Are American art and literature dead?

[Jed Dilligan]

In 1950, the average American could name at least one painter (Jackson Pollock) and one poet (T.S. Eliot) who were living and working in this country and creating art that most critics admired.

I'm curious as to how many of us--the generally overeducated sample represented by DU--can say the same today? I don't mean your friend down the street who paints in her garage--kudos to her--but someone making their living doing either fine art painting or writing poems, nationally renowned and critically acclaimed. Note that "contemporary" means "alive" in this particular world.

Note that this is not an attempt to call people out on their ignorance. Rather, I blame the art itself for not drawing our attention.

edit: typo

[msongs]

1. art is fine - the average american only wants instant gratification nt

[Deja Q]

75. Americans aren't taught to hold out for a more fulfilling gratification.

Innately, we want things *now* *now* *now*. TV and fast flashy adverts haven't helped. Everybody wants fast results because, as they say, "time is money".

One day, we might go faster than we should?

[Cobalt Violet]

2. I can name many. I blame the ignorant, not the art.

[SteppingRazor]

3. Question: Why must literature be immediately tied to poetry?

Isn't it just as suitable for us to be able to name a novelist or essayist?

[Jed Dilligan]

7. Mainly because I wanted to filter out

pop authors like Tom Clancy without too much verbiage.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

15. What about "pop poets"? I'm sure a lot of Americans think they know quite a few poets--

50 Cent, Eminem, and who could forget the mighty Isaac Brock!

[Jed Dilligan]

30. Don't forget Jewel

At least her product is marketed as poetry, which rap isn't. Most of the hip hoppers I know would go into homosexual-paranoia convulsions if you suggested that what they liked was poetry!

[Posteritatis]

90. Funny, most of the ones I know think it's exactly that. (nt)

[AnotherGreenWorld]

4. I can name one contemporary painter and one contemporary poet

Neither America's art nor its literature is dead. It's just not very good, and it never has been. The same, really, can be said of American music--with a few exceptions (Rzewski for example).

[Raskolnik]

13. Amercian music not very good!?

I would respectfully suggest that any place that produced Duke Ellington and Johnny Cash in the same century can coast for a while.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

17. Not good in comparison to Russia, Germany, or France at least with respect to classical music.

[Raskolnik]

24. Music is much more than just classical, however.

I will concede the point that American classical music isn't exactly thriving.

But I would also argue that Birth of the Cool is superior to just about any classical music produced in the last fifty years.

[Terran]

116. "Classical" is an entirely relative term

Currently most people apply it any European music composed between about 1500 and 1900 involving traditinal instruments and arrangements. But much of what we call "classical" today was critically panned in its own time. That's true of a lot of highly respcted artistic movements, notably Impressionism and Cubism.

In other words, I like the long view taken by the poster above who mentioned Duke Ellington and Johnny Cash. In terms of the way we look at art in the long-run, much of the 20th century, the first half anyway, may well be viewed as a flourishing period of American 'classical music'. It was just that good. Plus a lot of what's good now just isn't well known (ironically, in the Internet Age); doesn't mean it's not out there.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

119. How does defining, for no reason, the term classical music equate to

liking "the long view"?

Regardless, who are these great American composers of whom you speak? Elliott Carter? La Monte Young? Philip Glass? Steve Reich? Charles Ives? Frederic Rzewski? John Adams? (I hope not...) Perhaps you count Arnold Schönberg as an American composer?

There are a handful of good, maybe even great, American composers. But America has never had a Stravinsky, let alone a Ravel.

[Posteritatis]

121. And Russia never produced a Hendrix. So what?

Really, this kinda feels like narrowing "art and literature" down to very specific genres just to prove a nonexistent point. It seems like you're implying that the US is somehow "behind" culturally because it's not producing a good enough repertoire of classical music - never mind that it's completely awash in vast amounts of extremely good music in a variety of other styles, by a variety of other artists.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

123. Hendrex, however much you like him, is not on the level of a Stravinsky.

And yeah, American culture is vastly inferior, especially its literature, popular American opinion to the contrary.

[Posteritatis]

126. I'm rather curious as to how you define levels and qualities. (nt)

[Terran]

127. I'm just saying that

"classical" is a fluid concept. 200 years from now, if we're still around, who knows what artists will be considered "classical"? I would certainly bet on Duke Ellington, if not Johnny Cash. And yes, certainly Philip Glass I would consider a contemporary classical composer, and Charles Ives too. How many great composers should we have around right now?

Also, I strongly disagree with your statement that we've never had a Stravinsky (much less a Ravel!). What about Gershwin? What about Aaron Copeland?

(edit: typo)

[AnotherGreenWorld]

128. Comparing Gerswhin and Copeland to Stravinsky is like

comparing Raymond Carver and Philip Roth to Shakespeare.

America is a land of mediocrity, not greatness.

[Sanctified]

5. I am not really a big Art or Poetry fan so I cannot name anyone critics might admire.

I know two closet artist who do beautiful work but their work never leaves their houses.

[MikeE]

6. What about composers?

Let's incclude contemporary classical music as well. It is unfortunate that art education isn't treated with importance in this country.

[Jed Dilligan]

9. Good points

I can't name a living composer--I've never had a lot of access to classical music. (I like to see music live and classical is generally out of my price range.)

[Bluebear]

12. Eric Whitacre - sublime

http://www.myspace.com/ericwhitacre

[Wednesdays]

48. Qualify that to exclude composers like John Williams

who are talented, but who built their reputations on writing for TV, high-profile movies, or gigantic Broadway productions. It's very hard to name living composers who spend most of their time composing for concerts. Not in this country, anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

62. LOL. Shall we exclude Mendhelson and Wagner from the pantheon

of classical musicians - since what they wrote for was cheap popular entertainment? Pucinni? Verdi?

Musicians have always composed for one reason - to make a living at what they loved. John Williams has done some extraordinary compositions - and a lot of derivitive schlock. His best compares favorably with any classical composer. There are, and ever will be, very few Mozarts out there (and his Magic Flute was a cheap, popular entertainment, and some of his best work).

[EFerrari]

66. Shhh! You're giving away secrets!

My brother used to play the award shows. One night, he got nicely in place and realized he was an inch away from Williams who was directing medley of his movie stuff. He told me he barely looked up again until is was over, lol.

