the academy then, as the modern art world now, controlled the direction and merchandizing of "what was good" and stifled, marginalized, and actively attempted to squash all attempts at heterodoxy.

thus, while it is time for a 22nd century rennaissance (skillfully interpreted by artists such as freud, and younger artists like adrian gottlieb and damian loeb), we must not show contempt for those that are not afraid to experiment, or who have a different vision, becuase it is only through relentless exploration of our identities, and those of our subjects, that we may produce art which fills the soul with wonder and amazement.
i am in step with the end goals of this ecology of culture, but i detect already a darker side. if the artist is not free to invest something uniquely personal into his or her paintings, we will produce homogenous and forgettable work ourselves.

The reality is that the classical painting techniques and subject matter the essay seems to espouse (while valuable) are a very limited form of visual expression. Limited to the technical traditions of Western Europe and those it has influenced. Limited to a specific period in time. Limited to a narrow range of acceptable subject matter (figure, still life, landscape). Fine, most traditions are limited. But, the vast majority of global artistic expression has not been limited in this way. The vast, vast majority of global art has been abstract, not realistic. The vast majority of global art has expressed the values and concerns of the community—good, bad, beautiful or ugly. Artistic expression has tapped a multiplicity of techniques and crafts, most of which do not fall into the narrow confines of what the essay considers traditional craftsmanship.

You fear for your children? I fear for your children also. It is for them that I am bothering to respond to your essay. I address this to you, children of the “Ecology of Culture.” Do not be misled that there is one way to make good art. Do not believe that mastering one set of techniques will make you a good artist. Do not accept that expressing the sometimes-ugliness of existence is evil. Do not limit yourselves to the stifling confines of figure, landscape and still life. Feel free to push the envelope of visual expression. Do it with thought. Do it with energy. Do it with spirit. And, by all means, do it with care and study (true craftmanship).

____________________________________________________
While reviving craftmanship and lost painting techniques is a worthwhile endeavor, I am somewhat surprised by the confrontational and patronizing tone of this vision statement.
____________________________________________________
This is weak defensive try…in the face of the twentieth centuries’ cultural revolution.
____________________________________________________
I am not sure what you are trying to say with this statement. Are you saying that the 20th century’s cultural revolution deserves a confrontational and patronizing tone? Or are you saying that my pointing out the character of your essay is a weak and defensive? Regardless, I was trying to be civil rather than offensive, and that might have come across as weak and defensive.

The essay begins by putting quotation marks around “works of art,” clearly implying that some creative work is not art.
____________________________________________________
Yes it is.
____________________________________________________
Do you mean, “Yes, it is not art.” Or do you mean, “Yes it is art”?

Not satisfied with eliminating “avant-gardists” and “abstractionists” from the sheltering embrace of real art, the essay continues with an oblique, but pointed, comparison of unapproved work to Satanism!
____________________________________________________
If case you weren’t aware: Satanism is the antithesis to clarity and beauty.
____________________________________________________
Satanism – in case you were not aware – is the worship of Satan and other central figures in Christian demonology. Its purported main ritual is the “black mass” during which the Eucharist is defiled. While you may wish to extend the definition of Satanism to the “antithesis of clarity and beauty,” the heart of what Satanism means does not change and your comparison is unmerited and insulting. (Or maybe I have misunderstood and you meant to be insulting. In that case, kudos to you, you have certainly succeeded.)

Then it brings up the proven shibboleth of modern demagoguery
____________________________________________________
In this case is “DEMAGOGUERY” something unacceptable to you, or are the logically accepted following terms dangerous for human society?
____________________________________________________
A demagogue is someone who appeals to people based on prejudices and emotions. Because people are naturally concerned for their children, modern demagogues use “children” to add emotional appeal to arguments that do not have merit. Yes, demagoguery is unacceptable to me. By all means, make your case that avant-gard or abstract art are dangerous for human society, if you believe it. My point is, do not resort to cheap emotional appeals to make your case.

, “the future of our children,” as additional reason to fear the “abstractionists.” The essay is sprinkled with judgemental and confrontational language, “stone age,” “retaliation,” “dominance,” “opponents,” “destruction, “decay.” The reality is that the classical painting techniques and subject matter the essay seems to espouse (while valuable) are a very limited form of visual expression. Limited to the technical traditions of Western Europe and those it has influenced. Limited to a specific period in time. Limited to a narrow range of acceptable subject matter (figure, still life, landscape). Fine, most traditions are limited. But, the vast majority of global artistic expression has not been limited in this way.
____________________________________________________
I feel that democratic societies become destructive in the absence of any kind of limitation. Anyway don’t worry, you can be an abstractionist or any other ist” as long as you don’t use dead human body parts, which may result in your art work becoming a crime scene (even the most aggressive art form has certain limitations). But be careful when you make your paintings using something untraditional like moose droppings… some are your followers will do worse. If you’re cutting your canvasses with a knife, your followers will cut something else with that knife and you won’t have any idea what they are going to cut.
____________________________________________________
Yes. I agree with you that there can be a destructive aspect to the absence of limitations. But that is the cycle of life. Spring rises from winter. In this context time will tell what art will survive the furnace of time. The real danger is not that someone uses moose droppings to make artwork, but that there will be no exploration of our human capacity for visual expression. Our art will not reflect the struggles of our day, but will remain in a “comfort” zone suitable only to decorate our living rooms. How sad.

