As an artist I think it’s so interesting how if you’re in the scene it’s very obvious that there are so many Michelangelo level talents alive now and creating. The museums just have 0 interest in them.
I think you’d be surprised how much of that they’re displaying without money laundering. (It’s for sure one of the factors, and a big one, but there are also other reasons)
Of course, I do think relativism and the decline of what is generally considered “fine art” to be mainly at fault, but it’s not as sensational as money laundering, which is why I chose that as the subject of my facetious joke.
There definitely are artists that have both exceptional skill and a unique vision. Although the ones that have a unique vision of course don’t paint exactly like Michelangelo.
Ben Ashton, Henrik Uldalen, Primary Hughes come to mind.
I'm not well versed in contemporary art. But whenever I see certain artists being framed as the new golden age and then I look at the work, definitely not the same. And it is not because of the syra of the Renaissance artists, it is something almost intangible that makes it sublime.
As a working artist trained in the classical method, I can attest to the importance of patrons in supporting the production of quality art upholding traditional aesthetics. People have no idea how much training, materials, studio space and time go into paintings of this type. Kudos to you, Evan Amato, for recognizing to need support artists called to this vocation! For those who do not have an affinity for classic style art, there are many other options to consume. Criticizing an obviously talented artist and a supportive patron (as some commenters have done) is akin to telling a lute player they are not entitled to pursue their art just because you prefer the banjo.
I am devastatingly interested in the Renaissance. Hence why I called my paid tiers "Patronage" and the founding "The Mecici Circle".
I think anything that brings firth beautiful art, deserves ti be tried. I do think however technique isn't everything, the vision is what takes it to another level.
Agreed. There has been a concerted effort to allow only certain kinds of culture for the general public. Some people get uncomfortable hearing that but it can be demonstrated in a myriad of ways.
We have a solid stable of poets at Age of Muses. Some of them are even quite young, with real talent and none of the respect for the official line on contemporary aesthetics and art.
Poetry was a way of remembering “what it would impoverish us to forget” (Robert Frost) and it was a way of educating by wrestling with big questions and ideas, whether through narrative, epic, lyric or some combination in concert with the other muses.
I’ll leave two recent and very different examples. The first is a poem “The Window” and the second is a dialogue where Adam and Eve are revisited in their old age by a “Second Snake.”
We’ve also been making poetry films and adapting poems into original productions, like our two part The Devil at Woodstock series, which is built around Texas-based poet Daniel Leach’s narrative poem of the same title.
I've wanted to be an artist for the last decade. My jobs, health, and extreme discouragement have kept me from it.
I wish to become part of this. I want to make great art. I'm working on a fantasy novel right now, but I love the idea of drawing Knights, beautiful women, and dragons.
Look at how the great artists were treated during their lifetimes. Most of them were not seen as "great". Most of them were work for hire. They sold their talents to who could afford them at the time. Van Gogh was pretty much ignored as an artist during his life. Time has to pass. Its there, but there is only so much wall space.
I think a vital aspect that's missed in comparing the 'old greats' to the modern day is the truly lifelong opportunity to master their craft. Children that began working alongside "experts" in the trade/art as young as 5 or 6, grew and learned with the strictest concentration on developing their trade/art. For example, after Michaelangelo's mother died when he was 6 years old, he lived with a nanny and her husband, a stonecutter. He became an apprentice at 13 to a master painter, and had other experiences along the way. There's no doubt that completing the David at age 29 is impressive, but when comparing to a modern day artist, it's important to acknowledge his 23 years of concentrated experience.
As an artist I think it’s so interesting how if you’re in the scene it’s very obvious that there are so many Michelangelo level talents alive now and creating. The museums just have 0 interest in them.
Why spend time pretending you care about beauty when you can get away with using a banana or a toilet to launder money?
That’s why this is a great idea, people who actually value truth have to return to patronage and supporting true art.
I think you’d be surprised how much of that they’re displaying without money laundering. (It’s for sure one of the factors, and a big one, but there are also other reasons)
Of course, I do think relativism and the decline of what is generally considered “fine art” to be mainly at fault, but it’s not as sensational as money laundering, which is why I chose that as the subject of my facetious joke.
May have the same level of technique, but not vision.
There definitely are artists that have both exceptional skill and a unique vision. Although the ones that have a unique vision of course don’t paint exactly like Michelangelo.
Ben Ashton, Henrik Uldalen, Primary Hughes come to mind.
