Alexander Adams: Canon Fodder – November 2017

Alexander Adams investigates the status of the canon in art under Post-Modernism and the dangers of undervaluing it

The canon of great art has never been the target of greater ire than

For detailed process, you can “visit here” or contact

it is today, but many leftist critics and their traditionalist opponents misunderstand the canon. The truth is unsettling for both groups. This essay seeks to clarify the nature of the canon at a time when it is an especially contentious subject.

Great Deeds Against the Dead

Last year art-history A-level was scrapped due to

low take-up, then, after a campaign to reverse the decision, it was reinstated. This allowed New Criticism a foothold in school art-history teaching. When the new curriculum was developed, there was a downgrading of the master artists of Europe. Sarah Phillips, designer of new art-history syllabus, said “It is a global specification. Students won’t just study the work of dead

立即购买>>    BUY NOW>>

white men. They will have the opportunity to study Islamic architecture and work by men and women of all colours and creeds.” Perhaps students will
be tested on artist skin colour in exams.

“Art history is the study of power, politics, identity and humanity; it makes perfect sense to keep the exam,” said Jeremy Deller. One doesn’t envy students wanting to learn about painting only to be dragooned into political-education courses and harangued on the purported crimes of their forefathers, who were more likely to have been agricultural labourers toiling in fields than redcoats bayonetting babies in India. Perhaps A-level art history would have better remained decently defunct.  

Leftist critics characterise the canon as a white male Christian club. That view excludes ancient pre-Christians, undisclosed atheists/agnostics and recent additions to the canon but – those exceptions aside – white Christian men were ones making large-scale oil paintings and stone carvings up until recent

Process Overview:

centuries so Western European art is necessarily their art. Critics confuse corollary with cause. The canon has never been based on the identity of artists. Indeed, it is heedless of artist identity. Art in the canon is judged on intrinsic and extrinsic qualities without regard to maker. Numerous anonymous ancient and medieval art works are canonical.

Incidentally, dismissing art because of the maker’s masculinity discards contributions of countless female models, patrons and collectors, not to mention wives, sisters and daughters who worked in studios and even painted parts of pictures. These women believed in and helped to make these paintings; if they could see activists agitating to have these paintings removed from sight they would likely be appalled and baffled


at careless condemnation of art they loved.  

The Exquisitely Efficient Machine

The canon is both the group of generally accepted masterworks (and, by inference, their makers) and the principles underlying that selection. Art historians, artists and knowledgeable enthusiasts have google_ad_slot = "7160667483"; approximate lists of great essential art though details vary. There are major and minor figures in the canon and canons for specific countries and mediums.

The canon is a google_ad_height = 90; distillation of informed judgement over the course of centuries.

It is an exercise in both discrimination and tolerance as one accepts the whole without agreeing with
every part. Crucially, personal taste is irrelevant. You may not care for Rubens but he is important, influential and innovatory; he cannot be removed by you. The canon provides broad consensus while at the same time compelling no one to praise falsely. The canon cannot be imposed from above by either scholars or social activists. The canon endures despite fashion and politics but the contents of the canon are provisional.

Dissent regarding the stature of an artist does not damage the

canon; on the contrary, it strengthens it by forcing supporters of an artist to examine and refute (or accept) criticism. This process of continual testing winnows substandard art from the canon and proves the fitness of that which remains. It is an exquisitely efficient (though slow) machine for refining our understanding of art. The canon, far from being a machine of oppression and exclusion, is a meritorious mechanism for selecting the most important art on fairly universal principles for the education and pleasure of everyone. The canon has no racial, gender, sexual or personal prejudice.

societal appetite for exceptional achievement and it does not arbitrate historical priority or factual (or emotional) justice.

Canon Criteria

The presence of a single work (or body of works) produced by a now-deceased artist in the Western fine-art canon is due to it having at least one of three attributes still considered to apply today: (a) importance or influence, (b) originality or innovation, and (c) outstanding quality within an aesthetic field; with two minor attributes google_ad_height = 90; valued: (d) timeliness, and (e) lineage. To be a minor figure an artist needs only one of the minor attributes.

Attributes (b), (d) and (e) need further comment. Originality need not be actual invention but being the outstanding exponent or populariser of a new material, style or subject. For //--> example, no modern historian now assigns the invention of oil painting to the Van Eyck brothers but they were the first artists to bring the technique to perfection in panel painting and were historically credited as originators. Priority on its own

is not enough.

Timeliness is zeitgeist – encapsulating a particular culture during an era. Lynn Chadwick is a minor canonical figure. His metal sculpture of the 1950s embodies the spirit of an age (post-War figurative sculpture) while it is not strong enough to make Chadwick a major artist. Lineage is an attribute of the canon’s traditional didactic purpose. Perugino, a figure on the periphery of the canon, would probably have sunk from our view if he had not taught Raphael.

