I'm reading "To Sell Prized Paintings, a University Proclaims They’re Not ‘Conservative’/Valparaiso University is arguing it should never have acquired two paintings, including a Georgia O’Keeffe, in the 1960s. It hopes to sell them to pay for dorm renovations" (NYT)(free-access link).
The school bought the painting with money from a gift that restricted the purchase of art to work "exclusively by American artists preferably of American subjects' and "of the general character known as conservative and of any period of American art." Now that the school wants to sell the painting, it's saying the painting should never have been bought.In a court petition, the university says that because the paintings are from modernist art movements and are not representational, they are not conservative and therefore can now be sold “At the time those paintings were purchased in the 1960s, the committee knew that it was straying from Sloan’s directive to acquire conservative art,” the petition reads.
Valparaiso's own website describes the painting as representational: "While Rust Red Hills offers a generally realistic view of the hills near Abiquiu, it is O’Keeffe’s invention, stylization, abstraction that makes the painting especially exciting to view and study."
I got interested in Georgia O'Keeffe in 1968 when Life Magazine published "Georgia O'Keefe, on the Ghost Ranch." I thought she was so inventive. My idea of her radically changed in 1991 when I drove across the real world landscape they call New Mexico.
पोस्ट्स
५० टिप्पण्या:
Looks to me like 100% USDA approved prime rib. What could be more “conservative?”
"Now that the school wants to sell"
If the motivation is that they want nothing to do with any "conservative" gift, surely they'll return the money to the donor's heirs, to keep a clear conscience.
What about the landscape changed your view of her?
If the university has moral objections to 'conservative' art, it seems to me they are morally obligated to give the paintings back to the person who paid for them, or to that person's heirs. Or they could sell the paintings for what they can get for them, and give the donor's money back, with interest. The latter might leave them with a nice profit. But they can't just keep the damned money and sell the art! I mean, legally maybe they can, but morally and ethically they can't. I hope the donor, or (if dead) the donor's heirs, sues.
Progressive would require a time series to discern change. Liberal may suffice if they could demonstrate divergence from a normal state. The cumulative layers suggests a conservative process.
?? Is there a requirement of the gift that the artwork could never be sold, once bought? Or is the issue they are effectively re-directing the money from the gift? In that case, a dorm renovation wouldn’t meet the requirement at all…. Seems, this is gross dishonesty by a so-called higher ed enterprise.
Sorry for being a typo-holic…
Maybe they meant "conservation".
I sure wouldn’t want to be the judge in that declaratory judgement action!
What I would do is find that Valpo knowingly violated the terms of the gift and order the painting returned to the donor or his or her heirs.
The argument seems like a bullshit attempt at money laundering. Selling the paintings doesn't turn the money into a general grant, it just turns back into money to be used as the gift directed. I think there would be a stronger claim if the artworks themselves had been gifted but not if funds were given with direction, unless something in the document terminates the provisions at some point.
"What if you had to argue this Georgia O'Keeffe painting is not "conservative"?"
They need to put a chick in it and make her gay.
Bonus points for lame.
Why file a Law Suit about art interpretation?? Sounds to me like the Administrators like to launder money through a relatives Law Firm that charges outrageous fees.
I'm pretty sure the donor meant artistically conservative, not politically. He just didn't want his money spent on a Pollock or Rothko or Warhol, and probably would have preferred that they buy a Whistler or a Sargent, or something along those lines: representational, not abstract. It looks like the university went as non-conservative as they thought they could get away with, buying a semi-abstract painting, by a woman, too, so it's ironic that they're calling it too conservative now.
what a weird phrase "Conservative art". Representational, abstract, Impressionist, cubanism, etc are known art terms.
I thought she was so inventive. My idea of her radically changed in 1991 when I drove across the real world landscape they call New Mexico.
Changed in a good way or a bad way? I could see either one happening.
I think I know what about the landscape changed Ann's view of O'Keefe. If you've never been to New Mexico, you would probably think this was some kind of imaginary landscape with colors and shapes that would never be found in nature. When you go to New Mexico, you realize it really looks like that.
Fifty bucks says I know exactly what happened when Althouse visited NM.
I see an egg, fertilized by a sperm, evolving as a baby in utero.
And people wonder why the American people have lost faith and respect for our institutions.
I would argue that this is a painting of Gaia, giving birth to the Sangre di Cristo mountains.
It's an O'Keefe. Where's the pussy in the painting?
The endowment teams are good at weaseling out of the money with strings attached provisions. Courts usually let them. Recently, some of the beneficiaries have looked at the more restrictive provisos and told the benefactor to stick it….
"Conservative-not-conservative"? Hmmmm....
I studied it for few minutes. What I got was multiple vulvas, two and, possibly, three penises, one cheecky ass, a lurking Grim Reaper in a hoodie, an owl, a sleeping otter and a raven. Eye of the beholder, what!