I'm not well versed in contemporary art. But whenever I see certain artists being framed as the new golden age and then I look at the work, definitely not the same. And it is not because of the syra of the Renaissance artists, it is something almost intangible that makes it sublime.
Carl's art is so beautiful!
As a working artist trained in the classical method, I can attest to the importance of patrons in supporting the production of quality art upholding traditional aesthetics. People have no idea how much training, materials, studio space and time go into paintings of this type. Kudos to you, Evan Amato, for recognizing to need support artists called to this vocation! For those who do not have an affinity for classic style art, there are many other options to consume. Criticizing an obviously talented artist and a supportive patron (as some commenters have done) is akin to telling a lute player they are not entitled to pursue their art just because you prefer the banjo.
This is absolutely incredible. Well done, and can't wait to see the painting! Excited to support this however I can
I, of course, applaud the initiative.
I am devastatingly interested in the Renaissance. Hence why I called my paid tiers "Patronage" and the founding "The Mecici Circle".
I think anything that brings firth beautiful art, deserves ti be tried. I do think however technique isn't everything, the vision is what takes it to another level.
Wishing all the best.
Evan, you're making it really hard for me not to call you Medici.
If you think there’s no great art….you just aren’t getting out enough.
There are so many prodigious young artists out there, who are sadly not getting nearly enough recognition.
The Medici understood something we have forgotten. You don't inherit a culture; you commission one.
Beauty gets built by men who decide to pay for it.
This is downstream of fatherhood. A man who won't steward a son won't steward a painting. Start patronizing the good. Start small.
Agreed. There has been a concerted effort to allow only certain kinds of culture for the general public. Some people get uncomfortable hearing that but it can be demonstrated in a myriad of ways.
We have a solid stable of poets at Age of Muses. Some of them are even quite young, with real talent and none of the respect for the official line on contemporary aesthetics and art.
Poetry was a way of remembering “what it would impoverish us to forget” (Robert Frost) and it was a way of educating by wrestling with big questions and ideas, whether through narrative, epic, lyric or some combination in concert with the other muses.
I’ll leave two recent and very different examples. The first is a poem “The Window” and the second is a dialogue where Adam and Eve are revisited in their old age by a “Second Snake.”
https://ageofmuses.substack.com/p/the-window
https://ageofmuses.substack.com/p/the-second-snake-a-dialogue-featuring
We’ve also been making poetry films and adapting poems into original productions, like our two part The Devil at Woodstock series, which is built around Texas-based poet Daniel Leach’s narrative poem of the same title.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aP6rr0nrJmI&ra=m
A lot can be done now.
If The Culturist is interested in scouting some original poets or original poetic productions, I’ll be happy to make some introductions.
I've wanted to be an artist for the last decade. My jobs, health, and extreme discouragement have kept me from it.
I wish to become part of this. I want to make great art. I'm working on a fantasy novel right now, but I love the idea of drawing Knights, beautiful women, and dragons.
This is an amazing initiative.
Look at how the great artists were treated during their lifetimes. Most of them were not seen as "great". Most of them were work for hire. They sold their talents to who could afford them at the time. Van Gogh was pretty much ignored as an artist during his life. Time has to pass. Its there, but there is only so much wall space.
Some were well treated—Michelangelo, Raphael, Leonardo, etc.
It was only natural they worked for hire.
Van Gogh, is so special and unfortunately misunderstood at the time.
Artists have always worked for hire. It's called commission.
Very true and I miss new art, especially in music 🎶
The Benedict XVI Institute has commissioned some extraordinary music (Mass of the Americas by Frank La Rocca, for example).
Books, buildings, landscape plans, jewellery etc. Everything's so hard on the eyes and so bland on the mind.
I think a vital aspect that's missed in comparing the 'old greats' to the modern day is the truly lifelong opportunity to master their craft. Children that began working alongside "experts" in the trade/art as young as 5 or 6, grew and learned with the strictest concentration on developing their trade/art. For example, after Michaelangelo's mother died when he was 6 years old, he lived with a nanny and her husband, a stonecutter. He became an apprentice at 13 to a master painter, and had other experiences along the way. There's no doubt that completing the David at age 29 is impressive, but when comparing to a modern day artist, it's important to acknowledge his 23 years of concentrated experience.
I totally agree on Michelangelo.
Much was condensed in those early years.
Maybe this is similar to the theme of the essay Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists by Linda Nochlin