Question for serious artists
Cheryl
people are doing. I clicked on one link that had a bunch of painted
plastic horses on it. Is painting plastic horses and putting hair
manes and tales on them considered art? It seemed so pointless to me.
Thoughts? Cheryl
Amedeo Felix
> Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com
> Newsgroups: alt.art
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:25:47 GMT
> Subject: Question for serious artists
http://wwwharrisonart.fsnet.co.uk
We both have real contemporary artwork on our sites...
--
Ciao!
Amedeo
Michael Nobbs
You wrote:
You've raised a serious question. Obviously not having seen the site you
mentioned I can't comment on that individually, but I do think people have been
asking the same thing about art for a long time.
I think, and hope, that art is constantly moving and stretching. I shouldn't
be simply reproducing what has gone before, making work that somehow fills what
is conventionally thought of as "art", but rather experimenting, moving, and
provoking discussion!
What do you feel is art?
BTW I sometimes think there is no point to any art, but that hasn't stopped me
yet!
Best wishes
Michael
http://www.oneartistsjourney.co.uk
putting myself and my art online and on the line...
Cheryl
<ame...@quetzalcoatl.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>> From: cheryl...@yahoo.com (Cheryl)
>> Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.art
>> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 00:25:47 GMT
>> Subject: Question for serious artists
>>
>> I come here and look at the various links to see what type of art
>> people are doing. I clicked on one link that had a bunch of painted
>> plastic horses on it. Is painting plastic horses and putting hair
>> manes and tales on them considered art? It seemed so pointless to me.
>> Thoughts? Cheryl
>>
>>
>Have a look at my site at http://www.quetzalcoatl.co.uk or my friend's at
>http://wwwharrisonart.fsnet.co.uk
I looked at your site and your work is really cool. I enjoyed looking
at it.
I tried looking at your friend's site but it was down.
Cheryl
Cheryl
wrote:
>Hi Cheryl
>
>You wrote:
>
>>I come here and look at the various links to see what type of art
>>people are doing. I clicked on one link that had a bunch of painted
>>plastic horses on it. Is painting plastic horses and putting hair
>>manes and tales on them considered art? It seemed so pointless to me.
>>Thoughts? Cheryl
>>
>
>You've raised a serious question. Obviously not having seen the site you
>mentioned I can't comment on that individually, but I do think people have been
>asking the same thing about art for a long time.
I looked and couldn't find the orginal site I was talking about. Here
is another site that has some examples of the painted model horses.
http://members.aa.net/~jahlee2/recent.html
>
>I think, and hope, that art is constantly moving and stretching. I shouldn't
>be simply reproducing what has gone before, making work that somehow fills what
>is conventionally thought of as "art", but rather experimenting, moving, and
>provoking discussion!
>
>What do you feel is art?
When I see paintings and sculpture in a gallery or in someone's home,
I think that is art.
I see things like this at flea markets. I question whether it is art
or not.
Is this art?
http://www.timewornworks.homestead.com/Birdhouses.html
I am thinking that soemthing that is created to be mass produced isn't
really art.
Is real art something the artist created from within themselves or
what about people who paint or whatever just to create something to
sell?
>BTW I sometimes think there is no point to any art, but that hasn't stopped me
>yet!
>
>Best wishes
>
>Michael
>
>http://www.oneartistsjourney.co.uk
>putting myself and my art online and on the line...
Nice site you have.
Cheryl
Michael Nobbs
You're making me think today, thankyou!
You wrote:
>I looked and couldn't find the orginal site I was talking about. Here
>is another site that has some examples of the painted model horses.
>
I took a look around the site - I get the impression the guy isn't trying to
sell himself as an artist - though maybe what he does could be considered art.
Kitch can be art - look at Jeff Koons.
By and large I think there are two things needed to decide whether something is
art - the artist's intention to make art and the someones willingness to see it
as such. Personally I would give more weight to the former. But I'm not sure
you can have art if you don't have both, at least not at some point.
