To: Thomas C. White who wrote (80681 ) 6/2/2000 5:16:00 PM From: Neocon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
That is very good. Indeed, I would say that the baroque is authentic art, and roccoco is kitsch, or "kitschy" (as in "verging on"), mainly for the reasons you give. I do not think that there is so much a pendulum as a casting about for something fresh when things seem a bit played out. The matter of placement is very important, elements such as scale, lighting, and placement are crucial to a work. One reason that one cannot just make do with reproductions is that they do not give a true sense of a painting, although, of course, they may be all one has. For example, one cannot begin to appreciate the work of Clifford Styll or Robert Motherwell, if one ever does, without seeing it in scale. The canvases are usually huge, and the smaller ones usually don't work. It is difficult to appreciate Willem De Kooning without getting close to the painting and seeing the texture of the brush work. At the end of the Vermeer exhibition a few years ago in Washington, the reproductions almost all had markedly inadequte color registry, his shades are so subtle, and were not worth buying. And it is a bad idea to hang a Monet reproduction, even if it is decent, in the john, as my mother- in- law once did. Worse would be to hang an actual Monet. Unless, of course, you are trying to make some Dadaist statement,and thus invoking the "camp" excuse. A lot of people like kitsch, and a lot of people do not much like art, except for those artists that have become thoroughly assimilated into the culture, like Monet. That is because they don't want to educate their eyes. They are like kids with a sweet tooth, or adults who stick to comfort foods..........