"Experimentation and creativity can only succeed and prosper when built on a solid foundation of past accomplishments, with the tools which empower artists to realize their visions.

"Nothing has been more restricting and debilitating than the theories of modernism, which eliminated these tools, along with the skills to employ them."

I read this and agreed, for how can artists proceed to best advantage without a good foundation of art history underneath them? I can't say modernism totally eliminates these tools. But it's pretty much left up to the artist to study art history. If one gets a degree in art, they'll at least have an overview, "12 semester hours of art history course work including 3 courses surveying the history of Western art are required" for instance at Northern Illinois University's College of Art. But for anything more extensive than that, it's elective.

Nor do I understand the appreciation for some modern art. I'm amused the artrenewal critic mentions two artists whose works have left me baffled, Rothko and Pollock. But as I explored their pages, I find they only like "Old Masters, 19th Century, and Contemporary Realism". I looked over their list of artists and found Cezanne, and thought, "Here's one I like!" But what a surprise when I went to his page and read, "Paul Cézanne's works have been judged as not meeting the minimum standards of quality for inclusion in the ARC Museum"

Wow! That's severe! They are certainly entitled to their opinion. As I suppose are the many who don't like digital art, for all that can be made from a digital creation is a print. A print is usually not 'one of a kind', as many prints can be made from the original image. This democracy of art for all certainly doesn't appeal to those who give increased value to rarity. The wealthy collector likes to know he has the only one of a particular piece. I don't really understand the mindset. But it is what it is. Prints aren't 'fine art' to them, and that's that.

Back to the 'artrenewal' people. Just who is their favorite? They particular love Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, and feature 185 various selections of his artwork, because of "his superb draftsmanship and 'real to life' depictions of Classical antiquity". They also feature a photo of the artist in large size. He looks an intriguing enough fellow, and I sketched him:

In the original photo, his left hand is idle. I thought for better composition, he ought to be holding something. So I gave him a pair of gloves to hold.

Detail of face...

Brettel wouldn't agree with the 'realism' only group, nor would he think prints not 'fine art'. One of his lectures was about the photography and prints section of the Met Museum. According to the Met Museum website, "The Metropolitan Museum owns approximately 11,000 drawings and 1.5 million prints." They wouldn't bother if these weren't 'fine art'. Yes, they can't display all those vast holdings all at once, and you have to make an appointment to see those of a particular artist, and maybe they don't cost as much as a painting, but they value them and they have them.

(This somewhat bitter rant comes from learning the Yuma County Fair art committee doesn't regard prints as 'original' artwork. I explained I drew the line drawing, scanned it and colored it digitally, and the only way I can turn it into three dimensional art is to PRINT it, for the only other way to see it would be to bring my computer and park my monitor there. Perhaps next year they will make it clear that no digital artwork is allowed.)

If this encourages me to explore the world of one of a kind canvas and paint, I suppose this disappointment won't have been all in vain.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008 C

"An Atrocity Done in the Name of Art"
10:13pm

I sent up my little rant, and proceeded to check my email, where I learned of an atrocity done in the name of art that is nearly unbelieveable. I'm going to quote from the In Defense of Animals email I received:

The "Art" of Animal Cruelty

Tell San Francisco Art Institute to remove snuff video exhibit from gallery.

Walk into the Walter and McBean Galleries in San Francisco's posh Russian Hill neighborhood, and you may be shocked to see what passes for contemporary "art" these days. Six televisions display video images of six different animals -- a doe, a goat, a horse, an ox, a pig, and a sheep -- being bludgeoned to death with a large sledgehammer by "artist" Adel Abdessemed of Paris. Entitled "Don't Trust Me," this sick exhibit is Abdessemed's and the Institute's self-serving attempt to pass off the brutal abuse and killing of animals as legitimate artistic creation.

What such "artists" and their patrons overlook is that animals are living beings who feel and suffer just like we humans -- and we are no more justified in taking their lives at will than we have the right to kill another person. Such abuse of animals may elicit horror and disgust in viewers, but that does not qualify it as art. Far from it -- in fact, "Don't Trust Me" represents the very worst impulses of the human imagination.

It takes no artistic talent or ability to kill animals, and Abdessemed should have never been given a venue for his sickening "work" in the first place. To their great discredit, the San Francisco Art Institute agreed to sponsor this exhibit, lending it an air of credibility, but what makes matters worse are the obscene rationalizations this venerable institution of learning and culture offers in defense of the sleazy snuff films. These include pedantic claims that such killings "regularly take place...in the real world, on a regular basis," and that the installation "(makes) typical moral and cultural constraints seem beside the point."

Such statements betray not only a lack of compassion and basic human decency, but also a fundamental confusion of true artistic creation with the destruction of life. Abdessemed's work is of no artistic value, and rather than raise people's consciousness about the cruelties committed against animals every day, it will encourage them to accept animal abuse as a way of gaining attention and notoriety.

To call someone who murders animals an "artist" is an insult to every real artist who refuses to rely on violence and shallow, sensationalistic gimmicks to express his or her vision. While the work of such murderers will surely not endure, their antics may encourage and incite others to torture and kill animals, so it is crucial that people of conscience voice our outrage over this monstrous display of cruelty.

Please Take Action to urge the San Francisco Art Institute to remove Abdessemed's disgusting exhibit immediately, and implement a policy explicitly prohibiting exhibits for which animals were exploited or killed.

How anyone could consider this 'art' is so beyond me. Something is very wrong with the 'art world' if they are finding torture of animals 'artistic'.

(Hey wait a minute, I'm an artist, I'm part of the 'art world'!)

Art does need a serious 'renewal'. Maybe not exactly like the artrenewal.org people define it, but there needs to be a welling up of uprising and redefinition of purpose.