When one tries to understand the meaning and consistency of terminology used in the conceptual art world, gives you the feeling that your ignorance is extreme, since it does not get understand almost nothing of what is being read. In most art criticism in newspapers or magazines, a series of words “biensonantes” intertwined with singular ingenuity, attempt to explain the intentions and the plastic quality of an artist who probably did the artist can understand. Take at random one of these short writings: “… is an artist who is known for developing a plastic idea with remarkable consistency, job security and loyalty to the thought that results in very personal ways, such as” planoetrÃas “defined as volumes that evolve in a single plane. His work is an obvious work of subtlety, with different linear and structural suggestions able to diversify in the field, in form and in the projection space, while suggestive plastic musical rhythmic values ​​in the creative process ”
Read this I have to admit that I understood the words but not the content, and I know that this ignorance is not politically correct or convenient to position myself in a privileged place in the artistic elite. What is politically correct to give the impression to others that this highbrow language is familiar and there is no doubt about his understanding. Some might counter that all these words take on meaning when you see the play, but I assure you that taking forward the work or Nietzsche or Kafka himself could decipher such gibberish. Moreover, it is curious that in all these criticisms, always praising and massage the author of the work was never criticized in a negative way as it was once in the era of Impressionism and the early twentieth century. Reading these texts as “biensonantes” is that all artists are “no more” in the art world, a drubbing in time, deserved and well-argued by a connoisseur of art, could be a good remedy to end such mediocrity .
But continuing with some of these words as used and groped in the world today and literary arts, there are two terms in particular that I produce a special aversion: I refer specifically to “contemporary” and “cutting edge. When you hear or read these words I am an outcast, as if I belonged or did not have the ability to belong to this group of “contemporaneovanguardistas” of the “great artistic elite” ultimately give me a creepy and I feel marginalized in the truest sense of the word. Every time I hear those two buzzwords or see written in any of these numerous art magazines or other media, puzzled me, I can not understand or know if I, a human being living in this century and tries to do your job as possible with the time line in which they live, or I can belong to belong to this privileged category.
The truth is that no, absolutely not belong and I feel identified or involved with them, not because etymologically not agree with this definition (from the Latin “contemporaneus” existing at the same time as another person or thing), but simply because I disagree with the sense that we try to give some savvy artists and their followers for their own benefit. For this elite of “thinkers” contemporary art to be transgressive, to break all established rules, surprisingly, be original at any cost and by any means, and all to the detriment of the profession of a painter, the mere fact of paint, painting professionally, using wisely the use of color, composition, sound and taste for beauty and well prepared, ultimately, the aesthetic prevails over the idea and concept, which is above the “literature “these” thinkers “would have us believe see when we look at a picture or any other” establishment “trying to pass off as art. The creativity of a work of art is not to do something “groundbreaking”, eccentric, and that nobody has ever imagined (in most cases this will be in bad taste), but the only personal fulfillment and an artist talent, originality and creativity displayed and flow spontaneously, like the handwriting of each person is unique and inimitable. Ordinary people, people in the street, which is the majority and that is definitely going to run the works that artists do not understand what they see in their eyes when they look at this type of work “anti-art” did not reach the soul and in most cases this confusion makes exclaim, “I do not understand is that painting!”.
But to enjoy the painting is important to understand painting, painting and fine art feels, loves, touches our inner fiber, it sounds like listening to good music and according to the sensitivity of each person is appreciated and enjoyed differently, but no one should do “literature”, do we like using that word that comes to our heart through the eye. Yes, it is true that if we know the evolution of painting and its various “isms”, in short, if we know more deeply, it will be easier to appreciate and differentiate the good art that is not, but we must never allow ourselves influenced by the verbiage of a few jugglers of words, that some terms interlacing sophisticated and difficult to understand (that nobody, not even themselves understand) trying to make us see the significance of something that is pointless and has no artistic value.
Yes you can, by word or understood the good critic (and by that I make it clear that if there is good and genuine art historians and commentators), open to the knowledge and clearly show why this artist has composed or made those colors and how in this way has got this result that both delights us, but let us never be fooled by conceptual and incomprehensible explanations by people who are unable to do so.
The other word is stinging me, “vanguard” in the artistic sense means “those artistic tendencies which are affirmed by the rejection of previous guidelines and are questioning the very premises of their former range, would also have to understand not in a sense as radical as these new “cutting edge” are intended to instruct. No self-respecting true artist rejects radical past trends, quite the contrary, considers, analyzes them, know them and from them makes getting to evolve a new way to own. The above guidelines will serve to develop their particular and different way to express yourself. It is a logical step, a help rather than a systematic refusal.
After painting we call classical or early nineteenth-century realism, at the end of this century Impressionist painting evolved towards a more abbreviated, in which the detail lost some of its value for the spontaneity of the stroke, decomposing the light falling on objects more fragmented. Later gave a twist to post-impressionist art of painting releasing the shape and color according to their own feelings, using and transforming these two tools based on the picture surface, thereby achieving more expressive arts. But all this is happening in a staggered manner, accountable, with a good foundation of art, with the previously well-learned craft.
Certainly there was also a “vanguard” which were all these new “isms” and a picture emerging officer to lead the way and charges to follow, and there was rivalry between the new avant-garde and a desire for freedom from the more formal academic painting but always with a deep knowledge and respect for the achievements made in other times pictorial. The artists themselves wrote, edited magazines and calendars with his group of followers, be they artists, poets, writers, musicians and talk about culture and art in general today, but always or almost always with a thorough understanding of the matter. If you know some of these literary and artistic events as the Almanack Der Blaue Reiter (The Blue Rider) group formed in Munich in 1912 by Vasily Kandinsky and Franz Marc, or the theories of the French pointillist as Signac and Seurat, or Correspondence written between the artists of the Nabis group as Paul Gauguin and his followers Maurice Denis, Emile Bernard or between the Fauves Matisse and Derain and, secondly, the great Delaunay who developed the theory of the simultaneous effect of complementary colors, one is given account the strength and depth of expertise, scientific and artistic reflections. Just give a read to all this great display of artistic talent and well-reasoned to realize that the “literature” of modern art leaves much to be desired. And the most negative of all this is that this entire operation “marketing” and “literature” cheap and misleading the public amateur takes a bewildering lack of truly good art. Let us hope that this struggle, which no doubt will face in the future, intellectuals, writers, critics, art lovers and artists who recognize the true value of quality work and well done, against those who seek to make art an easy business, put the record straight and expose this whole troupe of fakers making all this mediocrity fall under its own weight.
Recent Articles