I'm fond of some of O'Keeffe's work but, as art, I wouldn't give $5 for this one at a Habitat for Humanity thrift store.
Ann, what opinion changed and what did it change to?
In fact, one could argue that not only this painting but also many paintings by Georgia O'Keefe are not "conservative" because many art critics have claimed that her paintings (and especially the "flower series") strongly suggest closeups of female genitalia with their various-colored folds. So look closer. Those may not just be rust-colored hills you're looking at, cowboy.
Declare the Dorm Upgrade is "performance art"
Problem solved.
Looks like a pile of used vaginas.
O'Keefe is a hack.
Having a 'style' or a 'look' doesn't make it good...
It resembles more than anything else, a pile of dung. And only a liberal could like that. So it can’t be conservative.
What Christopher B said. Sleazy behavior by the college.
What’s more small-c conservative than selling a piece of modern art to pay for patching a leaky roof?
I can't figure out where the labia are.
The painting looks like a stack of Senor Wences thumbs.
"It's an O'Keefe. Where's the pussy in the painting?"
Look at the darker swatch of colors that start at the bottom left and ramp up to the right before peaking and tumbling down to the lower right. It is clearly the upper torso of a woman. Her head is turned away from the viewer, and her long hair tumbles down over whatever it is she is reclining on. The two conical shapes are her breasts, whose shape implies some type of brassier or similar such apparel that allows her ample boobs to keep their perky conical shape despite her reclined position. It was the end of the "bullet boobs" era, after all.
If you're not seeing it, maybe we can get Matt Walsh to ask "What is a woman?" here.
It's more Playboy/"tasteful nude" than Bob Guccione naked crotch shots. So it's conservative in that sense. OTOH, it's not her normal M.O. where you play "Where's Waldo" to find the cootch.
Amber Rose needs to re-create the shot on her OnlyFans page. Then we can ask the question again.
I think it's upside down.
It's a lovely painting.
Some painters get tagged with the one fact everyone knows about them, and it overshadows the actual art. O'Keefe isn't just about genitalia. Even if she were, adding a sexual component to a picture of a plant's sexual organs is an artistic statement, not a political one.
Partly it's on the donor for insisting that the art be "conservative" in the first place.
It's more Playboy/"tasteful nude" than Bob Guccione naked crotch shots. So it's conservative in that sense. OTOH, it's not her normal M.O. where you play "Where's Waldo" to find the cootch.
Repeating my point that finding a sensual element in a classical form is an artistic statement.
The term "conservative" is not an art historical term. Realism, Expressionism, Abstraction, Cubist, Academic, Conceptual, etc. are art terms. But I thought I would ask AI to list some conservative artists. This is what perplexity gave me:
"Visual Arts:
Andrew Wyeth - Known for his realistic paintings of rural American life
Norman Rockwell - Famous for his idealized depictions of everyday American scenes
Salvador Dali - Initially communist but later became more conservative and religious
Edgar Degas - French impressionist painter with conservative views
Edward Hopper - American realist painter
William Bouguereau - French academic painter"
They all use realism, the attempt to produce an image based on "real life" as much as possible. But if Dali is considered conservative than that painting by O'Keeffe would be conservative because they both use realism as a device to bring us to other realms. So does Bouguereau, his figures are all dreamy and idealized.
Then I asked if O'Keeffe would be considered a conservative artist and the answer was:
"Georgia O'Keeffe would not be considered a conservative artist in the traditional sense. Here's why:
O'Keeffe's artistic approach was innovative and avant-garde for her time. She rejected conventional rules of perspective, palette choices, and subject matter, which aligns more with progressive artistic movements than conservative ones.
Her work challenged established norms and pushed boundaries in the art world. O'Keeffe's paintings often featured abstract interpretations of natural forms, which was a departure from more traditional, realistic styles often associated with conservative art.
O'Keeffe's artistic philosophy emphasized individual expression and embracing difference. She encouraged artists to 'find your own way of seeing things' and 'embrace your difference,' which aligns more with progressive ideals than conservative ones.
While not explicitly politically active, O'Keeffe's work and career helped change perceptions of women in art. She was recognized for creating art rather than being the subject of it, which was progressive for her time.
O'Keeffe's donation of a significant portion of her husband's modern art collection to Fisk University, a historically Black institution, demonstrates a commitment to diversity and inclusivity in art education.
It's important to note that artistic conservatism and political conservatism are not always aligned. O'Keeffe's work, with its emphasis on innovation, individual expression, and challenging established norms, places her more in the realm of artistic progressivism rather than conservatism."
I'd have to go with O'Keeffe's work as not-conservative. Despite the rather conservative appearance of this particular painting, and especially compared to how abstract and unrealistic much art has become, O'Keeffe's intention was not to be conservative. She didn't want to represent conservative styles and values. She wanted to be a trailblazer.