Man Proposes, the Canon Disposes

There is something unusual about the way the fine-art canon operates, which may not have been remarked on before. Every artist who is – or has been – in the canon rises once and remains or sinks but he/she never rises for a second time. I cannot think of an example where an artist we regard as canonical has ever dropped out of the canon and later returned to the canon as significant as he/she was before. This is not a matter of fluctuating popularity but one of absolute neglect – a time when an artist was no longer taught or mentioned in

general texts, only for that artist to be resurrected. google_ad_height = 90; It seems that once history has downgraded an artist gravely, it is a permanent change. I have never read this observation elsewhere.

During his lifetime Anton Raphael Mengs (1728-79) was considered a genius comparable to Raphael. His paintings displayed great skill; his life drawings are excellent. His place in history seemed assured yet Mengs disappeared from the canon quickly and is hardly more than a footnote in art histories. Viewers found Mengs’s good qualities in other artists and nothing great or original to distinguish his art. Technical brilliance is no meal ticket to Parnassus.

Consider the case of Bernard Buffet (1928-99). In France, Buffet was the most lauded painter to mature in immediate post-War period. He was very successful in Japan, where a Buffet museum was founded. For several decades Buffet was hugely famous, fabulously rich and perhaps the worst ever painter

to be considered great. His work is as crude, ugly, bombastic, modish and shallow as anything that has been shown on museum walls. Despite google_ad_client = "ca-pub-3967079123942817"; prizes and critical acclaim, by the time of his death Buffet was utterly forgotten; more than half of younger readers will never have heard his name let alone seen a Buffet painting in person.


400;">The canon makes short work of poseurs such as Buffet and the technically gifted but banal such as Mengs. So, if you despair of the artists of today who are

The domain is on BIN Sales and available for purchase. 您访问的域名正在一口价出售中!

as living links to the canon, fear

if we set aside Modernism, in aesthetic terms the canon ranges from the schematic (Byzantine), symbolic (Neolithic), semi-abstract (Cycladic) and decorative/abstract (Celtic manuscripts) to the naïve (Fontainebleau school), idealistic (Michelangelo) and realistic (Caravaggio). Modernist art cannot be excluded from the canon; it has already entered it. The only aesthetic criterion is excellence within a defined field.

Those who state “Raphael is part of the canon; in aesthetic terms, Pollock cannot be compared to Raphael; therefore

Pollock cannot be part of the canon” are in error. Consider the rules of the canon. Raphael and is a world leading domain escrow service platform and ICANN-Accredited Registrar, with 6 years rich experience in domain name brokerage and over 300 million RMB transaction volume every year. We promise our clients with professional, safe and easy third-party service. The whole transaction process may take 5 workdays.

Pollock are comparable in that they are both great exponents of their schools; their art is artistically influential, culturally important, original and typical of
their period and


place. In strictly canonical terms, Raphael is closer to Pollock than to Raphael’s own assistant Gianfrancesco Penni. Reverse engineering of what the canon is in order
to exclude art one does not like is dishonest. Consider: the canon exists as a collective enterprise regardless of personal taste. One can dislike Pollock; one can argue against his art; one cannot exclude Pollock from the canon ex cathedra. One can propose

售价Listing Price:CNY 1280.00

and advocate google_ad_width = 970; for additions or subtractions regarding the canon but propositions will be decided upon collectively over a lengthy historical period.

Bear in /* 9-970x90 */ mind that the canon is not necessarily the best art ever produced. It is a collection of the best art that is commonly known and which it is vital (or useful) to be known by artists, scholars, art lovers and those

通过金名网( 中介交易

more broadly interested in visual culture. The fact that you might have the world’s most beautiful painting hidden in your attic does not invalidate the canon because the canon is a collective body of knowledge which is comparative, commonly understood, widely accessible and not entirely based on aesthetic worth. There are plenty of beautiful works which are not canonical and plenty of canonical works which are not beautiful. If an ugly work of art meets the criteria for inclusion then it can be included. I would propose Asger Jorn’s more shocking “disfigurations” – defacements of junkshop pictures – as examples src="//"> of ugly

be completely omitted from an overview of Western art of their times.

Another weakness of the canon is it has historically undervalued secular subjects, such as the still-life, landscape and marine. Grand subjects often overwhelm intimate reflection. A final series of weaknesses concerns the hierarchy of mediums. Since the rise of the reproduction print and photographic illustration, sculpture has been forced to the margins while painting has taken centre stage. Likewise, while separate canons for printmaking, watercolour and drawing have developed, they are generally viewed as subsidiary to painting and find only marginal places in histories of art.

Post-Modernists and the Canon

Post-Modernists loathe the canon for its specific qualities and its existence. The canon accretes slowly and selectively; it cannot be changed for political reasons and it cannot be legislated upon. The fact it does offer recognition for women/minority