« New ABC / WaPo Poll Shows Drop In Trump Favorability Courtesy Of Aggressive "Oversamples" | Main | Trump voters are plentiful and they’re everywhere. You’ve encountered them without knowing it. »

January 17, 2017

The Cult of Ugliness [Bumped]

aaarttoilet.jpg

The docent told us that she would take us through the Corcoran collection chronologically so we could observe the development of styles over time.
Then she said, “Personally, I prefer the old works. Much of the modern art is ugly, and I doubt I am the only one here to share that view. However, we must not blame the artists. As you will see, in any age, art is a merely a reflection of the culture and times. And we are living in ugly times.” -- The Thinking Housewife / The Woman at the Museum

Posted by gerardvanderleun at January 17, 2017 4:40 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

Yep!

Posted by: Jimmy J. at June 16, 2012 8:13 PM

Bullshit.

Ugly art was a stated strategy of Lenin.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at June 16, 2012 8:59 PM

Ugly art. Ugly music. Ugly architecture. That will be the epitaph of the twentieth century: The Ugly Century.

Posted by: Jewel at June 16, 2012 9:08 PM

There ain't a Monet et.al. among the bunch of them.
As to the music, how many of those head singers use the magic mic to cover there shortcomings.
Jewel, you go girl!

Posted by: Peccable at June 17, 2012 7:30 AM

Democracy at work. Equality is the natural disease of democracy; it is a leveler, and nobody ever leveled up. Tocqueville's wry warning was that he was not afraid that mediocrity would become commonplace, but that it would be enforced.

Posted by: james wilson at June 17, 2012 9:52 AM

Modern artists make ugly art because they do not love anything, not even themselves. True art arises out of a proper passion--agape--for something. That something can be the human self (classical Greek sculpture), trees (classical Greek temples--the pillars represent trees in groves), God (medieval Art, Gothic cathedrals), the human body (Renaissance art), nature (19th c. art).

Posted by: Gloria at June 17, 2012 10:53 AM

Don't Go To Art School if You Want to Learn to Paint:

"On my foundation course, when I was being prepared to enter a degree course, the teachers explicitly warned me not to say at interview that I wanted to be a painter."

Posted by: ahem at June 17, 2012 6:31 PM

Oh, there are artists around who produce beautiful work. They are held in disdain by the talentless crowd who have taken over the lead, however. I suggest looking up Boris Vallejo, for example.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at June 18, 2012 2:01 AM

Fletcher, Boris is an illustrator, a very talented one but no different from Norman Rockwell. Just different subject material.

Posted by: Peccable at June 18, 2012 7:58 AM

So what is the difference between "painter" and "illustrator"?

The purpose of the work? The subject matter?

It can't be technique.

Posted by: Eric Blair at June 18, 2012 8:18 AM

Heck, I could make some contemporary art blindfolded (I suspect some of those 'artists' did just that).

All I would need is a name recognized as influencial by a few key people in the art world and... poof!!!... a 'masterpiece' is made.

Mix Courtier-Politics with Pseudo-Intellectualism, Nihilistic-Philosophy, and lots of rubes overflowing with cash they don;t know what to do with and you have "Contempt-orary Art"

Posted by: Cond0011 at June 18, 2012 10:18 AM

"Truth is beauty and beauty is truth", when you reject or hate truth there is no beauty; makes for repulsive "art".

Posted by: pink lady at June 18, 2012 10:38 AM

I was a student at the Corcoran. My specialty was painting and drawing nekkid wimminz, or what were politely known as "noodz" or something. At the risk of being immodest, I was very good at this, and the models liked it when someone made their breasts look both real and proportional.

I was also a day laborer for the adjoining gallery, and boy was that hard work. We used to have to move giant metal sculptures around, with the "cubist" sculptures being the most challenging. Basically it was block-and-tackle Stonehenge/Easter Island brutal and challenging.

For some reason I was specially chosen to be the "boy" for the school's ceramics department. This was a strange little cult of pot-throwers, who did not deign to comingle with the other students. I had to move a trundle of clay-filled barrels, as well as sacks of dry clay. I had to lift and drag barrels and bags almost daily for those insectoid pottery putzes.

