« "This has been tough weeks in that country." | Main | ASHCROFT SINGS »
ART RENEWAL CENTER:
NEW JERSEY HOTHEADS?
Did you hear about the protest today? No, nothing to do with the Iraq War or the bus strike. Art fans were protesting MIA's decision to sell "The Bohemian" by French artist William Bouguereau.
Personally, I would devote my protest energy to a hundred other things first. But saving a piece of art - a noble cause, right? Not exactly:
I think what gets my goat more than anything is the hyperbole being spewed by Fred Ross, who has never even set foot in the MIA. Yet he placed this ad in the Star Tribune, claiming this painting is "greater by far than 99% of what is regularly exhibited at the MIA." Umm, excuse me? A hugely subjective statement, one that makes me doubt his credibility.
And then this gem: "It could end up anywhere -- Outer Mongolia or Japan. This is a great, great painting, and America deserves it." Yes - by God - it could end up in the hands of the goddam Orientals! This is a, well a French masterpiece, and it deserves an American art museum basement!
Honestly, I find the peasant girl rather enchanting. And if Minneapolitans want to keep her, by all means speak up. But please, speak up only if you really feel it – not because you've swallowed Fred Ross' negative propaganda.
If the MIA has kept her locked up for 10 years, maybe it's time she went to a good home.
April 14, 2004 at 11:51 PM in Art/Design, Local | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2586/634133
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ART RENEWAL CENTER:
NEW JERSEY HOTHEADS?:
Comments
One of my very, very favorite paintings of all time. I think people have developed a love for this one because the poster of it has been so readily available. I used to have her hanging in my living room years ago, and my final painting for painting class in college was a surrealist take on this one.
I for one am glad they're speaking up -- because yes, keeping this here IS INDEED worth our energy. Quite what makes a work "important" is less a matter of scholarship and more a matter of whether a work has captured the public's heart. I'm sure the other piece is more "important" from a historical point of view, but I can't imagine it's as "important" in terms of public love.
I certainly love this and plan to write a letter to the MIA. And I'd never even heard of Fred Ross. Don't even know who the hell he is.
Posted by: jon at Apr 15, 2004 8:43:52 AM
I agree with Jon. The sentimental value of this painting cannot be discounted. Even though it's been in storage for 10 years, I have vivid memories of this painting (I went to the MIA a lot in high school). I was discussing this with Lori last night and she asked why there was no public outcry until now. My response was that, for me personally, I know that museums only have about 3% of their collection on display at any given time and the rest is in storage. With the renovation and expansion of the Museum 5-6 years ago, they stored a lot of really great items. I missed them, but didn't consider it worth contacting the museum over. I guess I just thought they'd be put back on display someday.
The MIA is a public museum and in some sense, its collections belong to the community. I think the saddest consequence of the sale of the Bohemian would be for it to fall into private hands. (Although, even private art owners do lend their works to museums, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad after all.) I can understand the museum wanting to trade the painting for one with greater historical significance, but I am among those who think they're making a mistake.
Posted by: spacewaitress at Apr 15, 2004 10:48:21 AM
Well there you go. I did have a little nostalgic ping when I looked up this painting, so maybe I saw it in my youth too. I'm sort of torn about the whole thing, because the painting they want to acquire does absolutely nothing for me. And yet, the museum has a right to develop it's collection. The MIA is supported, in part, by local and state public funds. I don't know what their policy on deaccessioning works is, but they should provide for public input into the process. BUT it's not something that should just be "put up for a vote" because it's not a democracy, it's an art museum and we entrust their expertise.
But if they did ask me? I'd vote for them to keep - and DISPLAY - Bohemienne.
Posted by: Chuck at Apr 15, 2004 12:24:24 PM
And I'd sure love to see your surrealist version, Jon!
Posted by: Chuck at Apr 15, 2004 12:46:00 PM
I've never been to a art museum. I think I can blame my parents for that, never expanded my mind in that direction. Now don't blow a gasket on me but I have to ask. Why would anyone look at that painting and really care were it goes? The monalisa, i wouldn't give you $20 bucks for It. What am I missing?
Posted by: Scott at Apr 15, 2004 1:46:22 PM
Well, I think when a painting becomes part of your local museum's permanent collection, the community becomes fond of it and thinks of it as part of their community.
In this case though, I wonder if we'd actually have a better chance of seeing it displayed after it was sold? Ahh, tales of irony.
