The next Michelangelo?

[jtk]

Glenn, are you imagining that Pope Julius II wasn't an emperor?

 

Are you saying Michelangelo didn't understand his patron to be driven by crass ego, much as if he had purchased a Ferrari, or like a rap star buying an Escalade with golden wheels?

 

The "city states" you mentioned were corporations, like ENRON or Walmart, and their popes were CEOs, like Kenneth Lay or Sam Walton.

 

It's absurd to reduce Michelangelo to "iconic" or "graphic artist," less absurd to compare him to a genius film maker (Abel Ganz).. or a Salgado, who has produced a body of work that has implications of much more importance and honesty than can work that imagines religious phenomena.

[don_e]

If Lee or Salgado were structural engineers, architects and playwrights, as well as photographers or film makers, a comparison to Michelangelo might work. If the subject artist were Botticelli or Rafael rather than Michelangelo, it might work.

 

The Junior Miss catalog -- I can imagine a Ceninni doing that. Michelangelo seems overqualified.

[jtk]

Don...obviously I've clowned with this profoundly ridiculous OT.

 

Just as no photographer is "the next Michelangelo," no Rafael is the next swim suit Mizrahi. Not only that, Rafael evidently never saw women as beautiful as Target's (tar-jay's) dusky online goddesses

http://www.target.com/Isaac-Mizrahi-Design/b?ie=UTF8&node=3666961

[don_e]

"Rafael evidently never saw women as beautiful as Target's (tar-jay's) dusky online goddesses"

 

A definite downside to the business of producing religious paintings.

[mrraz]

No, Julius wasn't an Emperor. He was Pope with only marginal control of the Papal States, and there was only one Pope at the time. He did however have more then enough ego to hire Michelangelo to decorate the Sistine Chapel. And yes, Michelangelo worked for Money. He got paid for what he did. The rich were the only people able to afford his prices. He was a commercial artist.

 

Milan, Florence, and Venice were not corporations by any stretch of the imagination, mine or yours. They were owned outright by the ruling family of each. These families were not merchants. They were enlightened despots with enough understanding of philosophy to enjoy the beauty of fine art, and rule with the velvet covered iron fist. The fact some of them became Popes is of marginal significance.

 

I cannot reduce Michelangelo by referring to him as "iconic or graphic artist." It merely reflects his status as I see it. The Sistine frescoes are after all graphic art at its most sublime. They are also icons in the truest sense.

 

While it may make me a Philistine, I've never heard of Salgado or Abel Ganz. They've never crossed my radar. Somehow, I cannot feel lessened by it.

[jtk]

"I've never heard of Salgado or Abel Ganz. They've never crossed my radar. Somehow, I cannot feel lessened by it." - Glenn R

 

Rather than vapouring like a tour guide about Sistine Ceiling and simultaneously defending ignorance, perhaps exposing yourself to the greatest works of 20th and 21st centuries would be rewarding.

 

Ganz's work is rarely possible to see in proper 3-screen-with-live-orchestra (eg Carmine Coppola...I saw/heard in San Francisco Opera House) ...I do suggest you read about it. There's a video, but that's like Sistine Ceiling in a book.

 

Salgado's work is impossible for any real photographer to miss if he visits significant galleries or ever in his life visits good book stores.

 

Google. Amazon.

[mrraz]

"Salgado's work is impossible for any real photographer to miss if he visits significant galleries or ever in his life visits good book stores."

 

John, well, I've missed him, even while going to significant galleries and visiting good book stores. And guess what? I still find myself to be a real photographer.

 

Experiencing one's own life is infinitely more interesting then experiencing someone else's.

[don_e]

Can Salgado be critiqued? I get the impression here that such a thing would result in some heavy forum whup ass for the perp.

[jtk]

Don..Am I mistaken? I think you said something you thought risky (last year?) about Salgado.

 

Maybe you could start a Salgado critique thread here...surely everybody here knows his work in some way, surely his stated philosophy is relevant here, and surely somebody can comment more usefully on his philosophy, politics, and photography than I can with my fanboy comments.

 

I'll bet you've seen many of his prints, perhaps several of his exhibitions...

 

I have as well...his books, though beautifully printed, don't come close to his prints. The content/meaning of his images and his self-assigned intentions seem important to me, may or may not seem that way to you...but the raw beauty of his very large prints is exceptional either way.