The vast, vast majority of global art has been abstract, not realistic.
____________________________________________________
!?....... Oooh are you talking about the Stone Age…?
____________________________________________________
Please, sarcasm is not becoming, especially when it is completely wrong. Maybe a little education is necessary. Abstract art distorts the subject matter in some way, sometimes it is distorted so much that the subject matter is not recognizable. The vast, vast majority of global art has been distorted. Some examples: Look at Egyptian relief carvings, the figures are distorted to show the most iconic facets of their body parts. (If you do not think they are distorted, try getting into their positions.) Look at the vast majority of medieval European art. Scale is disregarded. People bigger than houses. Objects can seen from two points of view. Colors might not correspond to the subject matter. Figures are flattened against the background. It is almost all abstract. Look at Islamic art and its use if words and design. Look at African art and its distortions of the human figure in sculpture. Look at pre-colombian American art and their beautiful abstract patterns. Look at art from India, China, the Pacific Rim—heck the whole world. Almost all is distorted. Is that what you are calling the stone age?

“Realism,” meaning accurate use of color, attention to proportions, use of perspective, attention to volume, etc., is a limited phenomenon. It started with the Greeks and was picked up by the Romans. Total time during its first ascendancy, maybe six centuries in a small part of the world. Realism was picked up again during the renaissance—in Europe--and remained in ascendancy until the 19th century (no more than 400 years). Total time realism has been dominant in human history—less than 1,000 years. And that is in Europe and those people European culture influenced (usually through military conquest, if I may add).

But maybe you did not mean “abstract” art in your original essay. Did you mean “non-representational”? Did you mean “non-objective”?

The vast majority of global art has expressed the values and concerns of the community—good, bad, beautiful or ugly.
____________________________________________________
How can you possibly agree with that? But ok…. I agree with you.
____________________________________________________
Good. We agree on something.

Artistic expression has tapped a multiplicity of techniques and crafts,
____________________________________________________
According to whom? Art critics? Or creative people like you?
____________________________________________________
Please, do I have to point out all the techniques and materials that have been used to make art the world over during human history? It is not according to critics, or according to me. Study something besides art during the European renaissance and you will see what I mean by that statement.

most of which do not fall into the narrow confines of what the essay considers traditional craftsmanship
____________________________________________________
“TRADITIONAL CRAFTSMENSHIP”? Maybe you know exactly what that means...I don’t.
____________________________________________________
I was using a shorthand for the concept expressed in your statement, “campaign for the revival of the forgotten knowledge and skills, for bringing back the preeminence of craftsmanship.” So, for “traditional” please substitute your statement “forgotten knowledge and skills” and for craftsmanship substitute. . .oh wait, that’s your word. I assume you know what it means.

You fear for your children? I fear for your children also. It is for them that I am bothering to respond to your essay. I address this to you, children of the “Ecology of Culture.”
____________________________________________________
My name is Alexei Antonov, and what yours, Sircisco?
____________________________________________________
My name is Francisco Quintanilla.

The that there is one way to make good art. Do not believe that mastering one set of techniques will make you a good artist. Do not accept that expressing the sometimes-ugliness of existence is evil. Do not limit yourselves to the stifling confines of figure, landscape and still life. Feel free to push the envelope of visual expression. Do it with thought. Do it with energy. Do it with spirit. And, by all means, do it with care and study (true craftmanship).
____________________________________________________
Do not be misled… . Do not believe… . Do not accept… Do not limit… Do it ( three times)
So now you see that we are talking the same language… and we can begin to communicate if we hear each other.
____________________________________________________
Please explain this statement more clearly. I do not understand what you are saying by we are talking the same language.

Nice to meet you, Francisco.
===========================================================

Please explain this statement more clearly. I do not understand what you are saying by we are talking the same language.
Sircisco
===========================================================

"Patronizing tone"... Remember you started your message with this statement.
In fact I never said that there is only one way to make good art but if you think that you or someone else can be a Mozart without schooling, training you are mistaken.
Your recipe is suitable for lazy and useless people who want to do self esteem therapy but it's a very dangerous recipe for people with high potential who deserve a high quality education.

The major problem I see in the twentieth century freedom movement: Established democratic society has it that every person is free, but human nature compels us to seek more freedom. Cultural limitation was one social aspect which could be overcome. Until the first part of the twentieth century civil society had very clear limitations which were a factor in helping people to be happy as a church (people are happy only when they agree with the current cultural limitation). Now the church is losing its hold on people every day and being substituted by cultural "black holes" which are creating negative and unwelcome intellectual and spiritual experiments.
And somehow in order to slow down this destructive process we have to limit ourselves.

Okay this is understandable, but why is this "vanguard" movement so massive and why are there so many unhappy people? Again, the answer is in the Cultural Revolution: teachers in art school, instead of saying: "you have to learn and practice" keep saying: let it flow, open up, build your self confidence, you're the one" etc.

In concluding this brief response, I would like to mention: the presence of a "vanguard" is possible only when real cultural limitations exist (otherwise, without resistance this movement is bound to disappear), that's why followers of destructive forms of aesthetics desperately need their antagonists. I'm not sure how long they will survive, but for sure they will be active until the destructive respect criminal law.