Ordinary people have known this all along.
I hope everyone will take the time to watch this. It's beautiful and sad, and hopeful, too.
I wonder how much the camera can be blamed for the rise of abstract?
I was watching it to find a rational thread to refute, but then I fell asleep.
Art is the first of a continuum that includes religion, science, history, philosophy. These enterprises are stages in human development; one leads to the next. As such art is the putting of the question to the world, "who am I?" It doesn't expect an answer. That comes with its successors. It doesn't posit truth in an absolute other like religion. It is the mind first awake, bewildered, wondering, unknowing. It discovers nothing. It is a deaf, dumb, blind grasping at the real. Furthermore, no art is beauty itself, but merely participates in beauty, positively or negatively. The "art" the author disparages obviously is a starting over of the process. It asks clumsily, "who am I"? We have forgotten who we were, if we ever knew. Our so called art belies the fact that we are, intellectually, worse off than the first cave man artists.
Examine the Speculum Mentis (map of knowledge)*. Art is pure imagination, in a sense, it is a form of play, a beginning, and a child will play with the stuff in his diaper, which is what is obviously going on in the art "world".
This is a subject that is near and dear to my heart. While some are able to see through the psychobabble that accompanies so much of what is called 'modern art' or abstract 'art' others seem content to sleep through the subject and simply accept the nonsense that is fed to them.
I appreciated this. I have watched young artist's attempts to be edgy, and they end up being grotesque or just weird. Yet, the ones I've met and known come from pretty benign backgrounds. If you don't create what you know, where you are coming from, it ends up a false portrayal. Most artists are not weirdos with mental issues, and dressing and acting strange doesn't make you an artist or deep. The suthor talks about beauty and truth.
Thanks for putting this up.
Have a care, my friend. With beauty comes truth, and there are powerful forces aligned against both, and those - you, by this post - who would promote them as worthy.
Thank you! That was educational...and beautiful.
If the "meaning" of a painting or other genre of visual art has to be "explained" by someone with an esoteric degree, then it's garbage. The public instinctively understands this. That's why I've stood in long lines to see the Mona Lisa, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, and the Monet house, while those lines were noticeably lacking at almost any modern art exhibit I've heard of. People know they're being lied to, but most can't bring themselves to admit it. For now.
I really like how this presentation used classically beautiful music to back up the case for visually beautiful art. After viewing this it stuns me that modern art has carried the day for so long. This is like Helen Thomas winning a beauty contest over Audrey Hepburn (do I give away my age?).
If it requires an explanation it's not art.
there is only one way to describe this; painterly. My professors used the word, other painters did too. It carries it's own vocabulary.
Viewing these beautiful labors of love fills me with tremendous admiration and gratitude for the artists. Their radiance is stunning and inspiring -- inspiring a sense of greater kindness.
Added to all the above is the sense of awe felt when looking at a living infant, toddler, ... you know, that magnetic radiance that makes you want to laugh and cry and dance, and sigh, and hug.