|
I'll take another stab at second-guessing Marvin's mindset (in hopes of upgrading a beer to a double JD) . . .
Backwards-looking art has never made the "canon". There was always something vital, new, interesting and different about masterworks that have come to resonate through generations.
Consider the legions of very competent craftsmen the various national academies "cranked out". During the period of time they held sway over art education - from the 19th century until well into the 20th, they produced literally legions of artists whose technical abilities stand more than head and shoulders above the average work posted in this forum.
Yet, now long past whatever modest success they earned during their own lifetimes, they are forgotten, unappreciated, and have been tossed on history's scrap-heap because they were never able to rise to the challenge of defining the art of their times. If they shaped it at all it was only by underscoring accepted aesthetics and conventions that had been "set" by others.
To become universally meaningful, "great" art must at once honestly reflect the times and the societies which provide for its gestation as well as transcend those same boundaries of history and culture.
It's a tall order, and while we definitely can't escape (nor should we ignore) the historical foundations and influences of great masters both past and present, any art of the 21st century that will ultimately become regarded as truly "great" will have to meet that requirement. It certainly will not be the art that merely recapitulates what has already been accomplished (and much better) in past centuries merely by mimicking the craft.
There's no escaping the fact that beyond mere craft (Wow! Lookie! You can count every hair!) no painting has any more merit than what it is able to communicate through its content and the concepts that drove its making.
|