Fred Ross and the Art Renewal center.

[StephenJ]

Does anyone read this site?

I'm kind of curious about what everyone else thinks about it's philosophy, and the sometimes dogmatic tone it adopts.

I go to one of the schools that is endorsed by this site so I became aware of it a few months before I started attending.

I tend to both agree and disagree with some of its premises.

[FlameDragon]

I do like that it displays alot of the artists I like, as well as having a page on most other artists from history whose work I want to see. The competition/scholarship section has introduced me to some great artists as well, such as Shane Wolf.

[Psypomp]

I go there every couple of months to ogle at the winners of their competitions. Fred Ross is really passionate about what he thinks is great art, so I appreciate that. It doesn't mean I agree with him, especially on what he has to say about modern art, but he writes convincingly enough and it makes for great discussions with my bf.

[•Lindsay•]

I like that site, it's like having a thousand free art books. It taught me some things I didn't know before, like what an atelier is. At first I found it hard to believe that there was really a movement to keep down academic art, but it's true.

[Chris Bennett]

Like most art books, look at the pictures but don't bother to read the lame art history hack work inside. My personal take on this site is that it is a good picture resource for late 19th century Romantic painting in England and France, and an excellent example of people taking comfort and security from dogma supplied by their lack of esthetic sophistication and sensibility.

[Dizon]

I like the site mainly because of the huge gallery of 19th century work which I haven't even seen before. Also for introducing me to the Ateliers that are active today.

[Aaron Death]

yeah, as much as i hate modernism, i still think that calling all modernists vile villains is simply insane....
the pictures are good though

[jhgoforth]

He does have a limited point though. Abstract and pop art has all but ruled the education and works in the art world for the past half century now. Where he is missing the point however is, the buying public has moved on to more modern works. That doesn't mean they don't appreciate the academic necessarily, but the 'imaginary' value of art works is focused on modern work (i say 'imaginary' in the sense that the art work itself doesn't hold the value, it is the perception of what it is worth dictated by the tastes of an era). Academic painters used to have more commission work due to portraiture and other similiar works, but the advent of photography really did squash a lot of that type of commission. That's the nature of the beast. I'm glad ArtRenewal is keeping those works alive for all to see and I myself, tend to work more towards academic art. But I am also a realist. ;P

[Elwell]

As I said back in this thread (http://www.conceptart.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112422):
The ARC scans and bios are a great resource, just don't drink the Kool-Aid.

[StephenJ]

I don't know I think Ross is to much of a demagouge on some issues but he makes some good points on 20th century art.

I sought out the school that I'm currently attending in part because I had a really ridicoulas experience with a contemporary 3D design class at my previous school. Instead of going to life drawing to improve my work, I was required to take a class where among other things I made sculptures out of my shoe and used paper/wire frame constructs to "fill" spaces.

Is it any wonder that many non-artist look at the modern art world with a degree of cynicism? When they see someone paint a black dot on a canvas., give a 20 page artist statement, and then get thousands of dollars for it?

[jhgoforth]

@stephenJ I'd agree with you on all that but there is one flaw in the end: people pay those thousands of dollars for those works. Who tells them to? They are convinced that the work is worth that much and so the demand creates more of those works. It is the nature of the art market at fault and it is really nothing new. Every era you can find artists ticked off at these sales of works. Buyers and dealers dictate the works the get the most attention and sales. So blame the artists less (yes they are in it for the money and being able to do what they 'want' and some just happen to have the style that is profitable, it isn't always intentionally for profit) and the ones that encourage this style of work. Really this all boils down to the age old question: Do you create to sell or for the sake of creation alone? Buyers and dealers have no interest in those questions, they create their own understanding of art (via their chosen art critic..like any criticism, you can always find someone with tastes similiar to your own) and buy accordingly. The amazing thing to me is that that buying habit has changed very little in the past 50yrs or so. But we are also in an unprecendented age of sharing information at speeds unfathomed in previous generations. Digital art is scaring many traditional fine artists (as someone with that training background...believe me, they are paranoid), so perhaps that will be the next big 'sale' area of artists in the near future. It just takes time to convince the buying audience that it is indeed something of high value and thus high demand. Remember, being an artist is just as much about your work as being a salesman of your works.

