encouraged and praised the gallery, Roosevelt appreciates the art for what it is but thinks
very poorly of it in terms of quality.
“The exhibitors are quite right as to the need of showing to our people in this
manner the art forces which of late have been at work in Europe, forces which
cannot be ignored. This does no mean I the least accept the view that these men
take of the European extremist whose pictures are exhibited.”
Roosevelt criticized the Cubist, Futurist and Near-Impressionist movements, one
by one. He broke down each movement for different reasons all aiming back towards the
main point that; those art forms are unrealistic, unusual and are worse than traditional
American realist art as a result. Roosevelt believed very little work of the extremist
among the European “moderns” seems to be good in and for itself (Roosevelt, p187). His
distaste for this art also crosses over for his questioning of the thoughts and theories
behind each movement.
He agreed with some aspects of the revolutionary artists behind the pieces, but
claims that they are extremist and think their idols of change, destruction and
reconstruction are unrealistic and are in need of adjustment. He was baffled as to why
people would enjoy and purchase those paintings that look nothing like the images that
they attempt to depict. His taste seems to still be towards realist art forms. To see these
paintings and sculptures with distorted characters and landscapes, it seems chaotic and
disgusting. He hopes or hints that fresh new eyes of the laypeople that come to observe
these imported artwork will or should realize the absurdity of the displays.
This is the end of the preview.
Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.
- Spring '13
- KevinMattson
- Theodore Roosevelt, History of painting
-
Click to edit the document details