In a message dated 5/29/2000 7:26:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> I don't think but for Pollock, Cage, and Cunningham, we'd be stuck in the
> last century or with strictly European culture. I don't see Pollock or
> as liberating in an artistic sense. Anybody can proclaim anything goes.
> This does not make him or her an artist. Granted, all of these people knew
> how to create art -- I mean in the tradition sense -- but look what came
> after. I.e., too many so called artists today have thrown out the baby
> bathwater -- or even kept the bathwater after throwing out the baby. In
> painting, I see too many lauded works which are really flat -- having no
> depth beyond merely being shocking for the moment and the latest fad.
You are making claims about modern art, who specifically did change the
climate if not those men? And which artists are you referring to --
accusations of trendiness:
that are flat, no depth, and only the latest fad? Cindy Sherman? Robert
Williams? Guerrila Girls? Rosenquist? Judy Chicago? Koontz? Ruscha?
Lichtenstien (heehee) Rauschenberg? Hockney? Oldenburg?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:56 MDT