[Chris Bennett]

Stephen: I think you are tending to put 'Modern Art' and 'Modrenism' in the same boat.

As a very, very broad generalisation, Modern Art saw the invention of cubism and collage and thereby the language of modern advertising. It also saw the rediscovery of metaphoric form by way of African and so-called 'primitive' sculpture which finds one of its secular interpretations in the 'cartoon'. These languages are the most uncompromising expression of the metaphors at the root of all art - even the polished 19th century academic stuff when at its best in the hands of Lord Leighton and Waterhouse.

'Modernism' is an art of ideas rather than a plastic art' and it takes its cue from Duchamp and DaDa. Damien Hirst's diamond encrusted skull is a literary idea, a sort of pun, made concrete - diamonds are forever, beauty is only skin deep, you can't take money with you when you go, cosmetic surgery etc etc.

The BIG PROBLEM is that Modernism is widely thought of as a plastic art - it is not, it is something else. Some of it is 'Art' alright, but it is not a 'plastic' art. This is because it is not 'read' or experienced in formal terms in order for it to transmit its effect on us.

[StephenJ]

@stephenJ I'd agree with you on all that but there is one flaw in the end: people pay those thousands of dollars for those works. Who tells them to? They are convinced that the work is worth that much and so the demand creates more of those works. It is the nature of the art market at fault and it is really nothing new. Every era you can find artists ticked off at these sales of works. Buyers and dealers dictate the works the get the most attention and sales. So blame the artists less (yes they are in it for the money and being able to do what they 'want' and some just happen to have the style that is profitable, it isn't always intentionally for profit) and the ones that encourage this style of work. Really this all boils down to the age old question: Do you create to sell or for the sake of creation alone? Buyers and dealers have no interest in those questions, they create their own understanding of art (via their chosen art critic..like any criticism, you can always find someone with tastes similiar to your own) and buy accordingly. The amazing thing to me is that that buying habit has changed very little in the past 50yrs or so. But we are also in an unprecendented age of sharing information at speeds unfathomed in previous generations. Digital art is scaring many traditional fine artists (as someone with that training background...believe me, they are paranoid), so perhaps that will be the next big 'sale' area of artists in the near future. It just takes time to convince the buying audience that it is indeed something of high value and thus high demand. Remember, being an artist is just as much about your work as being a salesman of your works.

I think this is true. Art criticism is both helpful and hurtful to the art world in my opinion. When a critic chooses to push an artist because of what he has to say, or because of his idealogy rather than his technique it can be troublesome.

One of my problems with the art world in the 20th century was
that in many ways it became more about philosophy than some of the pieces themselves. Whenever I go into a museum or gallery with one of my friends/family members who aren't into art they are aghast at some of the things that pass as art in modernist circles (example said swatches of paint, or dot on a canvas.) One person I know called it "a great was to hustle people." There's a bit of an ivory tower elitism in modernist art critic circles today where you have to be in the "in" crowd to "get" the work. And often times once the "newness" has worn off it doesn't really stand the test of time. Where as most of the work from the painting masters from before 1900 can still spellbind people, and need very little explenation. One person I know of put it this way "no one has to be taught to love Rembrant." In other words you don't need years and years of study and indoctronation in modernist thought to appreciate a well done figurative piece by one of these old masters.

[jhgoforth]

Well, the point I was trying to make was that it is also a temporary thing. The art markets will change over time.

