from 2009I read the whole thing; it gives a lot of clarity in the unfathomable lack of art in contemporary art. I've spent my life resenting the reality that what I wanted to do as an artist was so fundamentally different from what was acceptable in the art world I think I'd have committed slow suicide by drugs or liquor if I didn't at least have commercial art as a creative outlet. I actually can see the reasons for the Us Vs. Them mentality of it all. When you begin to understand the inexplicable, you can find a foothold to oppose it with logic rather than emotional dismissal.
http://www.leopoldsegedin.com/essay_detail_art_world_today.cfm
13 Comments:
I vigorously disagree. While many isms and sects have popped up in the vacuity created by the art academies, the lap dogs of their patron masters, it is the desire of the rich to defang and neuter art as a threat to the status quo that has destroyed art in the "fine" art world. Fine art was always for the rich, to give them the sense of power and control, false though it is, they so desire.My Imperial Clothing essay is far closer to the truth, this is blaming a small over reaction to real and perceived threats as the cause, when it is but A symptom.
art collegia delenda est
Well any transition in history is multi- layered. The rich adapt to the situation that works for them, it doesn't mean there there not some insight in this article to the false rational pushed by conceptual artists. The aging revolutionaries are now the ones in fashion, but not in real power. It's the same straw dog arguments presented by political parties, all parties are the same; front men for the real power. Arguments to distract us from noticing the man behind the curtain.
Baaad art staarted before feminisn, it is the result of modernism haaveiing won agaisnt teh academicf wishes by being on the side that won WWII, and then beiign pushed by teh CIA as superior to the communist way. Art schools opened in drove in teh 50s aand twisted its best work into mediocre theoriess adn dogmas. By 1960 wwaaves of ignorant children with bougth degrees wwere watering down art into illustrations of their class masters thesis. Hard edge and minimalism were slivers of truth, and presented as new when just a crumb of the loaf of art. It was always there, they were so blind adnd ambitious as to present it as gourmet.
Art became ways to profit as the artworld became about investment, and partying. It became a mutant monster, and isms and - were everywhere, including feminism. It is but a by product, not the cause.
This guy obviously has issues with women I love em, and they love me. My mother was a commercial artists who went to school with Irving Penn, and her rich artsy friends were flakes. But she wasnt and never got paid equally with the men in her field. The supposedly liberal artsy fartsys were jsut as greedy and self absorbed as everyone else, jsut pretentious. I support women rights, but also know feminism often went too far, it became all theory and denied the obvious reality of human development. Men and women are built different for reasons. But that is NOT the cause of bad art, the neutering of art by its patrons for its own purposes, they want lap dogs not guard dogs, is.
Damn hyper senssitive keyboaard
no one thing is the cause, but I think it fits into your timeline...
The true culprit is when the art schools started taeching the heresy that art is about "self expression". I NEVER do anythng about my "tender" sensitivities, it is an exploration through the world i live in of course, but looking for what makes us human and connected. It is NOT about me. Who I am is irrelevant, this fixation on life stories to consume an artist and so KNOW them, to OWN them is behind the problem. The rich want to live the lives of others, it is about THEM.
Art has become therapy.It is now for whiny children, when real children use art to explore the world around them, it inevitably leads to unending adolescence, a Look at me! culture. Which has now consumed us as we consume Everything. We have been trained, in a Pavlovian way to be cattle. And art went along as much as anything else.
I think art is self- expression; it’s just that few express themselves well. Where they went wrong in art school was telling them self- expression means skipping over the learning how to draw and paint part. If you don’t have a good toolbox of seasoned skills that allows you to be uniquely personal in your work, you’re going to express yourself badly.