I swear I was one of the strongest hippies in the greater DC Metro Area back in the 60's as a result. I did not get hassled by redneck construction workers. Drank beer with them instead. They asked me why a hard working guy like me would be done up like a hippy. I explained that it made it easier to score with a lot of fine looking and very promiscuous chicks. They found that to be an awsome answer :-)

Posted by: Don Rodrigo at June 18, 2012 10:53 AM

I believe that fine art has two objectives: Delight the senses and refresh the soul. These are my objectives as I paint. Am I wasting my time?

Posted by: Pat Baker at June 18, 2012 2:07 PM

I believe that fine art has two objectives: Delight the senses and refresh the soul. These are my objectives as I paint. Am I wasting my time?

Posted by: Pat Baker at June 18, 2012 2:09 PM

Absolutely not. Paint on, paint on, paint on, paint on...

Posted by: vanderleun at June 18, 2012 2:50 PM

Pat Baker, you have the essence of painting and illustration separated.

There is a term for the application of paint on canvas or paper. To do it in a painterly fashion is what separated art from illustration.

Illustration is for communication of a message on a certain subject. Painting exposes others to the artist's vision and soul of the chosen subject.

Posted by: Peccable at June 18, 2012 4:10 PM

My personal assessment is that until about the middle of the 1800s, a lot of people who were artists or scientists were those who had a driving desire and a true ability to follow such a career. A lot of people who might have been economically unable to follow art or science were recognized by their abilities and then apprenticed or brought into the art or scientific world by those they impressed. More than anything else, it used to be the quality of the work they were capable of doing that gave them entrée to the worlds of art or science.

For the last century or so, there have been ideologically-driven departments organized in colleges and other training arenas that receive large funding for their departments from those who have similar ideologies and have access to both private and public funds that can be disbursed. This has led to (1) criteria for “official” entrée, curricula, educators, and credentialing following the ideology; (2) great numbers of students going into the fields who would not have been able to do so if it were still a matter of determination and measurable ability; and, (3) ideologically mapped-out routes for achieving professorships, peer reviews and/or private reputations, funding, gallery exhibition, and so on. Now, more and more, OUTSIDE of engineering, technology, and certain sections of science, and, in a parallel way, “mere illustration” (for instance by the above-named Boris Vallejo and Norman Rockwell)—all of which demand Skillful Results—it has instead become the MOTIVE behind the art or science that has largely channeled entrée to these vocations. (This is true now for a lot of other fields, too, such as Journalism, the “social sciences”, and so forth.)

Now a true desire connected to a true ability too often meets with fierce and immediate roadblocks. In art, the official prestigious critical, gallery, and museum pathways are by motive only. In science, more and more “peer review” and publication is becoming limited by motive-driven work. Motive is becoming everything, and the Big Money follows the Motive. There have been some remarkable frauds discovered in science lately, and a lot more suspected. And an examination of modern artwork shows that in too many prestigious areas it is hollow and ugly—and carries unbelievable price tags. And these works are being purchased, and others ignored.

Yes, I am well aware there is still excellent science and art and reporting and teaching going on. But the sheer numbers of the others, and the prestigious reputations and really incredible amounts of money that can be had by taking the already set-up motive-driven routes is almost overpowering to some people—and to those with little or no talent in their chosen field, it is often the only path to money and position. And they take that path that has opened before them. Sometimes they even lie to themselves about what they are accomplishing, because they really want to do something worthwhile; but, sometimes they know precisely what game they are playing.

Posted by: Minta Marie Morze at June 18, 2012 4:56 PM

That toilet looks like shit.

JWM

Posted by: jwm at June 18, 2012 5:09 PM

I highly recommend the BBS documentary, "Roger Scruton: Why Beauty Matters." Available at YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiajXQUppYY

He wrote a book on the subject, also.

Posted by: butch at June 18, 2012 6:24 PM

D'OH! BBC, not BBS!