[glowing]

37. Well, and artistic point of view is often abstract and objective... It creates

a sense of wonder, beauty, and thought.... and what would happen if people stopped, thought, and appreciated... the rat world would come to a grind.. that's why the lose the music and art programs at school... non-essential my ass.

[dipsydoodle]

8. I'm sure the colored in copies

of George's biography - I Book Wot I Wrote, will trigger a revival in interest for you.

[Jed Dilligan]

11. Are you implying something? nt

[dipsydoodle]

19. I didn't mean you

literally.

[librechik]

10. What happened to American Art? 9/11.

Now Iraq. We are evil mass murderers of children. How do we celebrate that?

Eric Fischl (living artist) was asked to make a sculpture for a Ney York location. He made a bronze sculpture of a nude man falling, perhaps about to hit the ground. To me it sounded like the most exquisite voice of the people. The only thing an artist could depict and be true.

The sculpture lasted one day after unveiling. No one could stand to look at it: too painful! It was removed.

Artists are confused and furious about who America is. The only art we can make with impact is too graphic for viewers! Eric Fischl is perhaps the most famous and successful living US artist. What hope do we lesser artists have?

Try to sell something. Buyers are so intimidated and frightened, nothing controversial can make it thru the screening process. Maybe something pink for over the couch. (That's not ART!)

Time to put away the paint and paper and become a revolutionary. Not all have the stomach for that.

[cgrindley]

26. nonsense, 9/11 and the war have been great for art

But then again, war is always a good time for art. EG the paintings of Otto Dix, Picasso's Guernica. Goya's May 3, 1808. Homer's The Iliad, not to mention everything from Catch-22 and Slaughterhouse 5 to Apocalypse Now and Jarhead.

Today, just to consider a little painting, we have works as divergent as Botero's Abu Ghraib paintings and Graydon Parrish's "The Cycle of Terror and Tragedy"... check it out, it's below. about 20 feet long in the New Britain Gallery of American Art in CT.



I'll go even further than that when considering film. 9/11 and Iraq has already made themselve felt in any number of films--not just war movies, but everything, eg Munich, War of the Worlds, etc

It's a good time to be an artist. There's nothing worse for art than stability and peace. Or do you think that the Renaissance would have been possible without the Plague, the Schism, the 100 Years War, the Peasant's Revolt, the crop failures and the banking failures all happening at the same time? Art thrives on chaos and death.

[EFerrari]

47. I blame global warming more than fleas and Papists, myself.

lol

Can we say art thrives on change which can include chaos and death? It's so early to be so grisly. :)

[cgrindley]

53. Naw... I gotta stick with chaos and death

positive change makes for lousy art... eg it took the civil war and the fight against slavery for the US to create its first great works of art. The golden age of American federalism produced diddly squat in comparison.

[EFerrari]

56. But what about all the Elizabethan poets? That was a fairly

peaceful and prosperous period.

I don't know as much about American poetry. Phylis Wheatley was writing before the war, wasn't she?

/ack

[cgrindley]

69. The Elizabethan age was violent and horrible

the plague hung around London until the place burnt to the ground in the 1660s, there were constant purges against Catholics/Protestants depending on the monarch in power, there was a huge war with Spain (the armada), and there was a violent race to secure the world for British trade, not to mention less than peaceful relations with half of europe. Not to mention the very real (and eventual) rebellion by the Puritans...

Elizabeth I was a powerful and dynamic woman who ruled well despite the forces constantly fighting against her. Look at how many of her boyfriends got beheaded. Look at all the plots and insurrections. She was lucky even to live through childhood.

Naw, the Elizabethan age was just as horrible as one would imagine.

[EFerrari]

73. The Elizabethan age wasn't violent and horrible for the English.

The plague did close the theaters occasionally but so did the Privy Council in the name of the plague as a crowd control measure.

The only monarch during the Elizabethan Age was Elizabeth.

The Armada didn't affect more than the handful of people who actually fought. Neither did British piracy. Neither did the execution of the plotters.

[cgrindley]

76. Of course it was

The Bubonic plague hit London at least a dozen times from 1500-1660. From the year 1556 to 1563, for example, the plague returned in a manner unseen since the collapse of Feudal Britain in the mid fourteenth century and managed to wipe out a staggering 1800 people per week until an unusually cold period of weather again stopped the disease in its tracks. During these horrible years, Queen Elizabeth fled to Windsor castle and ordered that anyone attempting to visit her would be immediately hung on a brand new set of gallows she had constructed for that very purpose. In 1578, when the plague struck again, Elizabeth ordered the closure of tavern houses, play houses and alehouses. In 1578, if the parish records can be trusted (and sometimes, they cannot be) 150,000 Londoners died. Similar outbreaks occurred in 1586, 1591, 1593 and 1596. Some of these periods were accompanied by massive crop failures; it was a difficult time for anyone in England. Even the relatively minor outbreaks were significant; the visitation of 1591 killed 15,000 people in London.

This was not a crowd control measure. This was hell on earth.

And let's be more precise and look at the reigns of Edward VI-James I/VI. During this time period, it was constant war.

To consider the English Renaissance some sort of golden peaceful time is erroneous.

[EFerrari]

80. I was speaking precisely of the Elizabethan poets, not the mess

before or after her reign. The entire period wasn't peaceful, of course not. But the years of her reign were relatively peaceful and prosperous.

And yes, the Privy Council did use fear of the plague as a crowd control measure because it worked. They did everything in their power, in fact, to regulate the theaters from scripts to where plays could be mounted to who was allowed to form a company.

You are right about the years of the worst outbreaks. But, that didn't stop people from living -- which is why the Council had to order theaters and taverns closed, right? :)

[cgrindley]

100. But the poets and dramatists led short miserable lives

a number of them had heads chopped off, many others died young. For example, out of the great circle of dramatists working in London in the late 1580s and early 1590s--eg Marlowe, Watson, Peele, Nashe, Greene, and Shakespeare--Shakespeare was the only one to make it into his 40s. You should give Greenblatt's Will in the World a read. It's an awesome read. A stupendous nail in the New Historicist coffin.

[EFerrari]

105. The last time I saw Greenblatt, he was pitching subjectivity

much to the amusement of those of us who, in the same department, had been dissed by him for pitching subjectivity.

lol

[cgrindley]

107. He's really reinvented himself lately, and three cheers for that

his latest stuff is a hell of a lot more enjoyable than all that Renaissance Self Fashioning crap, and less intellectually and anthropologically suspect. Reading the actual text and metaphorically jerking it is a thousand times more fun than comparing dozens of different Elizabethan charters.

