Georg Lukacs was a Hungarian aristocrat, son of a banker, who had become a Communist during World War I, a good Marxist theoretician who developed the idea of ‘Revolution and Eros’ ~ sexual instinct used as an instrument of destruction.
Willi Munzenberg proposed the solution to ‘organise the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilisation stink using art and education." These three men were among the founders of The Frankfurt School more deadly to the Western world than another Marxist revolution. The war on things of enlightenment and beauty intensified and here we find ourselves today.
The following is an article I have wanted to post for a long time. It is taken from one of my favourite classical art sites, THE ART RENEWAL CENTRE. This particular article speaks of the decline in the quality of art over the past 100+ years.
Who is behind this lowering of standards and the attempt to obliterate thousands of years of the learning process by removing it from the mainstream and replacing it with meaningless, often unaesthetic visual and spiritual insults?
A few more words on the Frankfurt School. The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.
When Hitler came to power, the Institut was closed and its members, by various routes, fled to the United States and migrated to major US universities ~ Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley. These are all powerful education centres and from these were disseminated the seeds to put their goals into action.
The attack on the arts began long before the establishment of Frankfurt, but it was set into work around the turn of the last century by the same group that was buying up all the school text publishers and taking control of American education. This "dumbing down" and lowering of values has been going on for a long time. And yes, I refer to the Illuminati, a large number of whom, primarily Zionist, own the media and publications, and control the arts as part of controlling humanity.
The author of this piece does not name any group in particular but I just did. I will add a few comments here and there in green.
FOR OVER 90 YEARS there has been a concerted and relentless effort to disparage, denigrate and obliterate the reputations, names, and brilliance of the academic artistic masters of the late 19th Century. Fueled by a cooperative press, the ruling powers have held the global art establishment in an iron grip.
We at the Art Renewal Center have fully and fairly analyzed their theories and have found them wanting in every respect, devoid of substance and built on a labyrinth of easily disproved fallacies, suppositions and hypotheses. If, dear reader, you are not already one of their propaganda successes, I encourage you to read on.
Against all odds, and in the face of the worst kind of ridicule and personal and editorial assault, only a small handful of well-trained artists managed to stay true to their beliefs. Then, like the heroes who protected a few rare manuscripts during inquisitional book-burnings of the past, these 20th Century art world heroes managed to protect and preserve the core technical knowledge of western art.
Somehow, they succeeded to train a few dozen determined disciples. Today, many of those former students, have established their own schools or ateliers, and are currently training many hundreds more. This movement is now expanding exponentially. They are regaining the traditions of the past, so that art may once again move forward on a solid footing. We are committed in every way possible to record, preserve and perpetuate this priceless knowledge.
We have painstakingly unraveled an understanding of how and why great traditional art nearly perished. For the sake of our children, our culture, and posterity, the Art Renewal Center is dedicated to traditional humanist art, which is essential to the health and welfare of mankind, and to a critical and truthful analysis of the modernist onslaught by which it was nearly consumed.
As you read, you will be seeing images of masterpieces by some of those artists whose names and art were so ruthlessly maligned: William Bouguereau, John William Waterhouse, Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, Leon L'hermitte, John William Godward, Edward Coley Burne-Jones, Jules Joseph Tissot, and Frederick Lord Leighton, amongst others.
All giants in their lives, they were amongst history's greatest, yet prior to the last fifth of the twentieth century, virtually no mention or knowledge of their work was being taught, analyzed or exhibited anywhere.
The period of art history from 1850 through 1910 was thrown into near obscurity. But it was precisely this period that produced some of the greatest art and artists in the history of humanity. I will show you fine examples of that art, why it is amongst the world's greatest, and explain just what happened to cause its near total annihilation from the art history that has been taught in most of the 20th Century.
It was a period when 500 years of accumulated knowledge, stretching from the early Renaissance to the present, reached its absolute peak of development.
It was a time when the techniques and knowledge of how to produce great art, and pass down that knowledge to the next generation, was at its absolute zenith.
It was a time when the work and sweat of 30 prior generations of devoted artists achieved a codification of methods, standards and techniques, which produced the very pinnacle of what Traditional Realist art could achieve.
In the last half of the 19th century there were literally scores of great art ateliers and academies turning out thousands of highly trained and accomplished artists, painting in dozens of different styles and on countless different subjects. The best of the best of these were clearly amongst the greatest geniuses in western civilization. It is an incredible irony that this greatest of all periods should have become the most denigrated.