You also wrote:
>When I see paintings and sculpture in a gallery or in someone's home,
>I think that is art.
Maybe if the horses were in a gallery you'd think they were art?
Take care and thanks for your kind words about my site.
Amedeo Felix
> Organization: Altopia Corp. - Usenet Access - http://www.altopia.com
> Newsgroups: alt.art
> Subject: Re: Question for serious artists
http://www.harrisonart.fsnet.co.uk
Left off the "." after "www"! :-\
Glad you enjoyed my site. Do have a look at me mate's. Her site ain't
fully developed yet, but it does have some good images on it.
--
Ciao!
Amedeo
P.S. Check out my fine art, and critical writings site at
http://www.quetzalcoatl.co.uk/
pbk...@webtv.net
EarthLight Productions
news:3a74b7a0...@news.alt.net...
Hi Cheryl,
In the US painted plastic horses are sometimes referred to in the same light
as the big donut on top of Randy's Donuts in LA, or the giant longhorn steer
on top of steak restaurants. The Texans call it "Ort" to distinguish it. I
suppose you could call it "popular art" (perhaps even Pop Art) because, to
the person who executed it, such stuff might well be Art. It's subjective,
isn't it?
At my Gallery site - http://www.earthlight.net/Gallery.html - I post
cartoons, illustrations, and other drawings. Now, many in the Art World
might not see this as being Art, unless you talk to Art historians, I
suppose. Cartoonists don't get a lot of respect from the rest, unless we're
dead and made scads of money... :) But I'd have absolutely no problem
putting some of my material in a physical gallery, and have had offers in
the past when I was unfortunately hesitant to do so.
Do come have a look though, as it's good for everything from a chuckle to
advertising and t-shirts. And *I* think it's just one of the kinds of Art I
do. :)
Stephen Goodman
http://www.earthlight.net/Gallery.html - Cartoons/Illustrations
http://www.earthlight.net/Studios * The free Loop of the Week!
http://www.mp3.com/StephenGoodman * New MP3 Releases!
http://StephenGoodman.iuma.com * Even more MP3s!
Amedeo Felix
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Newsgroups: alt.art
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2001 10:32:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Question for serious artists
I guess we as "serious artists" have to be careful not to become so
caught up in the terminology that we lose site of growth. Now
admittedly, I have not seen the site that your speaking of but, perhaps
this person who is painting these horses is not even trying to put them
of as "serious" art. Perhaps this person is just enjoying it as a
pastime. But as artists we always need to remember that just because it
does not have a category does not necessarily make it non-art. Many
pioneers in the history of art were considered strange and even
downright untalented. Perhaps because you are more advanced in your art
you could give this person some pointers. Just a thought. Thank you for
posing an interesting question.
Thing is NOT to take ONSELF too seriously, but to take one's ART serious.
;-)
aquaviolet
"EarthLight Productions" <spgo...@earthlight.net> wrote in message news:980875191.24551.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
Searching for Something Wonderful
You made a good thought provoking point about painted horses.
I thought about it and have decided that I should look at this as another
form of artistic expression. This person may just love painting molded and
dimenional objects. I think this has to be learned and studied as well to
put the right shade, color spots, making the eyes look good etc..
You can look at porcelain, wooden, plaster of paris, fabric etc. the same
way as you look at these plastic horses. Here you probably have a couple of
artists involved. One to mold the horse then the factory to produce them
and then the painter to paint the horses.
For me I love painting pure canvas sheets in oils. However, it is hard for
me to get the feel of a stretched piece of canvas and I have painted many.
So now I paint mostly sheets, then mount them. A lot of other artists would
scoff at this but, this is how I paint. For one to say he/she is better
because of the surfaces he paints on seems to me limits his own imagination.
So, I say this is more a case of to each his own. To me its the process
that produces the richness I feel in my mind and soul as I put each brush
stroke of paint down.
What do you paint? Do you have a website up?