[EFerrari]

108. He had to reinvent himself because he was wrong.

I haven't been in the academy for a decade, so I'm not up to speed. But Greenblatt was always about Greenblatt and not about the task at hand.

[cgrindley]

110. Well, everyone secretly knew that

the singularly most idiotic facet of New Historicist thought was that prior to the Renaissance, people had an entirely different concept of "self". They never had a shred of biological evidence, no textual evidence... I have no idea whose foolish idea it was originally. And then they had the brilliant but soul-destroying admission that the past could not be reconstructed due to interference from the present and from the individual scholar's biases... it really was the counsel of utter despair.

There was basically nowhere it could go. Annabel the Cannibal jumped ship first, and the whole house of cards continues to collapse. Good thing. I'm actually hoping that the entire post-structuralist world goes to hell and we can all return to self-absorbed New Criticism, which is a thousand times more fun to write.

[EFerrari]

111. I caught him on some show and emailed my mentor.

"Am I insane or did I just watch Greenblatt arguing that Elizabethans had interiority?"

LOL!

I call your New Crit, and raise you Reader's response.

(Omg, I guess we've outted ourselves as lit geeks. :) )

[Wednesdays]

55. Art thrives on chaos and death?

I'm hard-pressed to think of a "chaos and death" painting by Monet. Or by just about any Impressionist artist for that matter. :shrug:

[cgrindley]

72. Impressionism is hardly great art (nt)

[EFerrari]

84. The is a relationship between aggression and art, even sadism

and art in the sense that you have to be willing to destroy in order to make something, and you have to be able to enjoy your own destructiveness -- that high that can accompany "making".

Friction is good for art, imho. I think that "chaos and death" may be an overstatement but have to think about it. :)

[RainDog]

117. impressionism in its time WAS chaotic and threatening.

it wasn't representational and didn't employ classicism and didn't use the mighty and powerful as its subjects. the muddled views of those strokes or points was a threat.

now it's so well known and we've had so many changes in life that it no longer seems to have ever been a statement of difference. Monet was not allowed to exhibit at first and he and others opened an "anti-salon" for artists.

[librechik]

78. you're right about that--I'm still just traumatized, I guess

Still in mourning mode. Think I'll come out pretty soon, tho.

Where is all the chaos art? I can't find it in the larger venues. There's a terrible atmosphere of censorship. Republicans in office is a terrible time for art. They hate it, for one thing. And they cut funding. When flag burning is made into a CRIME, you know it's a dangerous time to be an artist. It's the street artists that have it good, nowadays, as far as freedom of expression goes. (Hope they have day jobs. And they close Guantanamo.)

Where is the big blockbuster antiwar movie like M*A*S*H*? How about a big, influential anti-war news organ, like Rolling Stone ultimately became? (Maybe TDS/Colbert can help--I wishe there was something like that on every channel instead of isolated on cable.)

We need a more liberal atmosphere before we come out from our hiding places in the universities and art co-ops.

Maybe artists have to make the revolution so that other artists can prevail. Who are they? Where?

[cgrindley]

93. You answered your own question with that one

TDS/Colbert would not exist without Bush. This is the twenty-first century's answer to Rolling Stone Magazine.

[Forrest Greene]

86. Saw That There

Quite a piece of work.

[cgrindley]

102. Some like it, others hate it

but everyone has an opinion on it. It's something to see at the gallery, I'll say that much.

[marions ghost]

40. good point I agree that

Americans have become more sensitized to images, especially disturbing images --since 9-11 and the extended carnage and devastation of Iraq. It's hard to do any kind of political art that will be shown publicly now. People do NOT want to see it. A local artist where I am was commissioned to do a public art piece that verged on social/political critique. After years of wrangling, it was never done. These projects have been successfully killed all over the country. Art funding is at an all time low. And since it's left up to the rich to support the arts, you tend to see only a certain kind of decorative art, not art that makes you think.

But you know it goes back further than the Bush regime. After the Reagan era restoration of Republican family values, despite that some very powerful socio-political art was done during that period, art became a convenient political football for the Neo-cons and Neanderthals in the 90's. Good ol' vigilante wingnut Jesse Helms among others waged a very successful campaign against any form of reality depictions or artistic expressions that aren't all sweetness and light. Rap music, poetry & some comedy performers have managed to break through this stranglehold. But it's really been going on for two decades now. It's nothing new.

[stirlingsliver]

14. Several Poets

I know the names of several contemporary American poets.

50 cent, Ludicris, SnoopDog. All GREAT American poets.

[mondo joe]

16. I don't think you could get consensus in this age on a poet or artist in order to have

them be "nationally renowned and critically acclaimed".

And I think that's about kneejerk reactions on the right and left ends of the spectrum.

[Annces]

18. Maybe America's ego

finally got so big, it exploded like a balloon. Pollock died at a fairly young age, due to pressures similar to Marilyn Monroe IMO. Even the art world needs icons for some reason. There are always great poets and artists, why do we need to name them and have them be famous?

Edit to add Morandi

http://imgred.com/

[mopinko]

25. polluck was half dead before he ever sold a painting

he was already an alcoholic. i never liked polluck. the inside of an insane mind is an interesting place to visit, but i don't think it is that great. i guess some do. maybe in the sense that it is an accurate depiction of it's subject, it gets some good marks.
pretty recently dead, but survived by his artist wife, leon golub was a force that helped to end the viet nam war. his giant canvases of blood and gore actually sold, and made news. his wife, nancy spero, still works and sells, and is in many museums. they raised 4 kids in manhattan on the money they made from their work.
many, many people earn a humble daily bread with their brushes.
sorry about the poet thing, i mostly read du, and brianless crap.

[Monk06]

129. Another Morandi fan !!!!! n/t

[cgrindley]

20. Example sucks... Eliot wasn't American in 1950 nor did he live here...

It's a little ironic... don't cha think?

I'll go further than the OP. People today typically have such terrible taste that they think Anne Geddes and Thomas Kinkaid are artists. There's very little hope.

[stirlingsliver]

22. What About The "Artist" Who Does Those Lovely Photos?

What about the "artist" who does those lovely photos of long-eared dogs, dressed up as people?

They are ever so cute.

