O - Page 3

Sharon Knettell · 10-08-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

Those who challenge the accepted tenants and refuse to bow down to false idols are summarily dismissed.

Marvin,

Tenants - residents who are accepted? Who are the accepted tenants? Where do they live? Maine?

Marvin Mattelson · 10-09-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sharon Knettell

Tenants - residents who are accepted? Who are the accepted tenants? Where do they live? Maine?

Obviously they don't live in Rhode Island or New Hampshire. ;-) How kind of you to take the time to point out my spelling error. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I corrected it on my original post.

Richard, thanks for responding to the heart of my message and proving there is indeed intelligent life on Earth. Now I owe you a drink.

Cynthia, I don't think revisiting history benefits anyone. I do think that it's always important to look in the mirror and ask what can I do differently. That goes from those of us on the bottom of the flo-chart to those at the tippy top. It's also important to evaluate where things can be improved.

Thomasin Dewhurst · 10-09-2007, 11:41 AM

Oh for goodness sake, Mr. Mattelson, obviously you have to revisit history if for nothing other than finding out what you are being different from.

(You are certainly having success with your attempt to destagnate the forum.)

Marvin Mattelson · 10-09-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

(You are certainly having success with your attempt to destagnate the forum.)

Thank you!

Richard Bingham · 10-09-2007, 01:28 PM

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.

Sharon Knettell · 10-09-2007, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

Obviously they don't live in Rhode Island or New Hampshire. ;-) How kind of you to take the time to point out my spelling error. I'm sure you'll be pleased to know I corrected it on my original post.

Marvin,

I am so GLAD they don't live in those two states. They sound like dreadful bores. I am glad for the clarification, so I have a somewhat better idea of just what direction to prostrate myself.

Marvin Mattelson · 10-09-2007, 05:12 PM

Sharon I'll choose not to respond since I wouldn't my post deleted for being off topic, plus a true gentleman wouldn't kick someone who's down.

Richard, sorry but I was talking about previous history as related to this forum. The point I was trying to make was about not rehashing past discretions and just focusing on current ones.

I think the subject you bring up could be the start of it's own topic. For what it's worth Vermeer was virtually unknown until late in the 19th Century. Bouguereaus that were selling for $10,000 in the 1970's now go for millions.

Sharon Knettell · 10-09-2007, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

Sharon I'll choose not to respond since I wouldn't my post deleted for being off topic, plus a true gentleman wouldn't kick someone who's down.

I am really sorry Marvin, I did not know you were down.

Richard Bingham · 10-09-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin Mattelson

. . . Richard, sorry but I was talking about previous history as related to this forum . . . I think the subject you bring up could be the start of it's own topic. For what it's worth Vermeer was virtually unknown until late in the 19th Century. Bouguereaus that were selling for $10,000 in the 1970's now go for millions.

Dang. There goes the "double".

I do think the question of the "value" of art is truly fascinating. True, a big chunk of Vermeer's known works were "lost" for at least a hundred years, and hence out of view.

I'm suspicious of the record prices that artwork of all kinds (from pickeled sharks to Bouguereau to Picasso) currently bring at auction. If actual "market value" ever truly was a reliable reflection of true aesthetic merit, I'm afraid the guage got busted in the 60's . . . and ain't been fixed since.

Bouguereau commanded megabucks in his own time, and fell entirely from grace by the time of his own death (1905). If I recall correctly, Alan Funt, of "Candid Camera" fame started the gold rush on his work, collecting them for "peanuts" . . . but mostly because he, personally, considered them ineffably, ridiculously and egregiously bad.

While I feel he didn't deserve the neglect and castigation that was his lot c.1910-1990, I'm not sure those who worship at his altar currently aren't a little "fevered" in their appreciation. Values? When it comes to spending millions, I'd rather see it go for a Bougie than a pickeled shark, or a pile of garbage strewn about an empty room!