Thank you for this,Professor Hicks made a thoughtful guest.I think it is a Chinese saying;"painting is an old man's game". The result of maturity and keeping the blandishments of the world at arms length, while embracing the eternal themes..
Wow! So many great insights and the conflicting ideas added some wonderful drama. This is one of the very best conversations from "the cave". I must listen to it again.
Im so glad to have the privilege of hearing this. Those few painters Titian, Constable,...., merged in their expressions as artists/human beings. They were European by proximity. If mortality calibrates artistic output, WW1 may have cracked not only humanity's psyche, but possibly the western artistic psyche. We squirm, dance, think, paint, etc, toward our own mortality and art lays down markers about our response to the journey. WW1 and subsequent the further 20 century mechanisation of death, took away any intimacy death and changed us permanently. For instance, things like bravery, honour, had to be thought of differently and it seemed that they were opportunities more than choices, because you could have just as easily died from a bomb or machine gun. Nobody was spared. The artist mind wasnt either. You could say , "Well painting took a turn decades before WW1" and you would be correct. However, the writer Karen Armstrong pointed out (from reading late 19th century accounts) that by the time WW1 happened people had been in a state of looming dread for the same few decades while watching Europe turn into a machine. They knew it was a matter of time before weapons were mechanised and the apocalypse arrived.There was a strange sense of relief in 1914. Again , what did this do to artists? Symbolism was one of the expressions in the late 19th and early 20th century and painters from Leighton to Hynais to Redon participated in it. Many were artist in the Symbolism movement were catholic and saw the dehumanisation unfold. Regardless. leaving out WW1 in a discussion feels like an elephant in the room. Again, Im so glad to have the privilege of hearing this.
I find Hicks' approach holistic, compelling, and cohesive. He also strikes me to be aware of himself more than Nerdrum and Tuv are. He also directly responded to them more than they to him. That said, it doesn't mean Nerdrum or Tuv didn't have good points here and there.
I do agree with this. It feels like Nerdrum and Tuv have a "painting and then everything else" sort of perspective. - While Hick is more "Everything including painting"
Honestly I can only listen to Odd and Tuv, they are revealing their heartfelt thoughts and opinions. Hicks sounds like a polished summary of a Wikipedia page. He is about as interesting and original as ChatGPT.
This is absolutely hilarious, I love it, the guy on the left brought a little bit of sanity into the discussion a couple of times which was a bummer but not too much to ruin it for me, keep doing these please.
Michelangelo’s most well-known works are, in their subject matter, based on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. To simply say he was copying the Greeks is what the moderns call a “hot take.”
Professor Hicks is describing the West of the 1980s. That was an optimistic time when lives were getting better. I don't think that is a realistic description of the 2020s. The scientific-optimistic of Bryan Larsen's paintings remind me of the early 1960s. But, we are now living in a time when freedom is tightly constrained and optimism is unreasonable.
It astonishes me that all this talk never seems to focus on what the actual cause of aesthetic deterioration. Clearly, the mediocritization of art in the modern time and for the future is that intellectual fascination with having something to say but not having anything original to say. And the way out of a mediocitic path is one of violence, negativity, dark and evil, malicious chaos and ugliness, because it is easy to deceive oneself that it is at the very least more interesting that the bland and vapid alternative. The problem with having something to say is that it usually results in propaganda or advertising. It is the flight from the influence of universal principles, which are the source of spiritual and dimensional features found in ancient art, that result in all that is repulsive in all the arts since the mid-19th century. Quality is the outcome of a practice based on universal principles. Remove them for the equation and the result is excrementalism.
They also did not mention what kind of people created this kind of dystopian culture we live in. Both the ideology, the people and the individuals can be named.
Civilizations crumble. No exceptions. Within each epoch, there are smaller cycles. Outside larger cycles. Wax and wane. Ebb and flow. Row your boat gently. The serpent eats its tail. Don't be the tail or the mouse that always falls for the bait....
Thank you for this,Professor Hicks made a thoughtful guest.I think it is a Chinese saying;"painting is an old man's game".
The result of maturity and keeping the blandishments of the world at arms length, while embracing the eternal themes..
