Agree with this, Mark. Well put. By now, everything is up for grabs,.
but it then becoems what, among them all, grabs you (or me).
Doug
On 14-Nov-08, at 2:13 PM, Mark Weiss wrote:
> Modernism is/was hardly one thing, which makes it difficult to talk
> of singular orthodoxies and high-water marks--its various agendas
> weren't devised as linear schema for easy teaching. But certainly
> the pre-WWI Demoiselles and analytic cubism ate a lot of beach sand.
> You seem to be reducing the field, in literature, to Pound and his
> cohort and in painting to the New York School. Has anyone thought
> that restrictively since these groups ceased to be embattled citadels?
>
> But the problem of Nerdrum, as opposed to a whole range of other
> well-appreciated realist painters (nobody is universally
> appreciated), some of whom use the smooth brush-stroke technique of
> most Renaissance painting (which I'm guessing is what you mean by
> Nerdrum's pre-modernism), is that he's appallingly bad.
>
> Mark
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
Latest books:
Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
Art is always the replacement of indifference
by attention.
Guy Davenport
|