Pilan
Cheryl wrote in message <3a74b7a0...@news.alt.net>...
Carol Es
ok, not really. & i know my jokes are only funny to me, but i'm better
at expressing myself with oil paint fumes.
- / - / - / - / - / - / - / - / -
Carol Es
(self-taught painter in los angeles)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
RolandKoch
I acknowledge and respect your opinion.
Mine most probably differs from yours.
After all we are but two individuals in this world.
How does one define 'Art' except by one's own opinion?
---Or if somebody we consider our peer and 'better' expresses hisher
opinion,
thus compellng us to consider modifying our first -and most honest-
impression !!
Art is in the eye of the beholder, I should think.
Cheers,
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za
Cheryl <cheryl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a74b7a0...@news.alt.net...
course...@my-deja.com
> >You've raised a serious question. Obviously not having seen the
site you
> >mentioned I can't comment on that individually, but I do think
people have been
> >asking the same thing about art for a long time.
>
> I looked and couldn't find the orginal site I was talking about. Here
> is another site that has some examples of the painted model horses.
>
> http://members.aa.net/~jahlee2/recent.html
>
> >
> >I think, and hope, that art is constantly moving and stretching. I
shouldn't
> >be simply reproducing what has gone before, making work that somehow
fills what
> >is conventionally thought of as "art", but rather experimenting,
moving, and
> >provoking discussion!
I'm not sure if I qualify as a "serious artist" because I did "serious
art" when I was in school and could afford not to make a living, and
then did Graphic Design, and now I do something slightly different.
However, I'm bored at work today, so I thought I'd add my $.02. I
poked around the entire site listed above, and it is a gallery for,
apparently, several artists, who not only paint these horses, but also
create the molds and produce the sculptures. Some of the sculptures
are not so hot, others are superbly detailed and closesly observed, and
obviously the product of someone who spends a LOT of time around horses
and loves them very much. (I especially liked the little pregnant
ones.)
I think the fact that *some* of these sculptures are plastic resin in
no way affects whether they are art or not. Does the fact that they
are horses affect it? I don't think so. Lladros are designed to sit
on someone's mantel, as are Hummels. I think we'd all agree that those
are art. So, the fact that these are "livingroom" pieces does not seem
to diminish their potential as objets d'art either. So I guess what
I'm driving at is that these are at least as much art as a sliced cow,
perhaps more.
Someone does appear to be making a good deal of money on these horses,
and good for them!!! If art is your vocation, then it is a business
just like any other, and saleability of your product is NOT a
liability. I suppose if I'd thought more like that when I WAS an
artist, I'd be one now ;).
-Amy
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Cheryl
I like the little pregnant one too. The one called covenant something
was strange looking. Some of them are painted massed produced plastic
Breyer horses.
>I think the fact that *some* of these sculptures are plastic resin in
>no way affects whether they are art or not. Does the fact that they
>are horses affect it? I don't think so. Lladros are designed to sit
>on someone's mantel, as are Hummels. I think we'd all agree that those
>are art. So, the fact that these are "livingroom" pieces does not seem
>to diminish their potential as objets d'art either. So I guess what
>I'm driving at is that these are at least as much art as a sliced cow,
>perhaps more.
From what I have read, these aren't living room pieces. They put
small saddles and bridles on them and take them to shows like real
horses.
I think I would like to try painting one.
>
>Someone does appear to be making a good deal of money on these horses,
>and good for them!!! If art is your vocation, then it is a business
>just like any other, and saleability of your product is NOT a
>liability. I suppose if I'd thought more like that when I WAS an
>artist, I'd be one now ;).
>
Yes they do seem to make a lot of money from them. I guess I was
worried if I tried this type of art, would I be disrespecpted as an
artist. Although I really don't think I would stop getting gallery
shows if they found out I was painting plastic horses on the side.
Lol!
Cheryl
RolandKoch
Would the 'value' of the artwork discussed change if the horses were moulded
from gold and then painted? Or from papier-mache? I should think not.
