Cool. I'll have to check out the other book you mentioned also. And I agree with the other things you said. I am also an atheist, but I respect Christianity and understand its place in our (Western) history. So I am not anti-Christian.
This is the negative, anti-art sentiment I am talking about. You have perfectly illustrated it; the demotic impetus. You would have one produce art simply to sell out, regardless of what it is, how good it is, or its meaning. That is the new democratic ideal: as long as it sells, who cares?
I think the majority of art, from whatever period, was pretty much shit. The majority was stuff done for other people, whether for the masses or tasteless barons, and always centered around what their fathers had done for art. Take Shakespeare. He pandered to the lower class masses while holding back King and Country. And now he's great because he's old, because people before us liked him. Art in the the 1600's wasn't very accessible, if you know what I'm saying. Only a handful of people could really enjoy art, so the artist 'niche', to speak ecologically, was very small. It required very talented individuals to create music of a very limited sort. A limited sort because the number of people supporting the arts were quite small and similar– they were wealthy European nobility. Now to the present century– far more people, far more artistic niches, far greater variety in both types and quality of music. I think you just haven't looked very hard to find good music. Too much music is wrapped up in image, and I blame that largely on MTV. Have you ever watched MTV? Their art, an art of selling things, is incredible. While completely utilitarian and quite ugly, it's utterly fascinating– the quick cuts and rapid tempo and naked flesh. Following that, I think the visual arts are too image based. Take modern art. It's all about the image, about shock value, about making a statement about not making a statement. You know the most impressive art out there? Cave art. Nothing even comes close to how raw that stuff is. Everything else is imitating, too niche based or pandering to idjits.
Do you think classical music was also "pretty much shit"? Do you think great paintings are "pretty much shit"?
Some of it's really really good, a lot of it's quite mediocre shit that was mass spammed for fat, rich Krauts. Great paintings? Like what? The Mona Lisa? Absolute shit.
Rubbish, I and other current artists have to make a living from producing works of art, I both produce my own works and works that people ask me to produce for them both personally and for books etc. I am a working artist not an idealist dreamer. Its a total myth that at sometime in the past this was any different, for hundreds of year the leading artist made money from customers who asked them to produce art for them. Most of the art in Europe for example was produced for the Vatican or the Royal families of the world, or wealthy landowners. Art history is full of example. Only 10% of the High art as you put it, exists for any other reason than this, the artist selling out in someway for work. You are clearly asking for art to be pushed to some kind of Margins and for Artists to die from hunger before they sell anything. In the mean time we will return to planet earth and a life where people have to put food on the table. You may have your house full of prints purchased from the local store, however thousands of people visit art galleries that stock current works or visit local Art fairs and bye an original item of work, hand produced by a local Artist. Again your answer proves you know little about the current world of Art, and you even say you have no interest in it. Do you really for one moment think that the likes of Vincent Van Gogh or Johannes Vermeer would be happy to think they where being used as example to stop the Art world moving on, I think they would collect up all their work and dump it into a fire if they listen to comments like yours – High Art my Ass they produced Art, pure and simple Art. Vincent was a big believer in the development of Art, and he had the same comments made about his own work as current artists do, all his life with everything he produced, it was not until he shot himself anyone starting to praise him. His Brother Theo died soon after him from the loss. Would you like for current artists to go through this same hardship? What I protest strongly about is your attempt to select a small amount of Artists from the past who mostly themselves had a hard time getting people to accept a new style of Art, then using them as a tool to define the current art Market as rubbish or died with no aims, all you are doing is repeating the same cycle for current artists that the artists you place onto a pedestal had to go through. Vermeer was torn to pieces for being the first artist to us a female life model, something not practised at the time for reason of the church. The examples are never ending! PS Again it is you who has been left behind not the world of Art, the funny thing is if the internet existsed years ago someone like you would be making the same posts about Vincents work or the type of work you define as High Art.
