NP Rank:
Sunday's Fancying a Day at the Uffizi
Opinion:
I have a very soft spot for acutely detailed art and my favourites ranges from the ever popular High Rennaisance to the much criticised Impressionist era.
So when I was going through some of the current Malaysia art earlier today and its always a surprise for me when a pointless painting of "gibbly-goshly" colours thrown onto a white canvas which curiously looks like a leering mutant dinosaur can be sold up to tens of thousand of dollars.
How grand it is to be an artist today no?
However very few artists fit the stereotype of suffering for their arts, where they starve in unheated dusty loft, producing unknown and unrecognized masterpieces one after another until finally they achieve recognition on their death bed (actually that was Van Gogh's history 101).
But the image of the artist as a lonely, ignored and overlooked genius is somewhat attractive, but unfortunately very misleading. Because the truth is actually much more pedestrian and colourless.
The more common reality is that, the artists who attract lavish praises and recognitions in his or her lifetime usually just sink into irreversible obscurity, muted in the foreground and becomes a footnote in art history rather than a chapter.
Probably the most idyllic time for an artist to flourish is at beginning of the 16th century when Leonardo Da Vinci argued that the artist should be treated as the social and intellectual equal of aristocrats and scholars.
Many great artists of this High Rennaisance shared the same appreciation (not a surprise) and the splendid flowering of their art proves how succesful they were in establishing this courtier role.
But now as I was looking from one artist's brief biography to another, "artist" has been reduced to being sucessful multimilliion businessmen or women. Selling to institutions or private clients such as large corporations or auction houses.
And more and more artists are now slipping into a managerial role. Where artist does not create a work of art in the traditional manner, but merely promotes and idea or concept and delegating the physical assembly or components to the selected subcontractors to express their individual revolutionary or political opinions.
But 1800's impressionism art was never be conspicuosly revolutionary, its aim simply to depict the immediacy of the world with complete fidelity.
Its style is often delicate, mosaic-like brushstrokes in light brilliant colours which are deliberately intended to capture an instant moment, briefly glimpsed.
The aim is more of spotaneity, which pointed a new way of seing things. Where artists like Monet, Sisly and Pissaro or early Rembrandts gave us random slices of life. All artwork seemingly fleeting but in actuality the product of painstaking labour.
However today's most exhibited art often means large scale work such as "Marsyas" by Indian artist Anish Kapoor (2004), which shows a gigantic sculpture that was covered by a dark red leshy textured PVC membrane - which supposedly referring to Marsyas, a Greek satyr who was flayed alive.
The modern art is all about shock and gritty realism with emphasis on headline grabbing issues or worst, the neurotic lifestyle of the artist's private life such as the celebrated Andy Warhol.
It was once said the quiet contemplation of the dignity and absurdity of humanity, or a wish to create a bettwe world for humankind is "out".
An interest in beauty, clarity and spiritual values is also "out" whereas material values and art-made-to-confuse are "in".
Genuine passion and belief are out of fashion while detachment and irony are widely praised as virtues.
Sloppiness can dramatically be applauded as spontaneity.
And ultimately the dissapoinment of modern art comes from the sub-contracting all aspects of physical creation to anonymous hands are now simply accepted without question.
Give me Uffizi anytime and I don't mind the line, grazie...
Crowd Power
-
tiha zaman
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia







Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (15)
at 06:20 on August 10th, 2008
My own silly drawings and paintings at flickr
at 06:32 on August 10th, 2008
Those drawing of yours are not silly!
at 06:39 on August 10th, 2008
I may critic my own art. haha
at 06:30 on August 10th, 2008
tiha zaman, I like this story. It's good stuff.
The detailed art has been replaced by Photography and Film, giving art a new avenue to explore, the one of the mind and Ideas as well as concepts and less the real and concrete of the physical world! That being said they are as always a lot of charlatans and opportunist using this to make an easy turn over!
At the University in Hamburg art and science worked closely together trying to understand each other, them self as well as the relation and if there was a relation in chaos as such! The result where the discovery of two until then unknown mathematical equation that proved to be helpful in understanding some of the universe cosmos!
at 06:37 on August 10th, 2008
Im a little old fashion when it comes to paintings and the definition of art. Though photography in a way is also "art" but to me what's extraordinary is the human ability to capture a moment not through lenses but through painstaking application of colours on canvas. Of breaking mosaics for floors...i live in the past for art.
That's why Im as confused as I am now when a blown up marilyn monroe is applauded as the creation of the day. Well, that's why intepretation differs..
at 06:51 on August 10th, 2008
Hum, a blown up MM Picture is more a statement of a time and maybe even nostalgia of that time or era rather then art it self, yet one could argue that it is the glorification of a Goddess as some do see her or Super Stars such as her or Elvis!
I my self rather look at a classic such as Da-Vinci then some of the modern art, yet modern art does have its place and merits as well. Still in a century or two only few of the modern artist will prevail and those will be the real once. I hope!
at 06:38 on August 10th, 2008
tiha zaman, I like this story. It's good stuff.
The Uffizi would be a great place to spend a Sunday morning!
at 06:41 on August 10th, 2008
You bet Emilio, and the Italian raspberry gelato after the tour is also exquisite! :) Thanks for the gs!
at 09:03 on August 10th, 2008
tiha zaman, I like this story. It's good stuff.
at 13:20 on August 10th, 2008
Nice piece. I think I agree with you that most contemporary art lacks an appreciation for hard-earned craftsmanship, and that's a shame.
I also find that a lot of postmodern art fails to go beyond narcissistic naval-gazing, as you point out:
Also, a shame.
at 18:59 on August 10th, 2008
Thank you Rob.
You're right. I think most of the artists now are daumiers (mere cartoonists, realist, compared to masters like Raphael and Carregio or even Dali I think the real value of multimillionaire artist in our time are pretty low in the pecking order) Well, that's my thoughts on that.
at 19:12 on August 10th, 2008
Yes I agree. I think mchawk makes a good point too (below). Most of an artist's cultural "value" is a result of savvy public relations and the often-irrational rolling snowball of fame, rather than any genuine proficiency or profundity on the part of the artist.
Having said all that, I do like a lot of pop art, but it just feels like there is less of an appreciation for the artist who spends years perfecting a technique before hitting his or her prime. If someone manages to luck out with the perfect storm of novelty, buzz, and good management, he's "good." But whether they're actually saying anything, though, no one seems to care. Amusing textures appear to be enough.
at 13:48 on August 10th, 2008
Hi tiha - great article
I'm also deeply old-fashioned about what constitutes "art." I know there's a lot of art out there that leaves me cold and I also know that I can spend ages in front of a Seurat sketch while other galley-goers walk right past it.
That said, I'll take post-Impressionism over "Unmade Bed" any day. One takes great skill, the other great PR - and that's not art.
at 19:08 on August 10th, 2008
How true...And what's discrediting is that our art history can reduced even the greatest works of art to a tedious list of facts. Or that there is a danger that one can become so obsessed by history that everything old comes to blindly revered like the bones of long dead saints. tsk..
thanks mchawk.
at 19:46 on August 10th, 2008
I do understand you view and can sympathise, yet I do not agree! The classic art may explore its immediate surrounding as nature and objects to wish we can relate easily yet modern art explores the mind and the abstract such as ideas and concepts as well as the larger space of our existence as our cosmos and our intellect! I used to paint and Photograph in the classical tradition at first and have abandon it for what may be called modern art since it does allow me to paint ideas and explore the mind and our part in the waste cosmos. In way it is maybe similar to compare classic Poetry with Kandt or Nietzsche Philosophy!