Wrong on several counts. Abex was not alien to the strong traditions in American/European art (or Asian art). I remember seeing the Life Magazine Pollock article. Yes, it was hyped but the whole magazine was like that in all of its features. It was like talk show radio is today with its fake alarm in the service of entertainment. Life Magazine did a number of similar articles re art. At least it was high art. As for "traditional" American art, it is very well represented in many major American museums in all its various forms. The American scene painting of the 30s is still well regarded and much studied. It was promoted by the government as pro democracy in the fascist era but because the best artists tended to be critical of the status quo and didn't like the idealist prompting, it lost favor among the "people". The artists noticed that the idealist type American scene painting was indistinguishable in tone from Nazi art. Miller misses the entangled social context of that time in relation to "nationalistic" art. My critique of some contemporary art is based on a completely different concept and awareness that Miller overlooks in his eagerness to grab at any straw to defend bad past art. Nevertheless I grant that some truly great art was made by traditional artists (my choice would be R. Marsh)....as is always the case but their greatness depends on the power of their expression, not their style.
Decrying the excess market oriented manufactured objects being touted as mainstream contemporary art today is analogous to decrying the excessive academicism in salon-type art of the 19C. Even that is a stretched comparison. But that 19C junk is the closest thing in art to what's going on now if we say the common denominator is depressing decadence. WC --- On Wed, 9/17/08, Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Chris Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: It's Hirst and Dickinson > To: [email protected] > Date: Wednesday, September 17, 2008, 8:12 AM > I'm enjoying William's (and Kuspit's) righteous > indignation -- though I would > take the art=money=shit equation back to August 8, 1949 > when Jackson Pollack > was recognized as "the greatest living painter in > America" -- the emotional > excreta of ABX was elevated to high art status -- and the > wealthy began to > park their money there. > > That's when aesthetics, ever more unhappy with the > relationship, was finally > divorced from American art -- and the traditional > landscape, portrait, figure, > and still life painters were banished to the cold, outer > margins of the > artworld, and condemned as middle brow. > > That's one fact, BTW, that Kuspit ignores in his > earlier essay (of 4/14/05) > where he decries the "unlimited expansion of the > contemporary" > > > All of those traditional genres are categorically excluded > from museums of > contemporary art or even the contemporary sections of > "encyclopedic museums" > (though, curiously enough, living practitioners of > non-Western traditions may > still be included) > > ____________________________________________________________ > Internet Security Software - Click here. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlZS6pbBzBYc5KxxQsFupRXB > EiFeN3Pd5KbmNpQDVl7BTISQ/
