For me classics will almost always be old. For one thing- I know they've stood the test of time, and changing fashions, and that they have something enduringly appealing about them. I don't like a lot of new stuff. Especially with art. Art after impressionism doesn't really exist for me. Fragonard is just awful. But other than HIM, I can't think of anyone else I don't like. Titian, Brueghel, Vermeer, Ruebens, Durer, Lippi, Rembrandt for old masters (gosh just about nay old master entertains me). I like the New England Renaissance painters, and the California school, and the prarie school- but I consider them old and classical. I like representational art. That's just the way I am.
In poetry and literature my preferences are for the older material as well. Although I read a LOT of modern stuff looking for gems amid the rubble. And I find a few. I think when you read what survived from previous generations you don't have to read the rubble- since it is gone. SO appreciating the past is, perhaps, less exhausting than trying to figure out what to appreciate in the present. And my time is limited. |