Damn, had a great long reply that wasnt accepted damn verifcation crap.Gotta run, but I NEVER seek to express myself, adn cant think of a single great artist whose work has survived who ever did. Current ones in fancy yeah, but theya lways end up in the trash, therapy ego driven vanities is not art
You can be happy now that Oprah is gone, we hope. The face of antimasculine feminism, she really doesnt like men unless castrated like poor Steadman. My wifes magazine is to repalce it, the younger women dont like Opie anyway. She has a Real Women love Men column and i have written about what men really want in a woman, not the fashion gay/angry battleaxe consortium that runs Cosmo and other rags.
Men are becoming softer, artists are workers and women need men to do and make things not ass sitting metrosexuals. Women are frustrated too. Society is going more towards information, and women are better at that, and schooling. Men need to use our bodies its the animal that we are. We are evolved, not seperate from the beasts and very similar still. We arent that evolved, those who think so are the most tied to their own animal instincts, gotta recognize them to rise above when keeping one back, and embracing them when envigorating, like sex. And sports, i have coached many kids to college, and even the Pros with Landry Fields. Russell Westbrook played with my younger sons HS travel team.
Women havent emasculated men, society has, especialy thsoeos who seek to keep us docile and supporting the status quo, cutting taxes for the rich while we make less and less. The patrons of thearts included, THOSE are the enemies. Divide and rule, Fox and friends are doing a great job of that. Artists must be independent, someone has to see with no vested interest, not chasing papa Broad for crumbs, scrooge doesnt give crumbs.
Looks like this has become the default DF forum. I think you and I made the Times quit blogging.
Yeah, i tried a couple of times, and showed up once after i commented about its only being seen when actually logged into facebook. I told Sande Cohen about it, but he said you could when through google but cant figure out to do that as it is not given as an option. I always let him know when his ex student Pagle posts, he cant stand the Times after teaching for 30 years at UCLA and CalArts. Agrees with me but from a philosophical/critical thining standpoint. Dont think he even likes art, hard to tell.
Dont worry, its your blog. Tearing em up on ArtInfo actually, they are adding new bloggers and Poundstone's LACMonfire always posts me, and others usually do. Kaufman's InView attacked MANs effette and arrogant tyler green(practically CKs brother or lover) worse than i did, and i got banned like from Winklemans. Kaufman now a facebook pal, as is Sande.
It is all yours, but i agree totally with Cezanne, art is an emotion caught and communicated through a motif, but is about the world we live in, mind body and soul, not the individuals tender feelings. Artists dont matter, art does. It has a roll in life, We are the same as bakers or soldiers or farmers, necessary but no more nor less than others, but do have a job to do. Creating the mytholgies that unite us through the highest common denominator.
as always, art collegia delenda est! Off to work.
My note to Charles Knight:
Dear Mr. Knight,
It's a shame you guys had to move out of the house to get rid of a few mice. I know it wasn't just me and Donald... the right wing spam across the board was annoying, but I have to say it feels like you ran away rather than staying and fighting for your neighborhood and beliefs. Freedom of speech isn't easy to support when if fly's in your face, but dealing with it head on the right thing to do.
The facebook thing is such a transparent form of one-way promotion it's going to make my skin crawl to be part of it so I guess you guys won. This reminds me of the moving the protesters where you can’t here them, you say they have the right to dissent, but so much better when the people are blocks away... All I can hope for is your blog page hits go down, less readers, less revenue. I'll miss your reviews.
William Wray --
http://williamwray.blogspot.com/
http://williamwray.com/
William Wray --
http://williamwray.blogspot.com/
http://williamwray.com/
Bill,
I grew up one house away from Leo Segedin. Seeing his home full of work and his dedication to painting is one of my main inspirations for becoming an artist.
As to Mr.Frazell's statement "This guy obviously has issues with women", it seems quite hilarious given that you are discussing an essay about the negative effects of politically correct thinking. Segedin doesn't attack feminism (or women) in the essay, but cites the deleterious effects of its political agenda on painting and the means to make comparative critical judgments about art.
Donald's is a little like me, he speed reads reads with an agenda.
Post a Comment
<< Home