[cgrindley]

29. ahhhh... the immortal William Wegman

I guess his stuff is no worse than Jeff Koons' in a way, but no matter what your stance is on the dog photos being art, I have to forgive Wegman for his work with Sesame Street...

Now that I think about it seriously, if anything, his photographs are more or less critical commentary on the utter banality and intellectual bankruptcy of Annie Leibovitz's works. Wegman is also known for his cynical conceptual works... he's not just a dog photographer, and not only holds a good MFA but teaches at an art college in Boston.

[Tesha]

43. If Thomas Kinkade doesn't count...

(Now that I have your attention ;) )

How about...

No, he's dead.

Or...

No, he's dead too.

Maybe...

Wait, she's dead as well.

What about...

No, he's German *AND* dead!

I guess we'll have to settle for Robert Rauschenberg and
Jasper Johns. And, oh yeah, Peter Max ain't dead yet!

Okay, I've got the artists covered.

Poets?

Well, I've heard Charles Simic's name (since he currently
lives in New Hampshire), but I sure couldn't recall his
name in a hurry.

Will you accept Garrison Keillor? How about Robert Zimmerman ;) ?

Tesha

[cgrindley]

46. Next time you're in a Barnes and Noble

go to the magazine section and pick up an issue of Poetry Chicago... you'll have all your bases covered. And hit the local galleries... if you're in New Hamster, there are some pretty good galleries and museums all over your state... shame the Currier is closed, but it has a good web presence...

http://www.currier.org/

or check out this site

http://art-collecting.com/nonprofits_nh.htm

I think that people just need to get out and about once in a while and to give the arts a chance.

[marions ghost]

21. what kind of art or writing

would draw your attention?

There are so many artists and writers in this country--more than ever. This activity is not dead. (Pronouncing it dead is done periodically to sell magazines).

Poetry in particular has a grassroots audience now--it's not all dominated by the academic arena. Other than academia, a lot of artist/writers work in the more applied forms of art, media, design etc. because it's hard to make a living otherwise. One of the problems about connecting with it is that it's increasingly difficult to find places to hold cultural events.

It's hard for me to believe that there is no artist, writer, poet, indy filmmaker etc. who draws your attention with so many out there. There's literally something for everybody now. It used to be everybody kind of followed a leader in the arts. That era is certainly dead.

How would you like to be exposed to your kind of art? Are the usual forms of access not working for you? I live near a major university, so there's usually more than enough exposure. But maybe you have other experience. For example should more art/lit exposure be done through internet or DVDs?

I'm assuming you asked the Q with some specific interest or concern about it. Often people think art should only be about entertainment, or at least they can't differentiate between art for purposes other than entertainment.

So what's your point of view? :)

[Colorado Progressive]

23. fine art original sales have virtually stopped since the shrub

sad but true. being in a gallery is like sitting in a dark closet any more.

[cgrindley]

32. That's utter codswollop

a large number of contemporary American artists have acheived new records in the last 8 years. The horrors of the Bush administration have been very good for the art market and prices have recovered nicely after stagnating under Clinton's peaceful rule.

http://www.artnet.com/net/Services/MarketTrends.aspx

PS art doesn't like peace. art likes war, violence, terror and chaos. those forces inspire great art and make for new auction records as people become more nervous about currency.

[marions ghost]

51. Blue chip visual artists do well in a nervous economy...true

to a certain extent--but what about the next tier down? The artists vying for attention in a tight market. I'm talking about artists who do have New York galleries or other big city markets, and critical acclaim. I know a few. They would tell you that there's very inconsistent support. I'm not sure these artists will ever have anything like the financial success of their predecessors.

And on down to the artists in regional markets who are really not selling well. As far as responding to the economy, art is a luxury item like jewelry. But it is also something that is typically free for the average person to appreciate--or at a relatively modest fee if you go to museums or performances. Public funding for the arts has been decimated all over the country. Academic support languishes as science and technology get the big money. Times are very hard for local art organizations. So I think the perspective of the most sought after works for wealthy investors is really only a part of the story.

Visual art may be a luxury item, but you don't have to buy art to appreciate it.

[cgrindley]

58. Yeah but the next tier down always complains, indeed they do little else...

what's the famous saying about the avant garde?

They advance on their knees, shaking their fists.

I collect Canadian pop art and own a few dozen paintings of merit. I've donated to institutional galleries in Canada, and in the States, I have commissioned and curated one show (at Yale of new paintings of Dante's Inferno). I know lots and lots of starving artists. But I also know more than a few people who sell for 10k a painting.

Art is a cruel world. Lots and lots of people get chewed up and spat out by it. There's a never-ending supply at the bottom and it takes luck and talent and self-promotion to make it. It's a harsh thing and I'd say 95% of artists end up failing in their careers.

But I think that it's always been this way. There's very little wall space out there. The problem with comparing today's up and coming artists with their predecessors is that they're comparing themselves to people who actually did make it, not with the ones who failed and started selling vacuums.

[marions ghost]

95. In this society

ask yourself why "95% end up failing in their careers." And answer it honestly. The cream does not always rise to the top, no matter what the prices being paid.

[cgrindley]

97. But it's always been that way

95% have always failed and it's always been really arbitrary who succeeded and who failed. Heck, by his standards, van Gogh failed. He was only vindicated much much later. On the other hand... for the most part I do trust history to set things straight.

[Colorado Progressive]

104. but selling more than one piece a year would be nice too!

[cgrindley]

109. Yeah, but you know...

It's all so random. All it takes is the sudden urge to by a canoe, or a flat screen tv and then... blam! I'm not buying a new painting. It's that arbitrary. I suppose most buyers are like me... it's just not an obsession.

[marions ghost]

113. somehow

I don't think you're talking about Van Gogh when you talk about the "95% who fail" today....

How is history going to set anything straight in this post-historical world?

[Colorado Progressive]

103. right.

[marions ghost]

114. I can see

you and I are on the same page :toast:

Too strenuous in this format here to debate all the issues, but the relevance of visual art in this age of mass production and infinite entertainment choices is certainly a reasonable topic.

[Wednesdays]

59. "Art likes war" isn't necessarily true

If so, then 1939-1945 would have been a golden era for art. Now, I admit there was some good art from that time, but I doubt anyone would call it a "golden era."