Posted by: Chuck at Apr 15, 2004 2:38:50 PM
Max Sifer believes the work should be kept at a museum for future generations
to enjoy. Wether it be in this or another country, Max emphasizes the need
for a museum to keep displaying this work.
Posted by: max sifer at Nov 30, 2004 5:15:10 PM
Thank God someone is speaking out about the idiotic bullshit that those
so-called 'art critics' from the Art Renewal Centre are injecting into
the world. Fred Ross and his band of merry men(particularly irritating
is Brian Yoder)are complete hacks. I had an e-mail debate with said Brian
Yoder, where, funnily enough, i picked holes right through all his
elitist theories on the state of modern art, which believe me, wasn't
hard, and he proceeded, without my permission, to post my private e-mail
correspondance on their site. I wouldn't have minded,except for the fact
that he chose only to publish certain comments out of context to try to
make himself look better.As soon as i challenged his theories, he stopped replying to my e-mails.The ARC is a pathetic organisation, only showing
one side of a multi faceted argument, and choosing to show only the
public correspondance which strengthens their 'holier than thou' image.
Funnily enough, there is no public forum available on the site...well
now i know why!
Posted by: Kirsty at Dec 1, 2004 7:53:38 PM
Fred Ross owns one of the largest collections of 19th century painting in the US. Of course he wants to inflate the importance of 19th century realists. He stands to gain greately financially from this. I doubt he would be so quick to discredit modernism if he owned dozens of modernist paintings. His arguements are full of holes big enough to drive a bus through, the most obvious FACT that he ignores is that in the mid 19th century the invention of the photograph changed painting styles not critical influence. Welcome to 2005, what do dancing nymphs, bucolic fileds and flying pixies have to do with truth, or life in this world? Nothing other than he stands to make alot of money by taking advantage of the general public's naivite about art. Be aware of this organization, they are wolves in sheeps clothing, that want to tell you what kind of art you should appreciate and what kind of paintings you should be making. He is an arrogant art snob of the worst kind.
Posted by: read between the lines at Dec 31, 2004 1:25:40 PM
Art is an exercise for the living. Each period has something to show but, by no means is the ARC dictating to artists what they should paint, they are meerly showing examples of fine art as it was and is painted and disputing David Hockney's theory of optical aids supposedly used by old masters and it seems to me they are correct. Ruisdael, Ribera and Homer had talent, Warhol, Rothko, and Twombly had none. I guess I'm a snob too.
Posted by: Joseph Young at Feb 14, 2005 12:13:55 PM
Do not underestimate the intelligence and thought that goes into maintaining the ARC. I would suggest that those who criticize its importance take a closer look. You might find that your own capacity for art appreciation is enhanced, and you might learn a thing or two in the process. Novel concept! Fred Ross is helping to educate those who would be educated. Bravo!
Posted by: eva kilgore at Aug 22, 2005 4:06:09 PM
Eva, if Fred Ross is interested in educating then I'm a flying pig. His site is tabloid rhetoric, unsubstantiated assertion, his opinion, his prejudice and has no real educational content, except some nice pictures. As for appreciation, chocolate box lids have their uses- to sell chocolate! Art teachers have a difficult task that involves informing, discussing, enlightening and exposing people to real art - this doesn't involve telling them what art is or art isn't. Only very poor teachers do that. Think about your own school art teacher if you had one. Grown-ups make up their own minds in a democracy.
What really annoys me about the art-renewal centre isn't the stuffy self-opinionated nonsense that promotes French academic visual hypocrisy as the Paradigm of all that is good and holy in the art world or the even the backward self-regarding cant for a fantasy neo-romantic world frame. It is their scant regard for the truth. They lash out in all directions- Why! There is extensive research out there for anyone to seek on artists use of optical aids - Vermeer, Canaletto, Guardi, and numerous other artists including their doyen Ingres used lenses and camera obsura. Many of their paragons, including Bougereau used photography to develop their compositions. Do the work, because ARC havn't! Poor art is poor art no matter how well it's marketed or packaged, which is why the French keep it in an old converted railway station called the Musee D'Orsay and not the Louvre. Try asking them and not Fred Ross ?
