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.
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.
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.
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.