Neo-classicism?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by LondonPilot on September 3, 2008 at 2:54am

I support "beauty-for-its-own-sake", so yes, beautiful images definitely cut it for me. My problem with Neoclassicism is its diminished grandeur. Back when Neoclassical buildings first came out hundreds of years ago, most people live in small huts 7-8 feet tall. When they walk into the city center and see a Neoclassical building, the scale itself must have been overwhelming. These days, neoclassical buildings are about as big as they have always been, but much smaller than modern skyscrapers. As such, the grandeur of size is largely gone, and they just look pretty, and not impressive. I think to truly revive classical form, people need to update its size so that they retain the "wow" factor even in today's world of skyscrapers.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by ArtsoNils on September 21, 2008 at 7:04pm

First off I think it's important to disspell with the Myth of art for it's own sake. Everything out there is made in response to or aware of something else. With the advent of modern communication and the internet it is highly unrealistic to to sit around and pretend like we are isolated from others especially if we are talking on the internet. Just because the meaning associated with a piece of art may not be obvious from the fore front does not mean that it is just for it's own sake. It like everyone else in this world has a context. Secondly art particularly in reference to architecture and antiques are an expression of the sentiments and conditions of the particular era in which it is constructed. It is also important to understand that there are reasons why the neoclassical style was chosen outside of that fact that it looks pretty. Plus in any given generation there are likely to only be a handful of artists who make a contribution to the world of art that will change the consciousness and direction of art for generations to come. In the mean time it is equally important to have people continuing to make art, deconstructing old ideas and synthesizing them into new ones. granted in the process you might end up with a lot of results that all look the same and seem uninteresting but without them you may not get to the really provocative thought provoking stuff. It's much easier to sit on the side line and make judgements about what is "good art" and what is "bad art" than to actually be making art and to interact with it from the stand point of what is the artist trying to communicate? Finding out if the intended message is effective and if not than looking at the individual art piece and trying to decipher what it does or does not communicate. Look at it in terms of scale, composition, light color texture, continuity, organic vs geometric form, use of light, material and conceptualization. It is a lot easier to just say oh this is "bad" or "good" and then not bother to question it. There will always be barriers in the world. I'm not convinced that breaking them is the only way to communicate and get your point across. It is definitely a means to an end but is it really the only way? It seems to me that it is just as important to try to find new ways to create and overcome barriers without have to break them all down or go through every single one can't we just acknowledge there existence and then move beyond them?

▶ Reply to This