Goya's Majas
Bruce Mitzit
Maja"? I've looked everywhere but can't find gifs or Jpegs of either.
Kindly email me.
Mani Deli
articles by our great art critics (New York Times was tops).
I overheard a passing comment which best sums it up. It was
concise clear and to the point. "Cat vomit!"
I think that is better then my own former summary of the great De
Kooning which was-- the most profound spiritual expression of
tension headaches by a founding father and codiscoverer of
flatness. Abstract Depressionism's greatist exponent.
De Kooning is less talented then most art students. I mean at
painting not making money. Art students and the great population
of failure-artists and teachers out there can usually paint
better abstractions then De Kooning. Their big mistake is not
realizing that in order to make anything more than purely
abstract money they have to paint considerably worse than De
Kooning not better. That is the difficult first step. The second
step, far more difficult, is to manage a good P.R. campaign and
get commercial like De Kooning.
The main thing that today's post modern genius must remember if
he wants to be rich and recognized is that, PEOPLE PREFER
BULLSHIT. (in large amounts bite-sized and ready to eat)
Mani Deli
Charles Eicher
Deli) wrote:
> I just saw a bunch of De koonings. I also read lots of Artspeak
> articles by our great art critics (New York Times was tops).
>
> I overheard a passing comment which best sums it up. It was
> concise clear and to the point. "Cat vomit!"
>
> I think that is better then my own former summary of the great De
> Kooning which was-- the most profound spiritual expression of
> tension headaches by a founding father and codiscoverer of
> flatness. Abstract Depressionism's greatist exponent.
>
> De Kooning is less talented then most art students.
I will call your bluff with a challenge. If you can paint an EXACT copy of
ANY deKooning work, so exact that 3 experts on deKooning cannot tell it is
not authentic, I will purchase it from you at the price the REAL deKooning
would fetch.
I assure you that deKooning's work has a definite methodology and is quite
painstakingly painted, it is NOT just slapped onto the canvase randomly.
Alas, you are apparently unable to recognize anything below the surface.
If all you want from the arts is a bunch of 'pretty paintings' then I will
refer you to the Keane Gallery in San Francisco, you can buy a bunch of
nice pretty paintings by the guy that paints little kids with those big
eyes.
To finish, I will quote William Shakespeare:
"Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."
or, to paraphrase, there is no stupid art, only stupid people.
-----------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@ins.infonet.net
-----------------------
Bruce Mitzit
What're you guys doing on my thread?
David Nice
> <snip>
> The main thing that today's post modern genius must remember if
> he wants to be rich and recognized is that, PEOPLE PREFER
> BULLSHIT. (in large amounts bite-sized and ready to eat)
So...can we presume that "cat vomit" can be loosely
included in that "cat"agory?
David Nice
Mani Deli
> The main thing that today's post modern genius must remember
if
> he wants to be rich and recognized is that, PEOPLE PREFER
> BULLSHIT. (in large amounts bite-sized and ready to eat)
David Nice answers
Dn> So...can we presume that "cat vomit" can be loosely
Dn> included in that "cat"agory?
Sure David. Now all have to do is tell us why... Nicely.
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
James Brown
On Thu, 29 Dec 1994, Mani Deli wrote:
> I just saw a bunch of De koonings. I also read lots of Artspeak
> articles by our great art critics (New York Times was tops).
>
> I overheard a passing comment which best sums it up. It was
> concise clear and to the point. "Cat vomit!"
> The main thing that today's post modern genius must remember if
> he wants to be rich and recognized is that, PEOPLE PREFER
> BULLSHIT. (in large amounts bite-sized and ready to eat)
>
> Mani Deli
Bet your a big hit on your home town Art Scene.
I'm not even gonning to bother with a response other thatn this to your
clear and concise pointlessness.
Mani Deli
I overheard a passing comment which best sums up De Kooning. It
was concise clear and to the point. "Cat vomit!"
