The problem we face with Berg's endless attacks on art via his wide-ranging and usually out of context quoting, is that it is true that the absence of standards, or the application of contrasting standards, does affect the overall quality of art in our time.
In every endeavor or than art, from sports to physics, it is evident that achievement occurs over a period of time and engages the concentrated efforts of many people. Each person works to advance the project. They concentrate on a given goal or problem working individually or together they try to succeed. The Renaissance is the prime example of that in art history. From about 1200 to 1500 artists in Italy were working on the same problem: to recapture the naturalism ancient art, investigate nature 'scientifically' and fuse their efforts with religious faith. Looking at ancient Greek sculpture from about about 650BC to 425BC one can trace the gradual achievement of naturalistic form within an idealized template. Even in the modernist period, we can find the same thing, albeit in shorter and more intense episodes, such as Impressionism, Cubism, and even Pop art. But now it's all centered on the efforts of each artist. There's little concentration on big ideas that require the efforts of many or even several artists. I saw a museum show last week that seems to prove my point. It included a lot of very diverse work and was supposed to be about 'emerging' artists. None of them were working on shared ideas. But all of them were drawing from disparate ideas in culture. One artist offered a sign painting, I mean a painting that simply presented the words and cartoon image that one might see on a store window sign for a special priced item. when I worked in advertising in the early 60s, when I wrote advertising copy for department store displays, I went to the company sign painter who could knock out hand painted signs by the dozens per day, many of them embellished with little cartoon people or symbols. He earned about $2.50 an hour and his job was at the lower rank of the advertising art world. Now, something not even as skilled as that former sign artist is in a museum. It's crap and we should all admit it. I care a lot about quality and high achievement. i didn't become an artist because I wanted to do something easy or un-measured. I wanted to do the hardest thing I could think of doing. The sign painter I knew 50 years ago at least took some pride in what he did and he did it well. The kid who can't do nearly as well as that $2.50 fellow mimics sign painting and has his stuff in a museum. He's not ambitious. So why is his stuff on the museum wall? WC ----- Original Message ---- From: joseph berg <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, September 17, 2012 3:42:17 AM Subject: Re: b Deaf to proclamations and manifestos of the international avant-garde, Fortuny did not have any problem with, or any fear of, looking at the past as a source of inspiration and ideas." On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Michael Brady <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sep 15, 2012, at 1:44 AM, joseph berg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/new-book-brings-rich-fortu > ny-history-to-life-287522.html > > And...? > > Isn't part of the problem of art in these times that the past serves less and less as a source of inspiration and ideas?