Even if the initial purchase was incorrect, that should not free up the funds for other uses.
Rather, the proceeds from the sale need to be used to buy "conservative" art, as originally stipulated.
I bought a copy of a book of recipes by Georgia O'Keeffe when I visited her place in New Mexico. They were pretty much Wisconsin-European cooking - her roots. So I say she was conservative and her art comes from her and so it also is conservative.
And look at the man she married, Alfred Stieglitz. He was a photographer which means "representational artist" just as conservative artist means representational artist. In addition, he was a man and she married him. And she wanted to have children. Ugh, the more you recall of the horrors of her life the worse it all is.
And the FBI hated her, so, again - conservative. True, the FBI said she was "ultra-liberal" but Hoover meant she dressed like a man sometimes - but sometimes Hoover dressed like a woman. Was he "ultra-liberal?" I think not.
In any case, in recent years we've come to see that ultra-liberals are conservatives, they're just in the closet. Was Georgia O'Keeffe antisemitic? No, she was married to a Jew. We now know that if you can't scream "From the river to the sea," you are just another conservative.
I rest my case.
Georgia O'Keefe said "I hate flowers - I paint them because they’re cheaper than models and they don’t move."
Perhaps she hated large hills as well.
Representational doesn't mean conservative, but Ann seems to suggest it does in her introduction. See the work of artist Francis Bacon. He painted portraits which are recognizable as portraits but the complete opposite of conservative.
Of course the ultimate proof is the work of the Impressionists. Their paintings were representational but were a complete repudiation of the conservative Academic values of their day. Of course you'd be considered very conservative today if you collected their work because of the price tags.
That's Joseph's Tunic from the Old Testament. You can't get any more conservative than Joseph's Tunic.
It's a New Mexican's version of Joseph's Tunic. Anyway.
You know sometimes artists are very coy about their creation. You just have to stare at it and store it away and come back and succotash!. If it still doesn't hit you, keep coming back until it does.
Speaking of NM and the Sangre de Cristo mountains, read Red Sky at Morning.
I'm sure it is available through the Althouse Portal.
What is more important about Ghost Ranch, Georgia O'Keeffe or Coelophysis?
Conservative painting is too slippery for dispassionate contemplation. Whoever chose to buy "Rust Red Hills" stretched the notion of conservative art to the breaking point. He bought it because he liked it, and made the argument, whatever it was, later and off the cuff. Valparaiso University now wants to sell it, ostensively to buy something more conservative. What they really want is to sell the O'Keeffe for a big profit, then buy something much cheaper and pocket the difference.
There are lots of artists who busy themselves with historical subjects, often military, and often meticulously researched. These painters are never interviewed for Art in America nor are they invited for cocktails at Diana Wintour's Village townhouse, but their mastery of the craft far exceeds those who puke on a sheet and sign their name to it.
A critic might reply, "Where is the imagination and the creativity? These painters you speak of are mere documentarians, they never apply artistic interpretation to their subjects."
Which I counter with shrug, perhaps you haven't bothered to look.
Those who disparage these conservative artists lack the background to engage in meaningful critique. I'll cite an example: This is a representation of the submarine USS Archerfish and the sinking Imperial Japanese aircraft carrier Shinano, the largest ship ever to die by the torpedo. It is a tribute to actual history, but an entirely imaginary composition, and by no means a mere document. No submarine captain would hazard his command by surfacing to gloat over his prey, especially not in daylight. Furthermore, Shinano is shown listing steeply to port, whereas the real ship capsized to starboard. Switching the facts allowed the artist to compose a narrative with Japan's setting sun illuminating the background -- Shinano's helpless crew in the terror of their last moments, while Archerfish in triumph turns her bows toward home. That's the human condition. "Rust Red Hills" is just some interesting colors on canvas -- worth a minute's contemplation and a little more.
Will AI do to literature what photography did to painting?
"What if you had to argue this Georgia O'Keeffe painting is not "conservative"?"
Why would you want to if you didn’t have to? Valparaiso University is arguing that they should be able to sell the painting because its acquisition was a breach of trust of the donor whose gift funded the purchase. That strikes me as a rather novel and risky legal theory.
The better argument is changed circumstances under the cy pres doctrine. I think there have been cases where the courts have awarded stewardship of the property in question to another charity willing to carry out the original mission.
I don’t think the donor’s family has standing to challenge the university. That typically falls to the state attorney general, who in this case seems to be looking the other way.
Left Bank: "That strikes me as a rather novel and risky legal theory."
LOL
Novel and risky legal theory has been the primary trade of The New Soviet Democratical Lawfare crew in increasingly marxist-led kangaroo courtrooms across the nation for years now, so thats hardly a barrier any longer now, is it?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा