Art has traveled a long and winding road since the Barbizon School of art( 1830-1870 ) cut loose from the formal classical landscape style of the period,and somewhere along the way, a wrong turning was made that allowed JUNK ART to take a hold on our culture. But it's not just art, wrong turnings must have been made on every every human endeavour, otherwise we wouldn't now be in the LAST CHANCE SALOON desperately trying,this time,not to make the wrong turnings.
But the issue in question is to do with the travel of art and when it took the wrong turning.
The BARIZON SCHOOL was a major turning point,and although it was a radical movement in a period dominated by the classical academies, it still aimed at producing the commonly accepted concept of a finished painting, just as it's inspirational figure did, John Constable.
Impressionism was the next major turning in 1875, and is considered as the natural successor to the Barbizon school.It's disregard for the conventional and traditional views of art,especially when it came to the current opinion of what constituted a finished work of art, attracted the disenfranchised avant garde and was to consequently spawn many other radical genres.
Another turn in the road came in 1906 when the TATE GALLERY exhibited a group of William Turner's unfinished paintings to the delight of the MODERNISTS who judged them to be the greatest example of impressionism. William Turner was reborn as an avant garde and father of impressionism.Those artists, and so called artists, devoted to pushing the boundaries, had a great artist they could identify with, and art continued to evolve unabated in every imaginable direction. And although most schools produced plausible works of art, there was a general trend to dumbing down artistic content-
Possibly, the last turning came in 1984...WHEN IT ALL WENT SO WRONG. The PRIZE that took the name of the great landscape artist TURNER in vain, was born amidst a chorus of mocking derision from the media and howls of 'HOAX' from the public. If impressionism attracted the disenfranchised avant garde, then the JUNK ART PRIZE attracted the dispossessed and hopeless.
You may consider it's not too late to have a Renaissance in art that would return sanity to our culture, but it may prove easier to stop the ice caps melting than to reverse the AVARICE, MONEY SPINNING,CUNNINGLY MARKETED movement of JUNK ART.The trouble is ,these so called artists have been able to put themselves on a pedestal by avoiding interviews not primed to go along with their mumbo jumbo.Furthermore,because their so used to going unchallenged, they actually believe they never will be, and it's high time they were found out by seeing them for what they are.
The words that come out of the mouths of Junk Prize Artists is so much obscure mumbo jumbo that defies analysis,however there is a very rare unguarded moment when the words form sufficient sense that can be analyzed and challenged,such as;
when Antony Gormley decreed his ONE AND OTHER activity to be the NEW ART, and what's in the National Art Gallery to be the OLD ART, with the implication that it's redundant and inferior to what he practices,a practice which, incidentally, is judged to be art only by Gormley and his in circle , then there really has to be a reality check,and we could start by asking one simple question, "HAS THE ART WORD BEEN TURNER PRIZED TO DEATH?".
Forensisflush
Thursday 7 May 2009
PAGE 17. LIFE OF DAMIAN VAN-HYPE
Deep in the heart of a parallel universe was a planet much like our own Earth in every respect, but for one fundamental difference; it looked into the future and saw ENDLESS PROGRESS IN TECHNOLOGY leading to a DARK AND SOULLESS WORLD, and therefore decided, AS ONE UNIFIED COMMUNITY, not to embark on ANY INVENTION which would ultimately bring it to a period equivalent to our INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION. Instead, they devoted their lives to organically caring for the planet, and pursuing excellence in art.
The planet was known throughout the infinite myriad of universes for it's gentleness and love of art, not because of evidence, as there was none, but because every intellectual creature logically concluded there had to be a world more perfect than their own,and they were right, it was called UTOPIA.
Living with nature and not fighting nature, bestowed longevity on the lives of Utopians.
Conservation of nature was at the heart of Utopians' everyday lives, and because they were not preoccupied with self-vanity and only saw beauty in nature, LANDSCAPE artists' flourished.
All the great landscape artists we know and love existed on Utopia in the parallel universe, and remarkably, because of the extended life span of all Utopians, artists had the opportunity to meet those great artists of the past who offered them inspiration, and those great artist of the past had a chance to confront their critics in the future.
