epiphany

[theculturewarrior]

I was looking for song lyrics from the English Renaissance, when I stumbled on to a page written for (or by, I don't know) a women's studies program. The page described the dismemberment of the female body at the hands of Renaissance poets, and I started thinking, this is why American art does not endure.

Think about it. What famous American sculptor do you know of? What American painting hang in the Lourve? Name an American playwright, or an American composer. You may have answers to some of these questions, but right now, I'm drawing a blank on all of them, and I think there is a reason for this.

We are a nation of revisionists. We are the new iconoclasts. The English painters of the 19th century built upon an artistic tradition that goes all the way back to Rome. I was thinking, "Well, wasn't the Italian Renaissance kind of revisionist?" But that was the restoration of tradition, not the ablution of it, and they did not start from scratch. It developed out of the middle ages, in painting, music, and literature.

But in America, we would rather have sculptures that do not "dismember" the female body. It would be an improvement, if Americans contributed to sculpture by creating works representative of the whole population, showing black Americans, and Latinos, and realistically portrayed women. You would think somebody would have already though of this.

But in America, we start from scratch, and we sculpt a giant pizza cutter, or something like that. If somebody did sculpt a statue of Venus, it would pass unnoticed, or worse, it would invite litigation. We do not like Beauty here. Puritanism has left its mark on our country, and it manifests in various ways.

The language is unclean. We must neuter it. The painting is beautiful, we must novelize it, with elephant dung, or S&M contraptions, or whatever. America is so driven by novelty, that we make books that are beautiful into movies that are merely new.

We have revised history. We have revised the fine arts. We have revised the world. I pray that it recovers.

[track2004]

I can name quite a few American writers, a few painters, but no really famous sculptors. I think there are a few things holding us back. 1) We've only been around 250 years. Compared to Europe we are infants. 2) In those 250 years art has been changing around the world. I can only name a handful of artists and writers during that time period from anywhere, no sculptors come to mind still. 3) With the growth of technology traditional art forms are being used less and less to convey images. There is a lot of digital art that just anyone can make. 4) We, Americans, don't really care about art. I worked at a museum for 2 years and I'd venture to say most of the city (dare I say 2/3rds) haven't set foot in the museum since grade school field trips.

The revision thing is true also. There have been at least 5 artistic movements I can think of since the US was 'born'. Each of these is insanely popular during their reign, but is somewhat nostalgic afterward. For example, Dali was super popular during his time, but shortly after the movement died and no one talks about him.

Just my $.02, as a kid who likes art and books.

[toledo_jesus]

interesting point of view. I work in an art museum, and I assure you that many americans flocked to the various historical schools of thought. there are a number of notable Neo-Classical sculptors that were americans, among them Chauncey Bradley Ives (noted for his wonderful sculpture of Undine, Rising from the Fountain) and Thomas Crawford. further, there was a rich tradition of portraiture in colonial and early 19th c. America. Modern art is of course hooey for the most part.

The museum actually gave me a book of American art that it has obtained. Coffee table stuff.

[Socrates]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Aug 19 2005, 04:22 PM']I was looking for song lyrics from the English Renaissance, when I stumbled on to a page written for (or by, I don't know) a women's studies program. The page described the dismemberment of the female body at the hands of Renaissance poets, and I started thinking, this is why American art does not endure.

Think about it. What famous American sculptor do you know of? What American painting hang in the Lourve? Name an American playwright, or an American composer. You may have answers to some of these questions, but right now, I'm drawing a blank on all of them, and I think there is a reason for this.

We are a nation of revisionists. We are the new iconoclasts. The English painters of the 19th century built upon an artistic tradition that goes all the way back to Rome. I was thinking, "Well, wasn't the Italian Renaissance kind of revisionist?" But that was the restoration of tradition, not the ablution of it, and they did not start from scratch. It developed out of the middle ages, in painting, music, and literature.

But in America, we would rather have sculptures that do not "dismember" the female body. It would be an improvement, if Americans contributed to sculpture by creating works representative of the whole population, showing black Americans, and Latinos, and realistically portrayed women. You would think somebody would have already though of this.

