What I meant by modern in this case is the way people judge art. Back in the era of Modernism, or modern art, either you are a cubist, or you are wrong. After Jackson Pollock, either you are a dripper, or you are wrong etc. In short, I see criticisms here that deal with the narrowmindedness of these cold conceptualist with a different kind of narrowmindedness that is centered around traditional skills.
I am not trying to undermine the importance of either tranditional skills or theory but right now I see a really wide division between the two.
There are, as people have mentioned, MFA’s who take pride in not being able to render, but also being deviod of any aethestic judgement ( I have my personal aesthetics and my subject view of the world type) who will end as assistants at art galleries.
And then there are people like another, who cannot tolerated anything that does not show virtuosity with the pencil and exhibit outright hostility towards conceptual works.
I know a few people on each side and sometimes it seems they are not even looking at
the work during the critiques but rather at whether the work affirms what they believe what art should be.
I understand where the traditional people are coming from and I hear you, but I think I would rather not CGtalk become the Academie that contemporary art has become.
hmm I guess it depends on the school. As I too live here in the UK I am pleased to tell you that I am on a pretty good art course. two of my art teachers are allways encouraging us to read around the subject and look at the old masters techniques. My art tutor Peter Beard runs the BTEC National Diploma at the college I attend and he has made sure that we are taught to draw. We have life drawing classes. We have learnt about line, tone and a little about colour theory.