William Turner, the great landscape painter, would not have had a chance to meet his inspirational icon, CLAUDE LORRAIN, on earth as he died when Turner was only seven years,but would have on utopia. The measure of Turner's respect for Claude Lorrain was made clear in his will where he left wishes for his paintings to be hung alongside Claude Lorrain's paintings in the National Art Gallery. It will never be known what conversation took place between the two great artists, but it's quite possible Claude Lorrain would have found William Turner inspirational, especially if the meeting took place at the peek of Turner creativity.
Sir Joshua Reynolds must have turned in his grave when the Pre-Raphaelites hurdled insults at him. How dare a bunch of INDULGENT ROMANTICISTS criticize a great PORTRAIT PAINTER and CO-FOUNDER of the ROYAL ACADEMY OF ART! Sir Joshua Reynolds would have been justified in confronting the Pre-Raphaelites on Utopia, but, on-the-other-hand, it may not have been necessary as it's easier to insult the dead than the living, especially someone like Sir Joshua Reynolds who commanded universal respect and admiration.
Wednesday 6 May 2009
page 18. life of damian van-hype
It seemed Utopian values in life and culture were not only set to last into eternity, but become stronger, richer, and deeper year-on-year because it would never be contaminated by outside influences, until one day, a spaceship, bearing an alien, obviously unaware of the idyllic society he was to become a flawed part of, landed on Utopian soil. 
The alien was called Virulent Virus, a name it longed to change and did, to Damian Van-Hype but not until it came to Planet earth many years later.
Utopians were not accustomed to inviting strangers into their midst, but their Utopian good nature made it natural for them to welcome Virulant Virus without knowing or even inquiring into why he had been ejected from every planet in the Parallel Universe... but they were soon to find out.
The alien was called Virulent Virus, a name it longed to change and did, to Damian Van-Hype but not until it came to Planet earth many years later.Utopians were not accustomed to inviting strangers into their midst, but their Utopian good nature made it natural for them to welcome Virulant Virus without knowing or even inquiring into why he had been ejected from every planet in the Parallel Universe... but they were soon to find out.
Tuesday 5 May 2009
page 19; life of damian van-hype
Every art workshop in Utopia rejected Virulent Virus's attempt to gain entry with his portfolio of JUNK ART. Even when the alien re-branded his 'BITS AND PIECES' as CONCEPTUAL ART or INSTALLATION ART, it was seen as nothing other than exactly what it was, JUNK ART.
It wasn't in the nature of Utopians to mock or ridicule any attempt in the world of creativity, no matter how misguided and inept, and so decided to simply ignore the strange activities of the alien in their midst.Every Utopian paid no attention to Virulent Virus's phoney philosophies, with the exception of just one, and that was enough for the Alien to sew his seed, and Utopia would never be the same again.
The final end of UTOPIA was to come when the young listened to Virulent Virus telling stories of how other planets have robots that fulfilled the citizens needs in work, leisure and entertainment, leaving the peoples' imagination to dream only of having more material wealth than they already had.
Virulent Virus really wanted a planet where AGENTS CONTROLLED THE MIND AND GREED RULED THE HEART, which Utopia would one day become, but not soon enough for Virulent Virus, so when he was told to leave by those Utopians who believed their society still had something worth recovering, he left willingly.But his journey would be difficult as he had to find a universe in another dimension because he had outstayed his welcome in the whole of the parallel universe.
Monday 4 May 2009
PAGE 16. Was 'The Battle of Trafalgar' Turner's Waterloo?
THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS was thirty years old when William Turner was accepted as an associate member at the age of twenty four, just three years after his first exhibition of oil paintings, which included his first masterpiece,'FISHERMEN AT SEA'.
Turner was in the company of other great artist who,like himself,depended on attracting commissioned work from wealthy patrons,and once having completed the commission, to give satisfaction beyond the patron's expectation.
Considering the very high stakes in commissioned work,it is not surprising that Turner,and other artists, devoted considerable time of the commission to preparatory work,such as sketching,fact research for authenticating details of the painting,and experimentation,something which Turner became famous for.
The most esteemed commission any artist could be awarded was from the reigning monarch,and in Turner's day, at the time of the commission, that would hove been GEORGE IV.
Turner was as keen as any other artist to get a foot in the ROYAL DOOR, but that wasn't to happen until 1822,and it proved to be tougher than any of his other commissioned work or non-commissioned work.Be in no doubt,Turner was money wise, a trait he inherited from his parents,and he knew only too well the value of succeeding in Royal circles.But had Turner's past experience prepared him for such a task?
