From:
Don Dougan <dondougan@zzzzzzzz>
Date:
Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:52:22 -0500
Subject:
Luciano Fabro
Hi Bill,
Last Fall in Florence I saw the Luciano Fabro piece you showed
installed in the Academia (photo #4). There were other
contemporary artworks displayed in the exhibit, all relating to
Michelangelo's works in some manner, but Fabro's was the only
piece using stone as a material. The other works were
placed near the Slaves and the plaster castings room, but --
as you can see from the photo -- Fabro's work was placed in
close proximity to David, nearer than any of the other contempory
pieces.
I stood for a while and listened to viewer's comments on Fabro's.
The beauty of the onyx used to make the cylinder was the subject
of the most common responses, while the the rough pink boulder
and the crushed marble dust the forms rest upon drew relatively
little comment. Some of them didn't even recognize his work
as a piece of art ("is it an ancient column?"), and though many
made some kind of comparison of the piece to the David, it was
usually dismissive in nature.
Quoted text begins.RE: ". . . in the book but they're "surprised" it works!
Why I oughta . . ."
End of quote.
As one whose other (better) half has been teaching art
history (with an emphasis on art appreciation classes)
for the last decade or so, let me offer some points for
consideration about the editors/authors of the 'new'
editions, and perhaps a minor rant on what I see as
those authors'/editors' shortsightedness.
Each new edition of the textbooks use less examples of
figurative art and artworks coming out of the 'Western' art
tradtion, and have more 'decorative' arts of other cultures.
This is being done in the name of promoting diversity and
the artistic history and heritage of cultures other than what
came out of Europe. All very laudable ideals except for the
fact that in their efforts to be PC they are ignoring the
foundations of what modern "ART" is: an outgrowth of that
same Western context that has incorporated aspects of
world cultures into multiple fusions, dialogs and responses.
Teaching becomes increasingly difficult when core concepts
for understanding art (such as the figure) are not illustrated by
the text because the authors/editors don't include pictures of
the figure in art. "Why don't they?" you ask. Perhaps because the
traditional examples of figurative art depict mostly Christian
Caucasians, and thus are too offensive to use as illustrative
examples for our increasingly diverse modern culture. Not PC!
In itself I find the cultural diversity around me very stimulating,
and I certainly want to promote a lively interest in our heritage
with all its variances in the youth of today --- but how does one
either teach or learn basic art historical concepts without any
images of the figure in the textbook?
And, for what it is worth -- the new textbook editions come out
every two of years so the students can't buy used copies for
their classes -- but instead have to buy new ones. The average
textbook is about $65, or about as much as a large-format
coffee-table-type art book.
In a related story in the news last week; the most recent edition
of Janson's History of Art no longer uses "Whistler's Mother" as
an illustrative example. Another lost icon! ;-)
It all makes me wonder about the future. In ten or twenty years
how distant will the general public be from a good understanding
or appreciation of art -- or "Art," for that matter.
Maybe it's just a sign that I'm becoming a crusty old curmudgeon.
Good Carving to You (or grumbling as the case may be),
Don
http://www.dondougan.homestead.com/indexdd.html
- Follow-ups
- message 00582: Luciano Fabro - abknight (10 Mar 2006)
- message 00581: Luciano Fabro - abknight (10 Mar 2006)
- Previous by Thread: message 00577: Luciano Fabro - sue (10 Mar 2006)
- Next by Thread: message 00581: Luciano Fabro - abknight (10 Mar 2006)
- Previous by Date: message 00579: Vergeing on Heresy - Kent and Karen Ivey (10 Mar 2006)
- Next by Date: message 00581: Luciano Fabro - abknight (10 Mar 2006)