Posted by: Yogurt at Sep 17, 2005 6:13:02 PM
Who's to decide what constitutes"REAL Art"? And why is realism not considered a valid expression in the modern age? Yes, ARC has a large share of turn of the century realists to encourage the study of those techniques for modern works... ( It takes a "bit" more studying to be able to realistically render skin tones than to splash paint on a canvas. ) I recently was made aware of an interesting quote from Pablo Picasso himself on the "value" of his own art ( pasted below) and it's interesting that in his own words, he calls his work "tricks of the
intellectual charlatan"... Seems to me it all comes down to personal taste: If you like paint splotches on a canvas, then good on ya but why is that more valid than a realistic rendering of a subject?
marci
In picasso's own words:""From the moment that art ceases to be food that feeds the best minds,
the artist can use his talents to perform all the tricks of the
intellectual charlatan. Most people can today no longer expect to
receive consolation and exaltation from art. The "refined", the rich,
the professional "do-nothings", the distillers of quintessence desire
only the peculiar, the sensational, the eccentric, the scandalous in
today's art. I myself, sent the advent of Cubism, have fed these
fellows what they wanted and satisfied these critics with all the
ridiculous ideas that have passed through my mind.
The less they understood them, the more they admired me. Through
amusing myself with all the absurd farces, I became celebrated, and very
rapidly. For a painter, celebrity means sales and consequent
affluence. Today, as you know, I am celebrated, I am rich. But when I
am alone, I do not have the effrontery to consider myself an artist at
all, not in the grand old meaning of the word: Giotto, Titian,
Rembrandt, Goya were great painters.
I am only a public clown--a mountebank. I have understood my time and
have exploited the imbecility, the vanity, the greed of my
contemporaries. It is a bitter confession, this confession of mine,
more painful that it may seem. But at least and at last it does have
the merit of being honest."
Pablo Picasso, 1952
Posted by: marci blattenberger at Sep 23, 2005 1:21:43 PM
I'm no art critic, nor did I ever consider myself an artist. However, looking at the works of art that the Art Renewal Center helps preserve and promote, I can only applaud the efforts of Fred Ross to save "The Bohemian" from ending up in some private collection or in a museum far away. I don't live in Minneapolis, but I can say that the MIA should put it back on display. Some may question Fred Ross's motives ($$$). That's okay. However, he seems to have a strong conviction to preserve 'Realism' as a contemporary artform. He puts his money there too. It's no different than someone who likes to sail and promote sailing owning a sailboat. After all, if sailing becomes popular, you can always sell your boat.
If we question why we should "protest" the painting's removal and we might as well question our own existence. Sure, there are more important things to protest. But if we ignore the gradual erosion of our humanity, then we will surely end up like robots. I see a society of people in the United States who are slowly being de-humanized by pop-culture, television, computers, cell phones, PDAs, etc. Marketers and advertisers can manipulate us, like tiny lab rats, into following their path to their cheese. Art, in my opinion, helps to preserve our "humanity." It is a unique form of expression that has endure since early Mankind scrawled pictures on cave walls. And although war, poverty, and oppression should garner our attention since they are direct threats to "humanity," we must not ignore the seemingly benign, yet more sinister and stealthy threats.
Posted by: Dave at Oct 4, 2005 5:25:12 PM
Sorry, this is a continuation of the previous comment .... (damn wireless networks)
I am a geophysicist. I study the Earth through the lens of physics, mathematics, computers, and science in general. However, I do not let technology and science de-humanize me. I still enjoy a beautiful sunset, or enjoy laying in my hammock on a summer night gazing at the stars. I can still feel awe when I look at Yosemite Valley. And you can be damn sure that if someone decides to build an apartment building that obstructs my view of the sunset, or opens a neon-glowing strip mall whose light pollution obscures the faint starlight, I will be out there to protest.
Again, I am not an artist or an art critic. However, I do know that certain modes of art (realism, impressionism) provoke strong emotions and feelings. The same can be said for music. I find it hard to consider Jackson Pollock's 'Lavender Mist' "art," but that is my opinion. I am also of the opinion that one could let a chimp paint and it would be of comparable worth to Pollock's work. However, I was struck by my wife's reaction to the Art Renewal Center. She was an art major at the University of Michigan. During an art class, a particular instructor constantly berated her for painting in the "Realistic" mode. This instructor preferred more "modern" styles. Needless to say, my wife did not fare well in the class and has remained resentful of this instructor to this day, some 20 years later. When I showed her the ARC's page, her face lit up with a joy that I could not describe. She loves looking at the contemporary works of Realism. To her, this is ART!