Sir Joshua Reynolds,president and co-founder of THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS, was the greatest influence in Turner's romantic approach to painting landscape.He promoted the IDEALISATION OF THE IMPERFECT in painting a subject, which he referred to as THE GRAND STYLE.Such was Turner's early,and permanent, understanding of how a painting should be executed.In fact, much of his early work before 1830 evoked many of the great artists who had already established romanticism in landscape painting before the nineteenth century.
Turner's ROYAL COMMISSION was to paint a scene depicting the BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR, and a romanticist's approach to the subject matter proved to be an indulgence for a work that was going to be judged on accuracy of detail and political statement.
Turner had established his own gallery for displaying his work in front of an invited audience,but such a luxury would not be afforded to him for the first viewing of his completed commission.There was to be no hiding place for short comings,as it was to hang in ST JAMES'S PALACE alongside LOUTHERBOURG'S 'THE GLORIOUS FIRST OF JUNE'.
'THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR' was the most important, not to mention the largest oil painting Turner was to undertake, and he spared no effort in gathering specific information, which included borrowing detailed drawings of the victory from the admiralty and, although he already had information from his first painting of THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR AS SEEN FROM THE MIZEN STARBOARD, he also borrowed sketches of the Victory from his friend, marine art Schetky.Turner also produced two large oil sketches of the subject before embarking on the final work.
It's reasonable to assume the mountain of information Turner acquired for the commission would not have caused any problems,but his strategy for the composition did. He rejected the convention of marine painting, in favour of a 'sophisticated interpretation', which was at the heart of Turner fatally flawed commission.And being of a competitive by nature,he also expected his approach would create a painting that would outshine De Loutherbourg's painting.
The painting was complete in 1824 and right from the start Turner's sophisticated interpretation, coupled with lack of concern for chronological detail, offered a message that was misunderstood, and consequently the government and naval experts, who were expecting a literal reading of a great national event, were affronted by it's interpretation.In fact, the painting remained an embarrissment, even after Turner spent eleven days altering the work to meet criticisms.Most of the mistake would only be spotted by naval experts, perhaps with the exception of one; Turner had positioned Victory in the water in accordance with Schetky's sketches, which, unknown to Turner, showed the Victory unladen and higher in the water than it should have been under laden conditions, consequently Turner had to lower the Victory in the water.
It's difficult to imagine Turner not being phased by the experience of failing to succeed in his first Royal Commission.He certainly didn't show any sign of regret when, in characteristic fashion, he brushed the criticisms aside by quoting Michael Angelo who said, when one of his sculptures was criticized for not looking like the subject;"In a thousand years no one will know the difference".And it certainly didn't seem to distract Turner from the customary outpouring of masterpieces.
It was Turner's 'Waterloo' for Royal Commissions, but not for his career.And it would be unwise for critics of Turner to conclude his misguided experience with Royalty proved he wasn't worthy of being considered the greatest landscape painter of the nineteenth century, and the reason why he has been associated with junk art.Such a conclusion couldn't be further from the truth.
The Royal commission only reminded us cf Turner's competitive nature. Knowing his painting of 'THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR' would be hanging alongside 'THE GLORIOUS FIRST OF JUNE' by De Loutherbourg, an artist he found inspirational,meant only one thing, he had to outshine him.On this occasion it was a misguided endeavour,but nevertheless,a noble one.
And the SELF PROCLAIMED MOCK AVANT-GARDE artists should be advised not to think they've found a BOND with a GREAT ARTIST who, like themselves, is unconcerned with minor matters like detail, BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOND. Turner produced ten thousand fact finding sketches throughout his career, proving he was devoted to detail. It just so happens, in the case of the Royal commission, they were the wrong details
So, the 'PRIZE', this writer takes issue with, should not stop looking for another name to put a KISS on it's PIG, as the TURNER name is as far from JUNK ART as THE EARTH IS FROM THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE.
Turner was in the company of other great artist who,like himself,depended on attracting commissioned work from wealthy patrons,and once having completed the commission, to give satisfaction beyond the patron's expectation.
Considering the very high stakes in commissioned work,it is not surprising that Turner,and other artists, devoted considerable time of the commission to preparatory work,such as sketching,fact research for authenticating details of the painting,and experimentation,something which Turner became famous for.
The most esteemed commission any artist could be awarded was from the reigning monarch,and in Turner's day, at the time of the commission, that would hove been GEORGE IV.