[cgrindley]

74. Yes, art loves war

take a look at what happened in the art world immediately following either WWI in terms of Austrian and German Expressionism (Dix, Nolde, Kirchner, Grosz etc), not to mention the works of the Modernists and the Lost Generation of writers and poets and artists and musicians.. or immediately following WWII... all of the abstract expressionists, all the great writers such as Heller, Vonnegut for example, all of the great architects who had to flee the Nazis and who used their art to argue against the politics of totalitarianism... even consider what happened to art following Korea and Vietnam (especially with regards to film)...

We're just lucky right now in that the conflict in Iraq is minor enough to get artists thinking without necessarily sending them in harm's way.

Art needs blood and it doesn't care where it gets it from.

[BlooInBloo]

27. Well there's no *market* for it. Americans are illiterate and stupid.

[cgrindley]

39. Wrong wrong wrong... the market for both are better than ever

In 1996, 68k new titles were published in the US. In 2005, 160k new titles were published in the US. The historic low since 1970 something, by the way, was from 1990-1992 under Bush and then Clinton when only 40k new titles were published in the US. Of course, those were relatively preaceful times.

http://www.uis.unesco.org/TEMPLATE/html/CultAndCom/Table_IV_5_America.html

[AnotherGreenWorld]

41. But the market for serious literature is very small, and getting smaller.

[cgrindley]

42. That's not true either

The market for literary fiction is the strongest it has ever been. Just walk into a bookstore. Also, it's amusing to compare the sales figures for the year of release and 5 or 10 years later for genre work with literary fiction. Remember that, too. Tom Clanchy might sell books at the time, but 10 years from now... out of print and left in a ditch by Dave Eggers.

Talk about the death of literary fiction has been going on for hundreds of years. It's not true.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

44. I'm talking about serious literature. Tom Clancy, JK Rowling, Steven King, etc. do not count.

Serious literature isn't dead; it's just underappreciated.

[EFerrari]

45. King's critical essays are brilliant and they count.

:)

[cgrindley]

50. I wouldn't go that far

he knows his stuff, that's for sure, and his critical essays are readable, but some of his opinions are a little too eccentric to make for really good scholarship.

[EFerrari]

61. Good scholarship is eccentric -- another way to say, original.

[cgrindley]

49. So am I

compare the historic sales of King's novels in the year of release vs their sales today against the sales of literary fiction released at the same time vs today... genre work doesn't have staying or growing power, whereas literary fiction does...

What was the most popular book in 1922? Was it James Joyce's Ulysses? How about now? Can you even get a reprint of a Tom Swift novel?

How about the 16th century? Who had more sales? John Donne or Robert Crowley? The answer isn't Donne. He sold like ass. But today... Crowley's poetry is virtually unreadable and is widely ignored. And yet it went through edition after edition at the time.

That's just the way it is.

[BlooInBloo]

67. Yah - it's practically all crap - matching the mentalities of its consumers....

... But my apologies - I erroneously took the OP to be talking about *quality* art and literature. As opposed to, for example, different-just-for-the-sake-of-being-different "art", or I'm-more-cynical-than-you-are "literature".

[SutaUvaca]

28. Okay, I'll play.

How about poets Maya Angelou and Mary Oliver?
As for painters, I own a gallery (soon to close down due to lack of fine art buyers)so I tend to know a lot of contemporary painters.
Two of the best regional painters are John Mac Kah, here in North Carolina, and Sammy Britt in Mississippi.

Generally though I think in our country if you're not in an area where fine arts flourish already, most of the people are fairly uninformed, or if knowledgeable, will tend to feel culturally isolated. Just my opinion, from the corner of my cabinet' d'amateur.

[porphyrian]

31. Why do you blame art rather than the media?

Now that virtually all media is corporate, the only "art" they talk about is their own or is self-promotional. If you aren't aware of all the artists alive and working in America today, I blame you for not really looking.

[Jed Dilligan]

35. I've looked--and not been inspired.

I think postmodern art is crap, though I generally buy into the critical theory. (Art based on theory is doomed to be crap.) The only paintings lately that have blown me away have come out of Asia.

[porphyrian]

36. So this is really just about your personal preference in art...

...and the fact that you haven't really looked very hard, because there are plenty of artists in America today who aren't postmodern. Five minutes and Google, you lazy bastid.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Jim__]

34. "... I blame the art itself for not drawing our attention."

Art has more competition today. Commercial movies, home-made video, TV, the internet, etc. Some of it fits into the same space that art and literature fit into.

[Posteritatis]

89. Good chunks of those are themselves art

Haute culture's always just been one part of the whole concept, and I don't think it's fair to look down on the other stuff just because it might be too plebian.

Besides, even within stuff like, say, televised SF, I can find quite a few episodes of one show or another that I'd consider artwork in the rhetorical rather than just the literal sense.

Basically, I think you're saying that art's competing with art. ;)

(edit: i kan spel gud)

[HamdenRice]

38. Rap = mass market poetry; this is a great era for poetry

And I'm not a rap fan. But when I hear the handwringing about the decline of poetry, I don't buy it. Not all of it is gangsta, sexist crap, either.

This is probably the greatest era for the popularity of popular poetry in the history of the United States.

Has there ever been a period when popular tv programs had "poetry slams" that filled entire theaters with hundreds of kids in the audience cheering, stomping their feet and appluading?

KRS-1 for example, is a pretty damned good poet.

What has declined is literary commercial poetry -- such as you would find in the New Yorker, but it's entirely possible that its audience has gone elsewhere and is still enjoying poetry.

[Posteritatis]

87. Good point

I heard someone the other day describe rap as, largely, "the poetry of rage," which was certainly a new angle on it for me, along the line that you're describing there.

Now and then I decide to pick up a new genre of music, something I almost never (or actually never) listen to, and try to see if I can get an appreciation for it. Haven't found a genre where I haven't been able to do that, and rap's certainly no exception, even if I'm half-limited to the big names simply due to not really knowing who all's out there.

[AnotherGreenWorld]

92. "KRS-1 for example, is a pretty damned good poet."--not really.

(static) Yo they comin'. It's crazy but I know it they comin'. Maybe not
lately I feel it coming. I knew it, they comin'. (static) This just in.
President (static) I guarentee (static) Jim...Jimmy, Jimmy wake up. Jimmy!
(static) Only the Lord can save (static) 5.99 no obligation (static) Let me
start to rock this mic (static) Now the polar bear hybernates (static) And
and what was going through your mind right now.

