 |
 |
Below is the article that appeared on Page 1 of the Today section of New Jersey’s number one newspaper, The Newark Star Ledger. We have received scores of additional letters and emails of congratulations since this appeared.
Here’s one reporter, at least, who got it right.
However, the art “historian” at Rutgers, is utterly mistaken. The avant-garde artists did not prefer subjects of everyday life unlike the academic artists. In fact it was scenes of everyday life as well as inspiration from myths and legends that were the cornerstones of the academic subject matter of the 19th century. They were no longer focusing on religion, portraiture and historical scenes as they had in the 18th century. It’s shocking how badly educated one finds “historians” who are the product of modernist bias in the teaching of art history.
What the avant-garde “artists” did do was to turn their backs not only on scenes of everyday life, but any and all subject matter. They instead made the actual technique of how the paint is applied, and then subsequently the rejection of all parameters of fine painting, their obsessive focus. All subject-matter was abolished, and to this day students in institutions under modernist control are intimidated into dribbling paint on canvas or other such “art about art” nonsense, instead of exploring with visual poetry the depth and complexity of the human condition. See the ARC Philosophy as well as Bouguereau and the Real 19th Century, and Good Art Bad Art: Pulling back the Curtain.
-- Staff, Art Renewal Center
|
|
|
Page 1 of the Star-Ledger article | |
Page 2 of the Star-Ledger article | |
|
|
