Considered a sort of celebrity in the English cultural world, Grant remains little more than a nothingness, one of the thousands of artists who lived between the two world wars, whose only merit is to have been part in the Bloomsbury Group. Follower of a late post-Impressionism never fully understood and assimilated, he tried to give in to blandishments of the avant-garde or that which at the time was considered as such. Even these attempts at stylistic updating are pretentious and superficial. I am going to publish this almost insignificant nude sketch because I think that only in this specific field of pictorial activity he has given his best.
Jakub Kujawa (?). Polish painter.
There are many contemporary artists that I would not hesitate to call rubbish. I can not say how much they let themselves be influenced by the market or by those who trade their works. However most of his production is greatly affected by a stupid fantasy and (on the other hand) by the worst surrealist images. Yet, getting a good look, looking carefully, we find a work like this one mixed with the mass of waste. What can we do then? It's my habit to give the artist another chance.
Adam Miller (1979-). American painter.
I must premise that I do not love this kind of art, I think it is too tied to hypothetical and presumed mannerist style, on the other hand suffers too clearly of so many examples of the American realism of the '30s (social but not too much). In short it is a type of painting that is already outdated before being painted. The mishmash or jumble as such has never been a great help to the artists, except those of the great Venetian school of the XVII century. Miller, who is a talented artist, could and should use his talent differently, he is still young enough to be able to do it with success.
Among my characteristics there is also of being a stubborn man, so I never tire of repeating and clarifying concepts that I have illustrated several times. To my great disappointment I realize that an important television network like the BBC, once considered very reliable, entrusts its art services to hired fools. The audience is very wide and so I worry about remedying, as far as I can, their idiocies. They created stereotypes for show needs: Leonardo was not a visionary; Caravaggio was not an irascible and violent alcoholic; Modigliani did not anticipate his time at all; Picasso was a very skilled histrion who produced everything; the new wave of conceptuals like Hirst or Cattelan are cheaters whose only purpose is to make money; the proliferation of Monet's water lilies is not at all the anticipation of abstractionism; the disintegration of form in the historical avant-gards was not at all a necessity of the times, whereas it was an operation financed and solicited as for example the Dadaist group directed by Tzara (a person to say the least equivocal) aimed at destabilizing society and culture. The thesis of the inevitabity of art to become filth and rubbish is totally false; by definition art cannot be rubbish, it is become because they wanted it to be! Nothing is eneluctable, let alone the bullshit created by cheater and incompetent artists, instead much is provoked by quite other purposes. The risk is that the general public, let's say unprepared, is convinced that contemporary art can not look different from what is shown and advertised by televison or by large museums. Artists could easily skip the so-called conquests of so much modern and contemporary art without being minimally influenced. What would be considered to turn backwards, and therefore irrational, is instead very possible and in some way even desirable. The hired critics would be horrified by this hypothesis, but the true reason is that their bank account would decrease visibly.
|Andrea Minguzzi, Italian wrestler.|
Again about beauty. What is that? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How to recognize it? Here are just two examples: two powerful, healthy, balanced, harmonious bodies. That's all? Yes, it is, but don't think it is easy to get, only a few lucky ones succeed. What does the body have to do with beauty and art? The body is our being in the world, it is a kind of medium with which we take part in reality, a reality that transcends us and continues to exist with or without us. The body is the measure of things, and art is based entirely on it, since dozens of millennia ago, when men blew ocher dust to get the imprint of their hands on rocks. Today the reality, or what we call, is enormously more complex because our approach to it has changed, but the instrument, or vehicle, or means with which we live it is always the same: our body, our beautiful body, and art is closely related with it.
|Daigoro Timoncini, Italian wrestler.|
I ignore the author of this photo, a photo that may appear vulgar and ridiculous. I must say that I like it, not only because the attractive body (we are used to see so many of them!), but for what it seems to me. The relationship between naked body and nature has always interested me because it has aesthetic values that have never been systematically investigated. The meaning, if any, is ambivalent and can be interpreted in different ways. Everyone draws his own. Sex in erection is a sign of the irrepressible instinct to life, and beauty is so clear that is obvious to anyone. Yet, what appears so evident to look good is not at all. Of course this may be the prelude to masturbation, the seed will spread, and the vital instinct will regain the upper hand. Indeed! The life we are holders is so miserable and senseless as to push us to other considerations. Only Art can give us the strength to go forward.