Well said!
Wow! So many great insights and the conflicting ideas added some wonderful drama. This is one of the very best conversations from "the cave". I must listen to it again.
Im so glad to have the privilege of hearing this.
Those few painters Titian, Constable,...., merged in their expressions as artists/human beings. They were European by proximity. If mortality calibrates artistic output, WW1 may have cracked not only humanity's psyche, but possibly the western artistic psyche. We squirm, dance, think, paint, etc, toward our own mortality and art lays down markers about our response to the journey. WW1 and subsequent the further 20 century mechanisation of death, took away any intimacy death and changed us permanently. For instance, things like bravery, honour, had to be thought of differently and it seemed that they were opportunities more than choices, because you could have just as easily died from a bomb or machine gun. Nobody was spared. The artist mind wasnt either.
You could say , "Well painting took a turn decades before WW1" and you would be correct. However, the writer Karen Armstrong pointed out (from reading late 19th century accounts) that by the time WW1 happened people had been in a state of looming dread for the same few decades while watching Europe turn into a machine. They knew it was a matter of time before weapons were mechanised and the apocalypse arrived.There was a strange sense of relief in 1914. Again , what did this do to artists? Symbolism was one of the expressions in the late 19th and early 20th century and painters from Leighton to Hynais to Redon participated in it. Many were artist in the Symbolism movement were catholic and saw the dehumanisation unfold. Regardless. leaving out WW1 in a discussion feels like an elephant in the room.
Again, Im so glad to have the privilege of hearing this.
I find Hicks' approach holistic, compelling, and cohesive. He also strikes me to be aware of himself more than Nerdrum and Tuv are. He also directly responded to them more than they to him. That said, it doesn't mean Nerdrum or Tuv didn't have good points here and there.
I do agree with this. It feels like Nerdrum and Tuv have a "painting and then everything else" sort of perspective. - While Hick is more "Everything including painting"
Great guests and exchange.ended all too soon.I hope for part 2/3/4….
Honestly I can only listen to Odd and Tuv, they are revealing their heartfelt thoughts and opinions. Hicks sounds like a polished summary of a Wikipedia page. He is about as interesting and original as ChatGPT.
This is absolutely hilarious, I love it, the guy on the left brought a little bit of sanity into the discussion a couple of times which was a bummer but not too much to ruin it for me, keep doing these please.
Michelangelo’s most well-known works are, in their subject matter, based on the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. To simply say he was copying the Greeks is what the moderns call a “hot take.”
I regarded How Far We've Come by Bryan Larsen as an excellent painting. I'd be curious to know what Mr. Tuv disliked about it.
Professor Hicks is describing the West of the 1980s. That was an optimistic time when lives were getting better. I don't think that is a realistic description of the 2020s. The scientific-optimistic of Bryan Larsen's paintings remind me of the early 1960s. But, we are now living in a time when freedom is tightly constrained and optimism is unreasonable.
Nerdrum dares
How do you do that lighting? You all look like rembrandt paintings!
❤
It astonishes me that all this talk never seems to focus on what the actual cause of aesthetic deterioration. Clearly, the mediocritization of art in the modern time and for the future is that intellectual fascination with having something to say but not having anything original to say. And the way out of a mediocitic path is one of violence, negativity, dark and evil, malicious chaos and ugliness, because it is easy to deceive oneself that it is at the very least more interesting that the bland and vapid alternative. The problem with having something to say is that it usually results in propaganda or advertising.
It is the flight from the influence of universal principles, which are the source of spiritual and dimensional features found in ancient art, that result in all that is repulsive in all the arts since the mid-19th century. Quality is the outcome of a practice based on universal principles. Remove them for the equation and the result is excrementalism.
They also did not mention what kind of people created this kind of dystopian culture we live in. Both the ideology, the people and the individuals can be named.
Civilizations crumble. No exceptions. Within each epoch, there are smaller cycles. Outside larger cycles. Wax and wane. Ebb and flow. Row your boat gently. The serpent eats its tail. Don't be the tail or the mouse that always falls for the bait....
In Spanish plis