Europeans live in a bubble of thought even as their American counterparts live in their own mental space. I find modern art regressive. Current artists as well as many from the 20th century appear to be running a race to see who can be most banal and deconstructive. The 19th century offers a better representation of African American talent. https://www.history.com/articles/19th-century-african-american-artists
In 2024, I was fortunate enough to see New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art survey of 19th and 20th century African-American art. The show was titled " The Harlem Renaissance and Transatlantic Modernism."
Here's a link to the publicity video, featuring the show's curator, Dr. Denise M. Murrell. Watch it. It's not that long and it will give viewers a good idea of what we were lucky enough to see in person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vZ-x5G0Zs
Based upon what I saw at that show, I'd have to disagree with your assessment that black artists of the 20th century were banal. Maybe the banality set in later in the century, but the works in this show were from the early to mid-20th century, and they were of such high quality and originality that I don't have words to describe their depth and breadth. Of course, they weren't saturated with ideological expectations and political correctness. Quite the opposite. Thank God.
Watching the video again reminded me of how original, honest, moving, and simply excellent these works of art are.
I wasn't the only person in the hall that day who had tears in their eyes, not only because the works are so humane, but also because they were painted by people many of whom I'd never heard of, whose work is not readily available to view in the 21st century everywhere in the country, and around the world.
But it should be. It's American art at its finest.
I felt nothing for the exhibits in "How Cringe stole my Christmas". I tend to dislike pop art to start with so I'm biased, but I can see the talent in the artistry discussed in the youtube link you posted. That art is transporting and I could stare at it for hours, finding things of interest. The pop art of today makes me want to look away almost immediately, yes - regressive is a good word.
There was a time in 30's 40's Germany you had to join the Nazi party if you wanted any advancement or acceptance in your line of work. I assume the same in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure what the all-inclusive membership card is now as it extends far beyond just the social justice warriors or who gets to issue the card from the Star Chamber, but there is increasingly a party line that must be adhered to in so many areas if you want entry, acceptance, publication and/or advancement. Heretics are not to be tolerated and increasingly that is the vast majority of us. Authoritarian systems work by creating a sufficient climate of fear so that people police themselves.
This piece deserves more than 32 likes (today). You have identified a phenomenon. I suppose the best I can say of the decision to mount these shows is that they represent a point in time that will be peculiar to look back on in future generations.
A helpful reflection as I plan out my next exhibit. Dealing with the next ripple of art making -- generative AI-infused imagery. The problem is not woke-ism but exploring "creativity" with a new technology: Where is the human?
I thought all of the pieces discussed in the article to be ‘meh’, including the pieces referenced as “classics”. That the Drexler piece was deemed “compelling” vis a vis the others was confusing. Pop Art pieces (regardless of the era) are especially emblematic of a zeitgeist. And yes, everyone’s singular, evocative experience with a piece is uniquely their own. But, besides the author relaying his experience with the pieces and denouncing them as relics of “woke-ism”, I am unclear what this article is supposed to be relaying to the audience, or how it ties into FBT’s (perceived) objective.
Europeans live in a bubble of thought even as their American counterparts live in their own mental space. I find modern art regressive. Current artists as well as many from the 20th century appear to be running a race to see who can be most banal and deconstructive. The 19th century offers a better representation of African American talent. https://www.history.com/articles/19th-century-african-american-artists
In 2024, I was fortunate enough to see New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art survey of 19th and 20th century African-American art. The show was titled " The Harlem Renaissance and Transatlantic Modernism."
Here's a link to the publicity video, featuring the show's curator, Dr. Denise M. Murrell. Watch it. It's not that long and it will give viewers a good idea of what we were lucky enough to see in person. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5vZ-x5G0Zs
Based upon what I saw at that show, I'd have to disagree with your assessment that black artists of the 20th century were banal. Maybe the banality set in later in the century, but the works in this show were from the early to mid-20th century, and they were of such high quality and originality that I don't have words to describe their depth and breadth. Of course, they weren't saturated with ideological expectations and political correctness. Quite the opposite. Thank God.
Watching the video again reminded me of how original, honest, moving, and simply excellent these works of art are.
I wasn't the only person in the hall that day who had tears in their eyes, not only because the works are so humane, but also because they were painted by people many of whom I'd never heard of, whose work is not readily available to view in the 21st century everywhere in the country, and around the world.
But it should be. It's American art at its finest.
I felt nothing for the exhibits in "How Cringe stole my Christmas". I tend to dislike pop art to start with so I'm biased, but I can see the talent in the artistry discussed in the youtube link you posted. That art is transporting and I could stare at it for hours, finding things of interest. The pop art of today makes me want to look away almost immediately, yes - regressive is a good word.
There was a time in 30's 40's Germany you had to join the Nazi party if you wanted any advancement or acceptance in your line of work. I assume the same in the Soviet Union. I'm not sure what the all-inclusive membership card is now as it extends far beyond just the social justice warriors or who gets to issue the card from the Star Chamber, but there is increasingly a party line that must be adhered to in so many areas if you want entry, acceptance, publication and/or advancement. Heretics are not to be tolerated and increasingly that is the vast majority of us. Authoritarian systems work by creating a sufficient climate of fear so that people police themselves.
Saw similar clichés in Sweden & Denmark last year... sadly a pervasive occurrence, my reaction is now "here we go" or outright avoidance
Super interesting. Mr. Savolainen is a very good writer.
How much LSD did Frank Gehry have to take to design that POS building? Or was it Meth?
I happen to think it's gorgeous! De gustibus non disputandum est, etc.
What? It is the most beautiful building I've ever seen.
This piece deserves more than 32 likes (today). You have identified a phenomenon. I suppose the best I can say of the decision to mount these shows is that they represent a point in time that will be peculiar to look back on in future generations.
A helpful reflection as I plan out my next exhibit. Dealing with the next ripple of art making -- generative AI-infused imagery. The problem is not woke-ism but exploring "creativity" with a new technology: Where is the human?
I thought all of the pieces discussed in the article to be ‘meh’, including the pieces referenced as “classics”. That the Drexler piece was deemed “compelling” vis a vis the others was confusing. Pop Art pieces (regardless of the era) are especially emblematic of a zeitgeist. And yes, everyone’s singular, evocative experience with a piece is uniquely their own. But, besides the author relaying his experience with the pieces and denouncing them as relics of “woke-ism”, I am unclear what this article is supposed to be relaying to the audience, or how it ties into FBT’s (perceived) objective.