Hmmm.
Roland Koch
http://www.xlab.co.za
Cheryl <cheryl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3a7f3d08...@news.alt.net...
Robert C Wittig
It's a tough question. I have some strong opinions on the subject, but
sometimes I will find a thing that I at first sneered at, will suddenly
at some future date, suddenly sink all the way in, and I will 'get it,'
after which time it becomes art 'for me.' The later acrylic works of
Leon Golub are a particularly good example of this 'eureka experience.'
I actually wrote an essay on the subject, which will soon be published
on Artnet.com, and is presently available at
http://www.robertwittig.com/paper4.html
I paint in a fairly realistic style, and one thing that I run into a
lot, is the critical opinion that anyone who chooses to paint in any
style that is not 'cutting edge' is doing something that has been done
before, and that therefore, it cannot be art. I try to avoid either of
these extreme attitudes, and focus more on viewing other peoples' work
by the measure of 'competent vs incompetent,' rather than 'good or bad.'
--
Wittig- http://www.robertwittig.com/
WL131
>lot, is the critical opinion that anyone who chooses to paint in any
>style that is not 'cutting edge' is doing something that has been done
>before, and that therefore, it cannot be art. I try to avoid either of
>these extreme attitudes, and focus more on viewing other peoples' work
>by the measure of 'competent vs incompetent,' rather than 'good or bad.'
>
>
Is there really a practical difference between being competent and being good?
To say that a violinist is "competent" is slightly less flattering than to say
he is "good" I suppose, but it is an inferred difference not a truly semantical
one. We ought to be allowed to assume that if an artists is competent that
means he's reasonably good as well.
In the sense that compentent means capable we may rightly ask capable of WHAT?
The ready answer is: Capable of pleasing. The indication of this is enthusiasm
shown, the empirical measure of which is investment, and normally this means
money. That is why a competent violinist will earn a better living playing the
violin than an incompetent violinist will, (assuming an effort is made by both
to do so).
The empirical evidence of money as a measure of pleasing holds as well in the
visual arts but when the theoretical aspect is introduced things become much
more confusing. Empiricism is useless in trying to understand WHY something
pleases. Violinists have it easier than painters in this regard. Joshua Bell
doesn't worry that someone who stretches a wire across a cigar box and calls it
a violin will ever be declared a greater violinist than he and the rightful
heir to the legacy of the great violinists who have come before him. He doesn't
fear losing his accolades (which translates into money) to such a "violinist".
This is because, for reasons I won't speculate upon here, the musical world has
not (yet) succumbed to Modernist theoretical rhetoric. To wit, John Cage is an
anomily to the musical world, an amusing court jester, while the visual art
world is dominated by those of his ilk and the creme of them are gods.
What we BELIEVE is good (or competent) is largely a choice we are free to make
(though coersion can play a role) and, within groups a matter of concesus.
Whether it actually IS good in the ultimate sense, that is to say, whether it
OUGHT to be pleasing, is a far deeper and troubling question, one that
intersects with questions about the meaning and dignity of human life.
-Larry E.
Robert C Wittig
> You mentioned one exteme attitude. What was the other?
Oops! One extreme attitude is the one that supposes that only the more
traditional, classical and representational styles have validity, and
the other is the extreme attitude that only more modern, experimental,
and non-representational styles have any validity. I did not bother to
mention the former, because the message to which I was replying had
implied it in its text.
> Is there really a practical difference between being competent and
being good?
Yes. Competentcy is a matter of being the master of the tools and
skills that are prerequisite to one's field. In the field of fine
visual arts, 'good vs. bad' addresses a separate issue, which has to do
with the results of the use of those tools, and the exercise of those
skills, in the building of a work of art that is capable of eliciting
resonance between emotion and intellect in a significant body of
viewers.
> To say that a violinist is "competent" is slightly less flattering
than to say
> he is "good" I suppose, but it is an inferred difference not a truly
semantical
> one.
