“As I’ve said in my book, New Old Master art is an attempt to integrate Old Master and Modern Master aesthetics. Since there are many kinds of Old Master and Modern Master aesthetic modes, there is no one New Old Master aesthetic. At the least, it involves the recognition that the Old Masters, whom many Modern Masters dismissed (Marinetti’s repudiation of them summarizes their position) or else ”manhandled,” remain aesthetically significant and a possible source of ideas. It also involves the recognition that the so-called avant-garde revolution is over – the Modern Masters are also “old” – but remains aesthetically significant and a possible source of ideas. But the New Old Masters realize that the values of the Old and Modern Masters are different, and that the values of the Old Masters may speak more to the needs of art and human beings at this time. Clement Greenberg once said that the Old Masters achieved what they achieved by way of their manipulation of pigments not by way of their “spirituality” (his word), but I think we now recognize that they couldn’t do what they artistically did without their spirituality and insight into human nature. I don’t think the past is particularly “exalted,” but much of its art seems much more mature than modern art. Nor do I think the future will necessarily be more “original” than the modernist past, but it will be as creative, if in a different way and direction. Picasso once said it took him a lifetime to learn to paint like a child. I think that it’s time for a new adult art. Children’s art and the art of the insane – so-called ”outsider art” in general – has outlived its usefulness as a model. The New Old Masters have turned to more mature, sane art for a model, both emotionally and aesthetically.”

from Emmet Cole interviews Donald Kuspit

Caravaggio. The Entombment of Christ, (1602–1603)

PLUS

Warhol. Soup Can (1968)

EQUALS

Banksy

Advertisements