Category: Art

"Myth must be kept alive. The people who can keep it alive are the artists of one kind or another. The function of the artist is the mythologization of the environment and the world." –Joseph Campbell

The day after I saw a fabulous performance of Shakespeare’s The Winter’s Tale — although, to be honest, just about any performance would have been "fabulous" to me since I had never seen Shakespeare performed onstage before — was the feast day of St. Wenceslaus, King of Bohemia. If you know the play, then you know that the King of Bohemia is an important character in that play. If you know Shakespeare, then you know that nothing in Shakespeare is coincidental, so I wondered if the play had any connection to the old English Christmas carol Good King Wenceslaus.

Thanks to Google, I found this extremely interesting article on the influence of the English holiday cycle on Shakespeare’s plays. But I’ve also learned that if you surf the host site when Google points you to extremely interesting articles, you can oftentimes find extremely interesting sites. This is not always true. I still remember my consternation when I found that the only online host I could find for the introduction to Dr. Ludwig Ott’s classic Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma was a rabidly radical traditionalist site that seriously proposed that John Paul the Great was a murderer. (The site is so repugnant that you’ll have to Google for it yourself if you’re really that interested in reading its ramblings.  If you want to find the Introduction to Ott’s book, just Google "Introduction Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma Ludwig Ott" for that link alone.)

In any case, the host for the Shakespeare article was much more interesting. It is called The Endicott Studio and is a kind of online gallery for mythic art. The art it hosts is from various disciplines: fiction, poetry, articles, and artwork. It’s a secular site and the secularism shows, but it is interesting. It’s worth a visit.

THE ENDICOTT STUDIO

I have an art dilemma.

Fortunately, my development as an artist over the last year or so has taken a positive turn. I have been blessed to get to know some professional artists whose work I admire, and who have been generous with time and advice. I have also found the style that I think suits me best (classical realism) and returned to the medium I have always had the most affection for, oils. Slowly, I am recovering from my Masters Degree, and I feel I am beginning to produce some art that I will not be embarrassed to leave behind when I die.

Here is the dilemma; I have too much old art. I have art that I have been dragging around with me from my earliest days in college. Lots of it. So much that I have been giving serious thought to burning most of it.

There are several good reasons to burn most of my old art, two of which are most relevant:

1. It’s really awful
2. It’s taking up lots of storage space and is deteriorating anyway.

Now, as soon as I thought of burning all this old art, I thought that a bonfire like this calls for inviting some friends over and hoisting a few brews. Kind of like a viking funeral, without the water.

So here is the dilemma; alot of my artist friends don’t think I should burn my old art at all. Some were SHOCKED that I would want to destroy evidencehistory in this way.

In deference to their concerns, I reassured them that I will be keeping enough old pieces to make plain to any future historian precisely how crappy my work was was at each stage of my early artistic development. I plan on keeping anything that I think is of genuine worth, along with one or two pieces typical of each period, no matter how horrendous.

Surely you writers out there have happily (with some relief?) round-filed old efforts, simply out of fear, that by some wicked twist of fate, they might end up associated with your name for all of history.

Do creative professionals have the freedom to put their name to what they like, and deep-six everything else? Isn’t that part of the creative process?

Those perennial heroes of conspiracy theorists everywhere, the Knights Templar, have surfaced again. Now the Knights are claimed to be responsible for Renaissance paintings of the pregnant Madonna:

"A string of artists working from the middle of the 14th century near Florence painted the Virgin Mary as they imagined her to have been while she was pregnant. The best-known of these swelling Madonnas is by the great 15th century Tuscan artist Piero della Francesca. It shows an apparently dejected mother-to-be with one hand resting on the burgeoning front of her maternity gown.

[…]

"Carvings and sculptures of pregnant Marys have a longer history before and after the early Renaissance. But the painting of them by artists of stature is almost entirely confined to Tuscany in the 130 years ending around 1467, when Piero della Francesco is reckoned to have created the fresco at Monterchi.

"In a 40-page booklet published last month, Renzo Manetti, a Florentine architect and author of several works on symbolism in art, argues that this is no coincidence.

"’Florence was a major Templar centre and these Madonnas start to appear soon after the suppression of the knights in 1312,’ he told the Guardian this week. The first by a celebrated artist is attributed to Taddeo Gaddi and dated to between 1334 and 1338.

"In virgin and child paintings, the child symbolises wisdom, knowledge, truth. So what the pregnant Madonnas represent is a temporarily hidden truth,’ Mr. Manetti said."

GET THE STORY.

