As we all know, in 1976 Ron kitagi created a term for himself, Orbach, Kosov, and seven other painters-the London Academy, a chimera, A moment of stupidity and unfounded fantasy, but, at that time, critics and curators threw it at it as the divine revelation of truth, and until a few years later, qimara was seriously examined, became a Cheshire Cat and disappeared quickly.
Is the school in Paris more fulfilling?
Since Paris is nothing in the art world, are people under 50 still using the word?
The Royal Academy, which now displays the body, claims that its death day was in May 1968, a whole generation of former Paris street student revolutionary months, but some of us are on the left bank, then there is good reason to believe that a responsible pathologist will raise the time of death earlier.
In the 20 th century, any historical artistic event took place in Paris, and it must be argued that by 1940, everything was over, and a few months after the Second World War, the Paris school died from the German occupation and the decline of the Third Republic.
Any activity after that, even Picasso's, is just after
Relax the anatomical business of nipples and defecation and bladder.
In their fifties, some of us were thrilled by the gesture summaries of the hahedong and soul, the slow color patches of policov, the childish rebellion of the Cobra group in Amsterdam, Brussels and Copenhagen, and hard.
Abstract Realism by Nicholas de Steele has earned logic.
In a sense, all of this is memorable, and if we look back at them, we can see that their exploration is worth it, even though their painting is a dead end.
But, if we look back on the past, we have also rediscovered the Atran, manniser, pinte and other weak imitators of Paul Klee, they will think of Singier, bis late Fautrier and more incompetent people in various non-
The image is naive and worst of all, having to look again at image painters like Commere and Bernard Buffet (
Very popular replica in Woolworth)
We must admit that in their time, Paris was the representative of the veritable Paris institute, and Paris in its fifties was worse than Olympus.
There is no doubt that the "Paris Institute" is a convenient term referring to French painting in the first half of the 20 th century, but it is so loose except for the worst and most imitated garbage in various salons, so meaningless.
Paris is not only the site of the Eiffel Tower, but also the sacred heart of the Louvre and Notre.
Dame, Bois de Boulogne of Boulogne and all the other attractions we see in impressionist paintings, but also saw art dealers in their hundreds of art exhibitions.
For a long time, with the support of critics, collectors and intellectuals, Paris has been no less than the contemporary art market in the world;
If London has the Royal Academy and the new British Art Club exhibition every year, there will be 20 large or even larger Salon exhibitions in Paris.
With the passage of the century, the new salon was designed
The Tuileries salon of 1923, the Independent Salon, completely rejected the jury system of any kind, on 1929, in c.
1950, the "new salon", established to promote abstract art, established 1957 salons and the 30-to 40-year-old painter Biennale in 1946 and 1949.
Artists from Russia, the United States and Japan came to Paris from every European country;
In this complete international melting pot
The rent of the pot is very low, the studio and the model are easy to buy, and morality is a matter of private soul.
If there is any difference between the Impressionist Paris and the early 20 th century Paris, it is that the number of foreign artists has increased the number of French people who have attracted from the provinces to the prosperous market, but there was no clear line between centuries.
A city welcomes Sickert from the UK and Whistler ert from the United States, another city welcomes Chagall and Soutine from Russia, Modigliani from Italy and Diego from Mexico
Plus Christopher Wood, the "Paris Institute" is a meaningless term, which is already clear.
The Royal Academy avoided it.
The exhibition there is called "Paris: capital of art 1900-
1968 ", with the widest brush, it tries to show that art has developed more than half of many streams
The Century, on the one hand, shows the exchange of ideas and influences, on the other hand, also shows the obvious diversity of the purpose and achievements of those who have never seen Twain.
We see something of Cubism and savages, something of Duchamp's early playfulness, and how his imitators were forced to see how the rot that plagued all British art schools began;
We saw Picasso's classicism, but did not see the terrible decline of his post-war years.
We met the glitter and gloss of blancussi's polished sculpture, Duffy's lightness, and the mandatory passion of 10,000 painters for female nudity during the period;
We will inevitably encounter other aspects of Dali's dream and surrealism.