KRS-1:
Look aat these weak MC's getting G's
Never wore BVD's or even bellbottom Lees
Please, with these fantisies about you selliing keys
When you know you bees in front of the TV eatin' grilled cheese
On your knees you know my steez
Kris is nice with theses M-I-Cs
I'm Poison like BBD the plot thickens while I be hitten
And lyric lickin', flippin' any mix and over the skippin'
And cable clippin', still sickenin'
Even though some people ain't admitting
Through they system I keeps it kickin'
And tippin' the scale I pay tuiton not bail
Drink water not ale, MC Hammer hits it right on the nail
I can't fail with my 7 stripes
Strike one pierces the lung over the drum MC's become dumb
Like "um?" They numb, bite the tongue over the bass drum
I am D the MC like Run, spittin' lyrics for fun
And for a sum of the bread crumb
You missed when you swung, I connected whole hum
Another one done underestimated KRS-1, yeah so...

Redman: Say blowe
KRS-1: If you really want true skill
Redman: Say blowe
KRS-1: If you want the hip hop to build
Redman:Say blowe
KRS-1: We rock it all year round
Redman: You better cool the F out before we go up in your mouth

KRS-1:
It's just beguuuun, to bubble
KRS-Onnnne spells trouble
On the mic soooon there is no double
I emerge from under the rumble
Count the truth poetic construction, audio abduction
Showbiz production for wack lyric reduction
And fly rhyme instruction keep the party hoppin'
Keep the DJs buggin' for the orthodox
Non Xerox hip hop chatter box
It was dope first crack out the box with Scott LaRock
How MC's are washed up like sweat socks
KRS-1 makes the heads nod

Hook

Redman: KRS-1
KRS-!: Yes my son
Redman: Tweet tweet (x2)
KRS-1: You know they can't compete, ain't that right
Redman:
No doubt. You better cool the F out before we go up in your mouth

KRS-1:
When it's my turn kid, look at what you done did
Like my head is dreadable you edible
I kick incredible shit, for my poeple
I'm jackin' these like me so sue and Stretch like Bobbito overloops
While you sittin' on stoops I'm rockin' mics for U.S. troops in group
You screwed up, oops, I can read a true crook
Like I can read a good book
I'm hooked on hip hop culture
Look at the tip top lyrical structure
Floatin' like a soap bubble that you don't wann puncture
Or rupture, I write what I udder, mother mother mother
There's too many of us dying still trying and not doin'
Not suceeding still pursueing what you doing?
What you doing? What you doing?
The session is started departed on schedule
I beg you please lookover my lyrical menu
What other can't do I can do
Enhancing 7 levels of your mental
I dismantel stress, you're listening to the advanced lyrical best
Worldwide qualified to administer any MC test
Stop guessin' class is in full session
Now Showbiz show 'em how

http://www.lyricsdepot.com/krs-one/blowe.html

[fishnfla]

52. I think you answered your own question

if you equate "art and literature" with "painting and poetry" only, and presume to be amongst a better educated crowd, then yes, they are beyond dead.

heaven help us

[blogslut]

54. Art is never dead

I suppose you're referring to America's capitalist art industry as opposed to government supported programs in countries such as the U.K., France and Japan. Then again, you might be pining for the excitement that used to surround artistic mold-breakers such as Pollock. Like the Dadaists, the impressionists and the naturalists before him, Pollock re-interpreted the very definition of art. Artists that seem tame today were once rebels too. Whistler wasn't extraordinary because he painted a nice picture of his mother, he shook the art world because he dared to portray ordinary people instead of the wealthy and powerful. The Dadaists took the the scraps and bits around them and forced viewers to understand that any material can become an artist's medium.

Maybe I'm lucky but I happen to know quite a few artists that do indeed make a living with their assorted talents. Some of them are good and one or two are geniuses. American art is not dead. As long as there is a surface to scrawl on or an idea to assemble, there will always be art, even in the U.S.A.

I rented a DVD the other night that I found very interesting. It's called "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?" Very revealing documentary about the art world.

[fishnfla]

63. Right on, art and culture only change with time

therein is the beauty

[RaleighNCDUer]

57. I cannot name either a poet or an artist -

but I can name any number of authors and filmmakers. And more than a couple photographers. Poetry and painting are not my artistic media, and hold little interest for me. I'm much more in tune with filmmakers are writers.

And some painters, like Pollock, should have stayed in their garages.

I'm no artist, but I know what I don't like.

[SmokingJacket]

60. Of course not! It's just overshadowed by pop entertainment.

There are tons of great poets. TONS. Most every college in the country has at least one half-way decent one. But -- like a lot art, you have to expose yourself to lots of it in order to appreciate it. I'm not a snob. But just because a person who never reads poetry doesn't "get" it doesn't mean it's no good.

People expect to be entertained by art without having to put forth any effort. That's fine -- but when you learn a lot about a subject, get all the background, experience the way it's changed over time... the pleasure and enjoyment you get out of it is much deeper. JMHO.

Visual art is not my thing, but I started to enjoy it a bit more when my husband worked at a museum, and I just learned more about it through osmosis.

(Incidentally -- very few artists or poets make a living solely by their art. Most teach or have other incomes.)

[maxsolomon]

64. i reject the premise of this poll.

you draw a dividing line through a continuum of culture that runs from high to low; poetry to tattoing & car customization.

i can name thousands of american musicians; classical, jazz, country, folk, hip hop, rock.

american music is culture.

poetry & painting are not the only 2 provinces of high culture.

[marions ghost]

79. true but

American music is not thought to be "dead."

I think that's what the OP is implying--that visual art and poetry are not very relevant today.
Certainly no one could say that about music.

Music is increasingly accessible. It's not being left out--in fact it's the main cultural medium today. I don't think anyone would debate that.

[fishwax]

65. Reports of the death of art and literature are greatly exaggerated

And, further, reports of the death of art and literature have been common for decades now--see, for example, Q. D. Leavis's Fiction and the Reading Public, which came out in the 1930s and bemoaned the fact that the "ignorant masses" preferred Edgar Rice Burroughs to T. S. Eliot or Virginia Woolf.

Incidentally, I don't think T. S. Eliot was living and working in America in 1950.

I would imagine that what critics might call "serious" writers (I know less about visual artists, but wouldn't be surprised if it were the case in that field as well) command a similar share of the market to what they have in decades past.

It's true that poetry, in particular, doesn't hold the generally exalted place that it once did in the public view of literature, but I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing, as forms and genres tend to wax and wane over time ...

