Really interesting, thank you. Some of Verheyen’s art ended up on prints sold by the 90’s high street art store Athena. It was as if his use of light and colour, and abstract imagery, was made for that media and that decade, although the artist himself passed away in 1984.
I say this by way of comment, not criticism: you're conflating conservative politics and religiosity. American Buddhism has an enormously progressive slant, and if I had to guess Verheyen's politics, I would assume commensurately. Could a religious conservative plug such sentiment into an artistic project? Absolutely, even an abstract one, possibly any other as well.
The question remains, what is aesthetic conservatism? I wish someone would deal with this. Typically the trad crowd likes figurative painting in the Western mode from, say, 1500-1850. But most contemporary artists who work in this mode are as politically progressive as any other type. Bo Bartlett comes to mind. Meanwhile, conservatives tend to align with the institutions, but the art institutions are typically illustrating progressive politics in some way. Conservatives tend to align with conventions, but conventions are basically neutral, and even something like postminimalism has them to some degree. I suspect that political conservatism is real, and religious conservatism is real, but aesthetic conservatism is not.
Yes, I agree that I was thinking of conservatives and the religious as largely overlapping but there is no automatic correlation. I think if I was rewriting this article I might be more careful about separating the strands of thinking regarding forms and institutions, as well as intentions.
One way to get conservatives to buy art would be to make the art sacred. I would suggest that someone sell it as relics, able to perform miracles. Warhol said he would like to sell the "stars" underwear; $10 for clean and $15 for soiled. Stars are about the closest we have to saints these days.
When you think about it art objects are already kind of like medievel relics except that the miracle they perform is to confer status, not divine intervention. This is why there is such an emphasis on rooting out forgeries (which arent really forgeries since they are only copies in the manner of the famous artist and are actually unique objects in themselves). I could have Mid Journey do something in the manner of so-and-so and print it or even copy in paint on canvas. But if I sign it with my own name, no ones cares. Sad.
I think Franklin brings up some interesting points. People who indentify as "conservative" really aren't interested in form, it seems to me. They are really awful about it. They want content, a story, preferably made in a painstaking sort of way. They are fearful of emotions getting out of control and want things nailed down. They are suspicious of images, gestures and sounds in time, in gerneral. Literally, their brains can't think that way. They are not wired to do so.
Conservatives began the bifurcation of the European psyche with J.A.D. Ingres in opposition to Delacroix. They caused Whistler to sue for defamation. They are the petit bourgeoisie versus the mocking bohemian satyr. Artists like Verheyen, and their patrons, are subtly mocking the squares, making objects that baffle them. Conservatives subconsciously understand this and say things like "my kid could do that." It's part class warfare, part honest to god genetic difference, like the difference between a man and a woman.
Yet when you actually analyse the art and ideas of Ingres and Delacroix, one finds they share many aspects and the distinction between Romantic and Classicist is not so great.
I most likely went out on a limb there. I was trying to indicate where this bifurcation in European culture began. My pet theory is the Enlightenment, or maybe the industrial revolution, resulting in a self-conscious bohemian class that mocks the middle while parodying the aristos. To my knowledge it didn't exist prior to late 18th- early 19th century.
That feels about right. I'd say that started in the arts when artists no longer primarily worked to commissions or had to belong to guilds. Once they have that freedom from peer/professional oversight, they can cultivate these tendencies.
Don't you think visual art is now a controlled system? Apparently writers are able to do okay by self-publishing. Also, musicians, thanks to the internet. Places like Amazon and Spotify, whereas visual artists are constrained by having to sell a physical object and need a highly organized place to showcase and sell. Similar to classical music needing a huge apparatus compared to popular music.
The reason I asked is there's a science fiction writer in comments at Nicolo Soldo's substack discussing the state of writing and popular music. He doesn't know about the visual arts and neither does Nicolo, in referencce to another linked article about culture being "stuck." You might be interested.
As far as artists in the system, yes, the high level stuff. You can't sell anything for more than $10,000 or $20,000 without some form of agent/dealer/gallerist. However, if you have direct access to collectors you could survive but of course no one in public would know your name and your (limited) reputation might disappear quickly after your death. Gatekeeping is an important aspect of visual art as a trade at the top level.
On second thought, I'd have to say I'm speaking mostly about Americans who I know best. Americans really don't like artists, period. No matter what they do. However, I do notice this tendency in Europeans, especially men with engineering backgrounds. And, let's face it, we live in an increasingly thought-engineered world.
Thanks again for an interesting article. I'd not heard of Verheyen.
