« The decreasing efficiency of large organizations | Main | Landscape painting proleness chart »

December 16, 2010

Comments

Is this too much of speculation? Well, it is speculation.

Prole or not I love him. He's a great artist. He reminds me of Thomas Cole. In fact I think I might hang up one of his works by my copy of Cole's "Consumation of Empire." Cole is better of course. He was not a prole and had toured the Greco-Roman ruins. His classical paintings are much more refined.

[HS: I prefer Albert Beirdstadt. Cole didn't get how to paint tree leaves. Kinkade's landscapes have fake colors to make them look prettier. Bierdstadt himself did that to a certain extent, but Kinkade does it in a way that's obviously fake looking.]

The elites cannot stand landscapes. Realistically portraying nature means portraying it as a physical realm. The elites have no real spirituality except a worship of the physical (i.e. nature). To display the object of worship as a physical representation, paradoxically, is to degrade it. So the elites prefer pieces that distort the thing being painted or, in the instance of abstract art, art that reflects a mental state.

I suppose that the new religion has its own version of the command, thou shalt have no graven images.

"Given the spread of the new Gaia religion among the elites, which worships Mother Nature, I’m surprised that realistic landscape painting hasn’t made a comeback with the elite. What better way to worship Mother Nature than to paint landscapes?"

Perhaps you've found your calling...

Why has Christianity gone from cathedrals and Aquinas to perverts and morons?

Science, blah, blah, blah,..."We" know better now ...

These are simplisic explanations.

You mean Thomas "DWI" Kincade

The elites, like Blake Gopnik of the Washington Post (their art critic), celebrate stuff like ant-covered-Jesus-figurines, but wont uphold truly valiant historically-correct works of art.............such as Muhammed and that nine-year old wife of his pictured alone together in his tent. We have a word down south for this: chickenshit.

"No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create, and the leftists hate the skill of the individual."

You're quickly becoming the Joseph McCarthy of the blogosphere, complete with paranoid ravings about the "elites," "leftists," and "gaianists," ad nauseam.

Its called "art," because the degree of skill required for an exacting replication of something is quite secondary to other factors, namely choice of subject or lack thereof.

Hate to break it to you, but you're not a victim of the "elites" because there's no great demand for well-executed landscape art.

Such art has been out of favor for so long because the rise of quality photography and leisure time to visit such visually beautiful places has superseded a need to depict them in realistic form to entertain and satisfy imaginations.

You could call such works 'graven' images of nature, but in reality, most are simply just shitty facsimiles of it.

"What better way to worship Mother Nature than to paint landscapes?"

Most people who revere nature think the best way to "worship" it is to preserve and protect it, not cover their walls with Bob Ross-ian (god bless'im) crap.

Thomas Kinkade doesn't actually paint landscape, he paints ridiculously idyllic schlock for poor religious fools.

This,

"No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create, and the leftists hate the skill of the individual. And leftism is the primary political ideology of the elites."

Is contradicted by this,

"I predict that as the religion of Gaia continues to spread, landscape paintings will become more popular with the elite."

Maybe instead of landscape paintings becoming more popular, landscape photos will become more popular.

Tom Stoppard called modern art "Imagination without skill".

HS,

You should check out Tom Wolfe's book "Hooking Up". One of the essays deals with this same theme.

Russ

I never liked Kinkaid, but I like some modern and abstract art. Although, 99% of it is hideous, 1% is very creative, and that appeals to me.

I would probably never buy a landscape. Too boring.

Thomas Kinkade may paint landscapes, but they're the most unnatural landscapes; everything is bathed in a pink glow; I find it treacly and vile. But, to each his own, I suppose...

The leading form of landscape art of the last century, in terms of dollars invested, has been golf course architecture. It's certainly a financially elite form of art, but it doesn't appeal to the critical elite, who tend to be urban, gay, and/or Jewish. There's no particular hostility among critical elites toward golf course architecture, it just doesn't register on their brains at all.

My magnum opus on putting golf course architecture into perspective in the history of art is at

http://www.isteve.com/golf_art.htm

"No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create, and the leftists hate the skill of the individual. And leftism is the primary political ideology of the elites"

I think this is spot on. The best response to all the justifications for modern pseudoart is to read "The Art Instinct" by Dutton. It explains the need for art from an evolutionary standpoint. And it validates the public's desire for intelligible art.

Of course, Post Modern art also wants to shock, disturb and nauseate, for the purpose of shocking the middle class out of it's complacency, blah blah blah. It's a the art of juvenile Marxists.

"No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create, and the leftists hate the skill of the individual"

I'm not sure what you mean by "elites," but I do think that SWPLs use abstract art as a way of demonstrating their superior taste. They need to show people that they see, hear and taste things that others miss. Probably that's why they are into wine too.

Baroque architecture is one of humanity's greatest testaments to creativity and reason, although it had religious influences and motivations. Aquinas was an amazing logician whose Qvinqve viae was thought to have refuted atheism for centuries.

