I was indeed aghast at the new royal portraits. Not for the hot take reason but because the artist had some cojones to create them against all pressure and expectation to conform to a portraiture convention from a bygone era.
All the people spitting and hissing about crap modern art are about 40 years behind. This is probably a post-postmodern work (the line is going to have to be determined with hindsight) and art criticism of appreciation is now all just politics and propaganda and taught that way. (I did more fine art study than I care to admit and was trained as a historian by a fine arts backgrounded professor who gave us a non-political method of engaging with art).
This is a thorough assessment that points out the really shallow understanding of a lot of our commentariat have of ‘good art’ and what it’s for. Unfortunately, ‘conservatives’ have again conceded the definitions of the field to the critical postmodernist’s claim that all art is just politics and propaganda and should make us feel certain comforting feelings with pseudo-challenging work that really reinforce our comfort at being a ‘good person with right ideas.’
This is a truly stark challenge that those with a kitsch conservative taste (not that it is necessarily bad…) and one that those ‘arty farty’ wannabe aficionados will entirely miss once the news cycle moves on.
Those are my thoughts. Thanks for the prompt to spend more than a second scrolling past.
I was indeed aghast at the new royal portraits. Not for the hot take reason but because the artist had some cojones to create them against all pressure and expectation to conform to a portraiture convention from a bygone era.
All the people spitting and hissing about crap modern art are about 40 years behind. This is probably a post-postmodern work (the line is going to have to be determined with hindsight) and art criticism of appreciation is now all just politics and propaganda and taught that way. (I did more fine art study than I care to admit and was trained as a historian by a fine arts backgrounded professor who gave us a non-political method of engaging with art).
This is a thorough assessment that points out the really shallow understanding of a lot of our commentariat have of ‘good art’ and what it’s for. Unfortunately, ‘conservatives’ have again conceded the definitions of the field to the critical postmodernist’s claim that all art is just politics and propaganda and should make us feel certain comforting feelings with pseudo-challenging work that really reinforce our comfort at being a ‘good person with right ideas.’
This is a truly stark challenge that those with a kitsch conservative taste (not that it is necessarily bad…) and one that those ‘arty farty’ wannabe aficionados will entirely miss once the news cycle moves on.
Those are my thoughts. Thanks for the prompt to spend more than a second scrolling past.