Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Check this link out:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 78808.html

I swear I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to, but chalk this one up to a win for the conspiracy theorists.

I always wondered how "modern art" was so successful considering the vast majority of people did not (and do not) like it at all. It seems when you've got the deep pockets of the government to prop up your art movement and legitimize the intellectually overwrought visual vomit the masses will eventually accept it, seems our attention always goes where the money goes.

I had always chalked it (the mystifying success of "modern art") up as the a result of the museums taking a speculative approach to buying art... meaning, they decided around that time that instead of waiting until an artist became important to acquire some art they would try to predict which artist would become important in the future (which becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy) in an effort to save money. What I didn't know was it was much easier to be speculative with the governments money and direction as to where and on whom to spend it.

To me this is a horrible travesty. Modern realists like Andrew Wyeth were marginalized severely as a result of the seeming prominence of the (government backed) "modern art" movement... to the point of not even being considered a "real" artist. But now it comes to light that if the arts were left alone to develop naturally, Andrew Wyeth was probably the most important american artist of the last century... he simply did not fit into the CIA's agenda to show up Moscow.

Best,
Jason.

Half Life wrote:Modern realists like Andrew Wyeth were marginalized severely as a result of the seeming prominence of the (government backed) "modern art" movement... to the point of not even being considered a "real" artist.

If that were indeed the case, then why is Hopper considered a great artist? Surely he's no modernist. Also, modernism didn't start with abstract expressionism. By the fifties, people like Picasso, Braque, Matisse, Ernst, Duchamp etc were widely acknowledged as modern masters - without the CIA backing them up.

I'm not saying the predominance of modernism had no effect on the position of realism, it did, nor that the CIA didn't fund modern art, just that there's a correlation between Wyeth fading away a bit, and the quality of his work.

I am speaking specifically about American artists -- I love Hopper and he was the closest to realism that the modern art (specifically abstract expressionism) could tolerate... but he was empty.

I've seen more Wyeths in person than most people and I have been a fine art painter, gallery owner, and museum aficionado for a long time... I've done, shown, bought, and sold just about every style of art that one could consider painting. To my eyes (which have beheld tens of thousands of original paintings by all the great names of history and many others) Wyeth is hands down the best American artist of the last century and he is in the top 5 of all time. It is a crime that his status of true "artist" is even debatable.

Best,
Jason.

My point was that, given there's similarities between Hopper and Wyeth, and both are received quite differently, there have to be other factors at work than the government-funded dominance of modernism. Does this make sense? - I'm not a native English speaker.

Half Life wrote:I am speaking specifically about American artists

Why the rigid divide? Surely there's ample historical proof to support the thesis that the Americab art of the fifties and sixties - some of which I hold dear (oh, Diebenkorn, thou lovely bastard child of Matisse and Mondriaan! )- has European roots, at least in part. (I cannot be the only one who thinks Pollock's early work - which I'm not fond of - was influenced by Masson, right?)

Half Life wrote:Wyeth is hands down the best American artist of the last century and he is in the top 5 of all time.

A bold claim. Of course, opinion is free - no sarcasm intended. Who, if you'll forgive my curiosity, are the other four?

And how do you feel about Sheeler?

Stinkie7000 wrote:My point was that, given there's similarities between Hopper and Wyeth, and both are received quite differently, there have to be other factors at work than the government-funded dominance of modernism. Does this make sense? - I'm not a native English speaker.

Part of why Wyeth was perceived differently was he was an outsider who didn't socialize much with the NY click... Hopper was more in tune with his contemporaries.

Stinkie7000 wrote:

Half Life wrote:I am speaking specifically about American artists

Why the rigid divide? Surely there's ample historical proof to support the thesis that the Americab art of the fifties and sixties - some of which I hold dear (oh, Diebenkorn, thou lovely bastard child of Matisse and Mondriaan! )- has European roots, at least in part. (I cannot be the only one who thinks Pollock's early work - which I'm not fond of - was influenced by Masson, right?)

Of course but this was funded by an american agency acting on american soil with american artists -- it seems to be exclusively an american cultural affair. BTW, I am not saying that modernism shouldn't/couldn't have risen to prominence... just that it was accelerated and funded as a "American Art". A distinction which the realist artist in America has not enjoyed. Realist painters in America have gotten the shaft over the last 50 years (or so) by the intelligentsia in control of "what is art" in America.

Stinkie7000 wrote:

Half Life wrote:Wyeth is hands down the best American artist of the last century and he is in the top 5 of all time.

A bold claim. Of course, opinion is free - no sarcasm intended. Who, if you'll forgive my curiosity, are the other four?

And how do you feel about Sheeler?

In no particular order:

Thomas Moran
Winslow Homer
John Singer Sargent

The fourth spot is difficult for me to decide because there are many artists who approached that level of importance and greatness but none who took it as decidedly as the above names... but a sentimental favorite is John LaFarge.

Sheeler is fine -- I'd put him just below O'Keeffe who I'd put on the fringe of the top ten.

From my point of view the abstract movements have a limited lifespan that they have for the most part already used up -- it doesn't have any staying power in the long term and I see it mostly as a blip on the radar of art history. It's all about novelty at this point and sadly craftsmanship is no longer valued.

Part of my complaint is great works of art throughout history have been appreciated by the common man, this is no longer true of the vast majority of current paintings purchased by museums in the last 50 years (or so). The common man is often confused, repulsed, and even angered by this work... this tells me the museums chose poorly(as instigated by the CIA). Painted Illustration and Photography have taken the place of fine-art paintings in the heart of the average person.

Best,
Jason.

BTW an artist you might like who I happen to like very much as well is Wolf Kahn... he's worth a look If you are not familiar with his work -- expressionist, sort of the logical conclusion of Paul Gauguin.

Best,
Jason.