Title : This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago.
link : This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago.
This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago.
I'm have twitchy twinges of nostalgia reading this from Sebastian Smee in The Washington Post:
Twombly’s restive, twitchy marks are cryptic, conjuring both the fog of battle and an atmosphere of human and creative fade-out. The “math” part of “aftermath” is old German for “mowing.” And there’s a sense in which Twombly’s work relates to the Old Masters as a field of stubble relates to a golden wheat field in high summer.
Even the headline is a throwback to the distant past: "Yes, your kid could (probably) do this. But it might still be great art." That was the cartoon of the time: Ordinary people looking at "modern art" and saying "My kid could do that." It's kind of sad that the headline writer drew from that long-faded meme.
Who has cared in the last quarter century about the shock of "modern art" in the form of paintings that have messy-looking drips and scrawls and blotches? There are things in art that can still shock people, but it would need to involve hurting a living creature or destroying something of value, not merely the chaotic application of paint to a canvas.
But I am touched by Smee's writerly efforts in an archaic style.
I'm have twitchy twinges of nostalgia reading this from Sebastian Smee in The Washington Post:
Twombly’s restive, twitchy marks are cryptic, conjuring both the fog of battle and an atmosphere of human and creative fade-out. The “math” part of “aftermath” is old German for “mowing.” And there’s a sense in which Twombly’s work relates to the Old Masters as a field of stubble relates to a golden wheat field in high summer.
Even the headline is a throwback to the distant past: "Yes, your kid could (probably) do this. But it might still be great art." That was the cartoon of the time: Ordinary people looking at "modern
Who has cared in the last quarter century about the shock of "modern art" in the form of paintings that have messy-looking drips and scrawls and blotches? There are things in art that can still shock people, but it would need to involve hurting a living creature or destroying something of value, not merely the chaotic application of paint to a canvas.
But I am touched by Smee's writerly efforts in an archaic style.
Thus articles This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago.
You now read the article This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago. with the link address https://welcometoamerican.blogspot.com/2021/04/this-is-kind-of-writing-about-painting.html
0 Response to "This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago."
Post a Comment