No, it's not inferred; it's a strict matter of definition, although the
definitions do not translate well from the visual arts, where 'good
art' and 'bad art' have distinct meanings, to the function of a
violinist.
> We ought to be allowed to assume that if an artists is competent that
> means he's reasonably good as well.
I agree strongly with this, but you may not find universal support for
the idea. Much of Modernist theory proposes that too high a degree of
competency (virtuosity) is a hindrance to making truly inspired art.
In any event, I prefer keeping the two notions separate for the reason
I mentioned; that when I am judging another person's work, I can
usually see their level of competence almost immediately, but may have
to grow into recognising the artistic merit of their work.
> In the sense that compentent means capable we may rightly ask capable
of WHAT?
> The ready answer is: Capable of pleasing. The indication of this is
enthusiasm
> shown, the empirical measure of which is investment, and normally
this means
> money. That is why a competent violinist will earn a better living
playing the
> violin than an incompetent violinist will, (assuming an effort is
made by both
> to do so).
The sense in which I meant competent was very narrow; I meant the
ability to move the idea from one's brain into one's hand, while at the
same time moving the paints from the tubes onto the painting surface so
that when finished, the idea on the canvas (etc.) matched fairly
precisely the idea that the brain (conscious and non-conscious) had
wanted to express.
History tends to disagree with your idea of competence being directly
equated with other people's opinions of the artistic production
(especially within the artist's lifetime), and the degree of financial
success that attends such recognition. Some superb artists became rich,
and some did not. Some mediocre artists became rich, and some did not.
This holds true in painting, music, writing (especially poetry), dance,
sculpture, etc.
The true value of artistic production, in my opinion, is its ability to
influence human thought and emotion, in a way that unifies these two
very different ways of experiencing our reality.
> The empirical evidence of money as a measure of pleasing holds as
well in the
> visual arts but when the theoretical aspect is introduced things
become much
> more confusing.
Heh. My own opinion is that when theory is introduced in a way that
confuses instead of clarifying, perhaps there is something amiss in
either the theory being proferred, or in the explanation being given.
> Violinists have it easier than painters in this regard.
You are comparing apples and oranges, here. A painter is comparable to
a composer, and not a performer.
> This is because, for reasons I won't speculate upon here, the musical
world has
> not (yet) succumbed to Modernist theoretical rhetoric. To wit, John
Cage is an
> anomily to the musical world, an amusing court jester, while the
visual art
> world is dominated by those of his ilk and the creme of them are gods.
What you describe here, in the field of fine visual arts, is rapidly
becoming a thing of the past. What happened at the end of the 20th
century was essentially the same thing that happend in the 19th
century, just prior to the Expressionist movement, and the advent of
Modernism. To quote from a recent essay: 'What went wrong was, Modern
art became a victim of its own success. The art dealers, critics,
curators, schools, and established artists all had a vested interest in
maintaining the status quo, the same as their counterparts 100 years
ago had done.' The entire text is located at:
http://www.robertwittig.com/paper17.html
> What we BELIEVE is good (or competent) is largely a choice we are
free to make
> (though coersion can play a role) and, within groups a matter of
concesus.
> Whether it actually IS good in the ultimate sense, that is to say,
whether it
> OUGHT to be pleasing, is a far deeper and troubling question, one that
> intersects with questions about the meaning and dignity of human
life.
I will suggest that the product of art is in itself a 'cause,' and that
art can be judged best by its 'effect.'
I do not think that art is a search for objective reality, or 'truth.'
That is a job for science. I think that art instead is a search for
subjective reality, or 'honesty.' I think that the ultimate goal of
art and science are the same; survival of the species. Science offers
us objective, intellectual truth, and art offers us subjective,
emotional, honesty. At the level of species, we need both to survive.
