5 ms·

Representational art was valuable in those days, worth spending time on, because they didn't have Internet, TV, movies, photography, magazines, etc. 3D represe

Representational art was valuable in those days, worth spending time on, because they didn't have Internet, TV, movies, photography, magazines, etc. 3D representation of objects on a 2D surface was still a new, challenging concept. Those Renaissance painters aimed to reach Joe Sixpack who was illiterate. Representational art wasn't meant to be that challenging. No surprise Average Joe still nods his head in approval: "No way my 6-year-old could do that." Most people today when they see art they think two things: "How much time did that take?" and "Could my six-year-old do that?" That's the sad reality. There's still hope for humanity but I'm just putting this into perspective for you ;-) Some of those Renaissance artists snuck in advanced shape science, carefully modulated colors, but most people could care less, besides the few artists who reached that level too. If Rubens painted Crucifixions today, they'd be dismissed as simplistic, unchallenging, old-fashioned, trivial. As far as the future of art, in my opinion it isn't so literal--it's more imaginative, not limited by the laws of physics, instead pushes the limits of comprehension. All the language we have now had to be invented at some point. The drug of the artist is that invention, to be in the creative moment of discovery. Doing something new. Knowledge keeps expanding regardless what museum goers think. Just the concept of "perspective" was challenging at some point. Today's art viewer just has different, more advanced challenges. That said, I wouldn't defend most modern/contemporary art.

bane 13y ago
I absolutely agree. I don't think a return to old forms is what's in order. But a return to art that the average Joe can look at and think "no way my 6-year-old could do that". And that's the problem today, so much of current art is something a 6-year-old could envision. And the unfortunate reality is, if the art looks like it was made with a lack of sophistication, the message it's trying to convey must be unsophisticated as well (despite the insistent yearnings of the art establishment)...at least that's the reasoning most people will have when viewing it.
- pjbrunet 13y ago
  This is why you need the museum, art critic, docent and the monstrous gold frame around a humble Cezanne painting of some fruit on a table. Half of Van Gogh's work was destroyed, dismissed as trash. Van Gogh was an unsophisticated man. To avoid this fate and gain credibility, artists and writers will add superfluous flourishes. The way I see it, art often gets the "sophistication upgrade" to meet the sophisticated audience halfway. LOL.

bane 13y ago

I absolutely agree. I don't think a return to old forms is what's in order. But a return to art that the average Joe can look at and think "no way my 6-year-old could do that". And that's the problem today, so much of current art is something a 6-year-old could envision. And the unfortunate reality is, if the art looks like it was made with a lack of sophistication, the message it's trying to convey must be unsophisticated as well (despite the insistent yearnings of the art establishment)...at least that's the reasoning most people will have when viewing it.

pjbrunet 13y ago
This is why you need the museum, art critic, docent and the monstrous gold frame around a humble Cezanne painting of some fruit on a table. Half of Van Gogh's work was destroyed, dismissed as trash. Van Gogh was an unsophisticated man. To avoid this fate and gain credibility, artists and writers will add superfluous flourishes. The way I see it, art often gets the "sophistication upgrade" to meet the sophisticated audience halfway. LOL.