The New Leipzig School
Wednesday March 21, 2007
Trends in art recently seem to have been more like weekend workshops than schools (both in quality and longevity). I've heard a little about the Young German Artists (reference the blog post from this time last year), seen the odd work in Modern Painters, and thought they too must have fizzled out. But it seems they might actually have some staying power: About.com Art History maven Shelley Esaak has written an interesting post on the YGAs, with links to her article explaining who they are and what they are about, including a small gallery of New Leipzig School work. She comments that their painting is grounded in "composition, color theory, perspective and drawing, drawing, drawing", which I think is an accurate observation. Much of the work is figurative, and there is a strong sense of form that implies solid drawing technique, with the palette under complete control, and the paint expertly handled.
Often classical training seems to lead, almost inexorably, to mimicry of neo-classical art. Sometimes it does so successfully, but it can be lifeless in the wrong hands, an exercise in technical dexterity with nothing interesting to say. So it is exciting to see contemporary art with a narrative thread and strong technical skills.
Comments
Ok, I’m going to bite the bullet and respond to the assertion that classical training leads, almost inexorably, to mimicry of neo-classical art that tends to be lifeless. In my opinion, any art can be lifeless and I don’t think that neo-classical art is any more or any less likely to be so afflicted. There is a huge advantage to classical training, namely, one learns to draw properly: line, tone, value relationships, proportions etc. are greatly improved by going through the drills. Nobody would say that classical musical training is a detriment to musical skill, or that medical school is a detriment to being a doctor! Most people would agree that classical or formal training is a prerequisite to being accomplished in the vast majority of fields of human activity. But somehow the fine arts are different, or so it’s argued by some. And the result of such thinking is certainly manifest. We’re constantly offered “art” that is of such poor quality that we’ve lost any taste and appreciation for technical skill, message, moral content, and refinement that used to be associated with art in the days when artists were classically trained. Today, we’re told that drips and splashes of paint on a canvas are equivalent in artistic merit to the works of the old masters. Recently I read a revealing story about a “painting” that was possibly a work by Jackson Pollock. If authenticated, the drips and splashes would be worth millions of dollars. If not authenticated, it was just a canvas with drips and splashes. Fortunately, there is still an underlying interest in classical art training by those of us who think that basic skills are needed and who are willing to take the time to learn those skills. Maybe our work will be lifeless in the end, but it won’t be because we honed our skills at the beginning.
Ouch. Point taken, Alex! Perhaps I’ve gone a tad bit too far with that statement, particularly about classical training, as most people who go as far as seeking out an atelier tend to be highly motivated. But just as a lot of abstract art can be meaningless and self-indulgent, there is a lot of staid neo-classicism out there. I think people tend to get trapped in style. To use the musical analogy, consider those awful records where opera singers try to sing pop songs.
I’m actually a big fan of classical training, which isn’t reflected in my post. However I do think it needs to be balanced, so that the technical expertise is a powerful tool, and not a constriction.