|
you're right: a place in the canon of western greats doesnt purify michaelangelo's need to glorify himself or picasso and dali's needs to self-promote. i really don't like to judge art in a negative way - that's for the critics. but, for myself, whenever i ask myself if a work of art is REALLY pure or REALLY great, moral questions always arise: what is the purpose and intention of this work? for example, i LOVE matise - his lines, his use of color. however, when i look at his paintings of the odalisques, i feel he's caught on the island of the lotus eaters and he'll never return. and for that reason, IF I DO HAVE TO COMPARE ARTISTS GREATNESS, i'll take bonnard over matisse EVERY time for his humility and simplicity of purpose even though he can't wash matisse' feet when it comes to line and draftsmanship. i wouldn't ARGUE these with anyone; they are simply what i've settled for myself.
|
|