But in America, we start from scratch, and we sculpt a giant pizza cutter, or something like that. If somebody did sculpt a statue of Venus, it would pass unnoticed, or worse, it would invite litigation. We do not like Beauty here. Puritanism has left its mark on our country, and it manifests in various ways.

The language is unclean. We must neuter it. The painting is beautiful, we must novelize it, with elephant dung, or S&M contraptions, or whatever. America is so driven by novelty, that we make books that are beautiful into movies that are merely new.

We have revised history. We have revised the fine arts. We have revised the world. I pray that it recovers.
[right][snapback]690925[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I've heard similar things from various Europhiles and America-bashers, yet I think this argument has some very serious factual flaws.

I problem is not with America or Americans per se, but with the whole "modern art" movements which have effectively destroyed beauty and meaning in art. And the whole destructive "modern art" movement began, not in America, but in Europe!

Most of the great classical European art was made prior to the twentieth century (and the bulk of it prior to the nineteenth) America was only a colonial country in the eighteenth century, and was still largely a developing, rough frontier society through much of the nineteenth. Most Americans did not have the leisure to focus on art at this period.
The great works of the Renaissance were made long before America was founded!

The perverse Modernist movements began in late nineteenth and early twentieth century Europe (at the beginning of Europe's serious cultural and moral decline). Thus it is rather inaccurate to blame America for the excesses and evils of modern art. In the twentieth-century, though many American artists followed in the footsteps of the European artists. While Americans have certainly played their part in the travesty of modern art, it is silly and inaccurate to blame on America what started (and continues)in Europe.

The infamous "elephant dung madonna" you alluded to was painted by a Nigerian-Englishman, not an American!

The problem you refer to is unique to the modern age, not a particular country.

And your stuff about blacks, Latinos, and women is a lot of silly, p.c. drivel - looks like something pulled from some p.c. liberal textbook.

If you want to be a "culture warrior" you might want to take a serious look at the history of art and culture, rather than engaging in simplistic, inaccurate America-bashing (which seems to have become rather fashionable in certain circles).

Edited August 20, 2005 by Socrates

[ryanmeyersmusic]

i'd have to say that america is not 16th century europe.

the methods and mediums in art have changed significantly. there was no film, photography (well, it was being worked on, but nothing close to something useful as art yet), printing, any form of digital ANYTHING, electric instruments, or the like. we live in a different world, and our art is still as expressive as it was in the 16th century. it's just not the same.

[track2004]

True that Ryan!

[theculturewarrior]

I don't think you've quite understood what I was gettting at. The post I posted above was in response to a "p.c." website that I had visited. That is revision. That is America.

I love my country, Socrates, and I would not trade it for Europe for all the money in the world. Perhaps my understanding of the history of art was flawed. Thank you for correcting me. Nevertheless, I would contend that we are a nation of revisionists, and that this has influenced our approach to the Beautiful. If we were not, the portion of my post which you have misread (below) would not have raised your ire.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 19 2005, 07:16 PM']
And your stuff about blacks, Latinos, and women is a lot of silly, p.c. drivel - looks like something pulled from some p.c. liberal textbook.

[right][snapback]691076[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 19 2005, 07:16 PM']The infamous "elephant dung madonna" you alluded to was painted by a Nigerian-Englishman, not an American!
[right][snapback]691076[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It gained noteriety in NYC.

[theculturewarrior]

Maybe that's why people throw dung at the Madonna.


[quote name='track2004' date='Aug 19 2005, 04:33 PM']4)  We, Americans, don't really care about art.  I worked at a museum for 2 years and I'd venture to say most of the city (dare I say 2/3rds) haven't set foot in the museum since grade school field trips. 
[right][snapback]690935[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='ryanmeyersmusic' date='Aug 19 2005, 07:22 PM']i'd have to say that america is not 16th century europe.

the methods and mediums in art have changed significantly.  there was no film, photography (well, it was being worked on, but nothing close to something useful as art yet), printing, any form of digital ANYTHING, electric instruments, or the like.  we live in a different world, and our art is still as expressive as it was in the 16th century.  it's just not the same.
[right][snapback]691083[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Where do I go to find the electronic version of John Dowland, Palestrina, etc.?

