Enlighten me!

Monday, March 29th, 2010 @ 10:59 am | Uncategorized

A new painting was added to this site today. As you can see it’s pure abstract art, pure meaning that there’s nothing from the real world in this painting, just the collection of blobs of paint which we call abstract art. Most of the paintings I’m doing now are purely abstract. This happens when I feel I need to renew my style, which is easier without figurative constraints, like in portraits. Then, if feel I have completed that process, I apply the new style to paintings with figurative elements. So, the abstract does preceed the figurative, which is why I feel justified calling my style abstract art, whether or not it contains figurative elements.
In society the shifting perception of What Is Art? rages on. The art world (museums, galleries, recognized artists) are adamant that in art politics should preceed artistic motives, while the public seems to long for a return to intrinsic artistic merits. Correct me if I’m misjudging public opinion, here, because obviously I might be doing some wishful thinking. Nowadays the art world feels that art should shock. Can anyone explain to me why art has to shock?
Rubens would make art that was intended to shock, to a degree, particularly when he made use of Christian iconography: the crucifiction. Jesus (Him again) was hung on a cross, in the nude and irrevelantly upside down, with a bunch of heavies fanatically busy preparing the crucifiction and a dog barking at Jesus. Not very nice, but the divine sacrifice is central to Catholicism. Through empathy with Jesus, believers are supposed to be able to enter a higher spiritual state. I don’t wish to discuss religion here, the point is that the shock element was part of an established religious tradition, not an expression of “art against society”.
So why does the established art world wants to shock people? I don’t always like the world either, but to wage a bitter guerrilla against John Doe, I don’t get it.
Enlighten me! I’m politically incorrect..

3 Responses to “Enlighten me!”

  1. Frank Steineck Says:

    “to wage a bitter guerrilla against John Doe.”

    I can’t care less, because there is nothing in it one can understand. Congratulations to you holding up your index level of perception. Keep it up. Almost all people appreciate it more than making oneself “interesting” at any rate; I guess.

  2. admin Says:

    Hi Frank,

    Thanks for your message. Nearly everyone that posts to my blog does so for webspam purposes, but, in the URL you posted (http://SaatchiOnlineGallery) you forgot the .com and “SaatchiOnlineGallery” doesn’t seem to be a part of any real URL so I have no reason to believe you’re really with the Saatchi Gallery.

    So I have to assume your comment is sincere and not for webspam, but I have a hard time understanding what you mean.

    My English is reasonable, but not perfect, and I don’t know what “index level of perception” means and couldn’t find any reference to it on the Net.
    Maybe you mean that you think that I’m not accurately gauging political circumstances, in which case I would have no comment, because it’s pointless to get into any kind of speculation on this. And I may not be overly interested in politics. But then again, I’m not sure what you mean by your comment.

    Nor am I sure what you mean by “Almost all people appreciate it more than making oneself “interesting” at any rate”, but I have a hunch it’s related to the “attention-seeking” accusation, which is one great way to explain an artist’s marketing efforts.
    If you don’t market yourself, you’re said to be suffering from the
    Cinderella Syndrome (see http://blog.paintings.name/?p=450) and if you do, then you’re an attention seeker. I’m beginning to get seriously confused, here.

    If you take offence at my “guerrilla against John Doe” remark, then please explain why art has to shock, for instance. And try to imagine how it comes across with the general public when a pickled animal fetches $20,000,000 at an auction.
    Or do you dispute that the public has no connection with conceptual art and doesn’t see it as art?
    Do you feel that art, as displayed in museums and galleries, should represent the general public’s interest in art?

    These are just some questions that occur to me, please feel free to comment.


  3. Frank Steineck Says:

    Hi Marten,
    Perhaps I talked abstract. What I aimed for in all my painting was and is to rise my perception. I appreciate other painters who do the same more than painters who are less aiming for that and who, instead, some way or another, manage to become the subject of public interest rather than their production. I think there is nothing in that situation about John Doe having become a target that can be understood. That is what I tried to indicate. I do not try, that is, to understand therefore what is going on about this “over there.” I suggested that you are better off with the above, much better than trying to understand the reason John Doe became a target. Re Saatchi online gallery: Check there for “Artists A-Z.” thanks Frank.

Leave a Reply