Obscurantism: “A style (as in art) characterized by deliberate vagueness or abstruseness.”
I was interested to read that Leonardo da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi” (Latin: “Savior of the World,” a painting of an enigmatic Jesus Christ) recently sold at auction for more than $450 million (including fees), easily surpassing the previous record of $179.4 million for Picasso’s “Women of Algiers.” (These figures are for public auction sales. Private sales have seen paintings, such as one by Gaugin, sold for as much as $300 million.)
Da Vinci is of course one of the greatest artists in history, and the epitome of the term “Renaissance man.” He was polymathic and a master at painting, sculpture, invention and architecture. His surviving paintings number fewer than 20, and this particular one is the last one deemed by him that is in private hands. Others, such as his “Mona Lisa,” are held publicly by this-or-that national art gallery or similar organization. Da Vinci, Caravaggio, Michelanglo, Rembrandt, Vermeer… all are examples of artists whose works demonstrate true mastery in every facet and in every meaning of the word “mastery.” Here is da Vinci’s “Salvator Mundi”:
Regardless of one’s feelings about the subject (Christ), there’s little debate that da Vinci’s art was truly that; a work of art.
Contrast works from Leonardo, or Michelangelo or any of the Dutch Masters with the below modern art by the American artist Cy Twombly (d. 2011):
This composition, “Bacchus,” went for $46 million at the same auction. Are you kidding me? Apparently, the technique Twombly used to “paint” his masterpiece was that he tied a brush to the end of a long pole, dipped the brush in red paint and then went at it. Genius! 
Here’s a portion of the description for Twombly’s work, taken from the Tate Gallery website:
“Red is the colour of wine, but also of blood, and these canvases encompass both the sensual pleasure and violent debauchery associated with the god. This contrast is echoed in the paintings’ combination of euphoric loops that soar upwards and vermilion floods of paint that ooze and cascade down the canvas. The unfurling gestures of these paintings were made, like Henri Matisse’s works in old age, with a brush affixed to the end of a pole, which lends them their vitality and scale.”
That right there is a classic example of obscurantism, a word that I tell people is just another way of speaking gibberish. Modern art “aficionados” use obscurantism quite a bit, in fact, perhaps as a way of deflecting from just how GODAWFUL modern art – which is completely meaningless – truly is.
Obscurantism is a cheap rhetorical device employed in the art world to confuse people long enough so that their initial discernment (which is usually correct) is temporarily suspended. It makes them hesitant to criticize such “art” because they don’t want to come off as uncultured or ignorant. In this regard, modern art “experts” have demonstrated yet again that P.T. Barnum (well, the quote was attributed to him) was right: there really is a sucker born every minute.
Here’s a Vermeer:
Another example of modern art that’s apparently been swooned over:
This is real easy to explain:
No, “art” isn’t whatever someone decides to call “art.” And like the Renaissance master Tommy Boy Callahan once observed “If you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will.”
Callahan’s words above pretty much encompass the entire world of modern art. So don’t let the obscurantist modern art snobs push you into calling their tripe “art.” Because it isn’t. Twombly’s “Bacchus?” Seriously? When it’s compared to Caravaggio’s own “Bacchus?”
If you’re going to be an art snob, be a snob for art that’s actually ART.
