|
Well! I seem to have kicked up a minor storm! I guess I'LL be accused of trying to get attention, now.. That's not my intention- I'm glad to see responses to my slightly provocative comments, though, because it seems to me we're getting at what art can be about.
Alicia- of course you don't have to like it! Neither does anyone, and I'm not saying that I "like" it either. What people will think of it in the future is of course unanswerable from our perspective. It is worth considering that even artists we now consider "masters" often sank into obscurity for centuries. (Vermeer is one.)
I'm not being controversial merely for the sake of it. I struggle with these kinds of issues myself- both in trying to listen to your views and daily in my own work. I guess its a plea for open-mindedness.
No, I don't think Freud is an attention-seeker. There is nothing slick or manipulative in his work, at least that I can see. I agree with Karin about Picasso only to the extent that some of his later works betray a certain cynicism in regard to his "public"- but I sincerely disagree that he was incapable of "realism". The man could draw like an angel at age 10 and a glance at some of his early work should dispel any doubts as to his capabilities.
Yes- of course it's all a question of tastes on one level; and everyone is entitled to respond as they wish. But if every disturbing image is a con because it's uncomfortable, we can wipe out a pretty large segment of the western cultural heritage. Let's start with Shakespearean tragedy, for example.
Hope this isn't too much. I find the whole question fascinating- why do we paint? There are as many reasons as there are artists, I guess. Thanks for the stimulating responses.
|