Genres: CoBrA

CoBrA was an art movement that was named for the cities it originated in: Copenhagen, Brussels and Amsterdam. 

After the horrors of World War II, a group of northern Europeans banded together to promote their vision of art with a series of exhibits, publications, and collaborations.  As a movement they existed for a few years in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

CoBrA favored expressionist painting techniques, spontaneity and experimentation. Inspired by the art of children, primitives, and the insane, they sought a kind of populism where art was made by and for everyone.

While their methods may leave their art crude and unresolved, their sense of art as a universal form of communication runs counter to the ever-present elitist tendencies that marginalize art in mass culture.

“Creation and revolutionary struggle have the same objective: the realization of life.” – Constant

Video: Sears Presents The Vincent Price Collection of Art

A sales training film from the 1960s

An amazing piece of art history: when Vincent Price sold art through Sears Roebuck.

Fine art was made available across the United States; over 50,000 pieces were sold. The idea that art could be popular with a general middle class audience is lost in this era of elitist art attitudes.

Remodernism is bringing art back to the people-all people. As it should be.

 

Influences: Francis Bacon

“The job of the artist is always to deepen the mystery.”

-Francis Bacon

A video depicting many paintings.

English painter Francis Bacon (1909 – 1992) used painterly distortion to express the existential angst and shock of the 20th century. The Hirshhorn Museum in Washington DC had an impressive collection of his works on display which I saw as a child, before I had any sense of what modern art was all about. His intense narratives and mysterious atmospheres haunt me to this day.

Commentary: Historical Perspective

I recently posted this on Facebook, attached to a video of Stuckism founder Charles Thomson discussing art history (see video here)
Remodernism founder Charles Thomson discusses the changes happening in the art world, which is of course a harbinger for changes happening in society in general. This is a time of the failure of the “experts.”
The self-absorbed post modern/conceptual art bias of the cultural industries has created a contemporary art bubble, where essentially valueless works exist to pander to creative class shibboleths.
Valuelessness doesn’t refer to price-it means there is no intrinsic human worth in the artifice that is passed off as art all around us. It explains why visual art is so marginalized in our current culture-what the “experts” present fail to fulfill the human need for art. They attempt to substitute an intellectual approximation of art. And no one outside of their echo chamber is interested.
But this is why I’m optimistic about the future of art. The monopoly of thought is being broken. Individuals are creating and promoting work that does not cater to the establishment expectations for art, and does not rely on the official channels of distribution. We don’t need or want their approval-they’ve been dead wrong for decades.
The current culture of nihlism, aloofness, and conformity encouraged by elitists cannot endure historical perspective. Remodernism presents the alternative of positive creation.

Video: How Stuckism Got Its Name

Remodernism grew out of a painterly art movement called Stuckism.

Like many art movements, the name of Stuckism grew out of an attempted criticism.

The Stuckists have generated much attention and controversy by their willingness to tackle art world dogma and celebrity worship. Stuckism is a much more recognizable “brand name” in the insular world of art, compared to the more generalized term of Remodernism.

Both movements were founded by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson, artists of great vision and integrity. They were able to precisely articulate the failings of establishment art, and suggest constructive alternatives.

History: Did Van Gogh Really Commit Suicide?

It did always strike me as a strange way to try to shoot yourself-in the chest, not directly at any vital organs.

Two authors suggest it was a case of manslaughter at best.

It would fit Vincent’s gentle, resigned nature at the time to protect some youngsters who had their whole lives ahead of them.

If true, it definately changes the dynamics of one of the most notorious martyrs to modern art.  Unfortunately the truth can never be known.