My art’s better than your art
“Mignon”, by William Bouguereau (1825-1905).
Click the image to see it much larger.
Fred Ross, the huffing and puffing iron lung of the Art Renewal Centre, insists that (a) abstract art is not abstract and defintely not art, and (b) Michelangelo and Ross’ main go-to guy William Bouguereau were great abstract artists. He shall explain in his own words, excerpted from his voluptuous website.
“Mignon”, above, by the way, was no mere filet. She was owned by Andy Warhol until his death. And Dali had a Bouguereau in his collection too. No studies have been done, to my knowledge, on possible links between owning a Bouguereau and dying.
By Fred Ross
The usual description of a modern “abstract” painting is that it is “a painting about paint itself”. Its subject matter is paint, or the formal principles of painting. The first claim is nonsensical: saying a painting is about paint is like saying a poem is about the alphabet. A poem uses the alphabet to represent words, which can in turn be used to convey knowledge or express ideas. The second claim is just as banal. A painting that is “about” its formal principles is, again, like a poem that is about rhyme, about onomatopoeia, or about iambic pentameter.
Mark Rothko’s “Untitled (Violet, Black, Orange, Yellow on White and Red)”, from 1949.
In other words, it is art as a jigsaw puzzle of the lowest order. An endless pseudo-intellectual game, slightly mesmerising because of its futility – like a Rubik’s cube. Even fun to play occasionally – in jest – because it keeps the pattern-recognition parts of the brain occupied. By this definition, a Rubik’s cube is probably the world’s most successful work of modern art – it refers only to itself, it has the sacred cubic form, and it is covered with more colored squares than a Mondrian…
The people who are splashing paint on a canvas in pretty patterns, or brushing it on in aesthetically pleasing color combinations, are not doing anything abstract. They are merely depositing little tangible blobs of paint that do not stand in for anything at all.
Duck! Jackson Pollock sprays one on.
I genuinely believe that people have derived a sense of aesthetic pleasure from some of their creations. But they are not in fact works of art. The most beautiful of their color fields cannot compare to a field of primroses. They are not works of art, no matter how beautiful, because there are no real abstractions in them, there are no meaningful selections from nature, no great activity of mind. They may mix colours prettily as they please (most of them aim for ugliness) but without selection based on knowledge of the forms of the real world they do not make works of art – and they are not artists.
At best they are craftsmen, with shoddy skills and unmethodical training. Ask yourself with an unbiased mind: What Rothko nebula or Pollock drip painting is more beautiful than a fine Persian rug, a Fabergé egg, or even a finely carved picture frame? The artificers of these three objects are craftsmen – but even they are not fine artists. Where do the legions of modernist smudgers, smearers, and splatterers rank?
What a bunch of BS. I hate it when ppl say that this is NOT art. Yes it is! It may or may not be good art, but it’s art. I think a finely carved picture frame doesn’t measure up to what I think is really pretty and pleasing to the eye, like a very nice abstract painting, with a great color scheme. You can’t tell me what art is or is not. Your entitled to your opinion, but, I think it’s up to the eye of the beholder what “art” is. I see most artwork as “art” unlesss someone paints a one color painting. That would be like painting a wall. But if it has some substance to it, it’s art, whether the person is skilled or not.
And of course you’re absolutely right.
These comments have been invaluable to me as is this whole site. I thank you for your comment.