people knowing you are the artists is a sure fire way of finding out what you need to do better. You have also made a mistake in thinking that all the work produced by the masters was all of the same level. Most of the pictures on display around the world are an end product of hundreds of paintings and drawings all of the same subject, if they had just looked at the first version and said that the standard was no good enough and dropped the idea, you would have never seen the finished works. All artists have in their personal collections work they are very unhappy with - this includes current work even if you have been painting for 60 years. It is simple to visit art galleries, and as to you comment re only finding glass work as a medium appealing that’s fine, however its your own personal taste and do’s not imply that glass is the only good work out there, Artists work in all kinds of mediums (Metal, Wood, Plastics, ceramic, Textiles and stone) just to name a few. “People who create pop art do so because they aren't talented enough to make David” I just cannot let you get away with this comment; Pop art is a form of design work and as such needs a designers mind behind it. Anyone can go out into a field and set-up to paint or draw and with some hours of practise go home with something ok. However to design works that in the end product work, is an art and a skill. Try it yourself, without looking at any existing Pop art of Modern art of any kind, design something that no one has ever produced before and that the Art world has never been exposed to before, no copying allowed of any kind. That’s what they did, just like punk-rock it was totally new and the world had never seen its likes before. So go on invent a new art form and send me some Jpegs of what you produce!
the whole 'high art' idea that you have o be a 'master' to be able to create 'art' is utter crap crap crap...etc? in my opinion this preumption stifles may peoples sense of creativity. how many times do we hear people shrink from even pickin up a pencil and drawing something with the disclaimer 'i am not an artist'...and how many wont sing, or dance etc cause of this same propaganda? it sucks. this is not to say that there aren't great works of art and shitty pop andso on, but creativity is not only ythe province of patronized 'professional artists'. if so ten nothing new would happen. that is exactly what modern artists rebelled against, hence modern art!...and postmodern art, and street art in many indigenous culturs we dont even get a concept of 'art'--as in belonging to an elite group. most people will be creative......NATURE IS Creativity...IS CreaTION
I cannot argee more, all you have to do is watch your kids and their friends draw and paint, they make sculptures and sing, dance and show all sides of a creative nature. Then they go to school and get education, I think this is were is starts to go wrong, The education system is tuned to results and if they are not the best in the class they think they should not be involved in that area anymore . They compare their work to others and think that this is what its all about, however Art is self expression, it come from within not from what others are doing. They stop being creative, because they think its about getting A* results and doing art as a job or not including it in anyway in their lives. This however is a big mistake as all areas of life need creative minds ( Software development, Marketing, Car design, Garden Landscaping, Internal design, town planning, etc...). Even if they end up not being artists as such, they will never be at the top of any field with out an open creative mind! Its the current Education system thats the problem it hammers into us all that you have to have letters after your name to be something, to even do something. I agree with you totally, people should stop telling themselves they are not this or not that just because they never studied it as a subject. Just start doing something and keep doing it and in no time you will find you can. Find others who do the same thing and learn from them. But above all pay no attention to Individuals who need letters after your name, for they are evil!
I am in no way trying to snuff out the creativity of individuals, but as I clearly stated in my last post, a work must be considered against the whole of art. I for one cannot produce any brilliant art and do not try as such because it is not of my interest or patience. I can draw fairly well but I would not submit it to an art museum because I know it is average. That's just logical sensibility. If they cannot produce quality art then they shouldn't do it. Its just that simple. Its the same as watching a horrible and cheaply made film against a brilliant and entertaining film. You can try to be a good artist, you can practice, you can explore your imagination to an infinite degree, but you must be humble in what you produce, just as I stated above. Like I said, people today truly believe that everyone is some sort of artistic genius and that they should follow it. Its another form of egalitarian foolishness. They rebelled against a lot more than that. They rebelled against the idea that art should have purpose or beauty. They rebellled against the idea that society and culture are meaningful and just. Modern art is the product of two world wars and the social turmoil of the 1960s. Now art is simply another product; lifeless and directionless, as detached from relaity as we are now detached from our western heritage.
This is a bit off topic, but I am a huge Spengler fan, I also enjoyed "The Clash of Civilizations and Remaking of World Order" by Samuel P. Huntington, a more recent book (1999) that poses an inevitable clash between civilizations as idealogies are now a bankrupt source of conflict. I guess I'm a bit of a traditionalist, and even though I am an athiest I agree with the underlying principals behind our Christian culture and the Classical heritage it absorbed. As spengler pointed out, there is a central religious theme around which each civilization rotates: in China it is Confucism, in middle east, Islam, in west, Christianity, etc. There is a treasure trove of knowledge to be uncovered by researching other cultures and civilizations and it is the key to creating a more enlightened society.
