|
|
|
|
|
|
by robenkleene
568 days ago
|
|
|
I agree with this. I'd be curious if you have any hypothesis about why exactly that is? Personally, I can think of three possible reasons but I'm not convinced by any of them: 1. It's became harder to distinguish quality. Artist training has been streamlined, so technical excellence (which is easier to evaluate) isn't novel anymore. So that means determining quality of art now depends on more difficult to evaluate criteria. 2. Art moves faster now, so it's harder to have an influence on the art world (one of the ways an artist becomes famous) posthumously, because by then the art world has probably moved on from the state where the art would have impact. 3. We're just better at discovering artists. E.g., low-barrier to entry for digital distribution means it's easier for artists to find an audience. Any thoughts? |
|
|
As for #1, I think basic art education may be streamlined, but art education in general not necessarily as developed as it was in the past. Sfumato, for example, is a technique that would be difficult to learn in an art school due to how long it takes oil to dry, but straightforward in a master apprentice relationship. Bernini grew up as the son of a marble sculptor when and where that was considered the highest form of art, so it's unlikely that anyone born today could be raised breathing marble dust like how he was.
I think that photography and digital technology killed the importance of technique more than anything else. Even with realist painting, having photographic references allows you to "cheat" your way into good enough results with unrefined skills to the extent that only painting nerds care about the difference, it makes more sense to focus on other things, which like you said are more difficult to evaluate.