Men like William Adolphe Bouguereau, Jean-LÈon GÈrÙme, Jules Breton, Jules Bastien-Lepage, Jean Francois Millet, Jehan Georges Vibert, Edward Burne Jones, Fredrick Lord Leighton, Edward Poynter, Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema, John William Waterhouse, Leon L'hermitte, Sir Frank Dicksee, Sir John Everett Millais, Alexander Cabanel and Jules Lefebvre.
These names, many of which may be new to you, were as well known by the cogniscenti in the 1890's as Cezanne, Picasso, Matisse, DeKooning, Jackson Pollock, and Andy Warhol are known today. They were household names. People would line up sometimes for blocks to see exhibitions of their works. The rich, and the poor, the humble and the famous alike adored their work.
Men like Henry James, Frederic Chopin and Charles Dickens idolized these academic masters. Could such men that we all agree were beyond question great artistic geniuses themselves have had such bad taste so as to idolize art that today's ideologues would have us believe was so bad?
Bouguereau is one of the chief villains in tales told by modern historians. I shall especially refer to him in this discussion, for he is being increasingly revered by thousands of scholars, collectors, curators and art lovers as one of history's all time greats, ultimately deserving to stand shoulder to shoulder with Leonardo, Caravaggio and Rembrandt.
But just as Rembrandt was relegated to near oblivion for over 100 years after his death, so too was this to be Bouguereau's fate. One of the most famous stories about Rembrandt concerns his painting Night Watch.
After his death, no one wanted it. Finally, a gymnasium agreed to hang it on their back wall if the top foot of the painting would be cut off so it would fit. Today, this artistic masterpiece is known only in a mutilated form.
The overwhelming preponderance of the art of the 19th C. in Europe and in America has been described as Academic. This term is used to be dismissive or disparaging as petty and uninspired. In truth, however, Academic more accurately means a dedication to standards of excellence both in training and in artistic execution, and a dedication to learning with great discipline and devotion, to the methods, developments and breakthroughs of prior generations.
The idea is to build on the past accomplishments of art as we go into the future by knowing thoroughly those accomplishments of the past. This is the true meaning of academic.
These artists trained in ateliers. What was an atelier?
For those of you that don't know: an accepted master who had himself been trained by a prior master, would pick out 6 or 8 highly talented young aspiring artists, who would move in with him as apprentices. They would be trained in depth with him, and literally eat, drink, sleep and breathe art 24 hours a day 7 days a week. For the first 6 months of their training they would do nothing but copy old master drawings, for drawing was considered the backbone of all achievement in art.
Then they would draw studies from plaster casts to learn modeling, and then spend at least another year drawing from live models. Only then were they allowed upon mastering the craft of drawing, to pick up a brush and start learning the craft of painting. Then possibly after 5 or 6 years of training, they could start to create works of art that could be considered truly professional.
Then they would draw studies from plaster casts to learn modeling, and then spend at least another year drawing from live models. Only then were they allowed upon mastering the craft of drawing, to pick up a brush and start learning the craft of painting. Then possibly after 5 or 6 years of training, they could start to create works of art that could be considered truly professional. Suffice it so say that the atelier methods, which were started in the early Renaissance in the guilds and studios of Giotto and Rogier Van Der Weyden, transmitted knowledge down from generation to generation.
Some of these students became masters in their own right, adding to that knowledge and then teaching yet another generation. In the 19th Century this concept gained additional momentum reflecting the acceleration of learning in every other field of human endeavor. The industrial revolution was codifying the belief in ever expanding progress at an ever-faster pace. This most clearly exhibited itself in the art of painting and sculpture as well.
These academic artists are more accurately described as "Humanists." As you read, keep your thoughts on the term Humanity or Humanism. It's probably the chief defining characteristic of the art of the 19th century It is the most evident concept that distinguishes it from the bulk of the current establishment-celebrated art of the 20th Century, which is more accurately understood as existential, destructive and nihilistic.
Then I will explain to you the reasons why a re-appreciation for 19th century Realism started in the late 1970's and early 1980's, and now over the last ten years has finally hit a critical mass ~ a titration point where it is rapidly becoming a tidal wave exploding onto the consciousness of the art world.
Why were some of these artists considered amongst history's greatest in their own lives, why did they fall from grace, and why are they once again gracing the walls of the majority of the most prestigious Museums in the world?