 

Like very recent very large HCB prints (traveling shows), Salgado's prints are the work of ultimately-skilled darkroom craftsmen, and I admire that independent of content.

[lou korell]

"That does not mean that there are not people with great talent out there,but with people covering their walls with Thomas Kincade prints,dogs playing poker,elvis on velvet, and urine in a bottle , who can find them?"

 

There is no real criteria for determining what is art. I have met Thomas Kincade and watched him work. By what authority do you critique his ability as an artist? Maybe you don't like his work but thousands of others do. If a large percentage of people enjoy something and they call it art why would you say it is not art?

 

I think everything related to creating something has a purpose. If it fulfills the purpose for those who use it, it has a measure of validity. If you found a way to photograph people around the world taking down their pants and mooning the camera - someone might buy it. If you made enough money to retire from that publication would you not justify yourself as others criticized you? How would you justify yourself in that case? People though it was enough of a novel idea to buy your work. Art to some? How would you categorize it in an interview with the press?

"Oh I just created the most disgusting piece of trash and those suckers bought it" I hardly think you'd be doing that.

 

Art is way too personal to make light of someone's success in their field.

When you achieve the level of admiration for your body of work such as a Kincaid, maybe you'd be less apt to say it isn't art.

 

I can't comment much on the bottle of urine and the dogs playing cards but everyone has their own tastes in what they will display in their home, office, on the wall, etc. Why bother to criticize them for doing so?

Make your own work valuable and see how people react. It makes absolutely no difference how people perceive the work of others. And, if they compare it to yours, how will yours hold up?

 

Just my thoughts. It's always fun to philosophically discuss art. Is there such a thing as "non-art"?

 

Lou

[antoniobassiphotography]

Not pessimism, just realism. Let's not try to convince ourselves, let's open our eyes. If one sees the Pieta' with his own eyes from a few steps away has a revelation. Michelangelo wasn't just a great artist that belonged to the XVI Century, M was a genious that belongs to humanity forever. His work makes me proud of being a human being. Nobody can work the marble with such expressivity so that it feels like a real experience. If he lived in today's world he wouldn't have been able to reach such levels, any intelligent person can aknowledge that. I am not saying there arent any good artists today, just not at the level reached by the old guys. This is being intellectually honest realistic.

[don_e]

"Don..Am I mistaken? I think you said something you thought risky (last year?) about Salgado."

 

Nope, not me, I'm sure. I think his work is excellent and I am grateful for it. The criticism goes more to an entire 'school' of documentary photography from Riis to Salgado, a critique of concept. Too complex or long-winded for a forum thread, and likely to draw flies here, anyway. Maybe I'll write an article and post it somewhere.

[Norma Desmond]

Antonio: <i>"I am not saying there arent any good artists today, just not at the level

reached by the old guys. This is being intellectually honest realistic."</i>

<p><p>

It's being opinionated, which you are entitled to be, but it's a bit of hubris to claim it

as intellectually honest and realistic.

<br><br>

Lou: <i>"If a large percentage of people enjoy something and they call it art why

would you say it is not art?"</i>

<p><p>

Because I don't think "art" is democratic. I prefer not to address Kincaid specifically,

but art is not defined by popularity, nor is it (in my opinion) defined by "what they will

display in their home, office, on the wall, etc." There is much great art I wouldn't

want to see every day in my home. That makes it no less "art."

[kristina_kraft]

Why search for a God through art when you can enjoy in His creation, in a natural world, among animals and people. Why ask for more when the answer lie on the ground among us.

What I only like in Michelagelo's work is of course, the man depicted as a giant closer to a God.

Antonio, do you think that today you can't find the giants among us any more?

His work is timeless. He expressed the man in his full glory, almost walking with a god. Or it was just an aspiration toward the reunion with God? I think that the way out still exist in our human nature to rejoice with a higher One.

 

But I love people, I like to search our earthly secrets.

[lou korell]

Possibly art is not the creation of something itself, but what it makes us experience.

[jtk]

I think Lou's onto something.

 

"The criticism goes more to an entire 'school' of documentary photography from Riis to Salgado, a critique of concept"

 

Don, give me a clue..I (apparently) mistakenly thought you felt Salgado and other photojournalists were milking cheap sympathy from scenes of horror...

 

That's very close to my peanut gallery view as well...more importantly, various PJs have come to that conclusion about their own work...still, I think that kind of work is closer to truth than anything predicated on religious fantasies, if only because it reminds us of Somebody's interesting epigram: "The poor we have with us always."

