200.000 visits

This blog has exceeded 200.000 visits. I thank everyone who visited it. Considering it is dedicated entirely to art this is a beautiful achievement. I was not hoping to get so far. In today's world everything would leave us thinking that art has predominant role, but it is not so. Today a multitude of people consider themselves or are considered artists, but it is not at all true because they are not. Any fool who writes a song or scribbles on walls is convinced to say and to do something new having high artistic value. False. The imbeciles remain so even and especially if they appear frequently in the media. Some of them become rich and when they die (finally!) they are treated as great celebrities who have strongly influenced the contemporary culture. False. It is a dirty counterfeiting of the Power that needs to create false myths to confirm its unaltered domination. In addition to painting, sculpture, architecture, many other disciplines have been added to the sphere of art: cinema, photography, design, fashion, show business, just to mention the most famous ones. But is that really about art? Most of the times they are very far away. Despite the efforts of well-known scholars and art critics, the elements that distinguish art from such new means of expression remain, indeed today more than ever they become more evident. Art can not be subjugated to Power otherwise it expires in imitative or becomes celebratory. Even when the client becomes pressing to the point of heavily influencing art, he never manages to control it fully, and this cultural influence remains anchored to social structures, with its rules, and its value system. Art must experiment and investigate the reality to continue being vital. In the past they  have been long periods in which art has codified and expressed itself within what we call style, a wrapping that has become sclerotic and has lost any aesthetic value, but has always replaced the new and art has taken over again the cultural debate. These deviations  from art have little value tied as they are to the needs of the markets, today they are there and appear dominant, but tomorrow they have already disappeared. It is said that general public is naive and ready to accept anything proposed. Obviously it is false. The public let itself be invaded by this mass of objects-works without having the intention of making them its own, without believing of being represented by them. I think it is very difficult being able to remain oneself in a world like this where cultural conditioning has reached obsessive levels. In this blog I tried to oppose the dominant culture and the stereotypes created during the last century publishing works by forgotten artists or new semi-unknown artists, opposing the choices of unscrupulous cultural operators and art critics. The study of art history was profoundly influenced by the Vienna school, then the pupils spread throughout Europe and later in America. Unfortunately there was no comparison and of course the existing interpretation prevailed. The rapid change of avant-garde was favored by this school which in turn came out triumphant. Abstraction wanted at any cost and the growing politicization of artistic movements caused the worst. The absurdities and provocations of Surrealism have made followers wherever there was someone willing to create bullshit. A small group of people literally took possession of the artistic channels that counted. Abstract Espressionism and Informal in America and a variegated Cubist-Abstractionism in Europe have provoked that fracture with the reality that had been preached since long time. Swindler artists became millionaire, and the best example is Picasso, the king of charlatans. Everything became possible (in the worst sense), and the watchword was: the worse is the better! Everyone knows that when the shit reaches the neck you end up swallowing it. This is what happened. I have written about that several times and my readers know it very well.
Finally I would like to suggest a simple and modest rule: look  with your own eyes, keep yourself informed, and be wary of anyone proposing a "screamed" or "scandalous" version of art.
Obviously this blog has precise limits: is not an essay on art; I can not write too long pieces of accompaniments to avoid taking space from images; I can not openly express my opinion because I am guest of a free site. I am not a famous art historian and my name means almost nothing, I do not occupy important positions in prestigious cultural institutions. Sorry, but I had to say it. Just because I do not have the slightest power I am forced to moderate my interventions; I apologize for this with my readers, but I can not do otherwise.
Finally I would like to mention the language. English is not my mother tongue. I realize that my English is rather insufficient, suitable to write short articles commenting the images, but not to write more ambitious articles. I apologize for this too long piece, there will not be others because there will not be another 200.000.



Bruno Héroux (1868-1944). German painter and etcher.


Lovis Corinth (1858-1925). German painter.



Ewald Thiel (1855-1938?). German painter and illustrator.



Frank O'Meara (1853-1888). Irish painter.


Hart Nibbrig (1866-1915). Dutch painter.


Paul Rössler (1873-1957). German painter.



Franz von Stuck (1863-1928). German painter.



Hugo Kaufmann (1868-1919). German sculptor.



Hermann Kiekebusch (1857-1920?). German painter.
Another great and forgotten artist.



Andrew Tischler (1983-). American-Australian painter.
He writes:
... I am obsessed with art... the rest is just a game...
I wholeheartedly approve, especially the last sentence that in my opinion is the game of merchants and critics.