When Mr. Manetti has time for a sabbatical from architecture, I suggest a course in Logic 101. The attribution of one thing to its immediate predecessor simply because it happened afterward is known as the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin, "after this, therefore because of this"). The article reports that an Italian priest has offered a far simpler explanation of the paintings of the pregnant Madonnas:

"In a 15-page article due to appear soon in the diocesan periodical, Father Giovanni Alpigiano argues for the traditional view that the expectant virgins represent the theological concept of incarnation. There is ‘no arcane secret’ attached to Gaddi’s Mary, he insists, despite her cryptic, knowing expression.

"’Great care needs to be taken in attempting to rewrite the history of art or literature solely with the help of esoteric clues,’ Fr. Alpigiano adds. An account of his counter-blast was splashed over the best part of a page in Avvenire, the national daily newspaper owned by the Italian bishops’ conference."

But, of course, simple explanations do not sell books or establish academic reputations so Fr. Alpigiano must be satisfied with being a Catholic apologist rather than an art "expert."

From our I Am Not Making This Up department, the Financial Times of London reports:

The Italian artist Gianni Motti has provided the latest scandal in the
name of art. His recent work “Mani Pulite” (”Clean Hands”) is a bar of
soap that he says is made from Italian prime minister Silvio
Berlusconi’s liposuctioned fat. After it was exhibited last month at
Art Basel, the world’s most influential art fair, a Swiss art collector
bought it for E15,000.

There is some doubt, however, as to whether this is really fat belonging to Berlusconi. The "artist" says he is open to DNA testing of the bath product in question.

Meanwhile, the Daily Planet reports that, in a recent development, Motti is working on designs for a candle made from the brain cells of the collector who purchased the Berlusconi piece.

He wasn’t using them, anyway.

GET THE STORY.

The hunt is on for a long-lost masterpiece by the Renaissance master Leonardo DaVinci:

"’Cerca, trova’ — seek and you shall find — says a tantalizing five-century-old message painted on a fresco in the council hall of Florence’s Palazzo Vecchio.

"Researchers now believe these cryptic words could be a clue to the location of a long-lost Leonardo Da Vinci painting and are pressing local authorities to allow them to search for the masterpiece of Renaissance art.

"Maurizio Seracini, an Italian art researcher, first noticed the message during a survey of the hall 30 years ago, but his team lacked the technology then to see what lay behind Giorgio Vasari’s 16th-century fresco, ‘Battle of Marciano in the Chiana Valley.’

"However, radar and X-ray scans conducted between 2002 and 2003 have detected a cavity behind the section of wall the message was painted on, which Seracini believes may conceal Leonardo’s unfinished mural painting, the ‘Battle of Anghiari.’"

GET THE STORY.

No word yet on whether Dan Brown’s intrepid symbologist and code-cracker Robert Langdon will be called in to consult on the case. But given the confidence put into Langdon’s expertise by the mainstream media, such as Primetime Live and Good Morning America, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before the professor will be tapped.

</Irony>

A new study by the Rand Corporation analyzes the fairly recent phenomenon of "selling" the arts based on their instrumental effects (like an enhanced local economy, or higher student test scores) as opposed to their intrinsic value. The study, entitled Gifts of the Muse: Re framing the Debate of the Benefits of the Arts,  concludes that in promoting the arts across the country there has been too much focus on broad economic and social benefits.

The report places the origin of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s, and offers alternatives. The assumption is that there are just not enough people enjoying art.

One recommendation is that "attention and resources be shifted away from  supply of the arts and toward cultivation of demand" . The summary of the study gives several suggestions for the "promotion of satisfying arts experiences" including the need to develop the language needed for discussion and acknowledging the limitations of current research. In other words, like alot of research, the study concluded that more study is needed (a little job security, there).

But the money quote is right here:

"Research has shown that early exposure is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts. That exposure typically comes from arts education…  The most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation’s schools."

So, rather than paying artists to produce more art that nobody looks at, we should strap students into specially designed art-appreciation chairs and refuse to release them until they grasp the "surrealism of the underlying metaphor" ("Welcome, Billy. Are you ready to have a satisfying art experience?").

This is wrong-headed for several reasons. For one, there is no shortage of art in kids’ lives. They are practically choked with art. Animé, comic books, movies, tattoos… heck, they are bombarded with art through cable television. Sure, it is generally of a low quality, but in a culture that has elevated subjectivism and relativism to the level of religious dogma, how would an art teacher even begin to help these kids distinguish "good" art from "bad" art? The very idea of good or bad art is anathema to the current art establishment. It’s all good, Billy, in it’s own way. Graffiti is as valid an expression as the Sistine ceiling. We have been feeding people this line for years.

Funding for the arts indeed began to come under (quite justifiable) attack around the early 1990s, as the preposterous excesses of goverment funded art began to come to light. The arts bureaucracy unwisely aligned themselves with the purveyors of artsy anti-religious hatred and pornography. Now they find themselves somewhat against the wall in trying to justify continued funding.

