Well, it's specifically the naive perspective thing that does it for me. Especially with icons, I find it very hard to get past the "looks like a child's painting" thing, and even in the less stylised genres, they just look weird.
I know, but Giotto's perspective (and that of others like him before vanishing point perspective) still looks "weird", if you see what I mean. No real depth of field, pretty much everything compressed onto one or two planes etc. For some reason I find classical Chinese art, which also doesn't do conventional perspective, much more aesthetically pleasing and naturalistic in its own way.
"How do you feel about modern art when that gets away from perspective?"
Well, that depends. If it's going for an effect and achieves it, like a good cubist/futurist painting (or Escher, for that matter), then great. If it's just a side-effect of a style, then usually I'm not a fan.
I don't quite follow your second point. How does say Matisse fit into that, with eg this
I find I respond to most of the unperspectival stuff (old and new) in a similar way, seeing them through the lens of cartoons- child like, as you say. That's hardly condusive to the sort of response great art is supposed to evoke, is it? Maybe if I read more graphic novels for adults it would help?
Both old and new stuff can achieve wonderful pieces of precise observation, of course. Is this what you mean about Chinese art.
Giotto does seem to be "one of us" despite what you say (rightly) about his perspective. The limited planes to me are part of the way he simplifies the action for drama. Very different to the "space" filling of Gothic decoration- though Giotto himself filled a fair bit of space.
I've never seen a proper show of icons, but just looking at them in books, I'm not a big fan. Yet I love illuminated manuscripts. The Getty has an outstanding collection, and they regularly put on exhibitions from their collection. I drive my family crazy by wanting to go there and see them each time there's a new one on display.
Comment