I would hope the context of my 2nd and 3rd sentence answered just that… But for those who don’t reach that point from experimentation and learning, it could come from stubbornness, lack of desire, time limitations, or other reasons. That would be the unhealthy way.
Asking this question suggests you don’t believe there is any ideal - so one must be continually searching. I believe it is healthy to search when you don’t know what the ideal is, but when you find the ideal, moving beyond that becomes unhealthy - a regression. Of course, ‘ideal’ may be subjective, and we may have different opinions on it. I also believe it is healthy to stay open minded to new ideas that may show you a better ideal you hadn’t before considered, but we shouldn’t change just for the sake of it.
Some photographers develop a style, which they know sell prints / wins competitions.
For example, in my photography club we have a member (now living in Australia), who is “famous” for producing heavily edited images of rodeo riders with photoshopped dust clouds. Anytime one of his images comes up in photographic competitions, you can tell it is one of his works.
Inconsistency or ability to make a bad artwork is not necessarily a bad thing but rather an condition of modern/experimental artist. Jean-Luc Godard is the best example which came to my mind.
I think you kind of answered yourself there.
If for centuries one ideal existed throughout a group then that’s either the definition of absence-of-subjectiveness OR the group holding the ideal was absoluteley homogenous thus the art they were idealizing was not all-art but a subgroup of artworks.
So “wrong” in the sense of
this ideal cannot be subjective if all subjects hold the same ideal.
this ideal is only this one subgroups subjective opinion, thus no THE ideal, but AN ideal which is not better/worse than others.
Yes I answered it on purpose because Anna used the term “wrong” as though it was a thing of fact, but I believe it to be a thing of taste. As per your second dot point, we each may have a different view of what the ideal is. The important thing in this thread is not whether one likes modern art or classical art, it is whether one works according to their ideal and has found a way to produce consistent works accordingly, or whether they are forever trying on a new coat, thus not having a consistent process. Nothing wrong with trying on a new coat, I’ve tried on many, but I also believe there comes a point you pick the one you like best. Doesn’t mean you can’t change again later, but it does mean you are not in a constant state of change.
Classical canon and “the ideal” in betazoid’s comment and the aesthetics of Classicism which she is talking about are transcendental, universal and somewhat more than things of subjectivity or taste.
Actually, betazoid and I did never talk about modern art vs classical art.
This is about Classicism.
This is, yes, about modern art.
But the point is that an modern artist is, by (a) definition, an artist who does not believe there is the ideal and, in Soupy’s words, must be continually searching (or experimental, in my word) .
A lot of this comes down to limiting your choices.
From the art world:
Hilla & Bernd Becher
The white portraits by Richard Avedon
Any portrait by Platon
Use a certain lens, in a certain type of scenario at the same time of day and/or situation of light with the same processing technique and your images will be the same. Also a lot of the hipster instagrammers do not have a style, they have a technique … or to put it more bluntly … a preset.
But the other ingridient which is way more important is the waste basket. Throw away everything that does not match your vision. And that vision has to be truly narrow, wether that is a good or bad thing is a personal choice, but it influences the outcome by a large degree.
Or phrasing it all differently: be as inflexible and stubborn as possible.
So if everything is a search, and there is no ideal, how can classicism be wrong? Doesn’t make sense according to your own ideology. It should just be another place to search.
Yes, one can talk for a long time about the nature of art. To put it provocatively, great artists do not theorize, but create creative works.
Personally, I am not a great artist, but I love to experiment and try out different things within the limits of my possibilities. It may be that once I find “my style” and then make lots of similar photos. But at the moment I’m still a beginner and am very happy to discover new things.
We are going in circles now. I hope you can see the contradiction of that statement. If there is no ideal, there is no right or wrong, therefore classicism cannot be wrong. Just different.
To put it provocatively,
Leonardo Da Vinci, “A Treatise on Painting”, “Notebooks”
James Whistler, “The Gentle Art of Making Enemies”
Vincent Van Gogh, “The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh”
Miles Mathis, best of essays by Miles Mathis
To list just a few.
And you can be absolutely sure that every artist theorizes at some point, even if they don’t publish their thoughts. To not do so would be to go through life thoughtlessly. It’s not even possible to do that (although some people certainly appear to be giving it their best shot).