Another thing is, the idea that people have that someone can slap a few daubs of paint and sell it for butt loads of dough is a little exaggerated. Look through a list of the past 50yrs of major art sales and see what you find. It will still be artists like Van Gogh, Degas, Monet, Matisse, Da Vinci, etc etc. The truly good art is still the pinnacle of pricing. The outrageous artists/art works garner a lot of hype and attention but it is very fleeting in the long term. They even make money, but they will be typecast as be only capable of that sort of art. And fads do move on eventually. Think of them as teen hearththrobs or....hannah montanas.....ewww i just made myself gag in horror....

[kev ferrara]

As a website, its great. It has a point of view, tons of great images, links to ateliers and such.

But as artists we have to realize that the past cannot be recovered as if it were a lost blanket. This should not be our mission anyhow, in my opinion, because the 20th century art movement demonstrated in a whole multitude of ways what was lacking in Salon era art... boldness, audacity, fun, wildness, decorative design, originality... just to name a few qualities. Going forward we need to integrate what was successful in modernism with what we find lacking in it, if we are going to retake this kingdom called Art.

Just an opinion.

(Although, I think the way forward has already been slightly cleared by artists such as Fechin, Boldini, Freud, Kanevsky, Klimt, Repin, and others.)

[Ilaekae]

...y'know how you get potty trained and the grownups figure you're ready to cope on your own? So you cope--drunk, sick, sober, sleepy, lost in the woods...and life is pretty good.

Well, there's this bunch that always have to stand in the bathroom while you're doin' your business tellin' you how to do it better, how it's not the approved way, or just face palm themselves while going "tch tch tch..."

Me mum told me that's the one time in your life when you're allowed to pee on somebody without gettin' in trouble...





:P:P:P:P:P:P:P

[Phlipper]

Well ... the pictures are really nice, and make great refs for Master Copies in oil. And the reads are often interesting as well.

However ... everything painted under the umbrella of "modern art" isn't crap. Some of it is very, very good, imho. And everything painted under the umbrella of the new Classical Realism isn't good. Some of it wouldn't make an interesting photograph, so why paint it (as my friend says)? And jump'n Jesus on a pogo stick ... "Certified Living Master"? Give me a gigantic effing break, will ya, Fred? :D I have a friend and mentor who IS one a those, and I still think it's about the goofiest thing I've heard lately. LOL.

[Maidith]

I like the website². I dislike the philosophy³.



²: It's a fantastic resource for looking at awesome art works, and I can browse it for hours. Plus, I found my art school through this website.

³: I've read the articles in which ARC explains its philosophy, and for the most part they just sound butthurt to me. While I like classical academic 19th century art, it's by no means the ultimate standard. What about Islamic, Asian, Egyptian art? Mr Ross apparently thinks that art history started in Ancient Greece and everything before that and/or outside of Europe is irrelevant.

[arttorney]

Of course the pictures are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with paying attention to craftsmanship in art. I am with the people who prefer to take a "glass half full" approach to art philosophy. One never accomplishes as much by complaining about somebody else as he does by producing a sublime piece of his own that conveys his or her vision.

I was interested in this phrase from the front page of that site. It reminded me that striking a chord with a viewer can so often be about finding a common area of experience. Mr. Ross seems to think that bizarre, strange, or disgusting art does not tell the story of human life. I don't think I have much in common with him because an awful lot of bizarre, strange, or disgusting things have happened to me in my life (and, frankly, not a whole lot of contemplative women hanging around in drawing rooms and flower gardens).

The role of art, whether through poetry, literature, theatre or fine art, is to tell the story of human life. Indeed, fine art is "Art about Life". In the past century, all too often, art had morphed into the bizarre, the strange or the disgusting, endlessly trying to redefine itself by expanding the meaning of "fine art" but always by throwing away all prior parameters of what it meant to be a work of art…by throwing out all the rules. In other words, art has now become "Art about Art" not "Art about Life".

I would agree with Kev Ferrara to the extent he is saying we can take the best from the various past movements and try to move forward. I would agree with Chris Bennett to the extent he seems to say it is not productive to engage in blanket condemnations of practices we ourselves would not undertake, simply because we would not undertake those practices. (lol @ Elwell). If you are going to tell the story of human life, then your own life is the one you know about, and you know about it much better than an expert would. The experts can help you pick techniques out of the big salad bar of prior art, but your message really must be your own (so you aren't talking about stuff you don't know about).

