
Two dark sides of the inner self: Gustav Klimt and Egon Schiele (2007) - prismatic
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/two-dark-sides-of-the-inner-self-1.992267
======
michalu
The only reason Klimt and Schiele are famous as artists is because they
brought sexuality into art, which I personally consider a degrading factor.

Yes you had nudity before but not that pornographic nudity Klimt introduced.
Schiele I wouldn't hang in my hall, these painting are neither beautiful nor
technically on par with true masters.

I believe these two painters introduced a shift to scammy era of modern arts
when we went from masters and beauty to "omg so shocking and different" as
well as introduction of pornography into mainstream (feel free to lookup some
lesser known paintings of Klimt)

High regard for Klimt and Schiele are, I found, the hallmarks of pretty much
every atheist pseudo-intellectual.

~~~
jessaustin
Conservatism is one thing, but these guys weren't even in the same generation
and both died more than a century ago. Nothing stands still, least of all art.
I suspect that over 130 years, many people have disagreed that your "only
reason" is "degrading", and many more found other reasons to appreciate these
artists as well.

~~~
michalu
> but these guys weren't even in the same generation

Not sure what you meant by that. Besides 130 years isn't a long time
especially when it concerns a period of time when everything gets
"democratised" and your possible audience is growing through out the century.

With 7 billion people today even the most obscure artisans find recognition
and everyone who read The New Yorker twice in their life is an expert on art
and all things cultural.

The works of masters prior to the era of Klimt survived for different reasons.

I argue that if there's a reason these two still get recognition it's because
they simply happened to be at the beginning of the current era of modernism as
well as growing industry of art dealing business which, thanks to the size of
the audience and mass media can now, with good enough marketing, gain
recognition to even the most ridiculous of artworks and profit from
subsequently selling it to those desperate for signalling taste and virtues.

To sell a master is not a good business, you can't buy them cheap and sell
high and they're limited in supply.

Art has been replaced by marketing story telling. So I wouldn't claim 130
years (or rather barely 100) validate the quality of work in the case of Klimt
and Schiele.

The most beautiful example of the ridiculousness of the entire modern art
business is Frida. In order to sell art expensively and please the need of
virtue and taste signalling you first need to gain recognition for the artist
among the masses who will provide the admiration to the buyer of art.

And thus you have people who will never afford to buy Frida wearing Frida
tattoos and sharing social media posts about her "art" and subsequently people
(usually newly rich) paying millions for these works just to buy the brand of
"exquisite taste". for themselves

Today it's Frida, decades ago it was Schiele and Klimt and they seem to be the
golden goose that keeps giving.

~~~
jessaustin
Your observations about the business side of art seem plausible. Schiele's
comeback can't possibly be due to "the beginning of the current era of
modernism" since he was completely forgotten until at least the 1960s.

In general your observations seem to amount to "my taste is better than that
of other people". Other people disagree!

------
goto11
A whole article about Schiele and Klimt without a single picture? Come on.

~~~
rrmm
Didn't read the article but I did go find pictures. Schiele's stuff I found
especially striking. Recommended. (Both artists are).

Schiele incidentally died during the spanish flu pandemic quite young.

~~~
DeathArrow
Yes, both are good but Schiele is speaking most directly to the soul and
relies less on graphical excellence and craftsmanship, although it has those,
too.

~~~
rrmm
He's got jagged postures with stark lines and the eyes are wide and often
focused on the observer. Lots of playing around subtly with body proportions.

It definitely has a lot of character.

------
rassibassi
Nice documentary on schiele

[https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/073077-000-A/egon-
schiele/](https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/073077-000-A/egon-schiele/)

~~~
Wildgoose
Thanks! There's also a good film about him available on Amazon Prime Video.

------
throwaway_pdp09
I like what Klimt I've seen but never heard of Schiele. Wiki page has some
pics about which I can't see the attraction.

Make up your own mind
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele)
but to me many look purposefully ugly.

Happens I did notice one that looks like butt-head
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egon_Schiele_-
_Grimassier...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Egon_Schiele_-
_Grimassierendes_Aktselbstbildnis_-_1910.jpeg)

~~~
tootie
There's a gallery in New York that has a huge collection of Austrian art
including Egon Schiele. I've been many times, mostly because they have the
best museum cafe in the city. I find his work to be interesting, but off-
putting to put it politely. I'm only assuming his work would have been
considered shocking when it premiered.