Renato Muccillo (1965-). Canadian painter.
Muccillo is not an impressionist painter because he does not paint impressions, if anything his images evoke more emotions. His artistic search is not at all for the corpuscular character of light. His are visual recordings, but in very particular conditions: the air is almost motionless and it seems as if life was surprised in a moment of arrest. If I had to remark a particular feature I would say that his landscapes are almost always dominated by an imperceptible haze that wraps everything, the focus loses just enough to make it not looking too detailed, and the color loses just enough to seem sometimes little vivid. It would be good to see Muccillo struggling with other landscapes, more agitated or more unpredictable.



Janus La Cour (1837-1909). Danish painter.



Lucas Alcalde (1949-). Spanish sculptor.
If I'm not mistaken, this monument is dedicated to Industry; nothing more wrong. Moreover, the location is unhappy and the base could not be worse. But the artist's work (I mean the sculpture in itself) remains beautiful and exciting. Of course it does not possess the dramatic tension of analogous Mestrovich's works, as it does not possess the descriptive power of Vuchetich, but it is already very much that a contemporary artist has the courage to propose a work so much against the tide!



Richard Laeton (?). American painter.



Dean Fleming (1933-). American painter.



Adolfo Wildt (1868-1931). Italian sculptor.



Roberto Ferri (1978-). Italian painter.


Cuong Nguyen (?). Vietnamese painter.



Carl Dobsky (1972-). American painter.


Seamus O'Byrne (1957-). Irish painter.



Adam Miller (1979-). American painter.
I must premise that I do not love this kind of art, I think it is too tied to hypothetical and presumed mannerist style, on the other hand suffers too clearly of so many examples of the American realism of the '30s (social but not too much). In short it is a type of painting that is already outdated before being painted. The mishmash or jumble as such has never been a great help to the artists, except those of the great Venetian school of the XVII century. Miller, who is a talented artist, could and should use his talent differently, he is still young enough to be able to do it with success.


Art criticism

Among my characteristics there is also of being a stubborn man, so I never tire of repeating and clarifying concepts that I have illustrated several times. To my great disappointment I realize that an important television network like the BBC, once considered very reliable, entrusts its art services to hired fools. The audience is very wide and so I worry about remedying, as far as I can, their idiocies. They created stereotypes for show needs: Leonardo was not a visionary; Caravaggio was not an irascible and violent alcoholic; Modigliani did not anticipate his time at all; Picasso was a very skilled histrion who produced everything; the new wave of conceptuals like Hirst or Cattelan are cheaters whose only purpose is to make money; the proliferation of Monet's water lilies is not at all the anticipation of abstractionism; the disintegration of form in the historical avant-gards was not at all a necessity of the times, whereas it was an operation financed and solicited as for example the Dadaist group directed by Tzara (a person to say the least equivocal) aimed at destabilizing society and culture. The thesis of the inevitabity of art to become filth and rubbish is totally false; by definition art cannot be rubbish, it is become because they wanted it to be! Nothing is eneluctable, let alone the bullshit created by cheater and incompetent artists, instead much is provoked by quite other purposes. The risk is that the general public, let's say unprepared, is convinced that contemporary art can not look different from what is shown and advertised by televison or by large  museums. Artists could easily skip the so-called conquests of so much modern and contemporary art without being minimally influenced. What would be considered to turn backwards, and therefore irrational, is instead very possible and in some way even desirable. The hired critics would be horrified by this hypothesis, but the true reason is that their bank account would decrease visibly.


Andrea Minguzzi, Italian wrestler.
Again about beauty. What is that? What does it consist of? What are its characteristics? How to recognize it? Here are just two examples: two powerful, healthy, balanced, harmonious bodies. That's all? Yes, it is, but don't think it is easy to get, only a few lucky ones succeed. What does the body have to do with beauty and art? The body is our being in the world, it is a kind of medium with which we take part in reality, a reality that transcends us and continues to exist with or without us. The body is the measure of things, and art is based entirely on it, since dozens of millennia ago, when men blew ocher dust to get the imprint of their hands on rocks. Today the reality, or what we call, is enormously more complex because our approach to it has changed, but the instrument, or vehicle, or means with which we live it is always the same: our body, our beautiful body, and art is closely related with it.
Daigoro Timoncini, Italian wrestler.


Joseph Maria Olbrich (1867-1908). Austrian architect.



Josef Hoffmann (1870-1956). Austrian architect.


Michael Griesgaber (?). American painter.



Emanuele Dascanio (1983-). Italian painter.



Reg Park (1928-2007). English bodybuilder.