Not true because the greatest artists of all times are forced to play musical chairs every generation or two and any one of them can lose the "greatest" title. Today, Lucian Freud is almost universally considered among the greatest living artists but he sticks with very traditional media, techniques, and subject matter. It is true, among some who embrace the high-low (meaning mostly low and mass culture) say that the saturation of daily and even intellectual life by mass media imagery precludes any lingering validity to older traditions in art, particularly the hand-made, the skilled, the hermetic, the personal, and all other facets of non-public, non-private, non-mass-mediated culture. Whew!. But this is being seen more and more as only the mutation of art into a corporatized manipulated imagery of degraded individuality. What current art is really distinguishable from the most fashionable advertising, even allowing for irony? New advertising has co-opted irony and redirects it back to the consumer and away from the "pure at heart we care about you paternalist anarchy of corporate globalism, the usual target of ironic post-modern art. (Sorry for that extravagant truthfulness). Haven't you noticed how most new advertising makes fun of the common folks, presenting them as near idiots and buffoons, prone to stupid actions, rescued by the sanctified product but left in a state of bewildered gratitude?
----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, May 22, 2010 7:31:54 PM Subject: "Great artists of all times always used the latest, newest, best technology available to them, no matter what kind of art they produced." Is that always true?: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/05/cannes_7_a_campaign_for_real_m.html
