PDA

View Full Version : What is classical art?


artbyjune
10-17-2009, 02:34 PM
:wave:

Probably, a strict definition would restrict the term 'classical art' to academic Greek inspired art. In this forum, (especially the projects section), we have a much 'looser' definition, I think.

We seem to be going in the direction of classical art as being art in history. Art of past times. This includes the art of western and non-western cultures.

A more inclusive definition. Also it is a practical definition since we study and learn from and apply the principles discovered by other artists.:thumbsup:


;)

WildGoose
10-17-2009, 04:23 PM
I think it's great to go with a more open concept.....methinks there's some truth in what goes around comes around; as the old saying goes!:)

trafford
10-18-2009, 11:14 AM
Did try to do some research on this, but everybody seems to have a different definition on what it means. Here is a real snobby site I found http://artrenewal.org/ but fun to read.

I think we do well here...nothing too far out and I like being able to interpret some of the modernists as well as the old masters...also all the artists that are new to us. I'm not sure, but I think we are the only forum doing this. There is also a "classical" section here that has a pretty good following. :thumbsup:

brianvds
10-18-2009, 11:46 PM
Did try to do some research on this, but everybody seems to have a different definition on what it means. Here is a real snobby site I found http://artrenewal.org/ but fun to read.

I think we do well here...nothing too far out and I like being able to interpret some of the modernists as well as the old masters...also all the artists that are new to us. I'm not sure, but I think we are the only forum doing this. There is also a "classical" section here that has a pretty good following. :thumbsup:

I have something of a love-hate relationship with the people at the ARC. They also run a mailing list on Yahoogroups which I am a member of. Many fo them really know a LOT about art and art history, and their website has an absolutely spectacular gallery section. Also check out their annual competition: those people can paint!

Broadly I even sort of agree with their principles and philosophy. But I think their application of these is indeed rather overly narrow and restrictive and, yes, a tad snobby. I guess of you have their kind of talent and skill you can afford to be snobby and a bit unpleasant towards lesser souls. But where does that leave me?

They seem to mainly say two things: much of modern and contemporary art is a load of horse manure, and the masters of old do not get nearly the respect they deserve. On both of these points I agree with them, but I think they are a bit too restrictive on how they define 'master' and too broad in the modern art that they condemn. We after all don't live in the 19th century anymore.