[carlosranna]

As everyone said. The art you can find there is great.

About the philosophy, i will just add that i believe the ARC institution have some great paintings around, and are working their asses off to raise the value of their collection... Criticizing the kind of art people are buying today is just one way to do it.

[alffla]

wowh hm how come i never knew about this site hahahah omg i've been totally missing out!

thanks for posting this! :)

[Ohaeri]

Of course the pictures are beautiful and there is nothing wrong with paying attention to craftsmanship in art. I am with the people who prefer to take a "glass half full" approach to art philosophy. One never accomplishes as much by complaining about somebody else as he does by producing a sublime piece of his own that conveys his or her vision.

There was actually a discussion about what art should and shouldn't be allowed in some parts of the fractal art community just this week.

Wish I could have had this quote to throw at all the high and mighty folk that wanted to institute educational programs and minimum competency tests before allowing people to share art. :p

[lena murray]

Even though the school that I founded is ARC approved, I always try to forget these people, but they always come back after you. The problem is that their focus is on the lowest common denominator, worst examples of 19th century art. The height of the French Academy was Jean Louis David, not somewhat kitchy and pedophilic Bougerou (sorry, probably misspelled his name). Fred Ross owns his piece, and he keeps pushing and pushing that guy. It took Metropolitan Museum years and years before they purchased their Bougerou. Why not concentrate on better 19th century academic work, Degas for example? And, the problem is that in the grand scheme of things, 19th century was so much weaker than the Renaissance or Rembrandt, to say nothing about the Greeks, Romans and Egyptians. It is salon art, and not even the best of it. When I was a little girl, my favorite image was an early photograph of dogs sitting around the card table and playing poker. I think I took that photo to bed with me, so mujch I loved it. I remember how my mom explained to me that this was kitchy and bad taste and that there are much better things out there when it comes to visual images. This site brings me back to those poker playing dogs. Instead of educating people using truly great stuff it gives unnecessary attention to mediocre work. And that modernism bashing has got to stop. I've met so many abstract artists including my teacher who has superb academic training and can draw a human form extremely well, and without using photography or sight size or any of these mechanistic methods.

[Chris Bennett]

Lena Murray: I am in 100% agreement with you. Bouguereau was a really only a polisher of pretty things and had no plastic or formal invention worth speaking of. It is the mighty formal power Degas posessed that put him in a different class entirely. Great art always touches you, and that is why it never has to seduce you.

[Hyskoa]

When I was a little girl, my favorite image was an early photograph of dogs sitting around the card table and playing poker. I think I took that photo to bed with me, so mujch I loved it. I remember how my mom explained to me that this was kitchy and bad taste and that there are much better things out there when it comes to visual images.

So basically what you're saying is, you found a piece of work so impressive you just immediately loved it and then started disliking it because someone else told you it it wasn't a good way of interpreting it.

Is there a modern art commité all taste has to adhere to nowadays?
Otherwise they'll make you into a pariah of the art world. And nobody would ever want that. [/sarcasm]

If you first need to read a book of conduct or require a master degree to enjoy something, ask yourself if it's doctrine rather than development of your opinion. Or if you weren't right the first time when you said you genuinely loved the dogs picture, without need of 4 years listening to failed artists about why modern art and indirectly their work really doesn't suck.

I always imagine every modern artists on hands and knees pleading desperatly "My work doesn't suck, PLEASE BELIEVE ME, OH DEAR LORD BELIEVE ME!"
Of course I'd answer no every time, and tell them to learn how to paint and draw like real artists and not just make shit up to excuse their deviant-art.

Same counts for Bouguereau and the others. People KNOW it's art that baffles the mind, it's only after they're inserted with the neurotic backdraft of the modern day doctrine that they start pulling up their noses at it.
It must have been a rectal insertion with a suppository the size of a baby's arm.

