The Devil is in the . . . . . (1 Viewer)

solitaryVSong said:

As I've mentioned here before one other crime I think is the real bias against showing 'wildlife art' in art museums. I think part of that probably comes as a reaction against the 'paint every feather' wildlife artists but it just seems so foolish. So much wildlife art is of such high quality and is just as deserving of being seen there as what is currently on exhibit. But it looks like it will take some sort of revolution in taste before that happens. In the meantime i don't envy the honest bird and wildife artists who are trying to make a living. I'm sure it's hard.

Click to expand...

This has been true for a very long time, Carl Ringus(sp) said if he painted a landscape it went in a museum, the same landscape with an elk would go to a natural history museum. In the Peerless Eye about Liljefors, the writer tells of trying to get him in the collection of the Met, as one of the pivotal painters of his time and country, and was told it was too "genre" for the Met, the writer left, noticing all the genre paintings in the collection from the Flemish masters.

Best explanation I've heard is the things of humans are considered more important than the animal life. So we have lots of animal paintings of dead game, sporting life and dramatic moments( like Stubbs horse attacked by a lion) that pertain to human life, but one with wildlife, it's natural history, and it's been that way for over a century, including our best masters like Bateman etc. who openly say they base compositions on abstract art and people like Franz Klein have been a major influcence.

Andrew H said:

just goes to show that anything can be decided as art, - actually I quite like it,
The acid test for me is - 'Can I see what it is without asking'

Click to expand...

I never ask...!

I am not found of 'stuff' that comes with an explanation....most of 'that' is 'bull' anyway....in the fine art world...[re. Turner prize winners]

If a piece of work visually excites/attracts...however it's done....then that's fine by me.....!

at the end of the day, when anyone takes a dump, that too is art. All sh*t is art, and all art is sh*t. Seriously!

nickderry said:

at the end of the day, when anyone takes a dump, that too is art. All sh*t is art, and all art is sh*t. Seriously!

Click to expand...

Are you talking about poetry in 'motion' Nick.....?

ps....apologies for lowering the tone even further....

pps....quick...someone be serious for f**** sake.....!B

ed keeble said:

- but oftentimes a big part of its appeal can be the artist saying to the subject enthusiast in question:

I know what subject you dream of and I can render it before your eyes

[so a degree of kinship here with cave painters...shamans...pornographers...chocolatiers]

That's probably enough from me for now..

Click to expand...

I think the problem is here is that we're missing a icon for a train going off the tracks, then as Ed says, magically reappearing solidly online a bit later. The 'off the rails' icon would probably keep some humor about and make sure that these discussions don't turn into arguments.

And I'm happy to say that they haven't. A thoughtful discussion that I hope everyone has gained from. Now where is that chocolate?

Mosca and I will have to silently disagree though about Marcel Duchamp.

colleenc said:

In the Peerless Eye about Liljefors, the writer tells of trying to get him in the collection of the Met, as one of the pivotal painters of his time and country, and was told it was too "genre" for the Met, the writer left, noticing all the genre paintings in the collection from the Flemish masters.

Click to expand...

I've been thinking about Mosca's saying that he doesn't know why one type of art feels the need to put down another type as in the quote from the Eckelberry Endowment.

This seems perfectly reasonable. But I still find myself very taken with the EE statement. They seem to be trying to bring back an appreciation for direct work from nature, I think because they feel at the moment that is an underappreciated viewpoint.

Colleen's quote regarding Liljefors reminds me of something similar. The Met curators didn't seem to see contradiction between showing old Dutch genre paintings and having an ironclad rule against showing contemporary genre paintings.

My take on this all is that, at least in the world of museums, galleries, publications, etc. there often is a very small set of acceptable work. No one will publicly say that a certain type of art is junk but only certain styles are considered advanced or progressive at any given time. Only those styles seem to be taken seriously.

The lack of wildlife art in any contemporary museum I think is partial proof of this.

So my own feeling is that when the EE or someone else argues for a certain viewpoint, often at the expense of another it's because they feel that the other viewpoint holds too much sway at the current time and that their viewpoint is unappreciated. It's not so much to be nasty or to attack someone else but because they feel that things are out of balance.

That is a generous view of it. I'm sure you could say that it's purely selfish. That's always possible and no one can say for sure. But personally I'm not bothered if one type of art is criticized in trying to promote another one if I feel that the one type of art really is unappreciated at the time.

On the other hand I think a lot of artists would just as soon just draw or paint or sculpt and totally ignore such arguments. And from what I've seen that may be the smartest tack to take. Sometimes these philosophical discussions are just distractions! Unfortunately I find myself drawn to them probably more than I should be. Time to get back to art.

I love a bit of detail me. But sometimes it's possible to kill the life in a painting with too much. Carl Brenders is a good example, the guy is a phenomenal draughtsman but I don't think I've ever really liked any of his paintings. I just find I can't connect with the beasties because they've been frozen out by the depth of detail. Far better to create an illusion of detail using the brushes texture and the texture of the support I think.
Still, each to their own!

Mike