I'm a fan of Wikipedia; here is their outline of "western
Western art history series...
To me, "traditional" includes from the Renaissance through
Realism, not including (although I like the art forms) impressionism
and later. A "Modern Traditional Style" includes a lot of 30's 40's
American art... Why the Renaissance? The ancient Greeks were in what I
would consider a “traditional” mode; in fact, they could be considered
to have invented it. But afterward, western art became very much church
oriented, which seems to me to be quite different; and didn't begin to
break away until the Renaissance. Although a bit argumenative, I don't
include “Gothic”, also very much church oriented.
In spite of wide variations in specific style, a fundamental
“idea” is common. Traditional: use a realistic method to show a
Modern art (broadly speaking): more into the art
“appearance”; relations to traditional motifs take only a small or zero
level of importance. However some earlier forms, and definitely “modern
american art”, relate strongly to traditional, in the sense of using
somewhat realistic painting forms and human-related motif, but with a
somewhat more modern artistic style.
Beyond “modern” we get into various flavors of
“contemporary”. My own view: curious, decorative, not really
So, for "whats with contemporary...", go here -
examples of European art which fit my idea of Traditional Art:
I'm overwhelming tired of current (last 10-20 years)
thoughtlessly and senselessly popular worshiping by gallery types and
curators of art about "contemporary" art. I searched some stuff for
"traditional modern art". (I should say here that by "traditional
modern art" I
mean mostly representational art, in a somewhat modern
style.) Here are some recent views...
"Roger Scruton has written an important article on modern art,
one that I encourage you to read in full.
It begins with the question of what high art is for. Scruton
observes that modern art is transgressive and aims to shock and
confront. Traditional art was oriented more toward beauty.
What is impressive is the further development of these ideas
by Scruton. Scruton argues that beauty in art did not exist just for
aesthetic purposes but
Modernists do not feel at home in the world, and therefore aim
to desecrate: the mockery, the cultivation of ugliness and the moral
transgression is aimed as a pre-emptive strike [Well,
experience of beauty referred to above. ..."
Follow the links below and just ask
later periods; for more examples see below...
From the first two pages of a google search of "contemporary art";
click of the image above or here to see a larger image...
The Differences Between Traditional & Modern Art
By Zach Feral, eHow Contributor (updated: May 17, 2010)
'Even artists working in traditional mediums like painting can create
Those not coming from a background in the arts often have difficulty
realizing the profound differences between traditional and modern art.
While many of these differences are rooted in the social circumstances
under which art has been historically produced, there are also
differences that you can discern by simply looking at the two types of
'Subject Matter and "The Shock
...While [it] is difficult to understand from a contemporary
perspective, ... new art is nearly always expected to be shocking (to
the extent that the shock factor and its ready assimilation into
universal acceptance almost makes it seem banal)..., there was a time
when painting a naked woman in a non-religious context, surrounded by a
group of men, seriously offended the public morale. This was the affect
of Manet's legendary painting, "The Luncheon on the Grass," when it was
first exhibited in Paris in 1863.'
One point here; it is in my opinion mostly likely that Manet was more
interested (as all impressionist painters of the time) in the motif and
the painting; why whould "shock" be considered all that currently "fine
and useful"? (Actually, there is an answer as to why; more on that
'Abstraction vs. Figuration
Whereas traditional painting and sculpture was nearly always based on
the human figure or the landscape, modern art broke with this tradition
in what is commonly referred to as abstract art. In abstraction,
nothing that we are able to recognize from the real world appears in
the painting or sculpture. Rather, the artist conjures shapes and
designs from his imagination and projects them into his own visual
space. One prominent example of abstract painting is Joan Miro's "La
Leçon de Ski" (1966). A group of artists in New York in the 1940s and
1950s known as the Abstract Expressionists would take this even further
by privileging the act of painting itself over the finished product.
Jackson Pollock is perhaps the most famous member of this group.
Whereas art has traditionally been defined within the parameters of
painting, drawing, sculpture and architecture, throughout the 20th
century these limitations have been transcended through the development
of new media such as video art, performance art, land art and
installation art. Even traditional mediums like painting and sculpture
have been significantly altered. Artists like Robert Rauschenberg and
Dieter Roth would forgo traditional materials like oil paint and clay,
instead using found objects, junk and store-bought materials in
fashioning their paintings and sculptures---often creating curious
artworks that belonged neither to the traditional categories of
painting OR sculpture.
