[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: BIG


----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>

> But don't expect any more help from me......<snip>

What help??....Anyway.


This exchange occurred because you made a statement which seemed to me  to
repeat a fallacy characteristic of the  "Modernist" view of the history of
art.

I take issue with this view because of its wilful
manipulation of history to its own ends, its steadfast  refusal to accept
the influence of socio-political influences upon art, its outrageous
presumption that "Modernism" was a final point of arrival at the end of
hundreds of
years of linear artistic development, its determination that "modern" art
was by definition "abstract" and last but not least  its supporters'
assertion that it was the _only_ viable point of view. (And a few other
things besides, but that will do for now.)

The world, thankfully, has moved on since the heyday of academic Modernism
in the 60's and 70's, though it is not entirely clear when it finally
ossified. We now live in a dualistic
world where such absolutes have passed, rather like the Cold War, to which
era Modernism is quintessentially linked.

We moved on from Modernism
just as easily as we moved on from Impressionism, Fauvism, Cubism, Futurism,
and a
whole host of other "isms".  The world has become open and becomes more
connected every day, and the idea that a small coterie of critics and
academics could dominate, indeed define,  the world's art becomes all the
more absurd in hand with this. Modernism, it transpires, was not an
end-point, a defining moment, the final coming-of-age of hundreds of years
of creative endeavour, after all; it was just another trendy artistic
fashion.

In this light it behoves us to re-examine the glib assertions of Modernist
academics, and the one that you repeated, effectively that "photography
removed from painters the need to depict reality so they all went off and
invented abstraction", is high on the list. The roots of abstraction lie
elsewhere, in social, economic, technological and political factors.

In today's world artists are free to use whatever influences, methods,
techniques, media, or indeed philosophy they think fit.  If there is a
downside it is that artists are
expected to justify their position themselves rather than having an
academic establishment to do it for them. But if that makes them think about
what
they are doing more, then it is good.

As for the  spelling issue, my books on the artist in question are all at my
studio, so I can't check, so if you say he signed himself DeGas rather than
De Gas, fine. He was still an enthusiastic photographer, which was actually
my point.

Perhaps things are different in some parts, but most places I have lived and
worked in, spirited debate, particularly between artists, is considered
healthy and
useful.  If this is not the case where you are, I do apologise and can
only say that where I am sitting it is a beautiful morning- in Europe. I
certainly never meant to be rude to you. Perhaps you simply take objection
to the fact that I disagree with you.

Finally I have been discussing such things off-list with another list
member, which I obviously cannot repeat in detail here. I think we have gone
far enough on-list with a pretty off-topic discussion but if anyone else
thinks they would like to move this off-list to a closed circle of
interested parties, let me know direct and we can set up a small email list.
It would at least stop me treading on Judy's toes.



Rod