Hudson River School

About a year ago, Martha Schwendener wrote this for an article in the N.Y. Times:

 Before public museums boomed in the 19th century, the collections that served as their models tended to be quirky accumulations of natural artifacts, scientific instruments and works of art assembled by aristocrats for their private enjoyment, and later, by civic-minded groups of affluent citizens.

The banner art for this installment is by Frederic E. Church, painted in 1848.

I kindly ask the reader to look at the painting a little right now and give it these thoughts. How many paintings do you see, done with this much effort, except in museums? In other words, if you were to travel around the country, like I do, stepping into different art galleries in dozens of cities, on a daily basis, how likely would you encounter paintings like this?

If I'm not mistaken, the answer is zero. Some may argue that they see paintings of this quality occasionally in local galleries, done at the hand of some local maestro, but my experience has never revealed anything of this nature in any art gallery, unless the piece was borrowed for display or painstakingly copied by some very capable craftsman.

Back to Martha Schwendener's quote above. She makes my point that I'm trying to suggest about what will be much different about the 21st Century Art World. It would have required, for collections containing such art as that of Frederic Church, that either aristocrats or civic-minded affluent citizens procured and shared the art, so that the "common man" could even set his eyes upon it.

Not that seeing the painting here in this blog, or even in vivid reproduction as a print or in a magazine is anything like seeing original art framed and on a wall, but today you can virtually click through thousands, even more if you had time, of paintings from something as wonderful as "Morning, Looking over the Hudson Valley," by Frederic Church, or something as new as a techno-cyborg nude by D.A. Frizell, all within moments. Never before the 20th Century would such a realm of possibilities existed.

When comparing the art of the Hudson River School (the movement from which we now categorize painters such as Frederic Church and Thomas Cole--to learn more refer to this Wikipedia article about the movement) and D.A. Frizell, can you tell me which is better?

Some may quickly answer. A young person, who regularly attends rock concerts and has only gone to museums when on a school field trip or reluctantly when on vacation may adamantly confirm that there is no comparison, that D.A. Frizell is much better. My friend who owns an art gallery in New York City that specializes in collections of Hudson River School may just smile, not even qualifying the question. But this writer thinks the answer is that one ISN'T better. They are just different. They both are works painted by real artists, who felt moved to create the image that appeared in their mind's eye or in view of their eyes and they're both wonderful, at least to me.

But contemporary art, in other words art done by living artists, are seldom done with as much painstaking effort as those of the early masters or of those from the Hudson River School.

The art world of today is divided into many branches. We might say that the first division is between dead artists and living artists. The 21st Century Art World will have both as subject matter.

Here are a few other works that have come from the period known as Hudson River School, mostly done as landscapes and painted from around and near the Hudson River Valley and the Catskill Mountains in the early to mid 19th Century:

With the first edition of the printed magazine, 21st Century Art World, I hope we'll have a feature article written by Lou Salerno, the owner and founder of Quest Royal Fine Art of Manhattan, who helps investors procure important works and wish to see their investments as paintings on their walls.

And we're also sure to have something by someone more closely associated with modern art, whether of great value or not, the placement of the article will be based on the significance of the art and artist as it relates to the market.

What I'm getting at, gradually, is that value comes from some form of manipulation. Without a story, without a history, without some reason more than just "you like it," certain paintings are expensive and others can be had for $10. That doesn't mean that the ten million dollar painting is better than the $10 painting. It just means that someone, for some reason, is willing to give more for it.

Part of our job at 21st Century Art World will be to help people navigate in those waters.