Really interesting, thank you. Some of Verheyen’s art ended up on prints sold by the 90’s high street art store Athena. It was as if his use of light and colour, and abstract imagery, was made for that media and that decade, although the artist himself passed away in 1984.
I didn't know that about the posters. It makes sense. As always, thanks for the input!
I say this by way of comment, not criticism: you're conflating conservative politics and religiosity. American Buddhism has an enormously progressive slant, and if I had to guess Verheyen's politics, I would assume commensurately. Could a religious conservative plug such sentiment into an artistic project? Absolutely, even an abstract one, possibly any other as well.
The question remains, what is aesthetic conservatism? I wish someone would deal with this. Typically the trad crowd likes figurative painting in the Western mode from, say, 1500-1850. But most contemporary artists who work in this mode are as politically progressive as any other type. Bo Bartlett comes to mind. Meanwhile, conservatives tend to align with the institutions, but the art institutions are typically illustrating progressive politics in some way. Conservatives tend to align with conventions, but conventions are basically neutral, and even something like postminimalism has them to some degree. I suspect that political conservatism is real, and religious conservatism is real, but aesthetic conservatism is not.
Yes, I agree that I was thinking of conservatives and the religious as largely overlapping but there is no automatic correlation. I think if I was rewriting this article I might be more careful about separating the strands of thinking regarding forms and institutions, as well as intentions.
One way to get conservatives to buy art would be to make the art sacred. I would suggest that someone sell it as relics, able to perform miracles. Warhol said he would like to sell the "stars" underwear; $10 for clean and $15 for soiled. Stars are about the closest we have to saints these days.
When you think about it art objects are already kind of like medievel relics except that the miracle they perform is to confer status, not divine intervention. This is why there is such an emphasis on rooting out forgeries (which arent really forgeries since they are only copies in the manner of the famous artist and are actually unique objects in themselves). I could have Mid Journey do something in the manner of so-and-so and print it or even copy in paint on canvas. But if I sign it with my own name, no ones cares. Sad.
I think Franklin brings up some interesting points. People who indentify as "conservative" really aren't interested in form, it seems to me. They are really awful about it. They want content, a story, preferably made in a painstaking sort of way. They are fearful of emotions getting out of control and want things nailed down. They are suspicious of images, gestures and sounds in time, in gerneral. Literally, their brains can't think that way. They are not wired to do so.
Conservatives began the bifurcation of the European psyche with J.A.D. Ingres in opposition to Delacroix. They caused Whistler to sue for defamation. They are the petit bourgeoisie versus the mocking bohemian satyr. Artists like Verheyen, and their patrons, are subtly mocking the squares, making objects that baffle them. Conservatives subconsciously understand this and say things like "my kid could do that." It's part class warfare, part honest to god genetic difference, like the difference between a man and a woman.
Yet when you actually analyse the art and ideas of Ingres and Delacroix, one finds they share many aspects and the distinction between Romantic and Classicist is not so great.
I most likely went out on a limb there. I was trying to indicate where this bifurcation in European culture began. My pet theory is the Enlightenment, or maybe the industrial revolution, resulting in a self-conscious bohemian class that mocks the middle while parodying the aristos. To my knowledge it didn't exist prior to late 18th- early 19th century.
That feels about right. I'd say that started in the arts when artists no longer primarily worked to commissions or had to belong to guilds. Once they have that freedom from peer/professional oversight, they can cultivate these tendencies.
Don't you think visual art is now a controlled system? Apparently writers are able to do okay by self-publishing. Also, musicians, thanks to the internet. Places like Amazon and Spotify, whereas visual artists are constrained by having to sell a physical object and need a highly organized place to showcase and sell. Similar to classical music needing a huge apparatus compared to popular music.
The reason I asked is there's a science fiction writer in comments at Nicolo Soldo's substack discussing the state of writing and popular music. He doesn't know about the visual arts and neither does Nicolo, in referencce to another linked article about culture being "stuck." You might be interested.
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/saturday-commentary-and-review-161/comments
I'll check it out.
As far as artists in the system, yes, the high level stuff. You can't sell anything for more than $10,000 or $20,000 without some form of agent/dealer/gallerist. However, if you have direct access to collectors you could survive but of course no one in public would know your name and your (limited) reputation might disappear quickly after your death. Gatekeeping is an important aspect of visual art as a trade at the top level.
On second thought, I'd have to say I'm speaking mostly about Americans who I know best. Americans really don't like artists, period. No matter what they do. However, I do notice this tendency in Europeans, especially men with engineering backgrounds. And, let's face it, we live in an increasingly thought-engineered world.
Thanks again for an interesting article. I'd not heard of Verheyen.