The con that is modern art
No, I’m no art connoisseur. I’m one of those die-hard, stubborn know-nothings who goes along with the idea that ‘I know what I like’. Having said that, I’ve seen a fair few paintings and such, in books and in galleries. And I’m really sorry but all in all, I fail to understand why much of modern art has any kind of credibility.
I’ve seen Rembrandt’s masterpiece, the “night watch” and many of his lesser paintings at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. The picture at left is a Rembrandt that hangs in the Amsterdam Historical Museum. I’ve been to the Hermitage in St Petersburg and seen any number of master works by artists ranging from Fra Angelico through Picasso, Monet and like. When you study history, paintings can give a great insight into how people dressed, what the countryside looked like and even their belief systems. These days, photography and moving pictures provide us with much more than the artists could. I suppose that’s why artists have drifted off into the esoteric, trying to capture a feeling (or something) because the image itself has become such an easy thing to portray. And yet a fine portrait or a compelling landscape can still convey more than a photo. Albert Namatjira’s landscapes of central Australia capture a moment and with it, the artist’s emotion; what he felt for the land of his ancestors.
It’s a Picasso, worth a bob or two, I’d imagine.
Sorry, folks. I’m a Philistine. Give me a Dutch master or a Hans Heyssen or a Tom Roberts any day.