This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago.
I'm have twitchy twinges of nostalgia reading this from Sebastian Smee in The Washington Post:
Twombly’s restive, twitchy marks are cryptic, conjuring both the fog of battle and an atmosphere of human and creative fade-out. The “math” part of “aftermath” is old German for “mowing.” And there’s a sense in which Twombly’s work relates to the Old Masters as a field of stubble relates to a golden wheat field in high summer.
Even the headline is a throwback to the distant past: "Yes, your kid could (probably) do this. But it might still be great art." That was the cartoon of the time: Ordinary people looking at "modern art" and saying "My kid could do that." It's kind of sad that the headline writer drew from that long-faded meme.
Who has cared in the last quarter century about the shock of "modern art" in the form of paintings that have messy-looking drips and scrawls and blotches? There are things in art that can still shock people, but it would need to involve hurting a living creature or destroying something of value, not merely the chaotic application of paint to a canvas.
But I am touched by Smee's writerly efforts in an archaic style.
Terima kasih karena telah membaca informasi tentang This is the kind of writing about painting that you used to see everywhere half a century ago. . Silahkan membaca berita lainnya.