I think you are alluding to the pedophile priests with the term "pervert". While what they did was unquestionably wrong and immoral one has to remember that they are a very small percentage of priests, probably only a fraction of a percent.

It is notable how El Greco, Bernini, Andrea Pozzo, and later even Eugene Delacroix and the romanticists of the 19th century have objectively superior works of art to modern impressionists such as Franz Kline, Dada, Mondrian, and Malevich. MoMA has many of these tacky and meaningless artworks, such as the Pollock's number 1A, 1948, which the beholder is supposed to "feel". One person could see urban vibrancy in a picture while another person could see a paradoxical happy and sad, loud and silent, celebrating movement, etc., in the picture. It is just a psychological game of projection.

The dysgenic effect on art and architecture over the years is very clear. In the 1920s, city planning stopped being based on humanistic art form with principles of building on the past (also had aesthetic factors) to something utilitarian, economic, and by the numbers.

@Paul

Here's Cole's work with accompanying Coldplay soundtrack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bJMxhvVf0o

//No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create,//

On the other hand, abstract art requires skill to *appreciate*. If some yokel in Kansas can appreciate it just as easily as an MFA in NYC, then what's the percentage in appreciating it? You see the same thing in music. The more people who can appreciate it, the less there must be to it.

(I come at this from both sides. I like artwork that has more private meaning and so that often includes things more quirky and less straightforward. For landscape-type stuff, I much prefer photography to painting.)

"No, the reason the elites like non-objective art is because realistic art requires the skill of the individual to create, and the leftists hate the skill of the individual. And leftism is the primary political ideology of the elites. "

I think this is a big part of it. Another reason is that realistic art is generally not political. When creating realistic art, you have to bow to reality. With abstract art, it's all about the artist, and how he feels. Refusing to like realistic art is a selfish act.

And yes, the Rockefellers and other super rich families threw their support behind modern art several generations ago, driving up its price and its social prestige. I'm referring to the decadent descendants of the super rich, not the original money makers.

Pinker has talked about this sociological side of art, the desire to use art as a status symbol. So the con got started back a century ago that the unintelligible was really just so advanced that only certain refined souls could appreciate it. The useless children of the super wealthy loved that idea.

What's hilarious is how otherwise sensible middle class people have often fallen for this con.

Steven Pinker says that modern art was invented so the elites would still have something that made them feel superior to the plebs after technology to produce cheap reproductions and photographs came along. Personally, I think modern art it is a hoax. I don't believe anyone really likes that ugly crap. Lots of people pretend to because they are afraid if they are honest and say a painting looks like it was made by a dog scratching its butt on the canvas, or a sculpture looks like an ugly pile of scrap metal, then people will think they are plebs.

What social class should one aspire to?

The Lower Class: Have to hang out w/ other lower class people.

The proles: Are just low class.(See any Roseanne episode)

The middle-class: Boring and too rule oriented.

The upper-middle class: Too "SWPL" and "New Age Liberal".

The Upper Class: Have to live with guilt over the face that you transfer wealth.

I like Thomas Kinkade's art work because it is reminiscent of an imaginary, magical places, like out of a Disney movie or something like that--a fairy tale. This in on account of his use of, yes, unnatural coloring but it looks cool to the eye. Most people who say otherwise simply say so because Kinkade is not an obscure artist, he is too popular/mainstream for their liking.

I think that your response to my comment makes sense, gives me something to think about.

Patrick wrote: "You're quickly becoming the Joseph McCarthy of the blogosphere, complete with paranoid ravings about the 'elites,' 'leftists,' and 'gaianists,' ad nauseam.

Its called 'art,' because the degree of skill required for an exacting replication of something is quite secondary to other factors, namely choice of subject or lack thereof.

Hate to break it to you, but you're not a victim of the 'elites' because there's no great demand for well-executed landscape art.

Such art has been out of favor for so long because the rise of quality photography and leisure time to visit such visually beautiful places has superseded a need to depict them in realistic form to entertain and satisfy imaginations.

You could call such works 'graven' images of nature, but in reality, most are simply just shitty facsimiles of it."


Many well respected thinkers have spent time discussing the liberal-modern complex. To say that any discussion of the hidden theological foundation of modern ideologies makes one a paranoid loon is a little unfair. Plenty of mainstream politicians, media figures, and a majority of bloggers have delved into the theological foundation of neoconservatism without reprisal. While I don't agree that it's a worship of nature, I do think that this blog is one of the few that's trying to get to the bottom of what's going on. Just my opinion, naturally, and I've been accused of far worse than McCarthyism.

As for the nature of art, I think that photography may have had an impact on the decline of the landscape, but they fell out of favor in the 1700's and 1800's, before we could have quality photography. There was an ideological and spiritual shift that took place and there's very little work being done to understand its impact on art.

John wrote: "art is generally not political."

