Our Architecture Did This To Us: Neo-Romanticism

end— superior formal rigor and narrative-thematic gravitas inhering in
the art, influenced by the sublimity of Philadelphia’s architecture and the
sense of Philadelphia (also) as haunted, spectral, apparitional. The major
Neo-Romantic seeds, I would venture to say, have already been planted.
I will tend the garden for as long as I have the capability of doing so.
What I would encourage others to do, who like Neo-Romantic art, is to
use us as a template, but (please) be willing to acknowledge our
influence. No one likes to feel ripped off, and rip-offs (these days) are
Regular.
Neo-Romantic art makes a bunch of assumptions which are worth
discussing. That there is a tie in serious art between formal beauty and
individuality which is worth cultivating, and that was largely eschewed
by twentieth century art; that formality itself is expressive, above and
beyond the conceptual; and that the conceptual basis for the
development of forms has to do with Solid World attachment to the
Irregular and to the sense that Regularity necessitates homogeneity of
forms and themes by guaranteeing material rewards to imposters and
conformists. Aughts Philadelphia was, in general, not a rewarding
place/context for conformists. Yet, it will take some time for us to be a
straightforward, Regular “buzz.” Warhol in the 60s and 70s, for example,
was not particularly like that; he “buzzed” plenty in his own time; yet,
the whole point of his work is built-in obsolescence, which assures his
oeuvre no future at all in a century which values individualism and the
Solid. If you are interested in Neo-Romanticism, please prepare yourself
for a long, rewarding ride. Not only that— that we embraced form as
perhaps the most serious mode of aesthetic individuality means that
those with sufficient brains will never find leave to be embarrassed with
us. The spine of our body of work is set sturdily and securely in place. As
in Romanticism and Neo-Classicism, the multi-dimensional aspect of
myself and Abby— that there is strong narrative-thematic material to
enhance, gird, and reinforce the formal, manifesting an ideal of the work
of art as well-rounded and Solid— can only intermittently interest the
Regular world, ever. When was the last time you saw the name John
Keats in the New York Times or the New Yorker, or, for that matter, The
Philadelphia Inquirer? The Solid World is always in the process of
building and rebuilding itself, and re-inventing its own architecture. If
what the Regular World has in store for us is scripted respect backed
with distance and mistrust, who cares? The reason to create (ultimately)
is that you want to create, and you can; and this axiomatic assumption
undergirds not only Neo-Romanticism, Romanticism, and Neo-