From an article by Francesca Bonazzoli, "Corriere della Sera 18/02/2011 (with some cutting, the integral here )
For nearly twenty years' faction of the "resentful," figurative painters mostly tired of talent, is committed to scream against the tsunami of video and photos flooded museums, exhibitions of 'art and exhibitions. The choir sings a unanimous cry of the excluded that the official culture of radical chic, the evil sect of houses' auction, collectors, elite leftist, Marxist and Biennial curators in the hands of gang salons, he would have marginalized the figurative painting, exclude from the windows of 'international art in the name of a perennial avant-garde of fashion. Only recently have weakened the cries because even the most rowdy must have finally realized that in reality the figurative painting has never been ostracized. /.../ We, however, the Culture Minister Sandro Bondi and Vittorio Sgarbi I'm not convinced enough to still be strongly committed to turn right the great flow of 'art straightening the bar at least the Venice Biennale, in which Sgarbi will cure the Italian Pavilion with the mission of promoting the figures. In 'Italy of today, therefore, the flag has become the figurative right, but only up to twenty years' ago was the typical expression of leftist regimes, particularly the Soviet bloc.
As in postwar Italian painters could not be left if the figures were not as Guttuso. We then arrived at a curious reversal of the figures from right to left. The fact is that realism, the '900 onwards, since when did the' abstract art, has always been the preferred style of the schemes, the People's Republic of Korea to Myanmar but also of Fascism. The reason is simple: through the figures can be given a clear message, educational and unique, what we need for propaganda. From the very 'beginning abstract and figurative have been licensed by the political regimes but also by democracies (such as 'anti-America, which he did after the war of' Abstract Expressionism to export its cultural identity). And the 'abstract art became a symbol to represent the future,' innovation, freedom, dynamism even unconventional ideas. It follows that to be "à la page" meant loving the 'abstract art and from there to cultural snobbery pace has often been quick and reliable, as the slip when you put your foot on a banana peel. In an amusing essay, "The fashion of 'abstract art', which dates back to 1951, Ernst Gombrich wrote that the right system of thought, or taste, have a passport that allows the novice to access a self-styled elite: "To be considered for progressive ideas, the sense of taste to be 'cutting edge, here is some of the few satisfactions in which society rewards the climber' intellectual '. He continues: "Anyone with a little effort, can learn that a framework must not 'be no" photographic "or" anecdotal "and that has to be not immediately pleasant." As you can see today's invective against 'the cultural hegemony of the Left, "not say anything new: the issue is at least a century old and since then restart always in the same terms, or in the opposite poles of progressive and reactionary, left and right. But in a curious alternation of crossings of alliances, indifferent to ideologies and coherence of thought. The realism in fact born in the middle of the 'nineteenth century with that Courbet began painting scenes of daily life and humble people. Already there 'was, he' s going to do a political painting and launch social complaints. A painter "Left", then. At this ambivalence also our Pellizza Volpedo from the "Fourth Estate" or the Mexican muralists and even Otto Dix and George Grosz when denouncing the baseness of Berlin society between the wars. In this sense even "Guernica" of Picasso painting can be considered a realist. The realism of Courbet was thus born with a content innovative strength, not only in form but also in content. /.../ It will not, therefore, that the 'political label is the most ephemeral can stick to the signs, be they abstract or camouflage? Of course, sometimes the game is successful, but in these cases the 'art with a capital A, non c' enters. Sironi supported fascism, but his paintings are based on a classical rhetoric and not at all celebratory. In turn, Aleksandr Deineka, or at least what we see of him on display at Palazzo delle Esposizioni, was a great artist, even though it was, never waver, to organic 'ideology of the regime. It is a matter of s-views: between art and politics c 'is a big difference that often even seen.
As in postwar Italian painters could not be left if the figures were not as Guttuso. We then arrived at a curious reversal of the figures from right to left. The fact is that realism, the '900 onwards, since when did the' abstract art, has always been the preferred style of the schemes, the People's Republic of Korea to Myanmar but also of Fascism. The reason is simple: through the figures can be given a clear message, educational and unique, what we need for propaganda. From the very 'beginning abstract and figurative have been licensed by the political regimes but also by democracies (such as 'anti-America, which he did after the war of' Abstract Expressionism to export its cultural identity). And the 'abstract art became a symbol to represent the future,' innovation, freedom, dynamism even unconventional ideas. It follows that to be "à la page" meant loving the 'abstract art and from there to cultural snobbery pace has often been quick and reliable, as the slip when you put your foot on a banana peel. In an amusing essay, "The fashion of 'abstract art', which dates back to 1951, Ernst Gombrich wrote that the right system of thought, or taste, have a passport that allows the novice to access a self-styled elite: "To be considered for progressive ideas, the sense of taste to be 'cutting edge, here is some of the few satisfactions in which society rewards the climber' intellectual '. He continues: "Anyone with a little effort, can learn that a framework must not 'be no" photographic "or" anecdotal "and that has to be not immediately pleasant." As you can see today's invective against 'the cultural hegemony of the Left, "not say anything new: the issue is at least a century old and since then restart always in the same terms, or in the opposite poles of progressive and reactionary, left and right. But in a curious alternation of crossings of alliances, indifferent to ideologies and coherence of thought. The realism in fact born in the middle of the 'nineteenth century with that Courbet began painting scenes of daily life and humble people. Already there 'was, he' s going to do a political painting and launch social complaints. A painter "Left", then. At this ambivalence also our Pellizza Volpedo from the "Fourth Estate" or the Mexican muralists and even Otto Dix and George Grosz when denouncing the baseness of Berlin society between the wars. In this sense even "Guernica" of Picasso painting can be considered a realist. The realism of Courbet was thus born with a content innovative strength, not only in form but also in content. /.../ It will not, therefore, that the 'political label is the most ephemeral can stick to the signs, be they abstract or camouflage? Of course, sometimes the game is successful, but in these cases the 'art with a capital A, non c' enters. Sironi supported fascism, but his paintings are based on a classical rhetoric and not at all celebratory. In turn, Aleksandr Deineka, or at least what we see of him on display at Palazzo delle Esposizioni, was a great artist, even though it was, never waver, to organic 'ideology of the regime. It is a matter of s-views: between art and politics c 'is a big difference that often even seen.
0 comments:
Post a Comment