Art Commentary

Lileks compares the classics to the moderns:

As for art, I am always amused by those who say that this is the absolute unqualified equal of this. I’m not saying the former is bad; it’s different, it has different objectives, describes a different culture, but the latter is art, and the former is merely the something done by an artist.

I’m not sure what that means, but it would sound great in a lecture if I had a nice posh turtleneck and was tall and handsome. In any case, Raphael could do Albers, but I am quite certain Albers could not do Raphael, anymore than John Lennon could score a symphony. Complexity and sophistication count for something; if they didn’t, you’d hired the man who designed the Port-A-Potty to design your dream house. Hey, it has walls and a hole.

Never mind the sheer talent required - there's the matter of intent, the pedagogical purpose of Raphael’s painting. It's a history of History, a summation of how we think about thinking, AND if you act now he'll throw in a little shot at Michelangelo, down at the bottom. The fellow writing on a square block of marble, looking away. Raphael added that portrait, scholars believe, after Raphael saw the first half of Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel ceiling. Now look at it again: you can tell it was added later, can’t you? But it wasn’t entirely an act of admiration; Raphael – a young good-looking guy popular with everyone, including the ladies – painted Michelangelo as Heraclitus, a philosopher known for his bad moods and universal scorn. Which was pretty much Mike’s deal, to use Hovingspeak. (Michelangelo was also disinclined to bathe or change clothes.) So it’s a nod to the Master and a taunt and an homage and an insult to smelly old grumpy ugly-face and a floor polish and a dessert topping. So the painting isn’t just a compendium of Western philosophy up to the time of the Renaissance; it’s full of sly gossip and office politics.

Do you get that from this?