Juuust to make sure it'd stick. People don't forget suffering of that caliber very quickly.


And that modernism bashing has got to stop. I've met so many abstract artists including my teacher who has superb academic training and can draw a human form extremely well, and without using photography or sight size or any of these mechanistic methods.

People use that excuse at my school as well.
And I reply in 2 ways, "show me proof.", whereas the following weeks, or months I get figurative work that a 8 year old could do. If the 8 year old was in a special class... and had a hobby of hitting it's head against granite.
And if the infant always used a running start for said hobby.

Or I would reply, "If you know how, then use it. Otherwise you're just wasting material and mocking everyone who tries hard to get better by saying 'Look at the shit I can get away with, haha idiots. With your hard work... and honest intentions.'"


And just to specify, I like the art on the site, but their opinions are too mild.
I say that ever since impressionism started the art world has been a collective of lazy sobs rather making excuses, theories and shocking people needlessly then doing an honest day's work. And that's when I'm being friendly, otherwise I'd just call em the fuckwits that rape everyone's eyes... through mere existance in history.

Sometimes you get individuals who actually do work hard, and the work shows, Waterhouse, Bouguereau, Zorn, ...

And people who try hard, but end up with mediocre art, like Monet due to poor eyesight for example.

But overall, since impressionism, not only did the quality of art go down like American housing prices(bit of contemporary humor there), it actually rushed for negative value, onto the illustrious void where all life goes to die.
To feel more at home I suppose.

Cheers.

[kev ferrara]

I am mightily impressed with Bougereau now and again. His shapes alone should make us think twice before accusing him of being a "mere" anything. (Speaking of metaphoric composition here.) And there's a work of his in the Met or The Dahesh, about 48" tall, full figure of a girl... that actually defies the usual arguments vis a vis painting versus photography. The girl actually seems of flesh and blood. Any artist that can defeat the camera at its own game deserves some credit, no? :)

kev

[Black Spot]

Monet’s poor eyesight helped him make those giant water lily pictures that everyone loves. Most of the Impressionists, Post- Impressionists, Fauves, etc still had an appreciation of hard work. It was the art critics who didn’t see things coming and didn’t want to miss out on the next ‘big thing’ that made crap fashionable not the artists. Just because an artist can blag, doesn’t make it art.

Take Mondrian, who is so logical in his approach. Look at what he did with the same tree over time. Don’t like all of his work, but I’m not a slave to the market and I can’t fault his logic even if it’s sometimes cold. You can’t dismiss that as not working hard.

Even Rothko can envelope a n00b with a comfort blanket and very nice one it is. It is conceptual art I have the main problem with, as it has to be explained before any experience, which makes it theirs, not yours. Art is personal and every viewer brings their own baggage only to be told they must view this in a certain manner makes it not art but an imposition.

[Chris Bennett]

I am mightily impressed with Bougereau now and again. His shapes alone should make us think twice before accusing him of being a "mere" anything. (Speaking of metaphoric composition here.) And there's a work of his in the Met or The Dahesh, about 48" tall, full figure of a girl... that actually defies the usual arguments vis a vis painting versus photography. The girl actually seems of flesh and blood. Any artist that can defeat the camera at its own game deserves some credit, no? :)

kev

Yes, his ability to seduce is impressive, I agree. But it is all gong and very little dinner. When I look at his work I feel I am being condecended to, rather than being pulled through a transfiguring portal. Standing in front of the Parthenon frieze I get a feeling that is of a fundamentally different order than the sweet goosing I get from Bouguereau. The trouble with ARC is that this sort of stuff is seen to be the Pinnacle of Art when it is in reality, extremely well executed eye candy. I love candy....but it doesn't mean I confuse it with dinner.

[Serpian]

Waterhouse beats Bouguereau, IMO.

That doesn't mean I don't like my candy, though. Mmmmmm..... Candy...

