Back To The Future

Back To The Future

Amusingly the title of the exhibition is appropriate as the title of this blog. The exhibition ended in November. I did feel that the review was particularly interesting as a contemporary perspective on history of art.

I have to admit to only having skimmed through it, but in doing so picked up on this paragraph which I found particularly interesting –

“But what is also certain is that many of the works on display in ‘Back to The Future’ were simply (and here Cilliers-Barnard is a case in point) a perpetuation of the Romantic myth of the artist-as-genius. That is to say the idea that an artists (sic) is a ‘seer’ of an esoteric and numinous world that the rest of humanity are incapable of accessing other than through the works of great genius – an idea that has, thankfully, been put on the funeral pyre of much other Romantic nonsenses.”

I still live in the era of the Romantic myth apparently.

And so I for one will go back and read Michael Blackman’s review properly and begin to tickle the tip of the iceberg of current views on art history.

Financing the arts.

Interesting article in the New York Times today on how artists are to make a living, with some proposals on how to solve the problem:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/30/the-real-humanities-crisis/?ref=opinion

I also enjoyed Tim Worstall’s response in Forbes, just because he is so contrary (and perhaps more realistic).

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/12/01/arts-majors-cant-make-good-livings-so-we-should-subsidise-arts-majors-from-taxation/

Would love to know what you all think!