[BlooInBloo]

70. Given that overall publishing quantity has drastically increased...

.... in order for your hypothesis to be true, would require that the growth rate of *quality* stuff matched the growth rate of *crap*.

And that's WILDY implausible.


"I would imagine that what critics might call "serious" writers... command a similar share of the market to what they have in decades past."

[EFerrari]

71. If you think about it, the poor poet has been the butt of jokes

forever. And is more "exalted" by other poets than by the public -- is that true? I think it may be.

Any day of the week, you can find a reading here in town. That's encouraging. :)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Can I name one?

No, there are too many of them.

[RandomKoolzip]

77. "I don't mean your friend down the street who paints in her garage..."

See, this is the problem with your premise. Since it's impossible to exist in this country as an artist (or a musician, or a writer) without some sort of patronage anymore, art and literature (and to an extent, rock music) have become localized phenomena. The mystique of "the artist" as owning some sort of special province in the cultural realm has evaporated - everyday people are creating their own art more and more, and NOT expecting to get famous or recognized, but rather doing it for their own edification and a few gallery shows here and there, in humongous numbers these days. There are no more Pollocks (good - fuck 'im, he sucked), no more Warhols, no more Picassos; for one thing, it's obvious all the innovations that could be made in art, literature, music, etc. have all been made. Warhol could create a stir just by painting a soup can - you can't create that kind of shock anymore. All that's left is the willingness to re-arrange bits of the past in personal ways.

In other words, this is the aftermath of the punk revolution, where there are no more princely elitist artists sitting on their mountaintops there is no syndrome of the "authoritative" voice flowing from those involved with the arts. Anyone can do it, and everyone IS doing it.

[EFerrari]

96. . . .

:toast:

[kineneb]

122. I paint

but I am one of those "garage" painters. On a whim, I took 2 semesters of oil painting classes and discovered that I could actually do fairly well. I am working developing my own personal style, I call it "Memling meets Magritte": Quirky, sometimes humorous, surrealistic "realism". I am not really into the Impressionist/plein air style that is popular among many "pro" painters.

And no, I can't name any contemporary artists off the top of my head.

And as to composers, John Williams and the "pops-classical/movie score" composers will probably stand the test of time more than the Avant-garde crowd. For popular consumption, some of the classic rock groups will probably be remembered. This is a discussion we used to have in music graduate courses.

I haven't been paying attention to fiction/literature lately...been reading Chalmers Johnsons Blowback series.

Me, I prefer Renaissance art and music. Madrigals and Motets R Us.

[nealmhughes]

81. Evan Oberholster and Adrienne Lee. Gavin Bryers. Jane Smiley.

I actually had to think for a moment for someone who was alive and American for the poetry, so I chose a friend! Wait! Oberholster is from Cape Town. Oops, need to think of a visual artist really quickly. . . Shannon Wells, do fotographers and friends count?

[kwyjibo]

82. and please don't say Thomas Kinkade

anyway

There are many brilliant artists out there. A few of my favorite painters these days:

Camille Rose Garcia
Tim Biskup
Audrey Kawasaki
Gary Baseman

check these people out!

oh, and my poet is Margaret Atwood, but I just remembered she's Canadian... that counts, right? America Junior?

[marions ghost]

91. Tim Biskup fan here

:thumbsup:

[EFerrari]

83. My experience is really different. There's so much art in this town

you can hear the hum. It's what keeps me here. (And HEY! what I do in my garage is HIGH ART, man. And what I scribble in notebooks IS LITRACHUR! :rofl:)

In this neighborhood, there are a lot of painters because the light is good. And you can't take a walk without hearing someone or some group rehearsing. It's pretty cool.

/oops

[Forrest Greene]

85. While Blaming The Art Is Ok

...have you ever considered that "creatives" -- professional fine artists, writers, musicians, actors -- in their working careers, find themselves in exactly the same oppressive, rigged, manipulative game in relation to their employers -- galleries, publishing houses, musical & theatrical producers -- as we ordinary mortals do with our own employers down at the Quicky Mart? The creatives just conduct business in higher-toned, nicer offices, with addresses in the "better" parts of town.

"Fine," "nicer," "better" are the keys. The arts business, like any other, concentrates its attention on its most profitable audience, & that's not the average American. It also sells, along with its paintings & plays, other, perhaps more important products -- exclusivity, elitism, snob appeal, cultural/historical appeal, financial investment appeal. If someone must be blamed, the concentrated business elite which administers the high end of the worlds of collectors, museums, grants, foundations, galleries, theaters, symphonies, & so on, is very worthy of consideration.

Also worth considering, although exempted in the original comment, is, still, the role of the "people." There has almost always been a wide & deep range of art produced, & it's almost always been more or less available in a range. People will seek out what they know of that interests them. Most don't know what they're missing because they haven't been effectively told about it by its proprietors, my villains in the paragraph above.

Many others, to the degree they do know of "finer" arts' existence, have no interest. They know their place, & have no tuxedo in which to attend the opening. Their imaginations & capacities to not just enjoy, but to use art have been systematically stunted, misled, & ignored all their lives. If they do have an interest, they are often too wrapped up in sheer survival to be able to pursue it. Art appreciation, the way we do it, requires a certain amount of leisure time in the schedule & leisure space in the mind. To follow & engage in a fulfilling mental, emotional, spiritual relationship with capital-A art takes, in fact, a good deal of plain hard work.

Last, there is implicit here a distinction between high & low art which I think may be misleading. "Art," in the sense we're speaking here, is the reception, in the mind of the viewer, of a communication. Much of the communication resides in its interpretation by the viewer, & there -- in deference to democratic ideals -- although we may complain about what viewers do with their received inspiration, we must make no accounting for taste. Whatever gets you through the night, right?

I usually consider credentials odious, but mine are probably of some interest here. I've been a visual artist all my life, & a professional commercial artist for thirty years. That's not to say "I'm right!" because of that! It's just to further illuminate my point of view.

[Bennyboy]

88. BURNING MAN!

There are more poeple creating great art in one place here than anywhere else on the planet. Anyone who thinks art is dead need to com out the Black Rock desert at the end of the month and see that not only is art alive but is flourishing.

[EFerrari]

94. Right you are!

lol

[tkmorris]

98. American art and literature are NOT dead

American's appreciation of those two art forms however, is waning rapidly.