What happened? What could possibly have happened to cause an artistic heritage and tradition, after 500 years, to fall this low in the esteem of the eyes of the world?
World War I,
World War II, and
the Great Depression.
Let me state in the strongest possible terms that the art history textbooks since the middle of this century are filled with nothing but distortions, half truths and out and out lies in their description of this era. They have failed in their responsibility as historians to report the truth of what occurred as objectively as possible. These texts amount to no less than propaganda brochures for modern art.
With the new democratic philosophies came a new ascendant respect for all mankind. "Liberté, Fraternité, Egalité," cried the French; and the Americans, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Rather than dumping on the Victorians, one might just as readily credit them and their era with setting in motion all of the societal changes that led to the undoing of most of these injustices.
Bouguereau also celebrated humanity's culture and literature in his paintings, as seen in his mythological scenes of nymphs, cupids, satyrs and his scenes from the Bible. These wholly original compositions are handled with an emotional force second to none. The Flagellation and First Mourning (Adam and Eve grieving the death of Abel) are both consummate masterpieces of this type, with figures painted so lifelike that you feel you're looking through a window at an event frozen in time. One can sense the blood rushing in their veins and the life in their eyes, accomplishments for which no words can do justice.
Even beyond this, he captured the very souls and spirits of his subjects. They come to life like no previous artist has ever before or ever since achieved. He didn't just paint their flesh better; he captured the subtlest tender nuances of personality and mood. He took no shortcuts.
Every composition is incredibly original with perspectives and foreshortening and interweaving of figures more complex and successful than of any other artist of his time. His paintings never feel busy. There are never unnecessary elements strewn around. The landscaping is rendered just enough to focus the viewer's attention on the figure. He masterfully brought together the elements of exquisite drawing, incredible coloration, perspective, brilliant modeling and composition, all working together in harmony. All elements reinforce the emotional thrust of each work.
To achieve this, he developed his own idiosyncratic techniques, often creating new methods on the spot to solve an immediate problem. There have been extensive analytic treatises written by a number of recent scholars trying to technically dissect how Bouguereau managed his totally unique magic.
It was the artist's goal to show humanity as beautifully real and ideal as possible, encouraging all to strive for such ideals. The message is that while mankind may not be perfect, life can still be good. Implicit is the moral imperative that all people are worthy of love and respect.
So not only was it untrue that Bouguereau, Burne-Jones, Alma-Tadema and their brethren were irrelevant; the exact opposite was the case. He and the other academic artists were at the cutting edge of the changes that were occurring in Western civilization, asserting that each individual was unique and valuable.
Only a society such as this could generate people who would even be permitted to dribble paint on a canvas and call it a work of art. A hundred years earlier, somebody trying to do that would probably have been thrown into an institution or worse. and their brethren were irrelevant; the exact opposite was the case.He and the other academic artists were at the cutting edge of the changes that were occurring in Western civilization, asserting that each individual was unique and valuable.
We must realize that modern art could never have existed save on the back of the Humanist art that preceded it. One can't help but be struck by the irony that the chief benefactors of these "liberated" and "enlightened" artists are their chief detractors. The knife of ingratitude cuts deep.
Nihilism was pushed by Tavistock and its branches in order to change the social norms of what is normal what not, what is beautiful what not. There was a revival of the Frankfurt school in the 60s. Look at the Frankfurt School, the Beatles and MK ultra mind control. This is all about degrading art, turning it into something grey and shocking, something that provokes, something that ignores the aesthetic and focuses on the meaning, as in conceptual art. Art goes from a response that invigorates to the provocation of outrage.
The next myth perpetuated about Bouguereau by his critics was that he painted just for the bourgeois in order to get rich.
Let's dispel that once and for all. He prided himself in never needing to take commissions. He painted what he loved and believed, often laboring 16 hours a day, seven days a week, much like Michelangelo. His fame became so great that his dealer, Goupil, was able to charge $10,000 for a single canvas (equivalent to more than $300,000 today).
The bourgeois couldn't possibly buy his paintings, and they were eagerly acquired by the wealthy Mellons, Rockefellers, Vanderbilts and Carnegies. Let me ask who has been buying Matisse, Picasso and Gauguin, or deKooning, Rothko and Pollock? The Mellons, Vanderbilts and the Carnegies, or their equivalents! I don't hear anyone claiming that these artists painted just for the bourgeois in order to get rich.
