|
Will Stereotype This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| fall in love? |
|
10 | 8.33% |
| have a transcendent life altering experience that elevates their consciousness to a higher state? |
|
14 | 11.67% |
| take some cool photos? |
|
7 | 5.83% |
| get jumped and sent to the hospital by furries? |
|
32 | 26.67% |
| waste his time and money? |
|
57 | 47.50% |
| Total: | 120 votes | ||
|
Gumball Gumption posted:In a lot of ways it's the same culture war bullshit as always. Because abstract impressionism was disliked by the soviets we had to love it while still calling every artist a homosexual communist. (The soviets were of course convinced all the artists were homosexual capitalists) Also worth noting that Abstract Expressionism was used to overwrite the achievements of much earlier Russian/Soviet artists like Malevich or the Constructivists. The narrative of the march towards pure abstraction in modernist art (and implicit in that the supremacy of american culture) is deeply complicated by the Russian avant-garde getting there decades before the Americans. Greenberg is pivotal in all this, his early writings that acknowledge the Russians are often contradicted by his post ww2 writing.
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2023 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 03:10 |
|
|
Al! posted:i mean from an art historical perspective this isnt saying the thing you think its saying. abex was seen as a uniquely american movement, directly opposed to the old world french salon style of painting that was still very much what people thought of when they thought of "a painting". theres also a lot of other postwar stuff going on in new york that gave rise to the loose collection of artists known as abstract expressionists. I'm trained as an art historian, but not practicing, I make art instead. This is correct, Greenberg is the key in all this, he, and the artists in his orbit were clearly heading in this direction well before the 50s. However, it is beyond doubt he had some kind of relationship with the CIA, how much isn't really known at this time (unless I've missed something, my education is fairly current, but I haven't kept up research since). In my training it was a given that the CIA was funding the movement, that wasn't up for debate. That said, any understanding of modernist art history will clearly show that you were going to get that movement no matter whether the CIA funded their shows or not, but the degree to which the CIA money mattered is up for debate. It is my personal belief it would have gotten just as big even if the CIA was actively trying to crush the movement. New York had become the center of the capitalist world, so much money was pouring in, here were these young optimistic and confident artists making exciting new art, well, new as long as you ignore the Russian avant-garde from decades before. It would have been a stark contrast to the abstract movements in post-war Europe, which lacked confidence, vision, and were deeply pessimistic. On a most basic level it makes sense, would you, a monied art collector (or launderer) want to hang out with a bunch of snobby Europeans that act sad and spend all their time with Satre, or would you want to hang out with a bunch of upbeat young artists that basically just hosed and drank most of the day?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:Peggy Guggenheim (daughter of Benjamin Guggenheim who died on the Titanic), who signed Jackson Pollack, has literal paragraphs about her promiscuity in her wiki bio lol Contrast that with Jean-Paul Satre and it just adds up. These people were going to be big because they were in the right place at the right time, and people liked their vibes. Being a fun group of people goes a long way to promoting a movement. Just a thought, maybe if marxists handed people booze instead of Capital we'd see a lot more marxists around.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
sitchensis posted:so it seems like art movements are more or less about wealthy people: This bigtime. Multiple artists I know are pretty honest about trading sex for career advancement, not even big advances, just like a solo show. Or for art sales from collectors. It can be pretty predatory. The high-end art world of course is infamous for being money laundering all the way through, that shouldn't be news to anyone though. I would partially contest most art movements being about wealthy people. 99.99% of art that has been made has never been written about. Even today, most art never becomes "important". It is still meaningful and beautiful, it just didn't become "important". Clement Greenberg, who is at the center of all this, crafted a masterful narrative about art and how art developed and progressed through history. If you ever were taught art history, even in highschool, you were probably taught Greenberg's theory, though it would never have been named. In short, he posits that the development of art is linear, always progressing from movement to movement, like a baton, and that with the emergance of modernity art began to progress into increasing levels of abstraction. That theory implies, and it is also often outright stated that abstract impressionism was the end result. All art history led to that. The notion of a linear progression to art history, that centered european art, had existed since much earlier, but Greenberg codified it, making sure the world understood art belonged to new york now. Long story short, art is so much more than what you were taught good art is. It most often is the exact opposite. Go check out some local art shows, there are likely some amazing artists you'd love. No need to buy, just go see some art. Also art doesn't have to be for sale! tl:dr - Your entire conception of art, and art history, was a CIA op. Ab Ex being CIA funded is nothing compared to the art history you learned in HS being made up by the CIA middleman.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2023 00:25
|
|