I believe strongly that to conquer the hearts of nations like Iran we must show them the depths of our humanity.
Unfortunately, I suspect these works do just the opposite, grounded more in western Nihilism than Humanism.
I have to imagine our art would more effectively find commonality with the Iranians if they were to see the great works of Dean Cornwell, John Gannam, Robert Heindel, Henry Patrick Raleigh, Bouguereau, William Waterhouse, John Everett Millais, Andrew Wyeth, and so on.
Unfortunately the western art establishment of today is more interested in perpetual rebellion than beauty -- and so our art has become useless as a tool of human relation.
Baroque to Classical was not a rebellion, it was an embellishment and a refinement.
The art establishment's writing of art history as a series of rebellions is an ahistorical invention, designed to make the works of Rothko and Pollock seem the necessary end result in a progression of rebellions.
In reality, the majority of the new art movements came, to quote Jesus, "Not abolish the Law or the Prophets; but to fulfill them."
I think you somewhat overlook the nature of transnational global culture. People in Iran read David Foster Wallace and look at Rothko paintings, just as (on a more broad level) people worldwide buy iPhones and watch Tarantino films.
So when these paintings were bought by the Iranian elite they didn't want paintings that showed the depth of Western humanity that can conquer the hearts of their nation. They were guided by a contemporary aesthetic understanding.
A contemporary aesthetic that the fools in our art departments crafted in the 1960s under the guiding hand of the CIA.
I'm not saying Iran is failing for not purchasing better art (that's a different discussion for a different time).
I'm saying our culture is failing for not calling modernism what it was -- a ruse, a blind alley, a death of the heart and intellect. I'm saying we are failing for allowing this charade to go on, to the point that Iran would think this is the best we have to offer.
"For decades in art circles it was either a rumour or a joke, but now it is confirmed as a fact. The Central Intelligence Agency used American modern art - including the works of such artists as Jackson Pollock, Robert Motherwell, Willem de Kooning and Mark Rothko - as a weapon in the Cold War. In the manner of a Renaissance prince - except that it acted secretly - the CIA fostered and promoted American Abstract Expressionist painting around the world for more than 20 years."
-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/09/modern-art-was-cia-...
I don't know -- Wim Delvoye is probably the apotheosis of the "nihilistic" movement you describe (he's not to my taste, certainly), but he's been quite the hit in Iran, where he's both exhibiting and teaching (http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/wim-delvoye-goes-to-teh...). I imagine he's tacking slightly in deference to the authoritarian politics of the country, but I think there are a lot of Iranians for whom conceptualist art is very much to their taste.
That would be a lie though. The west values things like independence and competition which dont fit well in a society that values family/piety so high. I suppose however it was the perceived achievments of the west that brought admiration, and made these purchases possible in the first place.
15 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 47.8 ms ] threadUnfortunately, I suspect these works do just the opposite, grounded more in western Nihilism than Humanism.
I have to imagine our art would more effectively find commonality with the Iranians if they were to see the great works of Dean Cornwell, John Gannam, Robert Heindel, Henry Patrick Raleigh, Bouguereau, William Waterhouse, John Everett Millais, Andrew Wyeth, and so on.
Unfortunately the western art establishment of today is more interested in perpetual rebellion than beauty -- and so our art has become useless as a tool of human relation.
I'm not sure "we" need to "conquer" their hearts at all. One of my favorite things from the Daily show is when they went to Iran:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEDi-pMoA7M
The art establishment's writing of art history as a series of rebellions is an ahistorical invention, designed to make the works of Rothko and Pollock seem the necessary end result in a progression of rebellions.
In reality, the majority of the new art movements came, to quote Jesus, "Not abolish the Law or the Prophets; but to fulfill them."
The art critic Fred Ross gave a great speech on this, in 2006, to the Oil Painters of America guild. You can listen to it here: http://audio.artrenewal.org/podcasts/FredRoss060520.mp3
So when these paintings were bought by the Iranian elite they didn't want paintings that showed the depth of Western humanity that can conquer the hearts of their nation. They were guided by a contemporary aesthetic understanding.
I'm not saying Iran is failing for not purchasing better art (that's a different discussion for a different time).
I'm saying our culture is failing for not calling modernism what it was -- a ruse, a blind alley, a death of the heart and intellect. I'm saying we are failing for allowing this charade to go on, to the point that Iran would think this is the best we have to offer.
Wait what?
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/cold-war-modernists/97802311623...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-w...
https://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/23/reviews/000423.23joff...