I generally agree with your takes Astral, but the conversation on painting and art seemed unhinged, missing so much of the history of modern art, and missing the perspective of a painter who might explain why Picasso and some of the later movements were so important and interesting.
The idea that painting should be judged on how they "represent reality" is very very limited. "photorealism" is just one thing that painting can do, but painting should be framed in the larger context of image creation which includes drawing, graphic design, etc. and can be about representation, yes, but also expression of emotion, transmission of emotion (i.e. how an image interacts with our perception and makes us feel), transmission of ideas/concepts, codification of ideals, explication of dystopias, and so much more.
Picasso (for all of his personal faults), was very talented as a youth, and was immensely important in the chain of evolution of the image which could be said to start with Cezanne, Manet, and the impressionists through van gogh and the expressionists who represented different levels of perception. He got sloppy in his later years, but to say he was not important or that his paintings cannot be appreciated aesthetically because they do not include "beauty" is misguided or just asking for the wrong thing from them. It's like saying a hammer is a bad tool because you can't paint with it.
I agree, there is a ton of garbage art and it dominates the scene, but to say painting is dead or that nothing good is being made is silly. Painting is a mode of image creation and it has and still informs the image creation that dominates our visual culture such as movies, digital art, design, decor, etc. I have many critiques of the contemporary art world (many you mentioned like activist art), but dismissing everything since Raphael or John Singer Sargent is missing some huge and important things that "our side" should love, accept, and USE as weapons, tools, and instruments.
My perspective was misrepresented and it’s partially my fault, partially the fact that we ran out of time, and partially I think my guest attributed some beliefs about abstract art to me that don’t hold. He’s coming back so we can discuss this further.
I don’t think Picasso is unimportant, far from it, I think he’s one of the most important artists of all time, the 20th century at least. But I think he’s important bc he marks the official beginning of decline, him and Duchamp. I’m not saying painters after a certain period can’t be technically “good” or even important, they can. But if scrambled scatterings of chaotic paint-slop was truly “art,” people would’ve been making it the whole time. It only arose bc of some fundamental breakdown in the medium, and in society.
Picasso and Duchamp represent that. Are there some redeemable painters who come after them? Sure. Francis Bacon, hugely important, and a few of the polish painters. HR Geiger, etc etc. but nothing they do is any sort of technical step forward, some improvement in the skill of representation. It’s all merely personal flare. Some of it very good.
Lastly, this stuff is worthy of close and careful study whether the subject “appreciates” the art or not. I personally do not dismiss it out of hand. My guest seems to think Duchamp is merely a fraud, and maybe there is an element of fraud. But I think he’s second only in importance to Picasso, whose paintings I loathe.
Thanks for the reply. I'd say fraud is not the right word for what Duchamp or Picasso were doing. The work is cynical, but they were reacting so a saccharine sentimentality and a rigidity that had overtaken visual representation. In relation to your topic of loss of beauty in art compared to renaissance and before, I would say that beauty is intimately linked to desire (hence why women are beautiful or why a new piece of technology can be beautiful), and therefore something can be beautiful in how it functions to critique, while being hideous to someone trying to protect whatever is being critiqued. The conversation of technical ability and "objective beauty" is only a piece of that larger picture. Anyhow, thank you again and if you want to see some truly incredible contemporary art in the mold you were both praising, please look up Roberto Ferri.
I write fiction and non and he does many things, if you check his YouTube out you can see his workshop. Not sure the extent of what he gets up to but it’s pretty varied. I fancy myself a literary critic and don’t shy away from that label. My comments on art are subordinate to my literary/media criticism. Brendan is much more an artist proper. Appreciate you checking us out and mentioning man’s world
Well said!! I felt like Heard was dodging answering questions at the end by overly rambling to get away/redirect what was being talked about...then apologizing for doing so. Also, talked over Astral too much without him being able to finish his thought.
Well, I think he was under a mistaken impression of how I understand Duchamp and I also think Duchamp makes him angry. He’s coming back soon to give that section of the discussion more time
I generally agree with your takes Astral, but the conversation on painting and art seemed unhinged, missing so much of the history of modern art, and missing the perspective of a painter who might explain why Picasso and some of the later movements were so important and interesting.