The importance of art in reaffirming our humanity is often overlooked today. We are so goal-oriented in our society. Schools cut art and music to fund math and science. Although it may seem insignificant compared to many of the world's ills, it is important to preserve. I, myself, applaud the efforts to save "The Bohemian" and hope more communities do the same whenever there are threats to the arts. Remember, we need to look at the scenery and enjoy the journey of life.
Posted by: Dave at Oct 4, 2005 5:48:34 PM
Well, after fighting with wireless on my laptop, I accidently posted the same thing 3 times. Mea culpa. Forgive me!
Posted by: Dave at Oct 4, 2005 5:54:03 PM
I was at the MIA while they still owned the Bouguereau in question. This was well before this controversy began. Looked around the museum for the work in vain and finally asked the information desk where it was. The lady behind the desk said;"You know more poeple ask about that painting!" I said, "maybe that should tell you something-why don't you display it?"
The fact was the museum was already in the process of weaning it's patorns from the work in order to hack it for the money. A purly business decision. The decision that the need for money comes before the desires of the patrons. I don't know precisely what the math was but they made a huge sum by selling a good work of art and buying a lessor work as reflected in the sale price.
Posted by: Timothy C Tyler at Jan 26, 2006 7:07:45 PM
Dave, I can absolutely relate to your wife's experience. I spent a lot of very frustrating time in college and high school trying to resolve my notions of what constituted art with what my teachers thought was or was not "creative" enough. For me, it was such a relief and an inspiration finding a website like Art Renewal, I can't even explain it. I don't know what Ross's motivations for creating the website were, but I am truly grateful that it exists.
To the people who say that Art Renewal is "elitist" for saying what is, and is not good art -- that's just silly. Proponents of modernism and abstract art did exactly that for the many years they spent dissing realism.
Posted by: aktaie at Apr 22, 2006 1:32:21 AM
Can we enjoy this art without being coerced into declaring it to be the only “true” (read: official) art?
Can we bask in its exquisitely wrought beauty without joining in an obsessive, unseemly debate over whether it will withstand the “test of time”?
And, even as we revel in its sumptuous beauty, can we use it as a tool, to turn our eyes once again to the art of the 20th Century and understand anew why all that “art” simply had to be created, in all its dazzling, restless variety?
Permission please, O great Living Masters(tm) !
Art cannot be removed from its social context— that is the very lens through which we are able to discern its beauty. The lens is always there, whether you think it is or not.
It’s good to know as much as you can about the lens you are holding, why and how someone gave it to you, to question and understand your own worldview, before you decide that everyone else should be seeing art through the same lens as yourself.
I hope this glorious art does withstand the “test of time”, so that some future generation can appreciate it without the fundamentalist propaganda of ARC attached!
Posted by: R. Mutt at Apr 29, 2006 9:32:05 PM
WE HAVE AN ART CRITIC IN HOUSTON NAMED JOHNSON IN THE CHRONICLE. HER DECEASED HUSBAND WAS AN ABSTRACT ARTIST. THERE IS MORE REALISTIC ART BOUGHT OUT OF HOUSTON AND BROUGHT HOME THAN THE SCHLOCK THE GALLERIES ARE SELLING IN HOUSTON. IF THE CHRONICLE WOULD ACTUALLY GET A "CRITIC" WITHOUT BIAS. IT WOULD HELP EDUCATE THE NEW ARTISTS WITHOUT A WAITING FOR SOME HANDOUT FROM SOME ASSOCIATION OR TAX DODGING MENTOR.
Posted by: CHAZ at Jun 24, 2006 7:46:13 AM
Artists are corrupt beings seeking money & fame, no matter if they`re classical or modern, abstract etc etc
First we need to fix war & hate, then we can play with art.
If you like abstract, you are brainwashed, if you like classical you`re brainwashed as well! :D
They (the artists) brainwash you to get your money & fool you to forget real beauty (a REAL flower)(patterns in the stars) etc..
Also politicians/journalists/publicists/programmers/lawyers
are very corrupt & people with money, NO exceptions. Got money = corrupt! :D
Intellectuals are called that way for a reason! they`re SO smart that can manage to escape to that irrefutable fact, by making puzzles with words, but the truth is while some people masturbate with asthetics, other is dying from hunger or in a war, directly influenced by our careless behaviour, if you like/buy pieces of art of any kind, you`re just supporting war, envy, class/cultural division, & ecological damage to the earth.
Art sucks _:P
Posted by: Sherlock at Jan 30, 2007 3:46:24 PM
Also,
Art wich critizices all human problems is the MOST corrupt & hipocrite of them all!
