Does success in life mean that an artist will be assured of a place in posterity?
October, 26; 2021. By Arscodex
On this occasion we come to debate, through this article, the fact that being successful in life for an artist does not directly imply a place in posterity, that is, a place in the collective imagination long after he has passed away.
Thus, many artists have had great success in their careers while they were alive; This is normal and apparently unless you are Van Gogh or Gauguin or Cézanne (let's remember that post-impressionist shortlist of painters who were unsuccessful in life but whose work was installed in popular culture, in an atypical way), is the only way to be recognized as an artist in posterity, that is, once you have passed away. But Art with capital letters, that place that everyone knows, is a constricted space. There is no room for everyone. And the only way to pass to posterity is through talent, be it pictorial, musical, cinematographic; it is the ability of the artist to offer a new and different vision, as for example Claude Monet did with impressionism.
Well, there are many artists who, as we said, have had great success in life but then after death no one remembers them. Yes, they are historical, that is, they have their place in history; if you look for them they are there, but they are not "known to all". A clear example is that of the Italian musician Amilcare Ponchielli, author of the "Dance of the Hours", a musical passage, belonging to the opera "La Gioconda", of his authorship, which is the only one that is remembered today despite to have had a successful life, and because Walt Disney included him in his film Fantasia.
And it is that sometimes artists, some, are capable of "tricking" society and make us believe that theirs is worth a lot, but once they die and there is no one who fights for their own work, it falls into the lake of oblivion. They are, then, artists considered by this magazine as "impostors", that is, artists who make us believe that theirs is worth a lot of money but that when their person vanishes from the face of the earth, no one fights for their work, as we have already commented, for not having enough strength. And with regard to this thought, does the reader know of any artist alive today who is a candidate to be forgotten in the future?
As we have said, with the very light study plans that exist today, where if something is studied it is by pure coincidence, it is difficult for a young kid to know about art beyond Las Meninas de Velázquez or the sculptures of Michelangelo, so how in the future is a kid going to know certain artists who "deceive" the society of his time but whose work lacks sufficient strength to remain standing at their death?
Thus, many artists have had great success in their careers while they were alive; This is normal and apparently unless you are Van Gogh or Gauguin or Cézanne (let's remember that post-impressionist shortlist of painters who were unsuccessful in life but whose work was installed in popular culture, in an atypical way), is the only way to be recognized as an artist in posterity, that is, once you have passed away. But Art with capital letters, that place that everyone knows, is a constricted space. There is no room for everyone. And the only way to pass to posterity is through talent, be it pictorial, musical, cinematographic; it is the ability of the artist to offer a new and different vision, as for example Claude Monet did with impressionism.
Well, there are many artists who, as we said, have had great success in life but then after death no one remembers them. Yes, they are historical, that is, they have their place in history; if you look for them they are there, but they are not "known to all". A clear example is that of the Italian musician Amilcare Ponchielli, author of the "Dance of the Hours", a musical passage, belonging to the opera "La Gioconda", of his authorship, which is the only one that is remembered today despite to have had a successful life, and because Walt Disney included him in his film Fantasia.
And it is that sometimes artists, some, are capable of "tricking" society and make us believe that theirs is worth a lot, but once they die and there is no one who fights for their own work, it falls into the lake of oblivion. They are, then, artists considered by this magazine as "impostors", that is, artists who make us believe that theirs is worth a lot of money but that when their person vanishes from the face of the earth, no one fights for their work, as we have already commented, for not having enough strength. And with regard to this thought, does the reader know of any artist alive today who is a candidate to be forgotten in the future?
As we have said, with the very light study plans that exist today, where if something is studied it is by pure coincidence, it is difficult for a young kid to know about art beyond Las Meninas de Velázquez or the sculptures of Michelangelo, so how in the future is a kid going to know certain artists who "deceive" the society of his time but whose work lacks sufficient strength to remain standing at their death?
Links mentioned in People
Related newsOn transgression in art - December, 05; 2022
Is cinema as art losing importance? - February, 09; 2022
