The "Last Big Six" article by Matthew Kangas is an excellent history of how the arts really started to emerge as a recognized national market--though the apparent fact that Seattle's art galleries accept 'craft' as much as art was upsetting to me.
First of all, I believe it is unfair of the gallery owner and the author to imply that art, or should I say 'craft,' forms, which apparently include glass blowing and ceramics, as somehow less respectable than "fine arts." In actuality, their continued definition of "fine arts," which includes artitsts such as Hilda Morris and Jacob Lawrence, is anothere statement which makes me cringe. Are these modern works of abstraction considered "fine" because of public adoration? Market price? Or perhaps their conceptual innovation? ... or maybe the traditional nature of their chosen mediums? To me "fine arts" are not based on any of these factors. It is a term which describes either a broad artistic field, like music or dance, or a very narrow and specific classification of art which forms the foundations of these broad arts categories, pieces which demonstrate extreme technical excellence and sublime aesthetic appeal--pieces which are the manifestation of the pinnacle of said fine art form. That being said, I do not believe the term 'fine arts' should apply to the artists highlighted in the article.
One thing I did like however, was that Kangas chooses to conclude on a positive note, expressing his op[timism and vision for the Seattle art communitiy's future, and, upon learning about all the hard work, dedication, and initiative which created this culture, I agree with Kangas, the Seattle arts community has nowhere to go but up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment