After having been well taught artistic discernment (not ability!) by my father - who had been an art teacher and was a decent landscape watercolourist; I have recently learned a great deal from reading Miles W Mathis on the subject of forgeries and fakes in Fine Art, such the B. Awful Not-Leonardo depicted above.
Or the much more famous and quite pleasant looking, but modern and mediocre, Not-Vermeer below:
The idiocy and ugliness of Art over the past several generations is so extreme and unrepentant; that it is explicable only on the basis that the activity is not about art any more.
It is Not Even Trying to do art; nor to teach, display or reward art.
But instead it's about such anti-artistic activities as managed investment, subsidy-grubbing, money-laundering, political activism, and the exchange of bribes.
I don't think there is any great art being done nowadays; just as there is no great classical music being composed or poetry being written.
This is not a golden age for human creativity - nor even a silver one. The major creative geniuses are a thing of the past.
But there are good paintings and portraits done by serious artists - I have bought some over the years, and been gifted others.
Such violation of quality by a perverse and inverted system of incentives; is yet another symptom of the advanced phase of our civilization's collapse.
And the way in which this situation is officially rationalized and defended - even more so.
I am not certain that Miles isn't one of those (scientific) major creative geniuses. I find his models of the nuclei very convincing, explaining a variety of mysteries about the periodic table; and his models of nucleus-to-nucleus molecular bonds make a lot more sense to me than the standard electron cloud models. I think he's correct that electrons have nothing to do with molecular bonds at all; the foundations that have been taught to students of chemistry and physics for a century are complete fabrications. More importantly, he has a replacement for them that is geometric and explanatory. It replaces the woo-woo "physics is not meant to be understood" narrative with actual mechanics.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that no great art is being done today. But I am grateful that so much old, forgotten music has been unearthed and recorded over the last 30 years. Even second-rank composers from 1730-1930 wrote enough good music to nourish me for a lifetime.
@Jonathan - What I especially value from MM's work on art is a "good eye", and an insider understanding of painting techniques and styles. With this knowledge and experience, and having read about how the great acknowledged-forgers have worked; most fakes are instantly obvious to him - and this is then confirmed by the very dubious "provenance" of these works.
ReplyDeleteI remember seeing for the first time images of that supposed Leonardo when they first came out in the news years ago (I think around 2017), much before I read Miles' articles, and even not being exactly an expert (or perhaps because of that), it didn't strike me as a real Leonardo at all, and not even beautiful. I thought part of it could be the restorer's work, but even the composition didn't look like other Leonardos. I agree that Miles makes some good observations and has a good eye for such things, so he could be right that it is just a modern fake.
ReplyDeleteA lot of "art" today seems to be just about money laundering, and unfortunately that doesn't affect just the so-called "modern art" but also classic paintings that are overpriced or sold as something else. It's probably not difficult to bribe a "specialist" to say that a painting is an original by the famous such-and-such and increase its value.
Most "art schools" also seem to teach very little today. I know someone who went to an prestigious art school and never learned how to draw. They told him "it wasn't necessary".
I think there may be still a few talented painters around, at least in terms of technical prowess -- I wouldn't consider them "great artists" either because that doesn't really exist today -- but they are mostly outside of the "art scene" and do it as a hobby or to teach others.
I agree, and I read his art posts with great interest for that reason. But a good eye is exactly what I don't have, so I humbly listen and don't have anything to add.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Miles' takedown of Vermeer (back when he first released it), whom I'd long thought overrated.
It’s always so satisfying when something that’s never made sense to you is explained by someone who understands it in depth, especially when that something is counter-cultural. Vermeer was always a head-scratcher to me and MM’s explanation of both the fakes and the over-rating was a huge relief to me. I appreciate and generally trust his judgment with art because he not only explains things I’ve long felt but couldn’t explain but also compellingly explains what makes certain art work that I don’t personally think works, like Frida Kahlo. Roger Scruton makes similarly coherent cases that sometimes satisfyingly validate my impressions but also sometimes satisfyingly contradict them.
ReplyDelete