On May 27, 2001 I sent the following to the Good art discussion group. We had been discussing the urgent need for "Traditional Humanists" to communicate to the world that Modernism in art is a hoax.

Fred (Good art member) wrote,

>>>if somebody doesn't explain to everybody why they're not any good, and how the whole thing is a hoax, then they will continue their propaganda and continue brainwashing our children and intimidating them into feeling stupid if they don't get along to go along, and they'll do it unopposed.

If we don't speak up and tell the world that the Emperor's naked, nobody else will. We may not want to talk about them but we have to if we are going to have any chance of turning things around. We have to provide a theoretical and ideological context for the feelings of the tens of millions of people out there who are disgusted and feel an aversion for Modernism, but feel afraid to say so. We need to make them know that they are not alone and we need to validate their feelings and we also need to provide an alternative to all those children before they have been brainwashed.<<<

This is well stated and I will save it.  It is unfortunate that most of us as individuals do not have a forum for  preaching.   Many of us have been preaching this same message for years, but as individuals without access to mass media our message gets out to too few people.   Perhaps the WWW, Good art  and ARC will do a better job.

Fred then wrote:

>>>That's the most important purpose behind ARC, while proving the alternatives with the greatest art in all of history.

The problem with ARC (Art Renewal Center) is that it does not provide living artists as alternatives to the celebrated huckster artists of the 20th Century.  The greatest art in all history will not persuade the masses and those indoctrinated into the system of modernism that Picasso is overrated and should be put out to pasture.  Who would take his place as a mover and shaker of the 20th century?  Kinkade?  Disney? Moss?  When left to their own devices, the public may choose to honor artists who merely sustain the level of artistic accomplishment rather than to challenge themselves and bring forth a new level of artistry.  What the public needs is not education or more indoctrination about art, but awareness of living artists whom they can appreciate.  When I am copying a painting by Rubens at the National Gallery the public is not as excited by viewing the original Rubens, which is awesome, as they are watching me.  It is true that they (the public) will give more attention to the masterpiece when a copyist is there, but their real excitement is to see a living human being who can paint like the masters.  Their experience with contemporary art has not left them with any faith in the abilities of today's artists. The contemporary artists celebrated in the museums give no indication that they can draw and paint like the masters. Imagine the excitement of that public when they see a copyist in a prestige museum setting who displays some of the crafts and skills that all artists of the past had.  Imagine what happens when they learn that this living artist denies the legitimacy of most of the 20th century crap displayed in the modern art museum and looks to the masters for inspiration and a guide to artistic excellence. Contrary to the belief that the public is merely hung up on the past and unwilling to accept fresh approaches to art, I believe they are merely disinterested in the direction art seems to be going.  When you show them that there are more and more living artists who reject modernism and use traditional artistic strategies for producing art, they will be excited and willing to support a new generation of masters. They may even again protest the stuff foisted upon them by what Hilton Kramer calls, "Hucksters in the Citadels of Culture". They may even pull out their support for further indoctrination of their children.

Some may think that ARC's Salon Show is necessary to find and promote the best artists; to encourage artists to strive for excellence and win a place in list of great contemporary masters.  I believe the Salon Show is necessary to show the world how many living artists can draw, how many can paint, and how many reject the entrenched art establishment. We need a salon show to convince the public that it is safe to invest in living artist's who create art that is believable, comprehensible, and intellectually stimulating. We need a salon, not to usurp prestige from the best artists, but to give prestige to the many artists who have been denied prestige because they are not modernists.

The best artists and the best art do not need institutions to promote their work. The public needs institutions to promote good artists by exposing them to a variety of good artists.  The problem today is that the institutions do not expose the public to good art executed by living artists. Rather, they promote modernism and a litany of living buffoons.

It's not enough to explain what you are against.  You must explain what you are for. You can be against the present and for the past. Or you can be against the present and for the future. To be for the future you must support living artists.

Gerald King