Posted by: Sherlock at Jan 30, 2007 3:51:12 PM
hmm... how to best show you what a ridiculous view that is?
oh yeah. replace references to art/aesthetics with "blog comments."
Posted by: chuck olsen at Jan 31, 2007 3:31:08 AM
I probably shouldn't even legitimize that "critique" with a comment, but it might be kinda fun.
Sherlock:
1. Do you have any idea what percentage of artists have any fame and money? Here's a bit of info for you - artists don't get into art for the money and fame, it's like trying to win the lottery as a job. Just ain't gonna happen.
2. Humans are creative. We have been making art for 35,000 years, perhaps longer. Were the cave painters also corrupt?
3. Art is a communication from the soul. Art is also music. Do you think this world would somehow be better if we had no way to communicate from soul to soul?
4. Art is therapeutic as well, and has saved many lives (reducing suicide) as well as reduced violence.
5. Art is a part of the beauty of who we are as humans. What sort of beings would we be without it? We'd be more violent and uncaring.
6. You seem to be just pulling things out of your ass - please get a diaper.
Posted by: Lorika at Jan 31, 2007 12:35:10 PM
My experience mirrors the criticisms made by many of you here.
For those of you seeking a scholarly rebuttal of the Art Renewal's claims, misdirections, and falsehoods, you might like to check my article at
http://www.gregscheckler.com/Texts/Questioning_CR.pdf
It's long, footnoted, and contains a fairly full account of where Ross's claims came from.
Posted by: Gregory Scheckler at Mar 23, 2007 5:41:14 PM
The caveman paintings are not corrupt cause they are naive, there was no dollar at that time. I was writing before about the art market & current artists, wich are corrupt & yes, even artists who don`t make a coin are corrupt. They could be building houses & growing food instead of making art no one is interested to see (even if everyone is interested to see it!).
(van gogh for example? he was helpful of the poor & later put himself to art & payed the price).
Art until TODAY was necesary? maybe, now we can grow up & forget about it. Also do the same with wars, animal cruelty, etc..
The ONLY thing that an artist is thinking in his whole creative process is FAME & MONEY. One of the two at least, that`s a law & denying it is in fact a low thing.
Those so called "automated process" of making art are a very calculed (pre-thinked) way of brainwashing the media or the possible costumers.
The artist in the very moment he is using the brush, is thinking about money & fame. No exception ever.
(only a 2 yrs old kid maybe, but thats diferent, he still has no awareness of money & fame & yes some corrupt artists have make you believe they had the naivety of a kid (miro, picasso)while inside they were VERY amused at tricking people! "hehhe i can`t believe it worked, those people are even buying our stuff!" (So fun it was for them i`m sure. don`t learn to paint with technique, just justify your errors & your lack of technique by telling others that is your "inner kid" who did it (with the help of "critics"), the rediscovery of art!)
Almost every profesion except farming is corrupt too.
Capitalism & communism are very corrupt too.
(farmers now are corrupt because they are linked too much to this system, they grow transgenic & use chemicals).
Every single person with money in this planet is corrupt too. U know, more money than they need, thats why they have problems & have to become very creative in spending that money on works of art to make them "happy" (wich maybe were done by starving artists, yes) INSTEAD of helping poor people.
If we learned something from the history of art is that it has to die of course, we have to get over it.
Of COURSE art is not corrupt, is the people, who care more about fakeness than reality.
That`s why no matter wich style, figurative, non figurative, contemporary etc.
Look classical painters made beauty & perfection but they worked for the evil & powerfull (kings,lords, etc)
So called revolutionary painters also worked for the new rich & evil people (rockefeller etc).
Art therapeutic? art is maybe the whole cause of why we need a therapy! i mean this whole world centered in the image, most people who need therapy had a dificulty dealing with their inner image.
Is like saying "drugs, the cause & cure of all my problems".
Right now we are too surrounded by art & forgot NATURE (wich is the TRUE art, its observation without the help of machines course). Even toilet paper, the floor of our house, etc is artistic. Not everyone is an artist but some of us, in our frustration pretend to be, maybe that will lead to a depression where we later will have to do art to keep going. Like a drug.
Art & soul have nothing to do... forget about art, sit close to a tree, look to it for 6 hours... maybe u can see the soul of the tree, but most art is not even ecological, art is about selfishness, competition & expression of what we are.
Music as well is evil, (humans of course, not music itself). (But since we NEVER EVER learned to use it wisely, better to close the door).
