Much has been compromised in today's art world. I think that art has undergone abuse by artists towards the latter part of the last century.

I've noticed that there is a resurgence of appreciation for "TRUE" Fine Art. I am not discrediting the new forms of media being used; rather, I am pointing out how much "bad" art is out there in the mainstream. Short of skill in newer media is not an excuse for producing thoughtless works!

I understand conceptual art. But a lot of the time, the artist seems to pose as an artist with little regard for understanding the relevance of the foundation of good art.

Putting a crushed filing cabinet in the middle of a gallery, while admitting to having found it abandoned on a railroad track isn't really making enough of a statement, other than the artist likes to spend time rummaging through railroad track discards.

Now, if he/she does something to it, i.e., paint the Last Supper on it, then there is a viable beginnings of a dialogue there.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a strong resurgence for Fine Art. That which readily evokes a feeling, or tells a story, or deprives the viewer of the context. But I'm sorry to say that there are still those that exhibit works that are beyond the sensitivity of post-modernism...or any of the buh-jillion -isms that define the many genres.

Sometimes, the painting needs to be broken down to two things...paint and surface. Same goes for sculpture...there are formal constructs and what is just plain ugly to look at.

In the spirit of renewing appreciation of Fine Art. Below is a beautifully constructed website that address communication through creating beautiful imagery.

Those that subscribe to two spots of paint on an large canvas can keep their comments to themselves. This thread posting is about resurgence of realism...the finest example of good foundation.

A well rendered figure on a wall, resolving to looking like caveman art is far more refreshing than looking at mindless splatter and claiming a new and unique way to apply paint.

Abstractions are admirable, if the composition is well thought. Installations remain a foggy mess if the message isn't clear. And, Performance artists are short of making a good go at an audition...take it to the theatre!

Here is a link that might be useful: ARC International

We have been introduced to Fred Ross - or as I like to call him, art Hitler - before...I will try to find the post where we discussed him.

It is one thing to propose a resurgence in figurative or realist art - it is quite another to dismiss modern art altogether.

There is a fallacy that lies behind Ross's thinking that I will try to point out. My point of view is pre-negated if you believe in God/s and that that/those God/s in which you believe mandate/s the rules for art, and language, and everything else...if you believe that, then I guess what Ross is saying has a basis. I believe in God or whatever it is but I believe that our rules are up to us...well anyway read on...

Take the world with absolutely no preconceptions of good and evil. What we then have is this universe that operates according to its rules, rules of life and death and renewal.

Beyond this, there are the things that are man-made and arbitrary. Any man-made moral, rule, institution, form of leisure or communication is arbitrary. This includes language, the arbitrariness of which we whole-heartedly embrace... there isn’t any binding decree by any higher power that necessitates that language be operated according to certain rules. This is why we have so many languages that are so incredibly diverse, why we constantly alter them with slang and new words and phrases. The arbitrariness of art seems inevitable in the same way. There is no statement from a higher authority that all art must be created according to certain rules.

I know this sounds like a recipe for chaos, but let me continue with a little something else that I have been thinking about the same subject, starting from the language metaphor again (the references to art are going to be very obvious, so I am not going to point them out, it just works better as a metaphor):

Even though there are no (or at least very little, if there are any) absolutes of how language must be operated, there are going to be concurrences among at least some groups of people of how they are going to operate it in order to understand each other. Each concurrence (henceforth "language") does not eliminate the other languages, and people are typically better off by getting to know as many different languages as they can.

In other words, while art can transcend rules to become whatever we want it to be, in order for it to consistently communicate with others we must create some boundaries. But then again we shouldn't allow ourselves to be unalterably bound to these boundaries or rules or whatever, because we made them (is anyone else getting “The Matrix" vibes off of this? lol).

It seems as if realism has been lumped in with Latin...it is supposedly dead, but it is the basis of our "language" (visual language?) and everybody and their mama at the very least references it in some form or fashion.

does this make sense to anyone? where are my holes?

LOLOL...I will comment on this later on...I need to get back to working in here...almost 4 AM.

We share same views...I am a realist figurative painter.

still waiting JAZ...just thought i'd bump this one forward since we are filling up on nothing but art & embroidery ads. peace...