Modern art should not be supported...

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I won't disagree or try to defend my lack of knowledge - way back in my graphic design HND days I was the rebellious student who could draw better than my peersReveal Hidden Contentand made my disdain for the scrawlings others tried to pass off as inspiration well known - with that rebellious streak I took some elements from the Art history module I was required to take, and fought against the rest of it.

I am aware, in a limited sense, of some of the movements - for example cubism as championed by Picasso. As for him I can respect his choice to take that direction because he had already proven himself to be so skilled in draftsmanship that his choice to advance a new way of expressing ones self is credible. Many other champions of abstract expressionisn (and imitators) have demonstrated no such credentials (if you can show me that Pollock or Rothko can draw, or paint or craft sculpture, etc... to any admirable level of technical proficiency then I'll retract my words here).

I say many take the abstract expressionist route because it relies more on the ability to sell and manipulate the `intellectuals' than the ability to create with integrity, and moreover they lack the expertise to do anything else.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Ok thankyou for the link, and I will look at it, though with my final exams looming and a dissertation to defend it won't be for another week before I pass comment.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I should say, it's stronger than a simple dislike for it, having spent many years honing my skills I am quite simply affronted by the charlatans who's work sells for thousands and debases the classical skills that I and others have worked hard to develop.

Originally posted by rwingett
There is nothing more important than supporting art with public money. If people don't like it, they don't have to look at it.

But why do you think it is so important? Unless pouting counts, you haven't given any reason so far.

Originally posted by Palynka
But why do you think it is so important? Unless pouting counts, you haven't given any reason so far.

It sets the tenor for what kind of society we want to fashion for ourselves. A robust governmental support for the arts suggests that these things have an intrinsic value, which, in turn, will foster a more culturally literate population who aren't so damnably intimidated by 'modern' art.

Why do you question my assertion, unless it's simply to disagree with everything I say?

Originally posted by rwingett
It sets the tenor for what kind of society we want to fashion for ourselves. A robust governmental support for the arts suggests that these things have an intrinsic value, which, in turn, will foster a more culturally literate population who aren't so damnably intimidated by 'modern' art.

Why do you question my assertion, unless it's simply to disagree with everything I say?

I wasn't sure interventionism would be your justification.

If it's sponsored by the establishment, then there will be a tendency for it to be less interventionist or serve a political group. Governmental support could serve to subvert and drown out creativity of artists that do not play the game. They are drowned out by the same small group of names over and over again, who are in the limelight mostly because they have the funds to do grander projects. More. They stop being truly innovative because they know formulas get them grants. And after they finally move on, who succeeds? Their protégés.

I'm unconvinced that art needs public support. Especially since the small or upcoming artists don't get any anyway (nor would, despite the fact I'm sure you'll argue otherwise).

Originally posted by Palynka
I wasn't sure interventionism would be your justification.

If it's sponsored by the establishment, then there will be a tendency for it to be less interventionist or serve a political group. Governmental support could serve to subvert and drown out creativity of artists that do not play the game. They are drowned out by the same small group of names over ...[text shortened]... rtists don't get any anyway (nor would, despite the fact I'm sure you'll argue otherwise).

I don't think your assertion is borne out by fact. Consider the WPA support for the arts under the New Deal. A great deal of it had political content that was critical of the government. The artists that grew out of that program are a veritable who's who of the future Abstract Expressionist movement.

I am certainly not suggesting that all arts funding should be publicly supported, but clearly there are compelling reasons for making some investment in it. Your objection that small artists don't benefit from it is not an argument against public support, but, rather, is an argument on how that public support should be allocated.

Originally posted by rwingett
The artists that grew out of that program are a veritable who's who of the future Abstract Expressionist movement.

Surely you can see the irony of countering my point through this?

Their criticism of the government reflected the political views of those in control of the funding. Of course, where most sane people would view the lack of political diversity in such sponsorships as a reflection of corporatism you probably view them as lining around "the truth".

As for the final point, it assumes allocations can be made without selection. Any time a selecting committee is appointed, corporatism breeds. Especially because deciding which art is worthy has the pitfalls we all know about.

Originally posted by Palynka
Surely you can see the irony of countering my point through this?

Their criticism of the government reflected the political views of those in control of the funding. Of course, where most sane people would view the lack of political diversity in such sponsorships as a reflection of corporatism you probably view them as lining around "the truth".

As for ...[text shortened]... sm breeds. Especially because deciding which art is worthy has the pitfalls we all know about.

So because of those pitfalls, all government support is to be rejected?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So because of those pitfalls, all government support is to be rejected?

Well done. Make sure you read the whole thread.

Originally posted by Palynka
Well done. Make sure you read the whole thread.

It sounds like you are saying all government support is predicated on the idea they are supporting artist hitmen to claw at the opposition. What about Holland, where any hack with a paintbrush can get government support, warehouses full of useless 'art'. It doesn't sound like those dudes were used for nefarious factionering.

Of course governments can mis-use art, all you have to do is look at the former Soviet union to see all the 'patriotic' works of art, sculptures, paintings in bus depots, musical works revering the government, and the same in China.

That doesn't mean all governments do that.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Chess tournaments. Chess is, after all, a boring hobby for emotionally retarded old geezers and spotty fourteen year old nerds who will never get a girl. And anyone who disagrees with that is a hypocrite and probably one of those nerds. Be honest, we all know that a good, English ned would never even touch a chess set - so nobody who is worth anything does, and any disagreement with that is just pretentious.

Right, Seitse?

Richard

Originally posted by Agerg
Works produced by Mark Rothko or Jackson Pollock (and those who imitate them) on the other hand I say are talentless and pretentious,

There is a lot more to modern art than Rothko and Jack the Dripper.

I agree that there is a lot of talentless rubbish among modern art. Tracy Emin... bah. Wouldn't even hire her on that bed, let alone buy the bed. And let's be honest, Pollock wasn't even original. I also agree that there is a lot more rubbish among modern art than among extant old art, but I believe the operative word here is "extant". A lot of throwaway art from earlier years has been lost, and deservedly.
But I do not agree that this means we should not fund modern art. We should, however, be more critical of what we fund, and why. In previous centuries, what survived what the art that was loved by the people and the buyers, not by professional art critics and talking heads. We should go back to a real appreciation of art, not of talking about art. And we should learn to throw things away, instead of believing that everything that was critically acclaimed in its own day is, in fact, good.
But if we learn those lessons... why not support modern art? It's a better cause than supporting genocide in Iraq or the West Bank.

Richard