If the art establishment in this country had not been peddling ugly, meaningless art to the public for so long I doubt that they would find themselves in this position. Graffiti may not really be as good as the Sistine ceiling, but it is as good or better than Mark Rothko or Willem de Kooning.

Beauty is the key. People are starved for it. Alot of animé is quite stunningly beautiful, which is why kids respond to it. Give the people beautiful art and they will respond to it. Continue with the present course and the arts will always go begging for funds.

The report can be found online in the full version or just the summary.

GET THE REPORT HERE.

(Warning!! Evil File Format – PDF)

A new study by the Rand Corporation analyzes the fairly recent phenomenon of "selling" the arts based on their instrumental effects (like an enhanced local economy, or higher student test scores) as opposed to their intrinsic value. The study, entitled Gifts of the Muse: Re framing the Debate of the Benefits of the Arts,  concludes that in promoting the arts across the country there has been too much focus on broad economic and social benefits.

The report places the origin of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s, and offers alternatives. The assumption is that there are just not enough people enjoying art.

One recommendation is that "attention and resources be shifted away from  supply of the arts and toward cultivation of demand" . The summary of the study gives several suggestions for the "promotion of satisfying arts experiences" including the need to develop the language needed for discussion and acknowledging the limitations of current research. In other words, like alot of research, the study concluded that more study is needed (a little job security, there).

But the money quote is right here:

"Research has shown that early exposure is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts. That exposure typically comes from arts education…  The most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation’s schools."

So, rather than paying artists to produce more art that nobody looks at, we should strap students into specially designed art-appreciation chairs and refuse to release them until they grasp the "surrealism of the underlying metaphor" ("Welcome, Billy. Are you ready to have a satisfying art experience?").

This is wrong-headed for several reasons. For one, there is no shortage of art in kids’ lives. They are practically choked with art. Animé, comic books, movies, tattoos… heck, they are bombarded with art through cable television. Sure, it is generally of a low quality, but in a culture that has elevated subjectivism and relativism to the level of religious dogma, how would an art teacher even begin to help these kids distinguish "good" art from "bad" art? The very idea of good or bad art is anathema to the current art establishment. It’s all good, Billy, in it’s own way. Graffiti is as valid an expression as the Sistine ceiling. We have been feeding people this line for years.

Funding for the arts indeed began to come under (quite justifiable) attack around the early 1990s, as the preposterous excesses of goverment funded art began to come to light. The arts bureaucracy unwisely aligned themselves with the purveyors of artsy anti-religious hatred and pornography. Now they find themselves somewhat against the wall in trying to justify continued funding.

If the art establishment in this country had not been peddling ugly, meaningless art to the public for so long I doubt that they would find themselves in this position. Graffiti may not really be as good as the Sistine ceiling, but it is as good or better than Mark Rothko or Willem de Kooning.

Beauty is the key. People are starved for it. Alot of animé is quite stunningly beautiful, which is why kids respond to it. Give the people beautiful art and they will respond to it. Continue with the present course and the arts will always go begging for funds.

The report can be found online in the full version or just the summary.

GET THE REPORT HERE.

(Warning!! Evil File Format – PDF)

The painting at left, Asher B. Durand’s "Kindred Spirits" was recently sold at auction through Sotheby’s for a bid of over 35 million dollars, the highest price ever paid for an American painting.

The painting depicts artistThomas Cole and poet William Cullen Bryant together in a Catskill Mountains scene. Henceforth it will be housed (surrounded by a number of other classic American artworks) in a new museum in… Arkansas!

The painting was offered for sale by the New York Public Library and was purchased at auction by the Alice Walton Foundation. That’s Walton, as in the supposedly evil Wal-Mart corporation.

The noble Metropolitan Museum of Art and the courageous National Gallery of Art combined forces to offer a competitive bid, but were beaten by the hideous strength of the Walton Foundation’s malevolent checkbook. At least that’s how the struggle is being depicted in certain cultural circles. Some letters to the New York Times online have whined as if the transaction amounted to out-and-out theft.

True, if I lived in New York I would miss the painting, too. In a spirit of real restraint, Met spokesman Harold Holzer said, "We’re disappointed that the painting is leaving New York…". The disappointment seems very one-sided, though. I have not heard much criticism levelled at the New York Public Library for putting the painting on the auction block.

Disappointment I can understand, but the bittereness displayed by some hints at something deeper. See, this is another victory for the Red Staters, a sign of the ascendency of Flyover Country. Arkansas, for cryin’ out loud?!! And, to make matters worse, the evil Wal-Mart corporation is behind it all, no doubt punishing the Empire State for it’s icy rebuff to the retail giant’s expansion efforts in that region.

