BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="solitaryVSong" data-source="post: 1728414" data-attributes="member: 77930">Mosca, not to start an argument, but I don't see why this should bother you. The people who set up the endowment are saying that they find much of contemporary wildlife art devoid of life. That is their opinion and one I found that I completely agreed with, which is why I posted it. They offer an endowment to two wildlife artists each year and my guess is that they will favor artists whose work shows some familiarity with nature and with working from life. They aren't saying that all other types of wildlife art has to stop. They're just trying to set the balance back toward a wildlife art that both understands the tradition of art and appreciates the experience with wildlife in the wild. This is all sponsored by the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia. So I found it particularly surprising that they didn't look at wildlife art as something strictly scientific but also understood and appreciated the excitement of being in nature and also of the artistic traditions. As far as Duchamp, again not to start an argument, but to me  he was clever but nothing more. His interest was intellectual not artistic. But I find it odd that anyone thinks one artist can have such impact. Do people say that after Michelangelo art could never be the same, or after Rembrandt, or Velazquez, or Constable? Art goes on regardless, because it is too vital to have one person say what it should or should not be. Art is diverse not because of Duchamp but because of art itself.</blockquote>

Verification