Turner was as keen as any other artist to get a foot in the ROYAL DOOR, but that wasn't to happen until 1822,and it proved to be tougher than any of his other commissioned work or non-commissioned work.Be in no doubt,Turner was money wise, a trait he inherited from his parents,and he knew only too well the value of succeeding in Royal circles.But had Turner's past experience prepared him for such a task?
Sir Joshua Reynolds,president and co-founder of THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF ARTS, was the greatest influence in Turner's romantic approach to painting landscape.He promoted the IDEALISATION OF THE IMPERFECT in painting a subject, which he referred to as THE GRAND STYLE.Such was Turner's early,and permanent, understanding of how a painting should be executed.In fact, much of his early work before 1830 evoked many of the great artists who had already established romanticism in landscape painting before the nineteenth century.
Turner's ROYAL COMMISSION was to paint a scene depicting the BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR, and a romanticist's approach to the subject matter proved to be an indulgence for a work that was going to be judged on accuracy of detail and political statement.
Turner had established his own gallery for displaying his work in front of an invited audience,but such a luxury would not be afforded to him for the first viewing of his completed commission.There was to be no hiding place for short comings,as it was to hang in ST JAMES'S PALACE alongside LOUTHERBOURG'S 'THE GLORIOUS FIRST OF JUNE'.
'THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR' was the most important, not to mention the largest oil painting Turner was to undertake, and he spared no effort in gathering specific information, which included borrowing detailed drawings of the victory from the admiralty and, although he already had information from his first painting of THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR AS SEEN FROM THE MIZEN STARBOARD, he also borrowed sketches of the Victory from his friend, marine art Schetky.Turner also produced two large oil sketches of the subject before embarking on the final work.
It's reasonable to assume the mountain of information Turner acquired for the commission would not have caused any problems,but his strategy for the composition did. He rejected the convention of marine painting, in favour of a 'sophisticated interpretation', which was at the heart of Turner fatally flawed commission.And being of a competitive by nature,he also expected his approach would create a painting that would outshine De Loutherbourg's painting.
The painting was complete in 1824 and right from the start Turner's sophisticated interpretation, coupled with lack of concern for chronological detail, offered a message that was misunderstood, and consequently the government and naval experts, who were expecting a literal reading of a great national event, were affronted by it's interpretation.In fact, the painting remained an embarrissment, even after Turner spent eleven days altering the work to meet criticisms.Most of the mistake would only be spotted by naval experts, perhaps with the exception of one; Turner had positioned Victory in the water in accordance with Schetky's sketches, which, unknown to Turner, showed the Victory unladen and higher in the water than it should have been under laden conditions, consequently Turner had to lower the Victory in the water.
It's difficult to imagine Turner not being phased by the experience of failing to succeed in his first Royal Commission.He certainly didn't show any sign of regret when, in characteristic fashion, he brushed the criticisms aside by quoting Michael Angelo who said, when one of his sculptures was criticized for not looking like the subject;"In a thousand years no one will know the difference".And it certainly didn't seem to distract Turner from the customary outpouring of masterpieces.
It was Turner's 'Waterloo' for Royal Commissions, but not for his career.And it would be unwise for critics of Turner to conclude his misguided experience with Royalty proved he wasn't worthy of being considered the greatest landscape painter of the nineteenth century, and the reason why he has been associated with junk art.Such a conclusion couldn't be further from the truth.
The Royal commission only reminded us cf Turner's competitive nature. Knowing his painting of 'THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR' would be hanging alongside 'THE GLORIOUS FIRST OF JUNE' by De Loutherbourg, an artist he found inspirational,meant only one thing, he had to outshine him.On this occasion it was a misguided endeavour,but nevertheless,a noble one.
And the SELF PROCLAIMED MOCK AVANT-GARDE artists should be advised not to think they've found a BOND with a GREAT ARTIST who, like themselves, is unconcerned with minor matters like detail, BECAUSE THERE IS NO BOND. Turner produced ten thousand fact finding sketches throughout his career, proving he was devoted to detail. It just so happens, in the case of the Royal commission, they were the wrong details
So, the 'PRIZE', this writer takes issue with, should not stop looking for another name to put a KISS on it's PIG, as the TURNER name is as far from JUNK ART as THE EARTH IS FROM THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE.
Sunday 3 May 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)