We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Another great lesson from Prager University! However, he did not take into account one thing in his list of what we can do about crappy art. This is that much of it is subsidized by government. Merely not visiting junk art in a gallery or museum and working to elevate the teaching of art in schools are good but not sufficient. Government's subsidizing art must be stopped or at least minimized.
As is often the case, government is the only thing strong enough to support idiocy and cause failure to be a success.
I agree--he should have mentioned government funding of art. One of my old high school friends advocated for more government funding of art, so she could "pursue her passion." I said she should get a job, if her art couldn't fund her lifestyle. I fund my own passions; I shouldn't fund hers, nor should I expect her to fund mine.
It a strict sense, the new art does accomplish what it sets out to do. It teaches that beauty, truth, etc are not real, and only "having a conversation" - which is the part they really like - is important.
Assistant Village Idiot
Bottom line: The camera made realistic paintings harder to sell. Artists had to come up with something new.
Me? I never grow tired of the signed original lithographs by Joan Miró that I have in my office.
DEC (Jungle Trader)
Florczak implies that all art produced before impressionism was excellent and that all produced since is dreck. I'm certain that neither are true and that Sturgeon's Revelation applies to both periods.
This is part of the answer to your question:
The other answer is that a significant percentage of art has always been "bad", it's just the good stuf we preserved.
And finally the answer is that there are a LOT of people still doing incredible work, see http://www.cordair.com/ for example.
BFA, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, '95.
William O. B'Livion
Sure there are people still doing excellent art - sadly none of them teach or run Art departments at Ivy league schools. So they don't get access to the big money patrons and galleries. No, the insipid intellectuals that ruin ... er run ... the fine arts departments promote crap because it makes them feel superior - has nothing to do with quality.
Being a photographer, I'm told that if I want to be a "real" photographer, my photographs need to make a statement - by which they mean I need a full one or two page document telling the viewer what they're seeing so that have a chance in hell of understanding what those horrible photographs are supposed to mean. They call this Contemporary Photography. I've seen a few examples of very good contemporary work, virtually all of it done by people who were not part of the liberal fine arts programs of today - they got out many years ago when they still actually allowed something besides groupthink.