The actual meaning is quite variable, depending on who is saying what,
when. Here is one notion:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Contemporary art can be defined variously as art produced at this
present point in time or art produced since World War II. The
definition of the word contemporary would support the first view, but
museums of contemporary art commonly define their collections as
consisting of art produced since World War II.
"Contemporary art can sometimes seem at odds with a public that does
feel that art and its institutions share its values. In Britain in
the 1990s contemporary art became a part of popular culture, with
artists becoming stars, but this did not lead to a hoped-for 'cultural
utopia'.  Some
suggested that skepticism, even rejection, is a legitimate and
reasonable response to much contemporary art. (my own itallics)
question of what constitutes art. This concern can be seen running
through the "modern" and "postmodern" periods. ...what art is taken
notice of by galleries, museums, and collectors. Serious art is
ultimately exceedingly difficult to distinguish definitively from art
that falls short of that designation."
is not "serious"; too
much, apparently, only dedicated toward centemporary artists/galleries
into being 'new' and 'selling new stuff'.
Congo paints contemporary art. Congo is a chimpanzee.
There have been many cases of artists/critics being fooled that items
of art, by various animals, are "real, abstract / contemporary / ..."
art; for example:
was fooled into believing a painting done by a chimpanzee was the work
of a master. The director of the State Art Museum of Moritzburg in
Saxony-Anhalt, Katja Schneider, suggested the painting was by the
Guggenheim Prize-winning artist Ernst Wilhelm Nay. "It looks like an
Ernst Wilhelm Nay. He was famous for using such blotches of colour," Dr
Schneider confidently asserted. The canvas was actually the work of
Banghi, a 31-year-old female chimp at the local zoo.
Oh, I know that the postmoderns have plenty of rationalizations -- that
interpretation is all subjective, for example. While such
rationalizations may fool some honest folks, none manage to completely
conceal the pretentious charlatanism of the whole enterprise of modern
art. Most sensible people, I suspect, are so wearied by the steamroller
of our postmodern culture that they even cannot rouse themselves to
... I'll show
few other examples later. Meanwhile, lets see
some stuff by real human artists...
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"He used hardened brushes, sticks, and even basting syringes as paint
applicators. Pollock's technique of pouring and dripping paint is
thought to be one of the origins of the term action painting. With this
technique, Pollock was able to achieve a more immediate means of
creating art, the paint now literally flowing from his chosen tool onto
the canvas. By defying the convention of painting on an upright
surface, he added a new dimension, literally, by being able to view and
apply paint to his canvases from all directions.
"In the process of making paintings in this way, he moved away from
figurative representation, and challenged the Western tradition of
using easel and brush. He also moved away from the use of only the hand
and wrist, since he used his whole body to paint. In 1956, Time
magazine dubbed Pollock "Jack the Dripper" as a result of his unique
"My painting does not come from the easel. I prefer to tack the
unstretched canvas to the hard wall or the floor. I need the resistance
of a hard surface. On the floor I am more at ease. I feel nearer, more
part of the painting, since this way I can walk around it, work from
the four sides and literally be in the painting.
"I continue to get further away from the usual painter's tools such as
easel, palette, brushes, etc. I prefer sticks, trowels, knives and
dripping fluid paint or a heavy impasto with sand, broken glass or
other foreign matter added.
"When I am in my painting, I'm not aware of what I'm doing. It is only
after a sort of 'get acquainted' period that I see what I have been
about. I have no fear of making changes, destroying the image, etc.,
because the painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come
through. It is only when I lose contact with the painting that the
result is a mess. Otherwise there is pure harmony, an easy give and
take, and the painting comes out well."
job at what he was doing, but the intent
densely layered compositions that brought both praise and criticism.
Some critics viewed them as “meaningless and chaotic”, while others saw
them as “superbly organized, visually fascinating and psychologically
A profile in the 8 August 1949 issue of Life magazine introduced
Pollock’s art to Americans and secured his growing reputation as
one of the foremost modern painters of the time. During this intensely
creative time, Pollock was treated by a doctor who substituted his
drinking with tranquillizers. In 1951, he began drinking heavily again.
EXAMPLES OF CLASSIC
To me the idea of traditional-modern is to keep the
human-related motif but using a more modern, lighter, painting style.