I do not agree that art is lifeless and directionless. I have many friends that are artists, in various art forms, and find that the passion and commitment that goes into their various art forms is very inspiring and beautiful. I will offer one example, The Nutcracker" whenever anyone thinks of ballet they think of little girls in tutus dancing in "The Nutcracker" that is not a true representation of ballet. George Balanchine, one of the most influental choreographers in the ballet world decided after he defected from Russia that he would not continue to dance the way he was forced to by his "Western heritage". His works are some of the most beautiful pieces of art I have ever seen. Then again what I percieve as art is probably very different from your perception of art as I spent my formative years surrounded by artists that dedicated themselves to teaching inner city school children. I might also add that part of education I recieved was in the history of my art form which really effected me and allowed me to understand the way the art form has evolved. I disagree as well that the only art available is seen in art musuems, that is very narrow minded in discerning what art is. One artists work should not be compared to anothers, it is insulting to the artist as most art works are highly personal and filled with emotion. The resources for arts in the public school system has declined as "No Child Left Behind" has gained momentum but if you are serious about your childs education you will find alternative schools where art, creative thinking, and independence are taught. My daughter is in a public school which provides everything we are looking for including visual arts, theater, dance, music and creative writing. These are requirements in my mind for a solid and well rounded curriculum. I think part of art education is the parents responsibility, I actively have involved my child in various art forms since she was very young, going to musuems, attending gallery openings, dance performances, theater performances and music venues, this is one of the reasons I believe she is so creative in all aspects of her studies.
You make statements like "a work must be considered against the whole of art" but your have such a limited idea as to the current art world. You have no idea as to the art Market and how active it is. You keep harping back to a time when a handfull of artists worked in Europe and sold pictures to the well off, in those days unless you had connections as an artist you sold nothing as the market for art was so small. Today everyone has pictures in their homes and everyone likes a different artist and type of art. Today Art is for everyone, and as the Market for art has expanded since the dark ages everyone can sell something. Some customers love abstract art, others love Watercolour Landscapes. The world is full of Art clubs with members of different standards, they have a right to paint no matter what. However your would have them stop Nazi! Art has never been closer to the average man in the street and never been more alive, or should we go back to the days when a few lucky artists had their work in selective locations and the rest eat bread and water in order to be active. Today you can enter you work in hundreds of locations around the world, all year round, in doors and out. You can exibit and sell work on the internet and in art mags, you can pay for a street traiding licence and no one can stop you showing your work to shoppers walking by. What realy gets me is that hundreds of artists sell works all over the world and make money from poeple who love their work, Art is alive its you thats died, not art!
There's a large assumption here, that undermines the whole argument - all art which was produced around the time of the mentioned masterpieces was of a similarly high quality. Taking art in its entireity from this period would likely reveal a similar proportion of "low" art to "high" art. The difference is that the high art is more likely to be preserved. Just out of interest - why 1610 onwards? Excluding the Renaissance removes a large number of artists of similar or higher standard than those mentioned.
I feel the key difference is that a working artist loves both high art and, I was going to say low art but thats wrong- A working artist should love all art as it is the live blood of human expression. To define it as good or back is to miss the point. Its the Art dealers and hangers on - to the art world who define some Art has High and go one for ever about a age of Masters, they are the same kind that study Wine instead of just drinking the stuff. If you like the bottle you are drinking you will purchase another bottle, if not you won't. If you need to sound good however, you will go on to others about just how much you understand about wine! For a working artist the key is produce work that sells, nothing else. Find what sells and keep producing it. I don't sell pictures because poeple are impresses about my understanding of art history!
I understand what you are saying but you are off point. I'm not arguing over people's artistic preference and I'm not arguing over the merit of relativism. I'm talking about the decline of high art, which does not include surrealism, dada, pop, or folk art. I don't care about what is in the market now or the fact that I can go to K-Mart and buy a painting for my bathroom wall. I'm trying to encourage interest in high art and that is the point of this essay. Oh, I was just using Bernini to illustrate fine art as a lead-in example. Renaissance art is superb and exemplifies the qualities of the art I am describing. For clarity, check out this web gallery of fine European artists. They are in alphabetical order and pictures of the works are shown: http://www.wga.hu/index1.html