[Norma Desmond]

There's a specific emphasis on Michelangelo's religious content that I think is, to an

extent, being overstated. Although the content of most art is critical at a certain

level, there is also a level at which that content can be and often is transcended. I

relate to the subjects of Michelangelo's work at their mythical and symbolic level,

not because I believe in God or many of the stories that go along with such a belief.

I recognize with gratitude that a religious feeling might have inspired him and others

but I see that as no different than a humanistic belief that inspires someone else.

It's in his portrayal of these religious symbols, icons, and characters that his genius

and my interest lies.

 

Schubert wrote one of the most sublime melodies ever given the world to

accompany the Ave Maria. The sublimeness in the music doesn't, for me, lie in its

reverence for Mary or religious significance, although I can't help but be mindful of

that when I listen to it. It lies in the harmonies, the rising and swelling and the

lyricism of the notes and voices, the significant form of its expression.

 

On the flip side, Scorcese has filmed many important and moving scenes in

churches, often exploring a much more earthy, ironic, and dark side of Catholicism.

At the same time, for me, these scenes transcend that earthliness and I have felt

what could be likened to a religious transformation watching his characters wallow

and grasp for absolution in such gritty films as Mean Streets and Who's That

Knocking On My Door.

 

Content is a tricky thing and I usually consider that it's both IN the content and in

the way content is TRANSCENDED that significant meaning emerges in art.

Michelangelo is not lessened in my eyes because I don't buy what I see as the

ridiculous religiosity of the Sistine chapel nor am I likely to dismiss Serrano because

urine is considered by many to be profane.

 

Lou, I agree with your including both creation and experience in talking about art.

[bobtodrick]

Sorry Glenn, but I'm in complete agreement with John on this one.

 

Claiming you've never heard of Salgado (1.2 million entries on google), is suspect. Hal Gould, the director of the Denver Art Museum (the oldest gallery in North America dedicated to fine art photography) considers Salgado to be the most important photographer of the 20th century.

 

Again...saying you've never heard of him would lead me to feel that whatever comments you make concerning the 'greatness' of any photographer (or any artist) to be suspect.

[don_e]

"...if only because it reminds us of Somebody's interesting epigram: "The poor we have with us always.""

 

Why? Whether it is Riis or Salgado, where are the photos documenting that?

[lou korell]

Thanks Fred and John for your vote of encouragement. Art may be displayed to a large audience but it is still a personal experience. When you go to a concert you share the physical experience with others but you feel something inside that is purely your own.

 

I always find it fun to discuss art and photography in a pseudo-philosophical way, but I'd really rather spend my time doing the work and letting everyone else figure out if it's art or not. :) At any rate it's nice to get paid for it. :)

 

 

Lou

[aginbyte]

I think the transcendence of content may be mistated. What makes a great artist

significant for his or her age is that the work of that artist speaks to the best of that

age - the best people, the best minds and hearts. Sometimes that voice is a

challenge, other times an affirmation, and at other times it can be a denial.

 

What makes a great artist significant for the ages is the the work of that artist

speaks the best to all ages. It is that capability that lets us sense the greatness of

the person, the human being, the artist, that resides in the work. We cannot, I

believe, choose which elements to appreciate, to look beyond the content. How can

we understand the depth of Michelangelo's humanity without understanding the

intensity and meaning of his religious feeling? It doesn't mean we must share it, but

we must feel it.

 

Bob Dylan speaks to me four decades after I heard him first, but will he speak to us

as powerfully in another hundred years? I don't know, but if he does not, it will not

diminish his stature as an artist for his time. So we shall see with Salgado, Abel

Ganz and others.

 

Michael Ging says that those great geniuses are with us today, but they are working

in a different field, science. There is a huge barrier to understanding the

accomplishments of those experts, so we cannot open their work up for analysis in

the same way. It is very difficult to have an informed opinion on Heisenberg's

Uncertainty Principle:) But I believe that behind every truly great artist of any age,

is a greatness of soul, and when that can be seen in the work, something has been

accomplished that is of value to humanity as a whole.

[Norma Desmond]

"How can we understand the depth of Michelangelo's humanity without

understanding the intensity and meaning of his religious feeling? It doesn't mean we

must share it, but we must feel it."

