What is academicism and academic art, and are these terms interchangeable? Which artists typify the ideals of academic art? What has constituted academic art in the past, and what is it today? To what extent can this term be redefined and/or rehabilitated? And to what degree does it overlap with the concept of tradition? These are just some of the questions that this exhibition and essay are trying to address. As a general rule, we should first define the term we are discussing, so as to avoid any potential ambiguities. Based on the definition of the Institute of Lexicography, academicism in art presupposes the use of well-established (educational, traditional) procedures, technical skills without invention. According to the historical sequence of meanings it has acquired, the term academicism primarily refers to the principles and method of instruction at the historical academies (Academy of Saint Luke in Rome, Academy of Fine Arts in Paris), and then the works and critical judgments created based on those principles by the members of the academy, professors and students, or, in turn, adherents of their methods… However, as the short article of the Lexicographical Institute further elaborates, the meaning of the terms “academicism/academic painting/academic artist” has not been as clear cut throughout the history of artistic creation. On the one hand, academic education is coveted and praised, it is taken as confirmation of creativity of the highest order (when issuing praise and/or trying to sell a particular artist’s work, one often hears the phrase, he/she is an academic artist, regardless of the stylistic expression), and on the other, there is a juxtaposing rebellious attitude against the academic method of artistic education. It is considered conservative, regressive and even backwards, especially after the second half of the 19^th century. This refers to works that insist on strict rules and non-inventive eclectic work procedures.

<- Return to Chapters