THEN AND NOW
EDITORS' NOTE:
Many people involved in the plastic arts, particularly the older
ones, have been talking about the recent changes: the enormous shifts
in taste, sensibzlity , attitude toward money, the nature of the art
market, andofcourse the kindofpainting and sculpture being done. We've
asked the following painters, sculptors, and en'tics to contribute to a dis–
cussion on the differences between the art ofthe forties and fifties and the
scene today.
HERBERT FERBER
An artist on art is suspect: his bias may be hidden behind ration–
alization . Nevertheless I will begin with a few general sd.tements. Art in the
following applies to so-called Fine Art.
Abundance, at least in the West, has been the signature of our time. In
the case of art , availability and easy familiarity have, paradoxically, helped to
lower the criteria for understanding and value . Seductively available in
schools, museums, and public places, art is also big business and is sold
"hard" to an audience conditioned early by education, cupidity, and the
desire to appear cultured. The public demand is both manipulated and met.
Everything goes: old art, new art, good art-and bad art. True artistic
experience is jeopardized by a deluge of reproductions, prints, casts. and
showmanship leading to mindless "reminders" which are "certified" as
conveying aesthetic values . All of this is implied in the paradox referred to
before.
In the forties and fifties modern art was an unfamiliar and foreign
domain for most. The public was on the outside and rarely invited in. When
the doors were opened there was often antagonism and disbeliefon the part of
critics, curators, the public, even artists. A good deal of snobbism and vitu–
peration was involved in the discussion and showing of the new art.
It
was
indiscriminately attacked for being too subjective , derided for being "viscer–
aI, " and therefore not understandable . That small group of artists which was