 

Dennis, I think we are closer than it may seem. I wasn't suggesting that we should

ignore Michelangelo's religious feeling. As a matter of fact, it's the *feeling* and the

*intensity* which I think can transcend the particular subject. No matter what my

feelings about religion (I happen to think religion LESSENS men rather than it

speaking to something great), if I can be made to empathize and to connect with

someone else's religious feelings, then I am moved. I am moved not by the

specificity of content, not by the religion *per se* but by the significant expression of

what that religion does for the artist, means to the artist, stimulates in the artist, etc.

 

I was, I now realize, in part responding to John Kelly's statement above suggesting

that work that imagines religious phenomena wouldn't have the honesty and

importance of work about something else ("...Salgado, who has produced a body of

work that has implications of much more importance and honesty than can work that

imagines religious phenomena." - JK). I don't think any subject matter, be it God or a

toilet bowl, is limited in its possibilities except through a lack of openness and

imagination. Religious art, for me (despite my negative feelings about religion), is

inherently no less rich than art dealing with other subjects. Perhaps I should have

said that great art may transcend my personal judgments about the subject matter.

 

"What makes a great artist significant for his or her age is that the work of that artist

speaks to the best of that age - the best people, the best minds and hearts."

 

Here I disagree. I don't feel comfortable associating "art" with "best." I think

Duchamp's Fountain (the urinal) is art, speaking to a very significant moment and

issue of his time, but I don't see it as speaking to the "best" of the age. I think

Goldsworthy's deYoung Museum crack is art but I don't see it as speaking to

something I'd think of as the "best" of our age. Same for Serrano. Same for Nan

Goldin. Scorcese. John Woo. As for artists that last, Leni Riefenstahl, brilliant in

many ways, and about as far as you get from speaking of the "best" of her times.

(It's an ongoing esthetic debate whether Riefenstahl's politics and subject matter

lessens her art. A matter for another forum, I presume.)

[aginbyte]

Fred, we are both balancing on the same razor :) I felt that when I responded. To

make it even more apparent, as I was driving after making my post, I started

thinking about exactly the point you made and the artist to whom I gravitated was

Leni Riefenstahl. When you look

at her work, brilliant though it may be, she is divorced from the content except for in

an aesthetic way. Did you ever see her post-war documentaries? Same thing.

What we don't see is any point of view of her own that illuminates her own humanity.

Like we do in John Woo, Scorcese, and most certainly Nan Goldin.

 

As for the alignment of "art" and "best", I'll stick to it in the long run. The word

"best" is problematical, to be sure, because to me at least, that word certainly

conveys human pain and suffering, the reaction to which is almost the definition of

art. To me, Duchamp's Fountain is not art, but art history, and a footnote at that. It

is a reminder of the kind of question that artists asked at a time when people were

confident in the definition of art. Perhaps for that reason, over time people will

always look at it as a seminal work and it will remain art for the ages. But I think it

belongs with Alfred Jarry and pataphysics.

[Norma Desmond]

Agreed, Dennis. It's in these very fine points, though, that a good give and take can

be enlightening.

 

I'm not sure Riefenstahl had any humanity to illuminate. I think she was not divorced

from the content of her films, and those films illuminate an awful lot about her. The

dehumanization exhibited both in the "perfection" of Triumph of the Will and the

idealization of Olympiad, I think, conveys her point of view all too well. In her

memoirs, she wrote of hearing one of Hitler's speeches. "I had an almost

apocalyptic vision that I was never able to forget. It seemed as if the earth's surface

were spreading out in front of me, like a hemisphere that suddenly splits apart in the

middle, spewing out an enormous jet of water, so powerful that it touched the sky

and shook the earth." Deny it though she might, later in life, I'd say she was

expressing something deeply personal (even if with amazing formality and discipline)

. . . and . . . utterly lacking in humanity.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred,

when you look at the ceiling of Sistine Chapel, what do you "feel and what do you see" personally?

 

For me it is one big beautiful fairy tale of Christian mythology. But we all know how was God depicted in a Renaissance.

I'd never depicted him as an old beard sage. I see Him as a manifestation in a nature. This is my believe. And I see Him also as a separated from our world at the same time. I think that people had been estranged from ourselves in a Christian religion, because their attention went out to search for the existence of God. I think this is the greatest "mistake" of the church.

"Look up and you'll find God" Instead "Look inside of you, and you'll find God or yourself."

 

Do you think that Michelangelo dehumanized the man in front of a "God" on the ceiling?