WL131
A very interesting response. I will defer entirely on the matter of competent
vs good and partially on the violin anology. Though imperfect the basic point
has some validity I think. If musical composition is substituted you will find
the same is generally true. There is no real following for avant-garde music
and a full program of it is a rare thing indeed. It is usually forced into a
broader program and I have often seen audiences fairly squirming and then
politely applauding that it was finally finished. And as I pointed out before,
the stuff that is most closely analogous to what is common in the visual
arts(like Cage) is far from common in music.
As for the historical record, I think what you believe is largely myth. Many
great artists mismanaged there money surely but even some of the favorite
examples like Mozart did better than we tend to think. At any rate, if he was
poorly paid at the time is was because he was poorly regarded at the time and
that was the point I was making.( I think I did account for the fact that what
is considered pleasing varies from era to era and different fields of art.) For
whatever wrong reasons he was not so beloved at the time as we now believe he
should have been. But again, this is not as usual as popular myth would
suggest. (I can give support for this at some later time if you'd like)
I will ponder the rest of what you wrote and perhaps add to this. You have
provided much to think about.
-Larry E.
WL131
>> means he's reasonably good as well.
>
>I agree strongly with this, but you may not find universal support for
>the idea. Much of Modernist theory proposes that too high a degree of
>competency (virtuosity) is a hindrance to making truly inspired art.
>
If Modernism could be reduced to a two word slogan, "Glorify Absurdity" might
serve. The theory mentioned above fits under that banner nicely.
-L.E.
Walter Alter
I've wrestled with the question of legitimacy in abstract art long and hard.
I walked thoughtfully through the Josef Albers museum in Bottrop, Germany
last summer while my otherwise charming cousin dismissed it all with a huff
by saying that she could do the same and sat down to wait for me. Well, she
could imitate the same, but she couldn't originate the same.
I think the question hinges on the fact that the symbols of communication
must be learned, and if the spectator has not learned the language of
abstraction, then he or she will remain indifferent, or, stranger yet,
hostile to the fact that others seem to be deriving some deep mystical
pleasure from a phenomenon that is seemingly incomprehensible. I suppose
the same can be said for any field of expertise. Botanists swoon at healthy
or rare plants, geologists at hardened mud, model makers at a really tacky
glue that is sandable when dried.
Another problem with modernist art is that, while it appears to be of a
continuum with pre-modernist (realistic or naturalistic or narrative art) it
really is not. There should be a giant chain link fence between Picasso's
"Demoiselles" and all that preceeded it because modern art shares only one
thing conceptually in common with representational art and that is merely
the word "art". OK, maybe canvass, paint, rectangular format and a few
other formal attributes.
But the ideas that animate and suffuse the work is as different from
representation as is a mug shot from a photo of comet Shoemaker Levy
blasting into Jupiter. This animating substance should consist of the
definition, the whole definition and nothing but the definition. For
thieves, the interstate highway system is a getaway route. The show "Cops"
should call streets "attempted escape routes" when in a chase. Language
that is not case or situation specific is pre-modernist. The modernist
axiom that there is no universal language is the trues in modernism''s
repertoire. From there it is downhill. We must become linguists knowing
the patois of a hundred fields of expertise.
We should invent a term for modernist art. Creative Artistic Visualizing
Experimentation. Give it the acronym C.A.V.E. art. and simply tell the
multitudes that it is not for them but is the language of visiting alien
beings from another continuum who live to learn how their minds work.
Walter
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
walter alter artist - heretic - savant
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|||||
PORTFOLIO: www.geocities.com/yollopoliuhqui
PSYOPS: www.fortunecity.com/victorian/mill/1189
WL131 <wl...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010210005102...@ng-cs1.aol.com...
pimp
i invite you to join our thread in the Forum Graphics vs. Art, located @
www.adobeforums.com
Simply click on Photoshop for Windows, then log in as a new user. Choose the
topic called Graphics vs. Art.
We would gladly enjoy your visit and point of view about Modern Art,
for the knowledge,
Etienne
"Walter Alter" <lime...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5Boh6.1072$0m5.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...