[theculturewarrior]

Apologies to all, if I have offended. It was not my intention to "bash" America. It was mostly my intention to bash revisionism. That website I visited really got to me.

I see I have a lot to learn about art! I would love to hear John Dowland, in a modern, electronic context.

[Socrates]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Aug 19 2005, 07:56 PM']I don't think you've quite understood what I was gettting at. The post I posted above was in response to a "p.c." website that I had visited. That is revision. That is America.

I love my country, Socrates, and I would not trade it for Europe for all the money in the world. Perhaps my understanding of the history of art was flawed. Thank you for correcting me. Nevertheless, I would contend that we are a nation of revisionists, and that this has influenced our approach to the Beautiful. If we were not, the portion of my post which you have misread (below) would not have raised your ire.
[right][snapback]691121[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm not questioning your patriotism - I'm merely saying that it is inaccurate to place all the blame for the problems of modern art on America. The movements of "modernism" and "revisionism" began in Europe, and remained a predominantly European movement. I think any history of modern art will bear this out. This is not to blame Europe any more than America. I just think it is simply historically false to lay the blame for modern art on America.

And I don't equivicate "revisionism" (whatever that means) with America. The "revisionist" and "politcally correct" crowd are generally against traditional American values. These people tend towards neo-Marxist politics, which is very opposed to traditional American ideals. Yes, we've sure got our share of liberals in America, but we also have one of the world's mosty active conservative movements. Most problems of modernity are global in scope, rather than confined to one country or another.

Sorry that I apparently misread that part of your posts (about "women, latinos, etc.)

Edited August 20, 2005 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='theculturewarrior' date='Aug 19 2005, 08:04 PM']It gained noteriety in NYC.
[right][snapback]691129[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And it was largely in America that people got upset about it!

That's rather a red herring.

[quote]Maybe that's why people throw dung at the Madonna.[/quote]
It was a non-American "artist" who threw the dung. Blaming the actions of someone in England on supposed American attitudes seems a little odd.

Edited August 20, 2005 by Socrates

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 19 2005, 08:19 PM']I'm not questioning your patriotism - I'm merely saying that it is inaccurate to place all the blame for the problems of modern art on America.  The movements of "modernism" and "revisionism" began in Europe, and reamined a predominantly European movement.  I  think any history of modern art will bear this out.  This is not to blame Europe any more than America.  I just think it is simply historically false to lay the blame for modern art on America.

And I don't equivicate "revisionism" (whatever that means) with America.  The "revisionsists" are generally against traditional American values.  These people tend towards neo-Marxist politics, which is very opposed to traditional American ideals.  Yes, we've sure got our share of liberals in America, but we also have one of the world's mosty active conservative movements.  Most problems of modernity are global in scope, rather than confined to one country or another.
[right][snapback]691144[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Revisionism is this: A feminist professor does not like the Song of Solomon, because when he describes his bride's breasts as ivory towers, or her teeth as a flock of sheep, she feels the poet is "dismembering," the female body, and therefore, the Song of Solomon is absent from the curriculum, except when it is being deconstructed by feminist professors.

Revisionism is what you see on the news, not what actually happened. It is the "p.c. liberal textbooks" you have described. It is the enemy of Beauty.

I think, there is a certain puritanical glee to revising these things. The revisionist makes everything "clean," from the language, to the accepted body of knowledge. It is the enemy of Truth. Perhaps I have unfairly laid the blame for this disease on America, but it pains me to see that we have been revised.

[theculturewarrior]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Aug 19 2005, 08:21 PM']And it was largely in America that people got upset about it!

That's rather a red herring.
It was a non-American "artist" who threw the dung.  Blaming the actions of someone in England did on supposed American attitudes seems a little odd.
[right][snapback]691146[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm glad that people got offended. But I would be willing to guess that that artist gained a considerable amount of prestige, even, and especially among American circles.