[zanne]

99. Because real art doesn't sell.

If it doesn't fit into a mass marketing scheme, it's bound to stay in the shadows. Can you imagine an unknown writer writing a great American novel and trying to have it published? Without name recognition and mass marketing (not to mention a good publicist), the writer would remain unknown.

[EFerrari]

101. This is a glass half full / empty argument.

Art does bubble up, and no, it's not easy. But it does today just as it ever has

[cgrindley]

106. It's a business like any other

maybe you start with poetry... after a hundred or so journal publications and maybe a book or two, you feel comfortable moving onto literary fiction, but there's always process you have to follow. You can't just expect to jump right into Random House at once. You have to publish in journals until you have a book together (and you may have to write 4-6 separate great american novels until one is actually worth printing), and then you have to publish with a small press. You have to get good reviews. You have to publish with another small press. And so on... after about 6 books you'll get snapped up by Random House where some sub-editor will be convinced that you're a future property.

There's none of this obscurity to fame thing. It's a business.

The thing people fail to understand is that you might have to write a bunch of unpublishable novels before you write one that's merely terrible.

[pitohui]

112. wow i can name way more than one

but even those you despise can name one of each, say thomas kinkaid and 50 cent, heh heh, the critics may not like them (nor do i) but they are painter and poet making money w. what they do

[RainDog]

115. yes, but you're missing what is NOW regarded as exploring different art forms.

Poetry: As noted above- rap artists, Yusef Komunyakaa (who was in Viet Nam and who won a pultizer in the mid-1990s.) Dean Young, David Berman, Ginsberg didn't die till 1997....he is pivotal for decades before and after. Diane Di Prima is alive and was also part of the beats ... eras smash up against each other and take away some shards from both. John Ashberry is considered one of the premiere poets, as is Mary Oliver. You can find books by them in a good independent bookstore. And probably box ones too.

art & work by judy chicago-
http://www.students.sbc.edu/kitchin04/artandexpression/contemporary%20art.html

Artist: udy Chicago, David Hockney, art also gets made in architecture through works from the deconstructivists...my opinion the lasting issue in the whole movement since it implodes upon itself, as the public buildings show...rather prescient for americans concerning architecture...but maybe well known to other places we've both our imperial might and more than a bit of destruction to over the years..since the Korean "Conflict" -- the beginning of wars that are not wars because they don't exist as wars in words nor in consent by the "representatives" of the people, or rather by consititutional provision which is the charter of this institution called the U.S.A. ™ by someone other than me, apparently.


Marcel Dzama --

Dzama is a great example of cross-fertilization with his comics aesthetic. People are doing interesting work in that genre... Dzama is very subversive because his horror is innocent, but not. He unsettles your cognition... absurd juxtapositions the amount of white space threatens.

Comics For GrownUps --about some graphic novels.

Surrealists used the form, and dada-ists and others did the "low art" of collage from "found" or self-painted items.

Expressionism and woodcut illustrated books have a new medium in the black ink styles of Persopolis by Satrapi or Epileptic by David They can create more fluidity in this form of imprint.

The desert of the real is an idea that has influenced lots of artistic forms. http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html

Some painters started moving back toward realistic painting because the "real" is so fake now. Computers and do amazing things and some artists are using them with photoshop, etc... but they cannot have a texture (yet) that you can see and feel in 3-D w/o an intermediary "reality."

Joe Sacco's books, Palestine and Safe Area Goradzna are "comics journalism" that come from today's world, not Hemmingway's 1920s heroic coverage of the Spanish Civil War.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/collective/A913349

Of course Maus is a classic and already acknowledged as art that is a new form: book size drawings that are reminiscent of expressionism filtered through the irony that sometimes make it possible to acknowledge truths. They're personal and emotional...not maudlin, but not action hero fantasy.

There's tons more... I left out Hispanic and Latin Americans. Romare Beardon has been gone for nearly twenty years.

A culture rarely recognizes its own markers...its own signifiers of their ideology or reality beyond the surface. But that's what artists, the best ones, do. Can't you feel a need to whisper into the ordered world of the bourgeoisie in a Vermeer painting?

Picasso lasted long enough for people to recognize his genius. But when Gertrude Stein was becoming the midwife of modernism, he was barely collected. She was a patron of arts, and an artist/experimentalist herself. How many people in America in her time where cognizant of her existence in any real way?



well, I've rambled too much...

[LeftishBrit]

118. I can think of quite a few poets but no painters

John Ashbery, Gary Soto, Lucille Clifton, Adrienne Rich, Nikki Giovanni...

I don't know a lot about modern art in any case, and would be hard pressed to name a contemporary painter in Britain either.

[Stinky The Clown]

120. I don't think its the art. I think it is the fashionability of willful ignorance and willfull ......

.... clodishness.

Appreciation of art is sissy stuff.

[rosesaylavee]

124. Artists are seldom if ever supported by the government

and the individual states have been reduced their art funds due to budget cuts. I think if we want to have culture, if we want our culture to continue, this needs to be addressed.

Art is the first thing to go when a school needs additional monies. As art isn't perceived as bringing in cash like FOOTBALL, out it goes. Is this why our kids don't value it? Just maybe there's a connection.

My husband is a full time artist - commissions are ok right now but its a crazy way to live when they don't come in as expected.

Billy Collins is a wonderful poet - was actually our Poet Laureate at one point this decade. I assume that he received some monies from that - as well he should! Here is one of his poems...

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/candle-hat/

Excerpt from Candle Hat
...
But in this one Goya stands well back from the mirror
and is seen posed in the clutter of his studio
addressing a canvas tilted back on a tall easel.

He appears to be smiling out at us as if he knew
we would be amused by the extraordinary hat on his head
which is fitted around the brim with candle holders,
a device that allowed him to work into the night.
...
Imagine him flickering through the rooms of his house
with all the shadows flying across the walls.

Imagine a lost traveler knocking on his door
one dark night in the hill country of Spain.
"Come in, " he would say, "I was just painting myself,"
as he stood in the doorway holding up the wand of a brush,
illuminated in the blaze of his famous candle hat.

[npincus]

125. "Is our children learning?" :George W. B*sh

[LWolf]

130. Both.

I think. I can name contemporary American artists and poets, anyway, and some of the poets are critically acclaimed. I don't know about the artists.

4 artists come to mind immediately; 3 sculptors, one painter. All 4 make a living with their art, I just don't know about "nationally known," or "critically acclaimed."