Although of course impressionism moved in this direction, the painting
style was changed in more fundamental way than fit my own feelings.
However, after impressionism lost it's “newness”, somewhat less
aggressive forms were developed, by some French and American painters;
here are some examples.
You might want to make your own contemporary; anyone can do it...
|Make your own Jackson
December 11, 2007 @ 1:12 am
... Warhol showed early artistic talent and studied commercial art
the School of Fine Arts at Carnegie Institute of Technology in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (now Carnegie Mellon University). In 1949,
he moved to New York City and began a career in magazine illustration
and advertising. During the 1950s, he gained fame for his whimsical ink
drawings of shoe advertisements. These were done in a loose,
blotted-ink style, and figured in some of his earliest showings at the
Bodley Gallery in New York. With the concurrent rapid expansion of the
record industry and the introduction of the vinyl record, Hi-Fi, and
stereophonic recordings, RCA Records hired Warhol, along with another
freelance artist, Sid Maurer, to design album covers and promotional
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...
Fine art (1962–67)...
His first one-man art-gallery exhibition as a fine artist was
on July 9, 1962, in the Ferus Gallery of Los Angeles. The exhibition
marked the West Coast debut of pop art. Andy Warhol's first New
York solo pop exhibit was hosted at Eleanor Ward's Stable Gallery
November 6–24, 1962. The exhibit included the works Marilyn Diptych,
100 Soup Cans, 100 Coke Bottles and 100 Dollar Bills.
It was during the 1960s that Warhol began to make paintings of iconic
American products such as Campbell's Soup Cans and Coca-Cola bottles,
as well as paintings of celebrities such as Marilyn Monroe, Elvis
Presley, Troy Donahue, Muhammad Ali and Elizabeth Taylor. ...
Here are some more odd-ends on contemporary...
Special Art by Special Young Artists
Charlotte by Shelby Clark
Rainbow Railways by Constantine Salce
While surfing the web, I recently noticed several websites devoted to
paintings...from animals. Now, most of the paintings are a rainbow of
scribbles (though they would make top-quality modern art), because
they're done by animals, but some actually are very nice, abstract
paintings, especially for an elephant or monkey. Of course, that is
assuming that the elephants and monkeys are the ones painting those
elephant art . com ...
(provided by Nathon, when I tried recently, pictures by duanpen didn't
seem to show)
... In particular, one elephant by the name Duanpen does most of the
landscapes and all of the good ones. His art, below on the right, is
just amazing for an elephant. Now, what elephant has the attention
span, fine motor skills, visual techniques, intelligence, and
forethought to be able to make something like that? Does Duanpen?
I really can't tell how real this art is, and I will leave it up tp the
reader to decide for themselves. Go to www.elephantart.com, and look at
some of their artists. The first picture I showed was by Lucky, and it
was her #100 painting. The second was by Gongkam, his #51 painting, and
the third was by Duanpen, and that was his CV#021 painting. The picture
of an elephant is Gongkam painting another one of his flower
"If an artistic genius were by some miracle to appear in this age
of mediocrity, he would find endless subjects for his brush in New York
City despite the indications of proliferating theorists of the square.
Buildings, store windows, the docks, ships, multi-colored taxi-cabs --
the color and energy of the city -- as well as the expressions on
people's faces and the slump of their postures that tell the story of
the city's toll and the course of their individual destinies.
"It's easier though, if you're an artist, to ignore reality. It's
easier to leave the street and the problems of men behind and retreat
to your studio where you can
consider the essence of the intellect. The
things that really matter. There you can decide whether to paint a red
square or a blue one. Or whether you want ten stripes or eleven in your
latest stripe painting (my
"Don't let life and death, injustice, physical and emotional
suffering, hunger, brutality or all the nameless hard-felt longings and
desires of men -- much less irrelevancies like artistic beauty, meaning
and purpose -- interfere with the important decision you're about to
make. That neon tube you're going to call a sculpture. Do you want it
seven feet long...or eight?"
... ok, for wall decoration,
but to argue that contemperary art by modern adult artists, in the
sense that they "express themselves"... is preposterise...
(my own pic; it took me about 10 minutes to work through a few
"Artistic licence: (From left) A Vivienne Westwood design and our
version; A Chloe design and our version"