Certainly Picasso was far wealthier when he died than Bouguereau at his death. Rubens, Gainsborough, Church, Rodin, Boucher, deKooning and Frank Stella all made or are making substantial sums on their art. The fact is that most often, it is the wealthy who buy art. Rather than using this fact to condemn the artists, it should be the basis for praising those individuals who recognized and helped support greatness. What would the Renaissance have been without Lorenzo de Medici?
Then again, we should ask what is wrong with being part of the bourgeois? It was their existence more than anything that helped to create our culture as we know it. The bourgeois mostly came from poor roots and rightly felt that they were as worthy of love and respect as the nobility before them.
Some of the best examples of Bouguereau's work are among the greatest masterpieces in Western art. Because his work had been unfairly denigrated, the resulting low prices much of the 20th Century allowed private collectors to acquire or keep his work, including some of his greatest paintings. In the last 20 years, however, his prices have increased astronomically.
Paintings that would have sold for $5,000 in 1970, were worth $50,000 in 1980, and would currently sell for over a million. In November of 1998, the world record for Bouguereau was broken twice, with Cupid and Psyche as Children selling for $1,760,000, and Alma Parens, an allegorical painting of mother France nurturing her children, brought $2,650,000 at Sotheby's.
Of course, price and quality don't necessarily go hand in hand. But this is a strong indicator of changing perceptions. In Bouguereau's case his work is still undervalued when a Picasso sold the same year for $48,000,000, an Andy Warhol for $17,000,000, and a Van Gogh self portrait for $71,000,000.
Another myth concerns the accusation that most of the work of these traditional Humanists or Academic Realists is just petty sentimentality. In fact, most modernist critics consider any hint of positive human emotions as petty sentimentality. I would agree that an adult's abnormal attachment to a high school ring or cheerleader pompoms is petty sentiment.
of a child taking his or her first steps?
Is there anything more beautiful, and could anything
be more fitting subject matter for art?
Is this petty sentimentality?
What of depicting a young person's first moments
of sexual awareness as childhood passes into adulthood?
What of the cruelty of the industrial life in the cities
with the cold and homeless lining up for bread on a wintry night?
If we claim that these works are petty sentimentality, then wouldn't the same logic apply to the great Renaissance artists who attempted to capture the joys of religious exaltation or overly idealized heroism of kings? Or there were 17th Century Dutch artists who painted rigid noblemen or carousing peasants in taverns? Caravaggio and George De La Tour painted fortunetellers and card cheating gypsies. Is this petty sentiment too?
Modernism endeavors to outrage, insult and defile human feelings (i.e., sentiment) and to belittle and dismiss any expression of our sense of passion and beauty as just no more than mere sentiment, and in the next breath want us to think their work is passionate and beautiful.In 1964 the Metropolitan Museum in New York, was offered one of Frederick Church's greatest masterpieces of landscape painting for a mere $30,000. They dismissed the offer with the comment that they don't buy picture postcards. It was put down specifically due to its appeal to sentiment. Today, the Met has dozens of such works on permanent display in the 19th Century American wing.
All the great 19th Century masterpieces that depict universal human emotions of any kind are denigrated and lumped together as only appealing to petty human sentiment. However, it's not just sentiment that was dismissed as worthless, but the depicting of all human emotions.I'm not saying that there aren't any paintings that are maudlin and overly sentimental from the 19th Century, but the modernists dismiss them all out of hand, whether bad and silly or inspired and brilliant.
Next, I wish to address the myth that Bouguereau, Meissonier, Cabanel, and Gerome stopped the Impressionists from showing in the salons and working at the academies and ateliers. In their youths, Monet and Renoir worked next to the great academic artist GÈrÙme in the atelier of Charles Gleyre. Degas was accepted and worked successfully in the atelier of Hippolyte Flandrin and Ingres.
Edouard Manet worked in the atelier of Thomas Couture. And in every salon from 1873 forward there were always impressionist paintings shown. The reason that there were only a few during the earlier years was because there weren't yet many impressionist artists. In a typical salon show in the 1870s, of 200 artists, perhaps 10 or 12 were impressionists.