[lena murray]

Hi Hyscoa,

I know where you are coming from. In most colleges in America students are despised for wanting to learn classical drawing and painting.

I come from Russia, and it is a completely other extreme. Until Kruschev's "thaw" in early 60s people were sent to Gulags for liking Cezanne. Of course, it's different now, but still in Russia they do not only teach figurative art, but they impose the view that this is the only way. They still do huge multi-figure compositions based on religious and historical subjects.

When I mentioned my teacher who is 81 years old and who has been an abstract artist for the last 40 years of his life, I probably need to explain. He studied figurative art for 30 years of his life starting as a child prodigy at the age of 9 in a specialized school where they drill you into perfection through days or strenuous excercise (just like gymnastics or figure skating). And after that he went to an art college (3 years) and then to the academy for 6 more years. If time permits, I will post here academic works by Russian children or young adults, you'll see what I mean.

My point is, that when they are done with the academic education at the age of 25-30, many of them don't want to do it any more. For 10-15 years, they've drawn a figure from life (their poses are at least 60 - 100 hours long). They want to venture into other techniques and ideas. Even Titian and Rembrandt have departed very much over the years from their earlier styles (something these salon artists never seem to do).

So, when you come from another extreme, you want to experiment and grow. I will say more, many of these Russians coming to America end up going to American colleges to get in tune with the art scene here. They realize that having good academic work alone will not get them into a major gallery. A friend of mine is paying $30,000 taking loans for a New York University program that takes place in Venice (Venice bienalle is the reason), just to try to expand her vocabulary and establish connections. She probably draws better than any of her NYU professors.

And even though contemporary realism is becoming more popular now, it is still very marginalized, and not because it is realism, but because it is not very good realism, mostly mediocre art tht does not express anything, partly because it takes 19th century salon as their learning tool.

As far as your comment regarding "modernist censorship" No, I don't believe in it, but I do believe in art education and going to the museums like the Met, Lourve, Hermitage, Prado and similar. This is the only way you can educate yourself. Better even if you draw from the works rather than just look at it.

Picasso himself said that high art died with antiquity, meaning that after the Greeks, nobody ever reached that level of sophistication. Read a book written by one of his wives, don't remember her name. He said that art ended with the end of the artistic canons. Many say that it ended with high renaissance when the human rather than God became the center piece of the artists' attention, which was the case with Michelangelo (I am not putting him down, he is an absolute genius). But the high Renaissance was the beginning of introspection. It was all downhill from there (this is still Picasso's view) when it came to pure innovation, that whoever comes up with something new first is the best. Picasso said that he was caught up in it himself and since he was the unquestionable leader of the 20th century art market, he thus buried the high art for good (it is his quote).

So the result is all the contemporary art of 20 and now 21 century. I characterize it by total void of objectivity and completely based on Freudian psychoanalysis, meaning that we show stuff that is highly subjective. Art is no longer an object one can touch, it is an artist himself and sometimes his ideas that are considered art. Unfortunately, the artist or his ideas are very seldom interesting or ground-breaking.

And more on the censorship. If not for the Medicis or the Roman popes (who had elevated Leonardo, Michelangelo, Titian among other great Renaissance artists), King Philip with Velasquez or Catherine the Great in Russia who acquired 26 Rembrandts for the Hermitage, we would be stuck with mediocre candy-like work (liked by the common uneducated folks). These aristocrats were educated, sought advice from experts at their courts and that's why we have these museums.

Going back to 19th century salon, nothing particularly wrong with it. As students we look at it because it is easier for us to grasp it, it's naturalistic. When you start copying a real masterpiece, like a Titian painting or any good Renaissance artist, you get overwhelmed by how much more sophisticated they are. One of my teachers at the academy in Russia (an absolute drawing virtuoso) kept saying "how come if we are so much smarter than those Renaissance people, none of us comprehends even a little bit of what they knew?" I am actually copying right now a piece at the National Gallery in Washington. It's a young boy's portrait by a Leonardo follower. I've been working on just a drawing for three months now and still can't grasp how he came up with the image he did looking at nature. It is highly interpretive, every feature is a masterpiece, the mouth, the eye and etc, broken down into extremely pleasing geometric but soft shapes, and yet it is totally unified and fluid.

