Before the Mona Lisa became one of the most famous and beloved paintings in the world, it sat in obscurity for hundreds of years away from the public eye. During that time, no one would have considered it the timeless, classic masterpiece that it is today. How did that change? Who decides what is worthy of the title “classic” and is it possible to have classics in our modern age?

Rochelle Gurstein is an intellectual historian, critic, and fellow at the New York Institute for the Humanities. Her latest book, Written in Water: The Ephemeral Life of the Classic in Art explores what it means for something to be labeled “classic” and how the notion of the classics has evolved over centuries.

Rochelle and Greg discuss the historical fluidity of aestheticism and taste, the shifting perception of iconic artworks, and unearth the forgotten contributions of critics and artists who shaped our understanding of what it means for art to transcend time.

*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*

Episode Quotes:

Is the world being threatened by new art?

42:07: One of the things that I try to trace in the book is this idea that one's world is being threatened by new art, and the sense that it's not the importance—by the 19th century and the 20th century—of what is at stake. It's not just that there is another work of art in the world, or a style that has entered the world. Instead, it is that a whole sensibility, taste, worldview is under attack.

What is the strongest foundation for a classic?

52:39: The strongest foundation for a classic is when artists keep a work alive in their own practice. So that, as long as people could still see the Venus de’ Medici in the works of all the artists who took it as the exemplar, they would continue to love it because they were all part of a continuum—an aesthetic continuum, a moral continuum—that, in the 20th century and 21st century, became harder and harder to maintain, because contemporary art shifted so dramatically every 10, 20 years—every other year these days. The way that we could keep art alive from the past is: the more we know about what other people have said about it—the people who have loved it, or the people who have not loved it.

What really keeps art alive

57:00: The practice of art itself—what artists are doing, not what collectors or museums and all the rest are doing, which is, of course, important. But I do not think that that is the most important thing. I think the artist’s practice and what they are keeping alive. And then knowing enough, caring enough about the art of the past, to try to understand what their aims were, and knowing it changed over time, and that these works were loved or not loved at different moments of time—and why?

Show Links:

Recommended Resources:

Guest Profile:

Fellow Profile at New York Institute for the Humanities
Professional Website

Guest Work:

Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.