It was also untrue that van Gogh despised Bouguereau's work. Critics like to point to one letter where van Gogh said that he would be able to sell his paintings more readily if he painted pretty things like Bouguereau. They always conveniently overlook another letter in which van Gogh expresses his deep disappointment that he'll never be able to draw as well as Bouguereau, and yet another,
"I know very well that it is neither drawn nor painted as correctly as a Bouguereau, and I rather regret this, because I have an earnest desire to be correct. But though it is doomed, alas, to be neither a Cabanel nor a Bouguereau, yet I hope that it will be French."These can readily be found in the published letters of Vincent van Gogh, and are a testament by Van Gogh to the critical importance of drawing.
In addition, I am always amazed at modernist critics like John Russell or Hilton Kramer of The New York Times. They will review museum shows of old masters such as Raphael, Caravaggio, Titian or da Vinci, refer to the exquisite drawing, the balance of composition, accuracy of perspective and modeling, subtlety of coloration, and then conveniently fail to notice over-sentimentalized subject matter or over-dramatized gestures.
These same critics will then look at Bouguereau, GÈrÙme, Burne-Jones or Alma-Tadema and totally ignore all of the above-mentioned parameters and with a "double-think" right out of Orwell's 1984, see nothing but the so-called sentimental subject matter. These critics like to say Bouguereau's work is really only derivative, harking back to earlier artists. Only in the 20th century has such a thing ever been scorned. To this I have one thing to say.
That's one of the core beliefs of modernism that must be soundly vanquished by self-evident logical analysis. Nobody can accomplish anything of merit if they are in fact not derivative. Only by mastering the accomplishments of the past and then adding to it can we go still further. Every other field of endeavor recognizes this truth. Without the knowledge of the past we are doomed to everlasting primitivism.
A fine example of everlasting primitivism by Rothko. "Control art critics and directors of art museums. 'Our plan is to create ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.' ~ The Frankfurt School
And, as far as holding our works up to the old masters ~ that's what we want to happen. If we are to accomplish things of true merit and excellence, we must germinate and nurture great masters in the next millennium too. Bouguereau was quite aware that his work would be compared on the alter of past accomplishments, as were his contemporaries.
It was precisely because they mastered the techniques of the past, built upon them and opened them up to an avalanche of new subject matter and Enlightenment ideals, that they accomplished the greatest half-century of painting in art history.
The word "derivative" comes from the word "derive" or to come from, not to copy. Bouguereau, Lord Leighton, Alma-Tadema, Gerome, Vibert, Burne-Jones, etc. did not copy the art of earlier eras, but they most certainly derived from the prior schools. Many of the methods of learning the skills of drawing, modeling, perspective, composition, the sourcing and preparing of pigments, canvas preparation, paint application etc., were developed before them.
You could also say Michelangelo was derivative from Donatello, whose David was sculpted decades before. Leonardo and Raphael were derivative of Giotto and Rogier van der Weyden. All of 17th Century Dutch Art built on the breakthroughs of the High Renaissance, which itself derived from the accomplishments of the early renaissance. Praxiteles in ancient Greece most certainly derived much technique and knowledge from those sculptors that came during the centuries before him.
All we really care about today is that he did it the best. And when we talk about the basic criteria and parameters of the academic tradition that built from the 14th through 19th centuries, Bouguereau, Lord Leighton and Alma-Tadema were second to none.
Does that mean these musical giants were nothing but derivative too?
In fact all great literature exists due to the existence of advanced language. This upside down thought process would make Dostoevsky, Balzac, Checkov, Shakespeare, the BrontÎ sisters, Steinbeck, Sallinger and Toni Morrison, derivative as well. If you think about it you will see that these are exact analogies. There is nothing anymore derivative about these 19th century Traditional-Humanist-Academic-masters.
Being derivative is entirely different from copying. Copying itself can have value, but only for the purposes of instruction. Obviously a copied work is not original art. But modernist ideologues have disingenuously dismissed all realist art as "derivative" as if that were the same as copying.
We cannot with any justice crucify these Humanist Masters on the altar of modern art.
Modern art theory has a completely different and as we shall see an entirely flawed way of viewing art.I want to take a second here to make it clear that I don't consider Impressionism as part of Modernism. It was still firmly planted in human values with the intention of creating works of great beauty.
Modernism truly dates from the Post-Impressionists forward. With the exception of Van Gogh, it became the intention of artistic endeavor to expand the boundaries of what could be called art and to celebrate the breaking of standards and convention for it's own sake.
While it is assumed that Bouguereau did not like Renoir and Monet and Renoir didn't like Bouguereau, it is hardly an indictment against either of their works. Rembrandt hated Rubens and Michelangelo despised Leonardo. It's an old story ~ genius is often intolerant of other genius that is oriented somewhat differently.
