I'm not a huge fan of art critics (to put it nicely), but when one of them gets it right...who am I to say they are wrong....lol. In this case the art critic is Hilton Kramer and the subject is Neo-Expressionism, from his essay Signs of Passion -
"Not since the emergence of Pop art in the early 1960's have we seen anything of comparable consequence in the realm of contemporary art...Art is once again a medium of dreams and memories, of symbols and scenarios...It has reacquired its capacity for drama . . . Neo-expressionism . . . so abounds in those precious 'signs of passion,' its appeal is irresistible."
(-Hilton Kramer, Signs of Passion, The Revenge of the Philistines, The Free Press, 1985.)
The movement is rooted in abstract expressionism, German expressionism, and in partial reaction to minimalism and conceptual art. It's concerned more with spontaneity and instinct than traditional methods. Some might not agree, but I think Jean Michel Basquiat's art is one of the finest examples of what one would call Neo-Expressionism.
Not that labeling or categorizing any art is necessary or fair, but I think it is important to understand that art definitely comes in movements. Undeniable movements: groups of artists that find each other, influence each other, do business together, find each other through intention or just attracted through similar styles. Even working in similar styles during the same time-period and never knowing each other. Knowing the history of art is important, but for me isn't necessary when viewing a painting, everything I need to know about the work I should be able to see and discern for myself. Learning about the history of art though, is fascinating.
Not that labeling or categorizing any art is necessary or fair, but I think it is important to understand that art definitely comes in movements. Undeniable movements: groups of artists that find each other, influence each other, do business together, find each other through intention or just attracted through similar styles. Even working in similar styles during the same time-period and never knowing each other. Knowing the history of art is important, but for me isn't necessary when viewing a painting, everything I need to know about the work I should be able to see and discern for myself. Learning about the history of art though, is fascinating.


No comments:
Post a Comment