Due to coincidence with the Paul Cleary exhibition at the Hayward Gallery, the college's survey showed us something about the Paris World, which made him very excited during his important visit in 1912 --
Robert and Sonia Delone (
Numbers 28 and 40)
Especially after their date Klee and
So was Sophie Taber's appointment.
Arp and Otto.
Numbers 96 and 109).
The Barbican Gallery appeared a second accidental coincidence at the British art exhibition in its Fifties, because it not only showed the importance of the influence of Paris, but, in the stability of the British response, we can gain insight into the rise of such obvious interest and importance in British art in the 60 th century, and Paris, as the world center of contemporary art, is accelerating towards decline.
The Academy shows this terminal decline well with paintings and some other things.
Known as works of art, so shallow, so boring, so turbid and so mediocre that no one would doubt the post-war Paris, far from the capital of world art, has become the seventh circle of hell, it's not exactly like a punished sodomy, but those completely stupid Vanity disappears into their anal mouth.
Alas, this exhibition is too unbalanced due to the pressure of it in the final stage, this terrible long-winded Gotterdammerung, and we should perhaps interpret it, instead of being bored but trying to tease us to play with those silly toys now art schools, Serota tendencies and orthodox ideas that the college itself is familiar with, are obnoxious to hide and fear.
The biggest exhibit in the largest gallery is not an artwork, but a pavilion similar to the old-fashioned Paris pissoir, which features Duchamp and Man Ray's little jokes and is considered Duchamp's own witty reference.
The last room of the exhibition can easily be mistaken for the last year exhibition of any provincial art school, which is the clearest evidence that compared to the vast majority of larger, rougher people, paris has become so bold and tougher Art in New York in its thirties that when European painters first poured into the Atlantic, they ignored or abandoned Paris.
Paris began to decline at that time.
In the first 40 years of the 20 th century, what was the first half of the show?
Pointing out that the college didn't get the two most important photos of those years, or even the century, and that Picasso's "de manión" and "gernicka" seem a bit rude --
Although it includes a completed female character, there is no convincing relationship with the first character (
Certainly not directly for the study of painting)
The other is recognized (too small)
In the Directory
Think that Brak, Mattis, Bonar, vuar, and actually Picasso, are thin and (
But a picture)
Not worth representing.
It is not rude to assert that there is no great "school" in the Paris school that has a clear representation here;
None of the visitors should expect an introduction, and even at the level of Reader's Digest, should not expect an introduction to falls or Intimistes, Cubism, or surrealism, nor should he expect to see particularly good examples of any artist over the years --
The pictures borrowed from the dealers were so bad that they did not have any business with public exhibitions and their prices and the historical importance of art were raised by being included here.
Kupka, one of the most interesting Czechs, whose work deserves a single painting of an exhibition, must be unintelligible to anyone who knows nothing about this person;
The single kondingski is a poor person, and the single Lansing is a ridiculous person;
The single Beckman is an example of confusion, and the three Milos are a shameful choice;
To paint a tragic picture of modiliani as a portrait of Beatrice Hastings, it must be taken with great salt;
The single Hartung is not typical of chaos, and the single soul is not typical of dense.
Including Raymond Mason's pastrycook reliefs, a British sculptor whose work is notable for his constant rudeness and incompetence, which is beyond the understanding of sensible people, any substantial work by sculptor Germaine Richier is also excluded.
At the exit, numbed intellectually and aesthetically by so much dross, the visitor should open the heel and return to several rooms where he can enjoy the portrait of Picasso's Olga, the Eiffel Tower in delonai, maybe there are more than a dozen works worth seeing.
The catalogue lists and illustrates 282 exhibits.
This exhibition may be so interesting, exciting, enlightening, and even exciting-
God knows that even in the years of decline, the choice is wide enough, it is enough --
But the college only gave us a meaningless rag.
There are very few bags inside, not the second one. rate or worse.
The school in Paris is actually
Hydra is not chimaera, but the thing about Piccadilly is a fading Cheshire cat without a smile.
Royal Academy of Art Piccadilly w1. Daily 10-6. Admission £9. Until 19 April.