The idea that painting should be judged on how they "represent reality" is very very limited. "photorealism" is just one thing that painting can do, but painting should be framed in the larger context of image creation which includes drawing, graphic design, etc. and can be about representation, yes, but also expression of emotion, transmission of emotion (i.e. how an image interacts with our perception and makes us feel), transmission of ideas/concepts, codification of ideals, explication of dystopias, and so much more.
Picasso (for all of his personal faults), was very talented as a youth, and was immensely important in the chain of evolution of the image which could be said to start with Cezanne, Manet, and the impressionists through van gogh and the expressionists who represented different levels of perception. He got sloppy in his later years, but to say he was not important or that his paintings cannot be appreciated aesthetically because they do not include "beauty" is misguided or just asking for the wrong thing from them. It's like saying a hammer is a bad tool because you can't paint with it.
I agree, there is a ton of garbage art and it dominates the scene, but to say painting is dead or that nothing good is being made is silly. Painting is a mode of image creation and it has and still informs the image creation that dominates our visual culture such as movies, digital art, design, decor, etc. I have many critiques of the contemporary art world (many you mentioned like activist art), but dismissing everything since Raphael or John Singer Sargent is missing some huge and important things that "our side" should love, accept, and USE as weapons, tools, and instruments.
My perspective was misrepresented and it’s partially my fault, partially the fact that we ran out of time, and partially I think my guest attributed some beliefs about abstract art to me that don’t hold. He’s coming back so we can discuss this further.
I don’t think Picasso is unimportant, far from it, I think he’s one of the most important artists of all time, the 20th century at least. But I think he’s important bc he marks the official beginning of decline, him and Duchamp. I’m not saying painters after a certain period can’t be technically “good” or even important, they can. But if scrambled scatterings of chaotic paint-slop was truly “art,” people would’ve been making it the whole time. It only arose bc of some fundamental breakdown in the medium, and in society.
Picasso and Duchamp represent that. Are there some redeemable painters who come after them? Sure. Francis Bacon, hugely important, and a few of the polish painters. HR Geiger, etc etc. but nothing they do is any sort of technical step forward, some improvement in the skill of representation. It’s all merely personal flare. Some of it very good.
Lastly, this stuff is worthy of close and careful study whether the subject “appreciates” the art or not. I personally do not dismiss it out of hand. My guest seems to think Duchamp is merely a fraud, and maybe there is an element of fraud. But I think he’s second only in importance to Picasso, whose paintings I loathe.
Thanks for the reply. I'd say fraud is not the right word for what Duchamp or Picasso were doing. The work is cynical, but they were reacting so a saccharine sentimentality and a rigidity that had overtaken visual representation. In relation to your topic of loss of beauty in art compared to renaissance and before, I would say that beauty is intimately linked to desire (hence why women are beautiful or why a new piece of technology can be beautiful), and therefore something can be beautiful in how it functions to critique, while being hideous to someone trying to protect whatever is being critiqued. The conversation of technical ability and "objective beauty" is only a piece of that larger picture. Anyhow, thank you again and if you want to see some truly incredible contemporary art in the mold you were both praising, please look up Roberto Ferri.
Saw your ad in MW9. Interested in checking out what you guys have to say!
You guys are practitioners yourselves, not just theorists right?
I write fiction and non and he does many things, if you check his YouTube out you can see his workshop. Not sure the extent of what he gets up to but it’s pretty varied. I fancy myself a literary critic and don’t shy away from that label. My comments on art are subordinate to my literary/media criticism. Brendan is much more an artist proper. Appreciate you checking us out and mentioning man’s world
Oh I was referring specifically to the astral part.
But I'd be interested in checking out the fiction too. You guys spend most of your time on Twitter, I wager. What's your @?
Well said!! I felt like Heard was dodging answering questions at the end by overly rambling to get away/redirect what was being talked about...then apologizing for doing so. Also, talked over Astral too much without him being able to finish his thought.
Well, I think he was under a mistaken impression of how I understand Duchamp and I also think Duchamp makes him angry. He’s coming back soon to give that section of the discussion more time