Why Is Classical Art So Good?
What makes great art great? Is it simply a matter of personal taste, with little or no regard for skill or execution? Or are there standards by which an artistic work can be objectively judged? Renowned artist Robert Florczak confronts these challenging questions.
SUBSCRIBE 👉 https://www.prageru.com/join
#classicalart #art #prageru
Script:
How do we know that classical art — as opposed to modern art — is so good?
We know it because it was produced within the demanding standards and refined principles of aesthetics — the centuries-old branch of philosophy that measures artistic quality.
Painting, drawing, and sculpture employ a number of characteristics such as composition, form, color, line, texture and movement to create beauty.
To the experienced eye — and even to the casual viewer — each of these is present in any work of art worthy of being called “art.”
Composition, for instance, is the positioning of objects — elegant and controlled in the hands of a master, or awkward and haphazard in the hands of the inept. Color can be exquisitely balanced and harmonious, or garishly random and unsavory. Movement can be uplifting and dynamic, or static and perverse.
In my previous PragerU video, “Why is Modern Art So Bad?”, I chronicled how art began to decline, beginning from about the 1860s, when aesthetic standards were gradually abandoned.
Unfortunately for the arts, not everyone agrees. I’m sure you’ve heard the arguments:
“Art is simply a reflection of its time.”
“Art isn’t about technical proficiency; it’s about making you think.”
“Art is a matter of personal taste. There’s no such thing as great art or bad art.”
Where do these assumptions come from? For the most part, they are the result of art histories written and taught over the last century not by artists, but by those in the humanities and social sciences. Not having an artist’s point of view or experience, let alone artistic talent, these authors and teachers have therefore framed art in the only language they understand: “meaning and social significance.”
It is no surprise then that people have come away with the idea that art is “simply a reflection of its time.” It can be, but not necessarily. In fact, the great artists of the past didn’t care one whit about “reflecting their times,” they cared primarily about creating art that looked good.
Art, by definition, is a visual medium. Therefore, its “meaning” and ability to “make you think” are secondary to how it looks. After all, there can be meaning in other creative mediums like literature and music, but the visual is what uniquely distinguishes art. Therefore, the visual is what most matters. In fact, a great work can and should stand on its own without the viewer knowing anything about its “meaning.” When a visual medium becomes more about what it “means” and less about its pure visual experience, it might succeed as, say, journalism, or social commentary, but it has failed as art.
So, what do we look for to determine quality in art? It is found in the skillful execution of a visual medium. For example, in a great oil painting by the 17th century Dutch Master, Vermeer, the quality is there in the controlled balance of its composition, the harmony of its color, the masterful hand-eye coordination of its brushwork. When we look more closely at the soft edge between the woman’s arm and her sleeve, we can see that it was achieved by Vermeer’s delicate application of paint. This is the very essence of artistic quality.
And not, by the way, because it looks “realistic,” or photographic, if you will. Realism is simply a stylistic choice. In fact, great art need not even look realistic to be great. It’s no wonder that many people believe the myth that photography put an end to classical art, given that they assume that looking “photographic” was the purpose of a painting. But that was never the goal of the classical artist. Quality of execution was.
For the full script, visit: https://www.prageru.com/video/why-is-classical-art-so-good
source
1:00
White human statue and green butt plug.
Aesthetic quality is important because it separates the masters from the amateurs. But is meaning really secondary? It's true what Mr Florczak says that one can find meaning in literature and music, and that art separates itself from those things by being a visual medium. But is it possible for any of these things to be meaningless? And if a piece of art had no meaning at all, would you bother going to see it again? I'm asking these questions because I'm genuinely curious what others think. Are there any artists here who make art that is meaningless? Can art be good if it has no meaning?
I think that if you have that ridiculous hair dye you should be disqualified from talking of aesthetic standards.
It’s not… sure it’s much more realistic… but realistic doesn’t always tell the story the best. Sometimes different styles bring more emotion and expression.
I didn't like the other video, but I really like this one. The ideas underlying the first video are more clearly anf forcefully expressed here. I still don't agree completely, but still think this is a very well-made case. And what I appreciate about both videos is that Mr. Florczak is making the type of argument that needs yo be made — one from aesthetic principles rather than intellectual ones. One doesn't treat flower arranging as a form of mathematics, and social commentary, for example, is not art.
Unfortunately you had to answer questions of the imbecile cult of modern art
File with “Rap is Crap” and “The Degenerate Art Exhibition”
Excellent
I don't like when someone claims they can tell me what art is good.
Even making up rules that all art should obey….
And I don't care if that person runs a museum, or makes videos for PragerU.
Van Gogh's paintings would have been destroyed long ago, if we let people like that dictate art.
And though I agree that there is a lot of rubbish in museums today, there are also real gems out there.
So sad and funny! Saying that da Vinci didn't reflect his time is ridiculous. He worked for the most powerful leaders of the Renaissance.
If it makes for easy replication, its not that way folks…remember the part about fooling people? Guess who also like to fool people, deceit…lie, yeap money launderers.
If it makes for a printable nft for "quicky making a bucky" then is not art, might be an image but not art.
The balloon dog sculpture by Jeff Koons is an example of Contemporary Art, not Modern Art.
Most digital art and paintings follow these standards, yet you refuse to call it "real art". You're a hypocrit, Robert.
Yikes. This could have been written by Wilhelm Frick. Something tells me Robert Florczak hasn't sold much of his work.
What a joke! "Taken for a sucker …" Robert that is doing to your viewers.
I agree that modern art has lost its standards, but must push back on saying only visual works are art. Literature, music, movies, oration, and many others are all art. Definitionally art is, "works produced by human creative skill and imagination." Therefore anything that has been made through creative intent is art. My issue is with the use of the word are to only mean visual art in a museum contrary to all other mediums of art. He means mediums of visual art so he should say that. While modern art is of poor quality it is still art definitionally.
I agree that I find classical way more enjoyable to look at, but I wouldn't say that it is objectively better than modern art. Sometimes art is just art and is not better or worse objectively. I wish classical would come back though.
While I agree with most of this, the narrative falls down when he says "the great artists of the past didn't care one wit about reflecting their times" which is 100% false. The artists of the Renaissance (Botticelli, Michelangelo and Rafaello to name a few) were absolutely focused on championing the humanist values of their times and even using art to subvert the approved narratives and traditions up to that point as Michelangelo did often. So, sorry…just lost major credibility there.
ahh yes, making art restrictive by reducing it to "just looking good"
Is Ride Of The calories not not art to you?