Originally Posted by
Hugnomo
Well I'm glad i am discussing with another person that has knowledge on the subject, because I have grown so tired of the common insults from people who don't. And I was afraid you were one of them.
However, you do appear as another stereotype. You might see me as a soulless, pretentious student, but you appear to me as the angry conservative painter, clinging to classical legitimacy without the proper historical transposition. I also studied Renaissance art, neoclassicism and neo-impressionism, as well as varied other movements. And I liked a lot of it. But I could only be in a place to judge these pieces with a historical and cultural contextualization. I could only judge it through the eyes of someone from their respective centuries. You seem to judge them all in equal ground, which is fallacious, as you cannot judge their value based on the same criteria.
If I were to judge some of the most important historical pieces of art through the lenses of contemporary art, I might not even consider them art. I would be prone to see them as craftsmanship. Context is fundamental to art.
It's not like you can't identify yourself with the artistic values of the renaissance, you can. But it's wrong to expect that contemporary art will conform to values from the 15th century. They are not universal criteria to discern good and bad art. It doesn't respect the historical, political, philosophical context and ideas that motivate art production. They are just not the same, obviously.
You still make a fallacious generalization to judge all of contemporary art as the same, even if those critiques are fitting to some cases. Those same critiques are also fitting to cases from the movements you love.
Elitism in art is not novelty.
Art has been obsessed with identity for a long time, it's one of the biggest percursors to change, to philosophical discussion.
And finally, even if creativity and "soul" are such subjective concepts, pieces from the renaissance or neoclassicism are, arguably, less creative than what is made today. Which is not an insult in itself, for inovation and inventiveness were not valued in the same way they are today. A lot of pieces were comissioned and those comissions were extensively detailed, from composition and color, to scale and subject matter and were very subordinant to communication. There was far less space for creativity than there is today (of course this is not valid to all cases). But I don't judge them poorly because of that, it would be ridiculous, because those were not the intentions of those pieces.
I don't find anything wrong with that being your opinion on contemporary art, I just think it's wrong to make an affirmation, an universal statement. As if it's incontestable and you had the power and legitimacy to make such a statement. And I think you are aware you are making an unfair generalization, but the examples that you witnessed probably didn't give you the best impressions.
And believe me, a lot of the same things that bother you, bother me too. I hate it when an empty headed colleague of mine can get away with bullshit justifications to pointless acts. I hate the idea of "networking". I hate it that success happens more often to those who know people in high places. I hate it that people are successful because of their social status.
Gladly, I don't want to be a plastic artist. I'm just a few months from graduating, but it is not my calling. Believe me or not, I'm not actually pretentious (I think). : ) I want to take another course to pursue animation. I would actually prefer to work in entertainment than art. x)
PS: Sorry for any orthographic errors, english is not my first language. And sorry if I misjudged you in som way.
- - - Updated - - -
I am of the same opinion in most everything you said. My comment was not in her defense specifically, it was aimed at the habitual comments against contemporary art in general. : )