This said, however, it is not true that Bouguereau was scorned by all of the Impressionists. In fact, at the Universal Exposition in Paris on New Years Eve of the year 1900, a newspaper reporter approached Degas and Monet who were conversing together, and asked who in their opinion would most likely be considered the greatest 19th century artist in the year 2000. After a brief debate they both agreed on one man: William Bouguereau.
But there is another reason that Academic Realism or Traditional Humanism is coming back. It has to do with a widespread reevaluation of the ideological underpinnings and theoretical framework of Modernism and Post-modernism.
Our 20th century has marked a period that celebrated the bizarre, the novel and the outrageous for its own sake.
The defining parameter of greatness to Modernism is:
"has it ever been done before,"I propose to you today that if everything is art then nothing is art. If I call a table a chair have I expanded the definition of the word table? Would this make me brilliant? If I call a hat a shirt have I expanded the definition of hat? If I call a nail a hammer, have I expanded the definition of the word nail? Am I now a genius? If I call screeching car wheels great music have I expanded the definition of music?
"Is it totally original where there is no derivation from any former schools of art,"
"does it outrage,"
"does it expand the definition of what can be called art?"
Or in reality have I perpetrated a fraud on the people who wanted to buy tables, hat, nails and music and instead got chairs, shirts, hammers and a headache.
They are not works of art but symbols of the victory of the Huns, who have sacked the bastions and forums of our culture. It would be like saying that the Roman Forum today is far greater architecture than it was when all the buildings and streets were intact.
Next, you know those 5-minute poses that have become so popular in today's few begrudging drawing classes that are offered in most university art departments? The "five minute study" is supposed to train the artist to get the quick impression of the figure.
Students are told that the first impulse is somehow fresher and more honest. In fact it's a contrived and debilitating concept. How can a student possibly develop advanced drawing skills without lengthy poses that enable them to seek out and find their errors and then truly perfect their methods by which to find the right lines? In support of these comments let me quote Edgar Degas, one of the icons of Impressionism and Modernist ideology.
Edgar Degas, is quoted by Ives Gammell in his book The Shop Talk of Edgar Degas on Page 22 as saying:
And to others he was quoted as saying, "I am a colorist with line."
This would seem in direct contradiction to the assertions of most current teaching that the first immediate impression of a form is what is most important and valuable. Current teaching tends to say that if you need to work over a line it lacks truth and sincerity. What it lacks is quality and clarity.
Only the most talented artists who had built up drawing skills over half a lifetime got to the point where they could find the right line on the first try. Clearly Degas would vehemently disagree with the quick pose.
What was clearly of greatest concern to him was that the artist finds the correct line that conveys the feeling or form that he wished to, and not how quickly or automatically he achieved it. This is a crucial point, as it undermines the myth of the modern teaching that the gesture must be captured in the first initial stroke to be great. If students can never perfect their lines they can never learn the skill of recognizing the 'right' line when it is found.
Page 23. Degas said, "Once I have a line I hold on to it, I do not lose it again."
Modern artists are told that they must create something totally original. Nothing about what they do can ever have been done before in any way shape or form otherwise they risk being called "derivative" How utterly absurd. They've been indoctrinated with the concept that bad = good. Every parameter upon which any standard for quality and excellence can be deduced, they have been told is improper because it's "limiting to freedom of expression."
There can be no story for then you have to stay within the "tight boundaries" of the tale."Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression - nude movies, books, perverted art" This quote from one of the most famous destroyer of art, occultist and Illuminist Andy Warhol with his so-called pop-art. He said in an interview that "fine art is dead ~ this is the art of the New Era. Warhol was a big puppet for the Illuminati Elite. By degrading the art they also degrade the human population. Picasso once said that to be able to create a good "alternative" art form, you basically must be an excellent painter in a traditional way first. He was so right, and if you look at his early work, you can see he was mastering traditional painting as well. But those his words seem to have been forgotten and buried, just per the plan, unfortunately.
There can be no illusion for than you are "chained" by the need to recreate a sense of three dimensions.
There can be no drawing, as that can be "limiting" to objects of people or things taken from the real world.
They want to remove the "shackles" of modeling, perspective, or subject matter of any sort.
There certainly can be no attempt at harmonizing of the above parameters with composition, color and tonality, for that would "restrict" one to making everything work together.