You are right in that I know little to nothing about art these days. So any comments I make on modern art are a bit prejudiced. You are also right in that these works were made for a limited aristocratic class. I am not some snob on a high throne, I am a 20yr old in a damn artillery brigade who just happened to stumble upon some fine art and declared to myself that it was the greatest art of all. Thus, whatever I say may be out of the context of historical realities. It was never, however, my point to apply historical and practical realities to my essay. The point, once again, was to encourage a revived interest in high western art. This also applies to other cultures, who are being increasingly blotted out into uniformity by the globalization of the world. Take oriental architecture as an example of what non-western high art involves: http://www.orientalarchitecture.com/ Once again I find heated egalitarians lashing out at any sense of superiority or refinement. People these days don't want the best, they just want something that will appeal to large groups of people (mostly just to shock, offend or confuse them). They cannot stand elitist points of view, they cannot stand concepts of good or bad, true or false. One of you went so far as to call me a Nazi! That is the type of idiocy I encounter every time I propose that one thing is better than another.
Now you are talking at a level I understand,Thanksyou! Your problem is as I have been implying all along, everything is just black and white to you at the moment(High art or the worst examples of Modern art at its lowest ), however There are thousands of Artists working today that work from 8 in the morning until 2am alone in a studio in order to develope skills that take a life time to develop. This is my point it is the work of these artists you need to go and see, have a look at this site http://wwar.com/, you may not like all the work but it contains the colections of hundreds of working artists. You have to understand that some of the art schools and Uni's around to world produce artists that have no skills of that I agree, however they have all the contacts because of the type of person they are. They however are used by people who know that their work is bad, but that it will get the headlines and thus provide good marketing, this go's on all the time. It damages the industry of Art no end but makes fast money for the promations people involved. However this is not art, empty rooms or the clissic bricks, it is promotion. It is far to simple however to just skip the vast middle ground between the High art you talk of and the crap you see in the papers. I go and see wonderfull works all the time by current artists with no name as yet, this work is of just the same quality as 300 years ago. Gottfried Helnwein for example http://www.helnwein.com/werke/landscapes/tafel_1.html These works are 500cm (5 meters x 1 Meter) long and blow your mind away, I spend the day in Cork last summer writing an essay on the work, if you love art you will love this work. I have been in these Lanscapes ever since!
No, music these days is just about the opposite of this. It's all about obscurity and independent record labels and not selling out.
Ericc and Roman, the style and atmosphere of art reflects the religious/social/political thought and events of the time. During a civilization's "Spring" art has the deepest meaning. In this period, art has a deep religious theme. During a civilization's "Winter" art has the least meaning. It doesn't matter if you argue that today's art is still practiced by talented artists (I agree with you on this). The fact is, art does not have the "meaning" it once did. Today there are numerous art forms, moods, and atmospheres. Mainstream art has been reduced to mere fashion and entertainment (American Idol is just one of a million examples). That is the problem with "art" of our time. Hagar has already said this, but you don't seem to understand. Would you agree that art is fashion and entertainment, today? Would you agree that art is an extremely diverse field? Would you agree that art has little meaning today as a whole?
This artist is very impressive. It is almost difficult to believe he actually drew this because they are photo quality. Thank you for showing me. You hit the nail right on the head. This is the most obvious point that they fail to see. To me it is irrelevant as to who is underground or who is mainstream. If it is not a product of quality, it is garbage. I have listened to a fair number of genres in my time, even death metal, but in the end all of it seemed meaningless compared to Bach or Handel. There comes a point when someone grows up and is able to distinguish what is timeless and true from what is temporary.
Oh, so your using bad arguments. How intellectually honest. HIgh art? I can point you to some bloody good music. I'm not sure if you could appreciate it, though, as you seem to be stuck in about four centuries prior.
LOL put it this way...if Shakespare watches the matrix movie his jaw will drop. In fact he will abandon his works and head to the DVD section at walmart.
Speaking of The Matrix, some of Rob Dougan's pieces are phenomenal. Clubbed to Death comes immediately to mind.
LOL put it this way... If Shakespeare read your post, he'd think you're an idiot. Your post has no relevancy to this discussion and it's just plain stupid.
