Detail from Salvador Dali's Persistence of Memory
In viewing a Mark Rothko, a Picasso, a Dali or a Pollock, I get excited. Those paintings and others like them enflame my passions the way that Charles Ponzi, Kenneth Lay and Bernie Maddoff do. I don't blame the artists--too much--as most were handpicked by unscrupulous art dealers and art historians who, come to find out, gain money and fame for discovering the next great talent, whether or not the artist has any.
I see an analogy with forgery. The Forger's Spell is a nonfiction narrative about a pre-World War II art forger who passed off his insipid and uninspired and demeaning works as those of Johannes Vermeer. The forgeries were supposedly so good that they fooled art experts and Herman Goering, the Nazi art collector. They should have fooled nobody. Take a look at a couple of the forgeries next to an actual painting by Vermeer:
Vermeer masterpeice entitled, Girl with a Pearl Earring
Forgery
Forgery
Do you notice a difference? These obvious fakes fooled much of the art world, and Goering traded 168--some say as many as 200--other paintings for the forgery on the bottom.
I see much of, perhaps most, Modern Art as being as cynical as forgery. A big fuck you to life and, sin of all sins in my eyes, an intentional debasement of artists like Carravagio, da Vinci, Vermeer, Rembrandt and others who could draw. I believe that Art is subjective, but I also believe that we should demand more from our Art. Has beauty and truth no place in Art today? Look at the oil on wood painting below by Joachim Bueckelaer. It is astonishing! Buechkelaer lived almost five hundred years ago (1530-1573) and, yet, managed to produce the most amazing art.
And it's not as if everything has been painted. As a matter of provable fact, before 1914, only three things had ever been painted: Jesus and friends, Saint George and the Dragon, and apples. Lots of apples. Knowing that there is still much of the world to discover through painting, why are we not discovering it?
Take this portrait by John Singer Sargent. After admiring the artistry, I am captivated by the story told by this young woman, who directly challenged the world with her gaze into the artist's "camera." What is her story? What became of her? When I view modern art, the most I can feel is pity for the artists and for us.
This oil on canvas by Eva Roos is called "An Impromptu Ball." Aren't you drawn to the movement and life in this painting? What happened to life in paintings?
I see Modern Art as a huge time-waster, creating opportunity costs that are incalcuable. What masterpieces are we missing out on right now? We can stop it. We can stop buying. We can stop praising. We can ask for better. The one-hundred-year-long protest by the art world must stop. At the time the protests began, they had meaning. There were wars to protest. Turning away from the church's influence on Art was important. The money that became involved in the acquisition of Art, starting with the robber-baron American collectors. Yes, the protest was important, but let's do something constructive for a time, why not?
More than 500 years ago, Hugo van der Goes painted the creepiest painting that will ever be painted. His "The Fall of Man" remains unchallenged. Why is that?
I don't believe that the story in the painting below is true, but a lot of people at that time did, and the beautiful rendering of suffering and anguish must have touched the hearts and minds of everyone who saw it. Whether it is the loss of a loved one or the loss of Paradise, the emotions depicted are universal. This is detail from a fresco at the Brancacci Chapel in Florence, Italy. It was painted about 600 years ago, and it blows me away.
Again, the painting below is another depiction of a story that I don't believe, and perhaps the tears in the eyes of the angel are a bit maudlin; the pain beautifully depicted on her face is enough--and the christ figure is too arayan in features and complexion--but the emotions transcend criticism. Remove the wings and the telltale wounds, and this could be Gettysburg or a hospital bed down the street from you. Even the landscape in the background is evocative, as a tree is cut down in its prime, and the upper vault of the sky is painted a heavenly blue. Antonello da Messina created this almost 550 years ago.
This may be my favorite painting for many reasons but principally because of the right hand of the man stage left of the christ figure. I adore and hate that hand. It is gigantic in proportion to everything else in the painting, but it was obviously painted that way to depict motion, which is otherwise impossible to do with a painting. The hand is even a little blurry to show the movement. Everything else in the frame is in ridiculously sharp focus, showing the miraculous talent of Caravaggio. The still life is exquisite, and the emotions displayed by the participants immaculately conceived. I do think the christ figure is a little too Italian in feature and gesture, but maybe that's why I like this particular Jesus. He is the chubby young Michael Corleone of the biblical world.
Do you see a pattern in these paintings? They depicted stories from the bible, which was something shared by everyone in that society. The great mass of people could relate to these pictures, not just because of the talent depicted, but because of the story and the emotions and the clear love of expression. This, in a nutshell, is my biggest problem with Modern Art: Only a very few can relate to it. When you have the talent to unlock the emotions of millions, why settle for thousands?
Comedy and drama and emotions and talent are on display in the painting below. The young lady has obviously refused the arrangements made by others for her future. The faces of the participants are priceless! The look of rejection on the face of the scorned suitor (and his dog), the conciliatory nature of the father, the laughing visage of the brother or cousin (or other potential suitor?) peeking through the door, and the deadly look of determination from mother. This painting is a book. It was done about 200 years ago.
Charles Darwin proved that just because something has evolved doesn't mean it is here to stay for very long. Most of the branches in the evolutionary tree bore fruit for only a couple of generations, then died out. At the time, they were the peaks of evolution, but they were not well-enough suited to remain with us for long. The impressionists are as deep into Modern Art as it should go before dying off, and Mary Cassatt made a magnificent job of her talents. Is this painting not fetching?
Both of my sisters have joined the debate, with one providing her written words on the subject immediately below; the other sat me down and gave me a lesson in comparative art, explaining the nuances involved in a particular piece of Modern Art and comparing it to a more realistic painting. I still disagree with my sisters--although I respect and value their opinions as they are both true artists. Below is the response from one of them:
|