Music divides people, world war 2 was cause of art in a big part! (read about nazis beliefs about art).
The day we get rid of art, we will be much more free, also tv news, internet etc, all that is evil.
Evil & good are very easy to see, problem is, intellectuality, it works in a way to attach you to the system. Intellectuality is your worst enemy makes truth a misty hard to see thing.
Sorry for the bad english but the idea is clear :
Art is bad & evil for humankind. Also politics, all media, music, most careers who depend on those things too. All that is parasitism.
Everytime you eat are you counciouss all the exploitation that was necesary for your meal? So we can go & think about wich art is better while humankind suffers? Bad karma they have?
What is good?
Food growing, natural healing & house making.
(& of couse all that in a ecologically earth loving way).
Those are the only activities we have to do to be happy, no art at all (at least with materials!).
Posted by: sherlock at Jul 14, 2007 11:11:11 AM
I agree completely. We need only live in gray boxes, perhaps with a flowerless shrub, and eat plain nuts.
Posted by: chuck at Jul 14, 2007 6:46:43 PM
Although i agree about the guys from arc being a little insane & close minded you can[t expect less in a world where rubbish is considered art.Even shit in a can is considered art! hahahahah
Posted by: nelpast at May 11, 2008 1:18:22 PM
Why do you Americans believe that you deserve this painting more than anyone else. America is not superior to any country, you guys just think it is. I completely agree with what this blog has said, about this Fred Ross guy and the stuff about keeping the painting. Grow up, and be happy with that current Bouguereau which isn't in fact in storage, and let the painting go some place where it will be seen, hopefully not in the U-S of A.
And jeez Sherlock, you sound quite the cynical hippy.
Posted by: Lilley at May 22, 2008 12:51:05 AM
I'm sorry I only had the time to read a few comments, and I really liked the ones I've read. I think yes, Fred Ross is a bit extreme. But he has to be. He is really doing some of the best promoting of Classical Realism. I am in college and I can see that people are bored with modern/contemporary types of art that are so popular in the city art walks and musuems. If anything students are falling in love with themselves thinking they've arrived after 4 years of schooling and only giving people credit if they do something good from their imagination. Students are very lost, technique is seen as cheating in many of their eyes. People think they are original when they really aren't. Great art isn't 'respected' is the bottom line. It's really sad what has happened.
Posted by: Johnny at Jun 14, 2008 4:52:03 PM
Some of you are very dim. People should learn about something before they preach their nutty theories. All Artists are corrupt? Come on. Maybe those who know their own B.S. but maybe those who do do some abstract expressionism are off in the head, we just don't know. They may see what they do as beautiful because of mental problems. I really want to know why, myself for instance, could be rich in other fields. I can analyze and use my mind more creativity then most of the people I see. But I chose to be an artist instead. I chose to live a life that values beauty and seeks to produce it, teach it, and carry it's principles on. Of course artists want to make money, but they'd have to be stupid to think they're going to be rich off it; that's a no brainer. Great Classical Art, Classical Contemporary art stands for something more than anything. And it usually is understood by average joes. You don't have to swallow lines of Bullshit from prestige suggestion. If you honestly think your last bowel movement is just as powerful as the Sistine Chapel, you have no ability to differentiate. And if you are sane, it would be hard to believe that you would always see average crap as valuable as great works of art. You would most likely be lying to yourself, unless you see the stars as nothing as special as your last sneeze. Very hard to believe. Classical art is about LIFE, and many times based off Mathematical principles found in nature. Why do people love to go to Italy? The beautiful art is usually one reason. Now lets take this back to america, and wherever we live. Lets get out of this capitalist view of art, art for art and art for money. Let Ross do his thing, he needs to be a little over the top to be heard. How many people are well known for being down to earth average people. To stand for something great you must exclude major things as well. You can't ever agree with everyone. My advice to some of you, please lay off the drugs. And if you see Hockney, tell him that as well. Hockney may be true in some regard, but he has pretty much lost his mind on his theory of camera obscura and optics. He is in love with himself and too stubborn to face the fact that maybe Ingres could do what he did. It's easy to accept if you are horrible at art though. So i can understand why some of you want to believe old master's cheated. But hey go look at the masters of our time and tell me if they're using optics. I think you'll find they're very good, smart people devoted to something of excellence.
Posted by: Pete at Jun 14, 2008 6:16:07 PM
Post a comment
NOTE: Comments are held for moderation. Spam is evil. Please be patient.
