These are some very interesting arguments by Scott Burdick about beauty in art (thanks to Sjan for pointing it out). Himself being a figurative painter, he criticizes the modern art establishment for completely excluding this style from museums or the collectors market. These four videos are not only thought provoking, but also filled with jawdroppingly beautiful art.
(Scott Burdick: “The Banishment of Beauty”)
Here are links to some of the contemporary figurative artists he’s mentioning:
– Himself and Susan Lyon
– Richard Schmid
– Matt Smith
– Camille Przewodek
I suppose when making such a video one has to go for simple statements. His observation of the state of figurative art in museums is absolutely on the spot – I noted the same when I wrote about my Dresden visit. Aiming to open museums and collectors for this art form is the right thing to do. But the more I think about it – I must I disagree with most of his explanations.
Maybe the biggest beef I have is the things he leaves out (or doesn’t know). He can complain about Duchamp’s urinal. But back when this was created it was similar idea as these videos: to complain about the undemocratic state of the art establishment. Back then it was the skilled academically trained artists that locked everyone else out.
And:
Beauty for one is not as easily definable as Burdock makes it seem. In a game of poker, a great hand is beautiful. It doesn’t matter if its pretty paintings on the cards. That is actually measurable – the irises of your eyes will widen (which is why many players hide their eyes with shades). So beauty can be in abstract concepts, not just in girls with kittens. And beauty is specific to tastes. As a friend pointed out, maybe he is confusing pretty with beautiful?

I can see beauty in modern art as Pollock, and in some work of Picasso. And there can be beauty in ugliness. The “trash dump test” is misleading. Would we really want to loose all art that is not understandable on the first look?
_blog.jpg)
The prices for modern art are not based on any real value. That is true – but how much is this not true for classical art? The whole art market is a bubble – it just won’t burst as long as we can afford culture. It has no basic value needed to survive. If any of us would be on the edge of starvation, we would sell a Rembrandt for a carrot. Beautiful or not.
I think this is a typical example of how we humans are generally bad with higher concepts. Things like beauty and “what is art” defy explanation nearly by definition. If we stick to the simpler down to earth questions like: Should museums be more democratic? Should the art establishment stop shutting out entire art forms? I think then we have a ground we can all agree on – and I am totally behind Scott Burdick on his mission.
The thing with abstract/contemporary art imo is, it was ground breaking then. But the battles have already been fought, theres no need to shock people anymore with urinals. Most contemporary art nowadays to me just seems like a gimmick. Oh, look at this fellow, he has such an interesting process, first he eats 10 pizza pies en then he pukes em on a canvas, then he bakes the canvas in the oven and feeds it to the pigeons in central park. Very original!
But yea, anyways, I’m glad to report i finally get your blog updates on my reader! yay! ^^
True – the shock thing doesn’t quite do it anymore. Lost its meaning if it’s against anything really. I guess it would work if it had a proper point to it.
I totally agree, btw great example Nadia :)
The ‘argument’ of “It’s never been done before, this must be Art” is just very short sighted at the least. I’m glad the maker of this video took the effort to point out a lot of stuff, even while I don’t agree with every single thing either.
I tend to give up on giving my opinion, it sometimes seems hopeless because so many people don’t think for themselves, they automaticaly asume the general opinion is right. It’s like Tommy Lee Jones said about make-believe-violence in film making criminals of today’s youth; “Anyone that thinks this turns young people into violent criminals is, well, not very bright.” I loved that comment :)
Yeah, argumenting about what is art, is not too useful. “This must be art” – just as “this isn’t art”. I think people just get trapped in fighting about things that don’t really have a definition anyways.
If people would think more for themselves and follow their own tastes, then the art world would look different for sure.