Perhaps if Michael had consulted the "Semantic Web" he just mentioned, he
would discover that "genre" has a variety of meanings depending on context.
Even an online dictionary would tell him that "genre" could mean: "A category
of artistic composition, as in music or literature, marked by a distinctive
style, form, or content: "his six String Quartets ... the most important works
in the genre since Beethoven's" Time."
But if he prefers to us the word "style" for such categories - so be it.
Regarding his list of "thousands of artists, all working in the "traditional"
categories, and all collected *and exhibited* by museums (you know, the really
big ones)" ---- -- it's not starting out very well.
Dine and Mazur wouldn't be on the list -- unless Pop Art and ABX were
considered traditional categories (and Mazur isn't even in Artcyclopedia - so
I'm doubting he's in any museums)
Beckman and Nerdrum have only made it to one (the same one -- God Bless the
Hirschhorn)
Neil Welliver is dead -- and that leaves us with Rackstraw Downes -- who
qualifies as far as I'm concerned (and I'm now glad to know his name - I hope
his work makes it to Chicago some day)
So congratulations, Michael, now you've listed one.
What about the other 999 ?
Why is so hard for some artists to accept that excellent work in traditional
European categories by living artists is being ignored by major American
museums?
Even William seems to recognize that fact - as he encourages us that this
situation is only temporary.
******************
>>Photorealism isn't equivalent to a "genre" of subject matter but a style or
mode of portrayal. But, hey, it's Miller, and logic isn't that important.
Miller has a conclusion (curators = bad) and goes out, digs in the leaves and
dirt, and finds a few truffles to support his conclusion.
Miller doesn't want museums to return to collecting and exhibiting *genres* of
work, but rather *styles.* And in this, his purpose is to throw out the damned
czarists and install proletarians as the commisars of the art politburo that
decides which art meets his test of stylistic purity and doctrinal accuracy.
His objection to Estes is equivalent to saying that Pearlstein's nudes aren't
in the "genre" of "figures," or CLose's portraits aren't in the "genre" of
portraiture, or Carolyn Brady's still lifes aren't in the "genre" of still
lifes. (These are the categories Miller named in his message this morning at
9:12.)
There are thousands of artists, all working in the "traditional" categories,
and all collected *and exhibited* by museums (you know, the really big ones,
not just some regional museum, like ... uh, the Smithsonian, tucked over on
the provincial side of the Mall).
Jim Dine
Michael Mazur
Rackstraw Downes
Neil Welliver
Odd Nerdrum
William Beckman
etc. ...
____________________________________________________________
Click here to compare prices and features on point of sale systems.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/Ioyw6ijlQC14dx21twvGcdo1bIigZ3
bS7jkvaGxf8Uau44FR4QfdRK/