I apologize I wrote such a long thing here, but this is my view, and i do want to take advantage of this forum and try to show that ARC attention is at the wrong place.

[Jens]

Hyskao, this is about your second part you wrote..

Do you realize without all the "isms" AFTER impressionism we would still be following all the Academic rules, drawing portraits in pre-defined formats and sizes, drawing generals on horses. The point is that all these movements FREED the arts world..

It allows YOU to draw whatever you want.. do you think the academists of the 19th century would have appreciated any of the work on this site?

An example there was a painter (i think it was gericault or someone else) who painted a huge painting of a soldier on a horse. But the painting was rejected by the salon because the painting was too big to portray just a soldier. You could only draw generals that big. And this is the sort of thinking that all these movements got rid of. IT WAS NECESSARY.

The point is we can do what we want now.

[Hyskoa]

Hyskao, this is about your second part you wrote..

Do you realize without all the "isms" AFTER impressionism we would still be following all the Academic rules, drawing portraits in pre-defined formats and sizes, drawing generals on horses. The point is that all these movements FREED the arts world..

It allows YOU to draw whatever you want.. do you think the academists of the 19th century would have appreciated any of the work on this site?

An example there was a painter (i think it was gericault or someone else) who painted a huge painting of a soldier on a horse. But the painting was rejected by the salon because the painting was too big to portray just a soldier. You could only draw generals that big. And this is the sort of thinking that all these movements got rid of. IT WAS NECESSARY.

The point is we can do what we want now.

No.
People would have stopped buying from the salons eventually, till it died out. All those isms are about opinions, theories and shock effect.
Opinions and theories could have been easily written down in books, never even requiring canvas.

And you would end up with people still free to do as they want, but at least they'd get a decent education without taking a 100k loan and you wouldn't get people putting farm animals on formaldehyde at sotheby's just to get attention.

The interaction between paint and canvas and all those molesters of sight was pointless.

[•Lindsay•]

Opinions and theories could have been easily written down in books, never even requiring canvas.Is this for real? Opinions have no place in art? I think you just dismissed every piece of art that has ever been created.

[Jens]

No.
People would have stopped buying from the salons eventually, till it died out.

That's exactly what happened after the impressionisme, it got replaced by something else and it did die out..


Your comment about the 100K loan is funny as well. Do you think in the 19th century just anyone could become a painter and work for the court. He had the luck to be born in a rich family and that was the only way he got that education. Back then you didn't even have loans like now and you'd be shit out of luck. Back then art was a privilege for the rich. You're better of now believe me.

Don't get me wrong, there's just a handfull of artists from these periods i like just like there's a lot of work of renaissance artists i don't like. The fact that you like or don't like these kinds kinds of work is besides the point. It's grown historically and it had a reason.

[lena murray]

I am glad that some of you agree with me and found my post useful. And if you disagree, that's great too, because that's why I find this forum really interesting. I am glad that everyone here (including both sides pro and contra) is much more free-thinking than the ARC folks.

[StephenJ]

Wow, my threads sparked quite a discussion.

For me it's not so much that I think the 19th century is the be all and end all of art. There is some stuff from the salon/academic period that I think is somewhat dead and lifeless. Much of it is mind blowing though.

Anyway, what does bother me is that it's so hard to find the kind of education that puts someone in a position where they can choose to reject the academic approach. There's nothing more frustrating then to "want" to go for realism and not have the techniques or knowledge to do it. That's why I sought out the school that I'm going to. Not to say that I didn't have good teachers at my last school (a state school), but learning to realistically recreate the figure (which many students would love to learn) is simply not a part of the program at most of these schools.