I find myself thinking of "Do as thou wilt" the credo of neopaganism and satanism.I wonder why that is. Could be the direction so much art had fallen to over the past years?
In fact, originality of methods takes precedence over everything else. If something has been done before, or is derivative in any way of anything that was done before, it thereby loses value proportionate to those similarities. In such a "through the looking glass" world, every would-be "artist" is placed in the untenable position of trying to create an entirely new art form in order to be considered relevant.
The sheer glaring reality is that nothing could be more imprisoning, binding, restricting, chaining and shackling than the impossible limitations of modernism and post-modernism, that remove from the would be artist every tool (including training) that could give them the ability to create great works of art. The simple truth is that each and every one of us is capable of thinking of something that has never been done before. Does that make it worth doing and the work of genius?
I could carefully (with enough money) dig up an old bombed out tenement building in the Bronx, and have it transported to a special slab built for it in Central Park. Rope off the structure, aim lights at it, give it a title and with enough pomp and circumstance think of twenty reasons why this is sheer brilliance in its commentary about the inner city.
I could boil the entrails of several different animals and then preserve them by imbedding them in clear plastic. I could then hang them from a mobile with similarly preserved body parts of cadavers, and have critics claim that this is the greatest artistic statement about the horrors of war since Guernica.
I could imbed into the walls, ceiling and floors of a small room, pieces of neon lights, parts from broken machines and engines, and broken pieces of structural building materials like bricks, beams and cinder blocks. Then I could glue between everything millions of nails, nuts and bolts, and have clever writers and critics point out how this room (which could be installed at MoMA or the Guggenheim) is the quintessential statement of the effects of the industrial age on human psychology
Well, those three ideas took all of 3 minutes to think of.
This must mean I'm three-geniuses-rolled-into-one. Why at this rate I could come up with more brilliant ideas for modernism, than all of the modernist geniuses put together, if I just would put aside a week or two.
The thing here that really is interesting, is not their art at all, but the statement it makes about the nature of our species ~ that so many seemingly intelligent people have been so easily snookered by the tongue twisting, convoluted, illogic of modernist rhetoric.
Clearly for many people it is more important to feel that they are some part of an elitist in-group that is endowed with the special ability to see brilliance where most people see nothing and are afraid to say so.
Since most people aren't devoted or educated in fine art, they have successfully intimidated the bulk of humanity into cowering away in silence, feeling foolish for their inability to understand.
By having successfully gained control of the institutions of higher learning and the major museums of the world, they have been able to perpetuate their fiction under the guise and force of their power and credentials.
The average person shrinks away from believing the reality of their own senses in the face of seemingly overwhelming numbers of people in this 20th century "establishment" who authoritatively dictate what is great art and what they should be seeing.
"Control art critics and directors of art museums. 'Our plan is to create ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art." ~ Frankfurt School
Modern and post-modern art is nihilistic and anti-human. It denigrates humanity along with our hopes, dreams, desires and the real world in which we live. All reference to any of these things is forbidden in the canonistic halls of modernist ideology.
We can see that their hallowed halls are a hollow shell, a vacuous vacant vault that locks their devotees away from life and humanity, while stripping mankind of his dignity. It ultimately bores the overwhelming majority of it's would be audience who can find nothing with which to relate.It has been called exciting and "avant-garde," but the sad truth is that it is incredibly humdrum and monotonous.
Modernism is art about art.
It endlessly asks the question ad nauseum:
what is art? What is art?
They believe that only those things that expand the boundaries of art are good all else is bad.
Of course, this isn't exactly the first time that ideas that were complete shams managed to engulf the belief systems of entire cultures and civilizations. In many of those in the past, the lunacy was enforced by the severest of punishments for anyone who would dare to speak out. At least we live in a time and place where it's possible to speak against this consummate con that has been perpetrated against the greatest period of artistic achievement in history.
Three quarters of the 20th century will go down in art history as a great wasteland of insanity ~ a nightmarish blip in the long road of the development of human logic and reason, from which we are only just starting to awake.
The artists of the 19th century exhibited a deep abiding respect for humanity and human feelings; a respect for our minds, our spirits and our reason, and a love of beauty, grace and true excellence and accomplishment. Bouguereau, Lord Leighton, Waterhouse, Burne-Jones and the other giants of the 19th C. tried to exemplify all that is good and decent in our species.
