Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Conceptual art and the loss of painting

By Peter Sellick - posted Wednesday, 10 August 2016


This confusion must prioritise the cognitive. As soon as we read the words on the work or in the didactic we move to the realm of ideas and this necessarily occludes the visual. Have we seen a work of art and had an immediate response or have we read a pamphlet or a tract?

This is perhaps why art that contains text or requires an extended didactic to explain the artist's intentions is always second rate, indeed exists only as a backdrop to the ideas expressed. Art becomes a page on which words are written and as such is insignificant.

I have seen people huddled around such works trying no doubt to find out what is going on. They may be enriched by new ideas and that can be a good thing. However, as with all ideas or concepts once they are in your head the piece of "art" that inspired them ceases to be important. Like a book one has read it may be placed on the bookshelf and forgotten.

Advertisement

This does not bode well for art collectors who like their art to have legs, to continuously fill them with delight year after year. Great art keeps on giving because it is complex and delves deeply into human experience. That is why people go back to see the same picture many times.

Certainly literature can be re-read with an increase in pleasure as the text becomes familiar. But writing on a painting or on a didactic is not great literature. It is not literature at all; it is an instruction.

Goya transmitted meaning in his painting as he pointed to the cruelty of Napoleon's soldiers and the despair of the victims. Where are the painters of today who could produce a work of such power and ingenuity? They are very few and when they do produce works of power they are dismissed under the rubric of neoism. We can't go back, we can't stand still, we must progress. This is the slogan of so called contemporary art.

But progress in painting has run its course. Painting at the end of the twentieth century was in a diminished and exhausted state after all of the new tricks had been played; they have been played out. There were artists like Lucian Freud, who ignored all of the fashionable new movements and doggedly painted human flesh in the most exquisite way. But he is a rarity.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Peter Sellick an Anglican deacon working in Perth with a background in the biological sciences.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Peter Sellick

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Peter Sellick
Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy