There's a real notion within contemporary art theory that postmodernism did away with technical skill 'craft' becoming the second ugliest word to be used in a fine art context next to 'pretty' (the same notably is not true for 'handsome'). Emphasis on technical skill and labor-intensive work is almost invariably seen as old-fashioned and the supporters of it reactionary. This said there appears to be a recent group of artists and collectors emerging who revitalizes the kind of value system where the artist to a great extent is a technician. A long shot from the master-apprentice dynamic of The Old Masters the members of this group interestingly enough view themselves as underground; low-brow.

An example Ill quote at some length is one of the best-known artist to have come out of Southern California's Kustom Kulture scene; Robert Williams. An artist of great skill and bad attitude he experienced the censorship rage that plagued US pop culture in the late eighties. His book 'Visual Addiction' from 1989 speaks at great length of visual pleasure in the rubbernecking context; meaning that humans want to see horror. More interesting however are his views on subculture and lowbrow art as pertaining to the notion of technical skill: he writes as follows:

'Art in the past 60 years has avoided the obvious appeal to the eye in favor of a more cultivated lean towards intellectual appreciation of texture volume and size. Art has become bigger blander and more distant from simple pleasure. The theory of concept overrules art as an object and tends to deny anything that resembles craftsmanship or technical proficiency. We live in an age of cold domineering art that screams of profundity but says nothing. Anyone who can produce something big obtrusive rough and impractical has fulfilled all the requirements needed to become a master artist consequently a large segment of the society with little or no skills has joined the ranks of the art world.'

He goes on to share the blame of this on the artists as well as the collectors who buy 'this shit' claiming that 'the power of big buying has reduced the art world to little more than a snob lottery. Even the collecting and hoarding of baseball cards has more cerebral depth than does the art world as a whole'.

Luckily according to Williams a more recent group of collectors; and presumably artists as well are more interested in 'strong imagery no matter what form: comic books movie posters gum cards tattoos garish advertising and even real art if it measures up.'

Here is where Williams argument becomes really interesting:

'Because of the trend in fine art to exclusively dwell in the realm of non-objective abstraction many of the capable technicians that would been painters a hundred years ago have resorted to commercial art illustration comic book art and movie work. This has brought about a giant following of the so-called lowbrow arts.'

I interpret Williams main idea then as follows: that due to the easy accessibility offered by contemporary minimalist art suitable for your equally minimalist office or living room; along with the stamp of educated approval that goes along with collecting or making conceptual art these genres have thrived commercially and has become the darling of trend-savvy critics. Artists that depend on skill and intuitive visual pleasure have been forced into the fringe cultures. Seen derivatively as technicians or strictly as commercial artists they now form an underdog group regarded as old-fashioned by the art world and yet too leftfield by the commercial arts employers. I have my own take on these arguments and it roughly coincides with Williams.

First let me take issue with the idea that skill-oriented art would necessarily be old-fashioned or even 'retrograde' to use Williams' word. It is my opinion that work that demands a lot of instruction or a lot of time take a very special place in a post-modern society where objects are bought or commissioned not fabricated by its user.