Their accomplishments are the quintessential high point of hundreds of years of human study and development in the art of painting. They are arguably the greatest painters that history has ever produced.
Bouguereau especially fits this description. How fitting and sadly obvious that he should be characterized as the chief villain by those who would destroy rather than build-who celebrate chaos and would deprive the artist of any skill needed to portray anything.
If someone with intelligence takes the time to understand advanced mathematics and physics, computer science, or biogenetics, there is something there to understand.
If you take the time to understand Abstract Expressionism, Minimalism, Colorfield, Pop-art, Op-art etc. you will find clever con game perpetrated by a sophisticated gang of public relations experts that figured out a great tactic to make millions.
The underlying philosophy is totally without merit, and amounts to nothing more than a misuse of language, which is sufficiently complex as to be usable in the wrong hands to justify nearly anything. If you read their discussions of what makes a Rothko or a Dekooning or Jackson Pollock painting great, you discover an enigma wrapped in a paradox and embedded in a quandary.
With looping cadences of illogical chaotic thought, usually vocalized by individuals with flowery credentials next to their name, the average listeners, who lacks self-confidence in their understanding of the arts and are intimidated by their inability to understand, usually meekly backs away.
Or they protect themselves by proclaiming that they do fully understand, so that they too may feel part of the anointed. The effect of "prestige suggestion" could never be seen more clearly. Many of us here have said it countless times before, but apparently it needs to be said yet again.
Do we really want the works of Jackson Pollock, Mark Rothko and Willem DeKooning to be representatives of the best of what mankind can produce? They are a hoax. And the public has been for too long subjected to the farce of modernism that has captured and laid siege to civilization's museums and institutions.
If you are a musical artist in this century and you are moved by something in your life, you can write a moving song about it. If you are horrified by aids, appalled by racism, scandalized by government corruption, encouraged by examples of human kindness, exhilarated by beautiful scenery or enthralled with the subtleties of human relationships, you can find beautiful ways of expressing it providing you have mastery over your medium, and a poet's soul.
If indeed you are a poet or a writer, you can find countless means within the conventions of language to express your thoughts and feelings, and even endeavor actively to effect those people who will read or hear your work. You can use your art to change peoples' minds and even change the world.
But if you are a Modern or Post-modern artist, every possible method of expressing these feelings and ideas has been removed.
Little Beggar Girl by Bougeureau
They spoke to our hearts and feelings.
They expressed: the good and the bad-the beauty of life and the horrors of war ~ the rapture of love and the fear of abandonment
~ the joys of family life and the plight of the homeless
~ the exaltation of nature and the debasement of societies outcasts
~ the heady heavenly heights, and the steamy fires of hell.
All of humanity's fear, feelings, accomplishments, problems, history, literature, religion and ambitions were fertile subject matter for the taking. An open book to be drawn composed and painted with a tradition of training and a network of institutions in place to find, nurture and bring to fruition the greatest artistic talents of their day.
Allan Banks, the current President of the American Society of Classical Realism, painted the portrait of Congressman Hamilton Fish, Richard Whitney of New Hampshire painted John Sununu, and Jim Childs of New York City painted the children of Donald Trump. Stephen Gjertsen and Allan Banks have both appeared on the covers of American Artist Magazine and have been the subjects of feature articles.
Our own Virgil Elliott has been honored with feature articles on technique in Portrait Signature magazine. Numerous museum exhibitions have been held for them from coast to coast, as well as a multitude of books and articles written about them. Dozens have won countless awards and honors, where 25 years ago they wouldn't have even been allowed in the competitions. And their works are in the collections of dozens of museums around the country.
The art world needs a living, thriving, dynamic community of artists who honor that 500 years of knowledge and tradition and who are helping to reinstall proper standards and rigor in our art schools and institutions of art education. ARC promotes a growing number of "ateliers" modeled after the systems of prior centuries, for the purpose of producing new generations of great art and artists.
Ultimately, history will see these artists as the indispensable link between the 19th and 21st centuries. They courageously swam against the tide and it is with great privilege that I have been asked to help lead this essential cultural shift back to sanity and forward to new and greater levels of human artistic achievement.
Picasso once said that to be able to create a good "alternative" art form, you basically must be an excellent painter in a traditional way first. He was so right, and if you look at his early work, you can see he was mastering traditional painting as well. But those his words seem to have been forgotten and buried, just per the plan, unfortunately.