4 ms·

The only reason Klimt and Schiele are famous as artists is because they brought sexuality into art, which I personally consider a degrading factor. Yes you had

The only reason Klimt and Schiele are famous as artists is because they brought sexuality into art, which I personally consider a degrading factor. Yes you had nudity before but not that pornographic nudity Klimt introduced. Schiele I wouldn't hang in my hall, these painting are neither beautiful nor technically on par with true masters. I believe these two painters introduced a shift to scammy era of modern arts when we went from masters and beauty to "omg so shocking and different" as well as introduction of pornography into mainstream (feel free to lookup some lesser known paintings of Klimt) High regard for Klimt and Schiele are, I found, the hallmarks of pretty much every atheist pseudo-intellectual.

selectionbias 6y ago
I like Schiele's work becuase I find his grimy, corpse-like figures to be very aesthetically pleasing. I do not find it 'beautiful' in the sense that an old Venetian painting of a cherub is beautiful, I simply find the deliberate ugliness pleasing to the eye. I do not find his work shocking and I do not see why I should care about the level of technical skill that went into it.
jessaustin 6y ago
Conservatism is one thing, but these guys weren't even in the same generation and both died more than a century ago. Nothing stands still, least of all art. I suspect that over 130 years, many people have disagreed that your "only reason" is "degrading", and many more found other reasons to appreciate these artists as well.
- michalu 6y ago
  > but these guys weren't even in the same generation Not sure what you meant by that. Besides 130 years isn't a long time especially when it concerns a period of time when everything gets "democratised" and your possible audience is growing through out the century. With 7 billion people today even the most obscure artisans find recognition and everyone who read The New Yorker twice in their life is an expert on art and all things cultural. The works of masters prior to the era of Klimt survived for different reasons. I argue that if there's a reason these two still get recognition it's because they simply happened to be at the beginning of the current era of modernism as well as growing industry of art dealing business which, thanks to the size of the audience and mass media can now, with good enough marketing, gain recognition to even the most ridiculous of artworks and profit from subsequently selling it to those desperate for signalling taste and virtues. To sell a master is not a good business, you can't buy them cheap and sell high and they're limited in supply. Art has been replaced by marketing story telling. So I wouldn't claim 130 years (or rather barely 100) validate the quality of work in the case of Klimt and Schiele. The most beautiful example of the ridiculousness of the entire modern art business is Frida. In order to sell art expensively and please the need of virtue and taste signalling you first need to gain recognition for the artist among the masses who will provide the admiration to the buyer of art. And thus you have people who will never afford to buy Frida wearing Frida tattoos and sharing social media posts about her "art" and subsequently people (usually newly rich) paying millions for these works just to buy the brand of "exquisite taste". for themselves Today it's Frida, decades ago it was Schiele and Klimt and they seem to be the golden goose that keeps giving.
  - jessaustin 6y ago
    Your observations about the business side of art seem plausible. Schiele's comeback can't possibly be due to "the beginning of the current era of modernism" since he was completely forgotten until at least the 1960s. In general your observations seem to amount to "my taste is better than that of other people". Other people disagree!
viburnum 6y ago
Their unsexy paintings are fantastic

selectionbias 6y ago

I like Schiele's work becuase I find his grimy, corpse-like figures to be very aesthetically pleasing. I do not find it 'beautiful' in the sense that an old Venetian painting of a cherub is beautiful, I simply find the deliberate ugliness pleasing to the eye. I do not find his work shocking and I do not see why I should care about the level of technical skill that went into it.

jessaustin 6y ago

Conservatism is one thing, but these guys weren't even in the same generation and both died more than a century ago. Nothing stands still, least of all art. I suspect that over 130 years, many people have disagreed that your "only reason" is "degrading", and many more found other reasons to appreciate these artists as well.

michalu 6y ago
> but these guys weren't even in the same generation Not sure what you meant by that. Besides 130 years isn't a long time especially when it concerns a period of time when everything gets "democratised" and your possible audience is growing through out the century. With 7 billion people today even the most obscure artisans find recognition and everyone who read The New Yorker twice in their life is an expert on art and all things cultural. The works of masters prior to the era of Klimt survived for different reasons. I argue that if there's a reason these two still get recognition it's because they simply happened to be at the beginning of the current era of modernism as well as growing industry of art dealing business which, thanks to the size of the audience and mass media can now, with good enough marketing, gain recognition to even the most ridiculous of artworks and profit from subsequently selling it to those desperate for signalling taste and virtues. To sell a master is not a good business, you can't buy them cheap and sell high and they're limited in supply. Art has been replaced by marketing story telling. So I wouldn't claim 130 years (or rather barely 100) validate the quality of work in the case of Klimt and Schiele. The most beautiful example of the ridiculousness of the entire modern art business is Frida. In order to sell art expensively and please the need of virtue and taste signalling you first need to gain recognition for the artist among the masses who will provide the admiration to the buyer of art. And thus you have people who will never afford to buy Frida wearing Frida tattoos and sharing social media posts about her "art" and subsequently people (usually newly rich) paying millions for these works just to buy the brand of "exquisite taste". for themselves Today it's Frida, decades ago it was Schiele and Klimt and they seem to be the golden goose that keeps giving.
- jessaustin 6y ago
  Your observations about the business side of art seem plausible. Schiele's comeback can't possibly be due to "the beginning of the current era of modernism" since he was completely forgotten until at least the 1960s. In general your observations seem to amount to "my taste is better than that of other people". Other people disagree!

viburnum 6y ago

Their unsexy paintings are fantastic