Art can be plenty political.

My links didn't show up in my comment; just to make sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_in_Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guernica_(painting)

Both instances of political art.

"Art can be plenty political."

Further back than you think. Michelangelo's 'David' celebrated the expulsion of the Medici.

At any rate, I agree with Patrick: with photography around, 'painting what you feel' became the only way to be original. And there is, of course, the superiority thing: ah, those stupid proles who don't understand the depth of Pollock.

"Personally, I think modern art it is a hoax."

I agree. I bet if you put modern art to the test, it would fail miserably. I mean, if you could have so-called experts evaluating modern art without any extrinsic clues or information, I bet they could not reliably distinguish between some world-renowned masterpiece and a bunch of random paint splattered by a monkey.

Mitchell Heisman's Suicide Note. The philistines of the internet who scoff at the supposed "incoherent babbling" are fools of fools. Heisman has written one of the most logically precise, and poetically beautiful tomes of our time. He gets to the heart of the question of why life is assumed to be better than death, and in his journey must confront sociobiology, religion, AI, and history. Just read his chapters on Jesus, the tortured son of a Roman rapist, or his epic recounting of Auschwitz as the attempt of pure Darwinian biology to kill the nagging of conscience and spirit. His definition of Jewish morality as inherently anti-biological anti-alphamale anti-Roissy in Dc.

Actually I see great optimism in his work, for he believes that eventually anti-life will conquer life. And the death of life is a good thing. Not necessarily by suicide but in the triumph of omega altruism over alpha altruism. Forget Carlyle and Froude, we need to study Heisman!

In the last analysis being pro-life pro-biology and only end in Hitler and Roissy in DC. It is only in being anti-biology that anything good has ever happened.

He must have come up with this theory after seeing all the frat boy Roissy in Dcs, since he went to the #1 Party school usa. The biological view of life can only give us Hitler, Roissy in Dc, and frat boys.

Heisman also saw Auschwitz as the ultimate refutation of the Marxist Liberal-Capitalist belief that all could be reduced to rational economic, inherently non-biological factors. Auschwitz literally turned biology into matter. It made Marxism, biologically Jewish as opposed to tabula rasa. Marx and the Jews were attacked because of biology. Thus Marxisms attempt to refute biology was refuted in the most clear and brutal method possible. For Heisman it was Hitler not Reagan who ultimately refuted Marxism.

I'll see your Cole and raise you a George Inness.

Most expressions of Christianity today are pro-graven-image, but there is a strong strain of Christian anti-image feeling throughout history. Look up the original meaning of "iconoclast", for example.

Much of "gaianism" and other SWPL spirituality is warmed-over Christianity without the inconvenience of God, so it's not particularly surprising that people like that would favor abstract art over realistic art.

Look at mid-century moderism, which was largely considered obsolete kitsch by the late 1970s. From the late 1990s onward, mcm has become cool again causing many plain 1950s rancher to shoot up in price due to increased demand for these boxes. It seems architecture and aspects of interior design from the 1970s onward has been mostly over-hyped crap (Fomica, shag carpets, popcorn ceilings, accoustical ceiling panels, earthy tones of brown and organ, vinyl siding etc). Companies are constantly trying to pedal some new and cool product onto the masses with short attention spans. I personally am able to see through the current granite countertop, laminate wood floor, composite wood cupboard, "contemporary", idustrial chic ruse and do not fall for the clever marketing of these horrid fads.

Can anyone recommend any good art blogs?

"Both instances of political art."

Just as we needed religious art in the past, we need political art today to depict the situation with the third-world immigration and the betrayal by the elites.

Does anyone really think those bloated fake "Ye Olde" McMansions jammed in right against each each other really look any better than Modern architecture?

In one sense they represent the reaction against mid-century modernism, on the other hand they are just as half-assed, poorly conceived, and box-like as the ranchers/ramblers they replaced. In fact, I think they are even uglier.

All,

Thank you. These discussions prompted me to take a deeper look at the spiritual motivation behind modern art. I have collected my thoughts and posted them here, for those who are interested in another look at the issue: http://restorus.org/2010/12/20/a-right-wing-critique-of-art/ Hopefully they add value to the discussion, if not then they've certainly helped me.

Hey, I havent reviewed your blog yet, but I intend to. If its
regularly updated and not anti-Semitic, I will link to you.

Thanks for commenting and linking to me.

HS

"The prohibition of depicting the holy is unique to Judaism and Islam....the Buddhists love their Buddha statues."

Just FYI, I believe that Buddhism began with a strict prohibition on depicting the Buddha, and this was a deathbed mandate from him, so his teachhings would not become a mere "religion." This was only violated by Alexander the Great several centuries later, who as policy built statues for his colonized of their heros, so as to help make his hegemony get accepted. So the Buddha statue mania that followed was inspired by Graecian statuary being imposed on Buddhism by the Greeks.

The comments to this entry are closed.