The planned museum, to be located in Wal-Mart’s hometown of Bentonville, will house a collection of national significance. How strange, that the evil and greedy Walton family would spend millions and millions of dollars just to bring a little culture to those who have never had access to such treasures. Southerners don’t have the capacity to appreciate great art, and anyway, don’t corporations always use their money to just make more money? Don’t they have some slave-labor factories to build overseas?

Am I biased by the fact that I will be living close enough to this new museum to practically throw rocks at it? Probably. We are as excited here as they are disappointed in New York. Look at it this way, y’all; Won’t there be plenty of culture left in New York? Can’t you spare a piece or two for us benighted hillbillys?

FIND OUT MORE.

Reuters reports that practitioners of the art of tattoo are beginning to sense a sea change.

Tattooing just isn’t as fun as it used to be. It seems like every suburban kid wants a tattoo as soon as they are out of braces. And worse, it has become a staple among soccer moms and cubicle jockeys across the country. The town where I live (republican territory, dry county, population around 30,000) now has several large tattoo parlors. Tattoos have become mainstream, which poses a problem. Part of the allure of tattoos, at least in the U.S., has always been that they were seen as non-conformist, a little dangerous and always cool. They are now so commonplace that it is no surprise to see one on your babysitter.

Long-time tattoo photographer Charles Gatewood of San Francisco said:
"It (tattooing) is so popular that it has lost some of its magic. It
was like a club, a secret society and family. Now it’s gotten
commercialized, co-opted and watered down … in the opinion of some
people."

You can almost hear the sadness, the disillusionment. This state of affairs has also led to a kind of one-upsmanship among tattoo-ees. To get even a second glance nowadays, your tattoo must be exceptionally; large, vulgar, psychotic, stupid, so-cryptic-that-even-you-forget-what-it-means (pick one).  It’s basically the same thing that’s happened to music.

My problem with tattooing (for me personally) is that there is no "undo" command in the drop-down menu.
Imagine going into a store and seeing a hat you really like. It’s a great hat, a bejewelled and richly embroidered skullcap. You go to try it on and the sales-guy informs you that this is no ordinary hat. If you put this hat on your head, it will never come off. Ever. You love the hat. It’s the coolest hat you have ever seen. The inner conflict is almost palpable, ain’t it? And for good reason. What if this hat doesn’t look as cool to me in thirty years? How will I explain it to my grandkids? My employer? Sure, I can always cover it with another, bigger hat, but what if I just want to stroll bare-headed in the park?

This is my tattoo conundrum: Anything important enough to have permanently engraved on my skin turns out to be too important to trivialize by reducing it to a fashion statement. If Jesus is important to me, then I will try to imitate his behavior, not have him drawn on my calf.  And besides, it’s really not fair to the true fringe element in society. The "mainstream" keeps getting wider and wider, pushing the real fashion rebels farther and farther out into the jungle. To get noticed now you need a face full of hardware, or implants on yor forehead, or any number of other absurd "modifications".

So, in sympathy with frustrated bikers everywhere, I beg you, please don’t get that Tweety-Bird on your ankle. Refrain from purchasing that tribal butterfly back piece. And definitely take a pass on anything written in a language that you can’t read yourself. You could be getting someone’s shopping list permanently embroidered on your flesh.

In a comment I made on one of Jimmy’s recent posts I made reference to the phenomenon of government funded artwork. This comes about when artists who can’t find support for their work go to the National Endowment for the Arts (or some similar body) and request funding. Oddly enough, though, even the government doesn’t want this art most of the time. The governemnt likes to spend money on socially relevant art, which has helped to give rise to the phenomenon I call "Art and…". You know…

Art and the Inner City

Art and Women’s Issues

Art and The Environment

Art and Bloody American Imperialism

… stuff like that. But here is the really interesting part; Normally the government still doesn’t want this art, they just want to write a check. They will pay the artists to produce it, but good grief, they don’t want to keep the stuff!

I don’t want to issue a blanket condemnation of all government funded art. There is probably some that does not cause optic nerve damage. My point is that the goverment funding of art, as it now works, only reinforces the notion that art has no intrinsic value, that to be important it must be political (liberal). This type of indirect funding has also led to the misconception that if you want to support the arts, you should donate to some kind of "arts organization". That’s fine, but if you really want to support the arts, just buy art!

This direct approach means that: A) you will be supporting art that you actually like, B) you get to keep the art instead of just view it for a bit, and C) your children will get to keep it when you die!

The goverment should stay out of the art business unless they want a portrait of some politician or a sculpture for the courthouse steps. It just makes good economic sense.