This is a very long response to a video posted on YouTube by Robert Florczak/Prager University. If you have five minutes, watch the video first, at
Dear Mr. Florczak,
I came across your video on YouTube and felt I had to
respond. Your talk is presented under the guise of a university lecture (albeit
a very brief one), so I look forward to a professorial response to the points I
make below.
You begin your talk by comparing a number of recognized
masterworks of Western art (e.g. Botticelli, Vermeer) with examples of ‘modern’
art such as Michael Heizer’s ‘Levitated
Mass’ at LACMA. Is this the only kind of sculpture being made today? Figurative
sculpture has continued to be made for the past hundred years or so, and is
thriving. Why not mention that? No time, I suppose.
You say the masters of Western art improved upon the work of
previous masters. So according to you, Rembrandt is better than Leonardo
because he came later. Hm.
You refer to “The thousand-year ascent toward artistic
perfection” when there was no such thing. Certainly, the “classical” period you
believe to be central to artistic experience produced some wonderful works, but
that ‘classical’ period was relatively short, approximately from the 16th
to the 19th century, and it was clear by the mid-19th
century that the so-called classical tradition represented by the French
Académie des Beaux-Arts (please learn to pronounce that correctly) was becoming
moribund, as the work of artists such as Bougereau makes clear.
Nothing in life can remain the same, and certainly not art.
The introduction of photography in the early 19th century had a
profound effect on such artists as Degas, and it would have been impossible for
him to follow in the ‘classical’ tradition, if by that you mean that, for
example, drawing was superior to and separate from color, or that the use of
glazing was obligatory. Movies have also changed how we regard the world, and
painters of the ‘great machines’ of the French Academy would probably be movie
directors today.
Concerning the ‘test’ you give your graduate students, this
is a trick played by a manipulative teacher. If your students are as talented
and well-educated as you claim, they would probably know that the ‘Jackson
Pollock’ you are showing them is no such thing. If they are not familiar with
his work, they will presumably take your word that it’s a Pollock, and respond
in a way that they feel will satisfy you, their teacher. Then they are told
that no, this is my apron. Great. In fact, that specious little exercise has
nothing to do with Pollock; it only illustrates the lengths one ‘educator’ will
go to score against his students.
You dig a deeper hole for yourself by saying that it is
‘almost impossible to differentiate’ between your apron and a Pollock. To say
the least, this is a surprising admission for a lecturer on visual art.
I agree that the contemporary art community has a lot to
answer for and that there is certainly an element of ‘the emperor’s new
clothes’. Like many areas of contemporary life, money, or too much of it, is
often to blame. Certain types of art seem to be favored by museums, critics, galleries,
and wealthy collectors. But if you look at a list of shows at any time in any
big city today, you will see an incredible range of art, good and bad:
figurative (expressionist to photo-realist), abstract (geometric to gestural),
semi-abstract, installation, video, performance, and conceptual art. Admittedly,
the most prestigious museums and galleries appear to support the kind of art
you detest, But the ‘traditional’ or ‘classical’ figurative art of the type you
prefer is still being produced in great quantities, receives generous support
from various bodies and presumably sells well. Certainly, the mid-level
galleries I have visited in recent years seem to favor slickly painted
figurative work to anything else.
“If the product doesn’t sell, it won’t be made.” Is that true? Presumably this is based on
your career as an illustrator, and an obviously market-driven view of art. As
you probably know, van Gogh sold only one work in his lifetime, but it would
have been impossible to make him stop painting. Countless artists produce work
today, good and bad, without the remotest chance of selling anything.
Perhaps the most important objection I have to your talk is
that everything you say is based on a purely Eurocentric (and white American)
account of art history. You “advocate the teaching of classical art
appreciation in our schools”; I wonder how you would go about that. It would
seem that your syllabus would not include for example, Japanese art, Chinese
art, African art, or Islamic art. But I forgot, that would be some kind of
artistic relativism, which is not acceptable.
The irony is that the kind of art and the artistic
philosophy you propose from what I guess is a Christian/Republican far-right
position (“working to restore objective standards to the art world”) is remarkably
similar to the Socialist Realism championed in the USSR during the Stalinist
era. In fact, you are calling for a re-enactment of the persecution of
revolutionary art by the Soviet authorities in the years immediately following
the Bolshevik revolution.
Interestingly, the contemporary inheritors of the
‘classical’ tradition produce work that is often borderline or full-blown
kitsch. If we look at the Art Renewal Center website you mention, and try to
ignore the caramel and chocolate tinted ‘classical’ website design, we can find
works by such artists as the late Nelson Shanks, and his very odd portrait of
Bill Clinton, and Xiang Zhang, an obviously talented artist who produces
illustrations (but not art) of a high technical standard. And these works are
presented alongside paintings by a real master such as JMW Turner, who must be
turning in his grave.
I’m sorry, but I could find no wisdom in this five-minute
presentation. I must admit that Prager is quite open about the fact it is not
an accredited university, but by calling itself a university, many gullible
people are going to be misled. I think ‘The Prager Foundation’ would have been
more honest. It all goes to prove that accreditation has a purpose. Apparently
I could have earned a credit from Prager just for watching your video. Wow.
I look forward to hearing from you. Really.
Sincerely,
Roger Barnard