Posted by: butch at June 18, 2012 6:28 PM

If you get a chance to visit Chadds Ford, visit the Wyeth Gallery. My daughter went and was copying one of the large NC Wyeth paintings that would become a book cover (Believe me, those are not mere illustrations, but large paintings and very much art). She was told by one of the employees that she couldn't draw in the gallery. A woman contradicted the employee and said, "Yes, she CAN draw!" That woman was Victoria Wyeth.
Made the girl's day and then some!

Posted by: Jewel at June 18, 2012 7:50 PM

Minta Marie Morze,

Brava, Madame.

I would only add that in the Classical Music dodge, "motive" almost always includes homosexuality.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at June 18, 2012 9:31 PM

"Illustration is for communication of a message on a certain subject. Painting exposes others to the artist's vision and soul of the chosen subject."

So "message" is somehow exclusive from "vision and soul"? Guess that means we can stop being impressed by the frescoes in the Sistine Chapel.

I'm not a-buyin' into your hair spltting, here.

Posted by: Cameron at June 18, 2012 9:47 PM

Cameron - Neither am I. That seems to be the problem - that painters, for example, who paint pictures that look like whatever they are painting, are looked down upon by the "artists". As are sculptors whose work actually requires some skill.

There is somje real art out there, however. One recent example was the giant mechanical spider that was walking around Liverpool for a few days.

Posted by: Fletcher Christian at June 18, 2012 10:07 PM

That does not appear so much to be a commode, as it does to be a recepticle for Hope and Change!

Flush it in November!

Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

Posted by: Jim at June 19, 2012 6:03 AM

Beauty, like God, doesn't exist; it is eternal. It's not a "thing" but enriches things both by its presence and absence. It is sought after "eternally", as is truth, but never quite grasped. So, it's in the eye of the beholder; whatever we want it to be. The degree to which we participate in beauty, and, truth, and, understanding, and, love, is the degree to which we touch the face of the divine, or, allow the divine to be realized in us, enrich our soul.

Minta Marie - excellent comment.

Posted by: John Hinds at June 19, 2012 6:04 AM

For Cameron and Fletcher, with illustration you get the message such as 'buy this cereal' or Rockwell's tugging at the emo.

Never said that there is no skill or talent in those. Recognize them for what they are.

When you try to compare 'contemporary art' to a David, Degas or a Manet, then you can stick that soup can in the featured commode.

Posted by: Peccable at June 19, 2012 6:43 AM

"Beauty, like God, doesn't exist; it is eternal. It's not a "thing" but enriches things both by its presence and absence. "

@John Hinds: ...and here we are on the internet having a conversation.

Whereabouts... unknown, or should I say a 'null-space' that doesn't really matter. How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin (or a website)? I dunno, but we are pretty close to being conceptual creatures at this moment in time (though God is outside the parameter of time).

Nice post, John

Posted by: Cond0011 at June 19, 2012 8:43 AM

Thanks, Cond0011. I almost immediately wanted to add that Beauty confers Universality (deifies, if you like) while its expression confers individuality (personifies, if you like); in the Aristotelian sense. That is one way of explaining what is meant by "enriches the soul".

Posted by: John Hinds at June 19, 2012 10:14 AM

"Beauty confers Universality while its expression confers individuality."

@John Hinds: Glib and powerful. Going in my archive.

Posted by: Cond0011 at June 19, 2012 10:35 AM

@Peccable: What you're spewing belongs in that commode.

Snob.

Posted by: Eric Blair at June 19, 2012 11:39 AM

If the museums didn't buy it, would the artists make it?

Posted by: Mikey NTH at June 19, 2012 11:59 AM

"For Cameron and Fletcher, with illustration you get the message such as 'buy this cereal' or Rockwell's tugging at the emo."

Respectfully, I call lexical shenanigans.

Every painting is trying to say something, carries some message, yes? If so (and I think so) then every painting - well or poorly done - is illustration.

One can argue that given illustrations, whether they be Michelengelo's frescoes or Rockwell's covers or Al Williamson's comic books, are well or poorly executed (I think they're all wonderful), but one can't split the subject matter into disparate camps ("illustration" versus "vision and soul") without first severely mangling the definitions of those terms.

