tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3067098918914268503.post6397067018012447520..comments2024-03-19T21:06:58.112+11:00Comments on ART and ARCHITECTURE, mainly: "Addled Art": dishonest art dealersHelshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02849907428208235392noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3067098918914268503.post-54905450149537467442014-02-27T13:18:14.831+11:002014-02-27T13:18:14.831+11:00Anon
Two important people influenced the outcome ...Anon<br /><br />Two important people influenced the outcome for the Herald Exhibition across Australia. The first was NGV director, James S McDonald, who feared moral corruption: "There is no doubt that the great majority of the work called Modern is the product of degenerates and perverts. If we take a part by refusing to pollute our gallery with this filth, we shall render a service to Art." <br /><br />The second was our Lionel Lindsay, trustee of the Art Gallery of NSW. He wrote: “the Australian Public is perhaps yet unaware that modernism was organised in Paris by Jew dealers, whose first care was to corrupt criticism, originate propaganda and undermine accepted standards so that there should be ample merchandise to handle” (SydMorHer, Oct 1940). “Modernism in art is a freak, not a natural evolutional growth. Its causes lie in the spirit of the age that separates this century from all others: the age of speed, sensationalism, jazz & the insensate adoration of money”.<br /><br />Dislike modern art as much as you like, but read Addled Art by Lindsay. It is the definitive racist attack on Frenchmen, Jews, Russians and anyone other than Protestant, British and Australian artists. Helshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02849907428208235392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3067098918914268503.post-64588361127024794262014-02-27T12:29:26.694+11:002014-02-27T12:29:26.694+11:00I don't think Lindsey was "racist", ...I don't think Lindsey was "racist", I think he was absolutely right, both about the political agenda of those making "modern" art, and its moral and aesthetic repugnance. Before the time period in which Lindsey was critiquing, art in western countries represented the highest creative impulses and traditions of the cultures from which it emerged. Since his time, art has become a negation - not really expressing any kind of affirmative beauty or material impulse, but just opposing & / or desecrating any artistic and ethical traditions that came before. Lindsey was right in stating that this was happening because those creating and promoting modern art hates western peoples and cultures, and actively sought their cultural degradation and physical destruction. Most people know all of this on some level intuitively - the inherent disharmony, sterility, and vulgarity of modern art can't hide itself, so the average person has abandoned artistic disciplines that the general public was admired. In this vacuum, art has become dominated by uncreative, and in some cases depraved and morally bankrupt individuals.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3067098918914268503.post-28337879465024438382009-06-28T19:17:03.497+10:002009-06-28T19:17:03.497+10:00I think you've knocked the nail on the head!
...I think you've knocked the nail on the head!<br /><br />You would expect an art professional to be balanced and temperate in their public criticisms at least.<br /><br />However, perhaps not everyone was up to the task, particularly when faced with often confusing 'isms'. <br /><br />Lionel Lindsay certainly wasn't and should never have been given an important post with such extreme views, which makes you wonder what was in the mind of those higher up the ladder than Lindsay.<br /><br />Thanks for the interesting and thought provoking topic, as always.John Hopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495250254811460833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3067098918914268503.post-71341644710738742872009-06-28T15:31:42.725+10:002009-06-28T15:31:42.725+10:00Absolutely I agree. You might have thought that ar...Absolutely I agree. You might have thought that art professionals were paid to innovate, investigate, push boundaries and challenge traditions. You might have thought that the trustee of an important gallery would have been interested in the aesthetic & intellectual developments of modern art, whether he enjoyed it personally or not. Apparently not. <br /><br />I object only to two things:<br />a] their refusal to even engage with modern art and <br />b] the language that they had borrowed straight from Goebbels. This was the language of disease, degeneracy, anti Semitism, racism and perversion.Helshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02849907428208235392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3067098918914268503.post-60411556135313655912009-06-28T01:59:17.004+10:002009-06-28T01:59:17.004+10:00I understand that there is a large anti-semitic fl...I understand that there is a large anti-semitic flavour to the criticism of modern art in the 1930s, 1940s and perhaps well into the 1950s, but I'm wondering how much that was being used as a convenience by the reactionary forces who seemed incapable of understanding even the basics of the modern 'isms'. <br /><br />I suppose what I'm wondering is, was it easier to blame the Jews for Modernism than to have to admit that you were incapable of understanding the remit of Modernism? <br /><br />Is that a valid point do you think?John Hopperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495250254811460833noreply@blogger.com