Guston’s work lies somewhere between crude and funky. The funky he projected was only possible given his vast knowledge of “art,” and the crude was a public declaration that he was so sophisticated that he could be coarse and get away with it. A funny dynamic that he largely got away with. Only someone who danced in the rarified halls that he inhabited would dare. And because he knew everyone, and was erudite in his specialized way, he was celebrated as we seem to do with like men.
The book is a surprisingly good read, and Guston gives art (at the time that he was lecturing) a good run for its money. Guston was clearly as much intellectual as artist, and certainly was the opposite of stupid. In fact it was his verbal brilliance that swept away his dissenters. I suspect the imagery won't be admired in the future and that his legacy will be minor. Then again, I never would have predicted that the art world would become what it is today.
"This is an occupation known as painting, which calls for imagination, and skill of hand, in order to discover things not seen, hiding themselves under the shadow of natural objects, and to fix them with the hand, presenting to plain sight what does not actually exist." Cennino Cennini, The Craftsman's Handbook, ca. 1437
Even Yale? It was one of the places designated to commence the decline.
The indifference you mention in the opening paragraphs, which is closely tied to ignorance and/or stupidity, is something I noticed in artists a good while earlier than 2018. It would appear to be irrational, except it is apparently so prevalent that one suspects it is a kind of endemic disorder aided and abetted by the mindless cult of the "new and different" (neither of which guarantees worth).
Of course, to me art is a continuum, meaning art history is critically important, and those who ignore or neglect it as if it were irrelevant and useless strike me as neither credible nor respectable. In other words, if you're an artist, lack of interest in the art that came before you shows an appalling lack of aesthetic curiosity, if not absurd arrogance, and if your art truly does not relate to anyone else's, it's quite unlikely that it will connect with me. I don't want "new and different" but as good as or better.
No insights here into Guston's mind. My point was simply that he was a highly sophisticated image maker, who was as aware of ancient Greek imagery as he was of Diane Arbus' photographs.
The use and abuse of art
Barzun, 1972
MFA 1976
This little book gave me a concussion.
Dazed and confused ever since
Thought provoking and a fun ride with you and Philip and your readers. Keep it moving.
Guston’s work lies somewhere between crude and funky. The funky he projected was only possible given his vast knowledge of “art,” and the crude was a public declaration that he was so sophisticated that he could be coarse and get away with it. A funny dynamic that he largely got away with. Only someone who danced in the rarified halls that he inhabited would dare. And because he knew everyone, and was erudite in his specialized way, he was celebrated as we seem to do with like men.
The book is a surprisingly good read, and Guston gives art (at the time that he was lecturing) a good run for its money. Guston was clearly as much intellectual as artist, and certainly was the opposite of stupid. In fact it was his verbal brilliance that swept away his dissenters. I suspect the imagery won't be admired in the future and that his legacy will be minor. Then again, I never would have predicted that the art world would become what it is today.
"This is an occupation known as painting, which calls for imagination, and skill of hand, in order to discover things not seen, hiding themselves under the shadow of natural objects, and to fix them with the hand, presenting to plain sight what does not actually exist." Cennino Cennini, The Craftsman's Handbook, ca. 1437
Even Yale? It was one of the places designated to commence the decline.
The indifference you mention in the opening paragraphs, which is closely tied to ignorance and/or stupidity, is something I noticed in artists a good while earlier than 2018. It would appear to be irrational, except it is apparently so prevalent that one suspects it is a kind of endemic disorder aided and abetted by the mindless cult of the "new and different" (neither of which guarantees worth).
Of course, to me art is a continuum, meaning art history is critically important, and those who ignore or neglect it as if it were irrelevant and useless strike me as neither credible nor respectable. In other words, if you're an artist, lack of interest in the art that came before you shows an appalling lack of aesthetic curiosity, if not absurd arrogance, and if your art truly does not relate to anyone else's, it's quite unlikely that it will connect with me. I don't want "new and different" but as good as or better.
No insights here into Guston's mind. My point was simply that he was a highly sophisticated image maker, who was as aware of ancient Greek imagery as he was of Diane Arbus' photographs.