(By the way, one can illustrate vision and soul, and one can draw on vision and soul to make a great illustration, which I mention just because it seems like a nice avenue to explore some day.)

Michelangelo illustrated distinct messages designed to manipulate and provoke the ol' "emo" (for a paycheck, no less). So did Rockwell. They both created great art in the process.

Whether or not you enjoy the subject matter is something else again. To use poetry as an example, I find the message in Larkin's "Aubade" contemptible; the poem itself is jaw-droppingly good and I can't call it a bad poem just because I disagree with its argument, with the message it is illustrating.

I guess what I'm saying is, find better words.

Posted by: Cameron at June 19, 2012 12:23 PM

The art of a culture represents its soul.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 19, 2012 1:10 PM

And its a serious, but common, error to call Norman Rockwell an illustrator. Seeing his work in person blows all those preconceptions away, the man was a modern master. HIs work will endure when Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso are long forgotten.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 19, 2012 1:14 PM

John Hinds @6:04 a.m.

Beauty, like God, doesn't exist; it is eternal. It's not a "thing" but enriches things both by its presence and absence. It is sought after "eternally", as is truth, but never quite grasped. So, it's in the eye of the beholder; whatever we want it to be. The degree to which we participate in beauty, and, truth, and, understanding, and, love, is the degree to which we touch the face of the divine, or, allow the divine to be realized in us, enrich our soul.

Nope.

What you suggest is the modern mis-apprehension of the term "metaphysics." Metaphysics truly means the knowledge of knowledge, not the argument that we are all the divine - which argument in fact was advanced by the serpent to Eve. It's rooted in Envy, and is no more true though no less seductive in the present day.

God does, in fact, exist - as does beauty, however much tastes may differ. Gurus will never take the place of the Eternal.

Posted by: Rob De Witt at June 19, 2012 3:16 PM

Yes, Rob, to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is to "fall" into elevating the created to the status of the creator. But, I think it's not the same as saying we are a spark of the divine. God descends into matter to reemerge a self realized spiritual being; the story of Christ, as I understand it. He shows us the way - is, in fact, THE way. He says so.

What I said is intended to illustrate that God - or his concomitants - is not a "thing" among things. Things exist and will all pass away. "He" is eternal, can't be grasped and any attempt to anthropomorphize him is doomed to failure. The attributes of the divine, e.g., beauty, love, truth, are ours by "his" grace and are there to give us a chance - a chance - at transfiguration.

Metaphysics might mean knowledge of knowledge, but knowledge is a child of reason while understanding is a child of faith. Sometimes its better to go with the heart which "has its reasons that reason cannot know."

Thank you.

Posted by: John Hinds at June 19, 2012 4:29 PM

I don't know that knowledge is a child of reason. And if it is, reason makes more bastard children than not.

Posted by: james wilson at June 19, 2012 8:06 PM

Seriously - The person makes ugly, and if the museum said "I can get ugly, any where in this town, for free -oh, wait! What do you think of our dumpster? Should that be brought in, and if so how big a check should I send to BFI?"

Ugly is everywhere, I would rather see beauty and that which calls me to be more than who I am. I am rather selfish like that, I want the call to be brought by an angel, not some Andrea Dworkin clone.

*shudder*

Posted by: Mikey NTH at June 19, 2012 9:32 PM

So today, speaking of 'art', Glenn Beck told the story of how he bought a fish bowl painted and autographed by Orson Wells. He spent quite a lot on it, I gather. He left it on his desk overnight, and the cleaning lady came in and washed all that dirty paint off and put it back on his desk, shiny and clean and ready for some fish! Wasn't that thoughtful!

Posted by: Jewel at June 19, 2012 10:24 PM

From "1963 Communist Goals" read into the Congressional Record in 1963:

Goal 22, "Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. Eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

Goal 23, "Control art critics and directors of art musemums." The plan was to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.

Tilted Arches, anyone? How about PissChrist?

