The Rule of Art
by Mark Anthony Signorelli (December 2010)
Let me begin with an uncontroversial assertion: we produce no art. What I mean is that for two or three generations western peoples have not, by their collective or individual endeavor, produced any artifacts which can be identified, on any intelligible principles, as the same kind of thing which had been referred to as music, poetry, drama, sculpture, or painting by all preceding generations of Western man, and which were the varied accomplishments of such figures as Virgil and the anonymous poets of the Border Ballads, Scarlatti and Shubert, and the craftsmen of the Duomo of Siena. What we have become accustomed to referring to as "our arts" no more merit that title than a sow deserves to be called a thoroughbred. more>>>
Posted on 11/30/2010 4:15 PM by NER
1 Dec 2010
What do you mean we produce no art? We have produced daring transgressive art like this!
11 Dec 2010
Benjamin T. Randle
I am pleased to read a lengthy article that maintains western art had rules, skills, traditions and connectedness with social coherence until some defining moments in the twentieth century. If intelligent discourse of this kind would only appear regularly in mainstream print media and art critics and gallery promoters were drawn into a continuing discussion, the condition of contemporary art might change for the better. The relationship between visual arts and society is important. The disconnectedness currently perceptible is one indication that art and the society in which it thrives would benefit from a process of deep reflection and healing.
19 Dec 2010
It is unfortunate that a seemingly intelligent man could write an essay on the status of contemporary art and not mention anything that at least one person does consider to be contemporary art. Mr. Signorelli appears to be a curmudgeon just for the sake of being a curmudgeon. Lighten up.
1 Mar 2011
When did the greats such as Keats, Yeats, Joyce and other great poets adhere to a doctorine of without structure no art is created. Art is an expression of the aesthete of your own personal human perception, it is beauty and beauty knows no bounds and is certainly not chained by structure. What you ahev put forth in this article is not only ignorant but shows that you are no true poet, or artist, but a man that has reduced his life to monatany and the desecration of the beauty of language as a form of expression. You are the ballast of poetry which attempts to drown art through an infantile attachment to intellectual conservatism that attempts to root art in a stagnant place which is obviously not what art is.