Order your ARC 2014-2015 Salon Catalogue

Click here to become a sponsor

Nymphs and Satyr, by William Bouguereau (Detail)
click to learn more click to learn more click to learn more
click to learn more click to learn more click to learn more
click to see upcoming exhibition information Click to visit the Living Masters Gallery Click to see the winners of the 2016 ARC Salon click to see the winners of the 2016 ARC Scholarship

  • [1 post]
  • Academia and Modernism [26 posts]
  • Advice to Artists [16 posts]
  • Aesthetics [55 posts]
  • ARC Living Master, Artist, and Sponsor Testimonials [11 posts]
  • ARC Scholarship Thank You Letters [4 posts]
  • Architecture [1 post]
  • Art and Politics [13 posts]
  • Art as a Profession [1 post]
  • Art Criticism [9 posts]
  • Art History Anecdotes [5 posts]
  • Art History Timeline [3 posts]
  • Art Practice [9 posts]
  • Art's Place in Society [27 posts]
  • Artspeak 101 [6 posts]
  • Ateliers [10 posts]
  • Book Reviews [1 post]
  • Canvas Priming or Preparation [1 post]
  • College Activism: Return to Realism [52 posts]
  • College Curricula [9 posts]
  • Commentary on Specific Artists [33 posts]
  • Definitions of Art [8 posts]
  • Digital Art [20 posts]
  • Discussion: William Bouguereau [3 posts]
  • Exhibitions [5 posts]
  • Fine Art and Photography [5 posts]
  • Freedom of Expression [6 posts]
  • Frequently Asked Questions [30 posts]
  • Funding for the Arts [1 post]
  • Good Art Versus Traditionalism [1 post]
  • Hockney Completely Refuted [53 posts]
  • Illustration as a Fine Art [27 posts]
  • Impressionism vs Academism [5 posts]
  • Juries and Competitions [1 post]
  • Letters to ARC [472 posts]
  • Life of an Artist [7 posts]
  • Modernist Heroes Reconsidered [62 posts]
  • Modernist Orthodoxy on Campus [4 posts]
  • Moral Relativism [1 post]
  • Music and Art [2 posts]
  • Myth & Religion in Art [7 posts]
  • Nudity [1 post]
  • Paint Pigments [8 posts]
  • Perspective [2 posts]
  • Picasso: Discussion by experts [14 posts]
  • Places to See [1 post]
  • Post of the Week [2 posts]
  • Realism on the Rise [2 posts]
  • Regarding GoodArt and ARC [10 posts]
  • Renaissance Art [1 post]
  • Responses to ARC [4 posts]
  • Scholarship [1 post]
  • Sculpture [1 post]
  • Setting up the Studio [6 posts]
  • Students at non-ARC Approved schools [1 post]
  • Technical questions discussed and answered [6 posts]
  • Techniques: Art Manuals [1 post]
  • Techniques: Draughtsmanship [33 posts]
  • Techniques: Oil Painting [80 posts]
  • Techniques: Sculpture [2 posts]
  • The Case of Pete Panse [4 posts]
  • The Marketplace [19 posts]
  • The Origins of Modernism [6 posts]
  • What is Art? [24 posts]

  • Deconstructing Language

    by Brian K. Yoder

    Brian wrote:
    ... A bow and arrow is a weapon too, but it's nowhere as good as an M-16. An ox cart is a vehicle too, but nowhere as good as a jumbo jet for most purposes.
    Jeffery wrote:

    Right. I think there's a difference between crude, mediocre, and weak art on the one hand and non-art (of the kind that Pollock, Cage, Rothko, and Duchamp made "popular"), and I try to make that difference clear. The thing is that merely weak art doesn't get me as upset as the completely useless stuff. Jeffery wrote:

    That depends on what you mean. Strictly speaking it is not skill that went into it that makes it art, but it has to have qualities that can only be accomplished through a fairly complex and thoughtful process. If you could somehow bring about the same result without a lot of work and skill then it would still be art, but since that's not possible, it might as well be true. An airplane would still be an airplane even if it were made through a process that didn't require a lot of skill, but since producing an airplane does indeed require the application of a lot of skill you won't find any counterexamples. Jeffery wrote:

    Some people may in fact do that, but I don't. I think there's plenty of good stuff that isn't art and art that isn't good.

    Jeffery wrote:

    I think that you might mean two different things in this regard. One is reasonable, and the other one, not so much.

    In one sense, we should never be so convinced that we are right about something that we are completely closed to the possibility of revising our ideas if sufficient counter-evidence were to arise. Of course that's a fine notion.

    In the other sense though, it is entirely possible to be completely right because the universe is as it is, and however that may be, it is indeed possible for our understanding to correspond perfectly with it. For example if you say "All grapefruits are smaller than the moon." and I say "There's at least one grapefruit at least as big as the moon." One or the other of us is right. Neither is an approximation.

    I think we substantially agree and some of this is the process of finding a common language. Oh, and for the record, I don't care for Derrida.

    I loved the headline on the day that Derrida died recently...

    Derrida "Dead"