Posted by: Ogrrre at June 21, 2012 6:47 AM

I suppose it deepnds what inspired you in the first place. For me, photography was a way to capture what I did not have the talent to draw, or at least draw quickly. So I would take pictures, then try to draw those pictures in multiple modes, suhc as the Van Gogh mode (and if you don't know what I mean, maybe you should go to an art museum for inspiration). Also, I've found that (literally) not having my equipment for a few months while starting to feel that lack of inspiration is giving me tremendous inspiration, as I just got it back this evening, and can't wait to go take pictures tomorrow! So, take a deep breath, put down the camera, pick out your favorite pictures and try to draw them, or go to museums and try to capture the feeling you get from a drawing or painting in your camera, or possibly you just need to ask a friend to hold on to your equipment indefinitely. When you find your hands itching for a camera, it's time for you to go get it back.

Posted by: Racib at July 13, 2012 12:36 AM

Tsk. Tsk.
The period from the Renaissance through the 19th C saw buttloads of beauty (sorry - the picture in this post...). However, you can pick any time in history and see artist's exposing ugly subjects, and providing ugly content. Beauty is critical to civilization, but don't throw the poopie out with the baby water. Art is also a history of what the artist saw. Would you deny truth its day? Certainly you wouldn't.
At first, I didn't like Duchamp, but as I studied what he had to say, and saw his work, I began to hear him better. He was the ultimate joker in art, and his urinal was as much the pussy grab of fine art as Trump's locker room conversation is the manifesto of man's freedom from cultural terror.
The toilets that came after Duchamp, however, are vulgar and banal. Yawn.
Yesterday, I made a painting of the tiny stone structure where my father's army unit collected the dead; both German and American. I've seen it, personally (no photos for me, please). The result is an image that only I can make, because we're talking about my eyes, my father's story, and a particular place. The painting mixes contemporary abstract tools (Sean Scully's stripes), and classic realist tools. It. Is. Ugly. It is morally dismal.
Sorry. I guess I'm wordy lately. But, next to me on my desk is a book titled: On Ugliness, by Umberto Eco. I'll get back to you on this.

Posted by: Casey Klahn at January 17, 2017 11:19 AM

Commie manifesto; 'Make art ugly.'

Check. Next.

Posted by: Fred at January 17, 2017 3:29 PM

Articles like that do one thing - breathe new life into the dead corpse of lazy art, somewhat renewing it. Good things require work and ugly things reflect laziness and there's no other way to put it.

In my work it ain't over with until I say it is and in the end if it ain't right I won't sell it. Period. It ain't about the money, or the fame, and never was.

It was about me.

The things I create will outlive me and be my voice when I'm gone. Even my vision. A thousand years from now people will see my work and know I wasn't lazy.

Posted by: ghostsniper at January 17, 2017 7:28 PM

To John Hinds,
You may not believe in God, but at least you had the decency to capitalized His name. Thank you for the respect. I hope you don't mind me praying for you today!

I will disagree that things can be ugly. That toilet is so ugly I wouldn't even make a deposit in it.

Posted by: Snakepit Kansas at January 18, 2017 4:37 AM

"[Abstract, modern art is] a product of the untalented,

sold by the unprincipled to the utterly bewildered."

-Al Capp, cartoonist (1909 - 1979)

Posted by: Mizz E at January 18, 2017 5:28 AM

We will never again be involved in culture on the meta scale, until we read literature, listen to music, and go see paintings. Conservatives! Wake up!
Ugly art is easy to make and find, but the stream (OK, another potty joke) of art history does involve abstract thought. Mathematics is abstract thought. Give the painters an ounce of respect, you cretins.
My 2 cents.
Art is evocative. Beauty is, as well, but is a different thing. Do you even speak the language? Art is a language. I don't blame you for not knowing the language, but "do try to keep up" might by my pithy cajole.
Salt the culture. Stop pissing on it.

Posted by: Casey Klahn at January 18, 2017 8:37 AM

Snakepit KS,

God is ALL I believe in. Faith is the ultimate mode of Being (in the world). I thank you for your prayer.

And a belated kudos to Cond0011 for his beautiful comment(s).

Strange to see this item 'bumped' after four years.

Posted by: John at January 18, 2017 11:06 AM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)