Ce> I will call your bluff with a challenge. If you can paint an
EXACT
Ce> copy of ANY deKooning work, so exact that 3 experts on
deKooning cannot
Ce> tell it is not authentic, I will purchase it from you at the
price the
Ce> REAL deKooning would fetch.
What would an EXACT copy prove? Of course I couldn't do an EXACT
copy of a De Kooning. No one could not even De Kooning. Take a
large wall painters brush charge it with ten colors and schmier
it across a huge canvas. Then spend the rest of your life making
a EXACT copy. What would that prove?
I suggest you purchase a real De Kooning with all that money you
saved for the challenge. Make your own copy which should be
finished by the time the next fashion takes hold. I venture to
say that at that time the original won't be worth much more
then your copy.
Art school racks are full of paintings nobody not even the great
De Kooning could copy exactly. But of these abstractions many are
far better De Kooning and contain equally ugly schmiery passages.
Indeed not EXACTLY De Kooning.
I think that De Kooning and imitators couldn't even paint as
badly as Keane. Few art students today are capable of copying a
small passage in, I'll try to choose some of your pet hates,(a
guess) Norman Rockwell, Vargas, Dali and even Keane.
Fact is that there are many Abstract Expressionist and Modern Art
forgeries out there. This is precisely because they are easily
imitated. Art dealers are constantly on the lookout. No one has
to watch out for forgeries of Rockwell, Ingres, David, Van Eyke
etc. Why? Because they are almost impossible to imitate. There
are great forgeries out there and they hang in museums as
originals.
Most richy idiots don't purchase MODERN ART because they like it
but because they think its valuable and will appreciate in value.
They are buying a signature as a store of value. The content of
the painting is of little interest. Just try to sell them an
abstraction by a no name artist and see how far you get.
It is elegant to say I own a De Kooning. That's about it. But let
me offer you a challenge. After you purchase your De Kooning
change the signature to Jo Schmo and put it up for sale in a flee
market in Paraguay and see what people offer you. Or if you can't
make Paraguay try New York. Offer your Jo Schmo masterpiece to a
hard nosed high class MODERN ART dealer and see how interested
he gets.
De Kooning is no better and usually far worse then most of the
commercial crap covering those miles of huge concrete walls one
sees in today's office buildings.
Ce> I assure you that deKooning's work has a definite
methodology and is quite painstakingly painted, it is NOT just
slapped onto the canvas randomly.
I accept your assurances. Methodology, painstaking indeed, but so
what when the result is "cat vomit." Most so called artists who
never learned how to draw and have no skill or craft have nothing
more then a methodology. Besides spouting manifestoes of
Artspeak and complaining of their lack of recognition most of
those labeling themselves as artists today paint painstakingly.
Painstakingly over and over. The result is little more then well
deserved failure.
CE>Alas, you are apparently unable to recognize anything below
Ce> the surface.
I see is nothing below the surface in De Kooning. I don't even
see Painting on the front surface. I see little more than dirty
canvas. Apparently you and all those MODERN ART lovers out there
are more sensitive then I am and can see below the surface. Do
tell us about what it is you see!
Ce> If all you want from the arts is a bunch of 'pretty
paintings' then I will refer you to the Keane Gallery in San
Francisco, you can buy a bunch of nice pretty paintings by the
guy that paints little kids with those big eyes.
Hey I used to know Keane when he was exhibiting in N.Y. in the
50's. Wasn't sure he's still doing the bug eyes. They always
reminded me of the bug eyes in De Kooning's women. Keane's are
better but why not mention someone who can paint well like Dali
or any of the best illustrators instead of someone who couldn't
design a descent towel.
Ce> To finish, I will quote William Shakespeare:
Ce> "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."
Ce> or, to paraphrase, there is no stupid art, only stupid
people.
Perhaps you are right, only stupid people. Stupid artists, stupid
critics, stupid museum directors, stupid teachers and stupid rich
collectors. Never the less I prefer to label what they are into,
stupid art!
P.S. Although we disagree somewhat I compliment you on your
willingness to do so. Most of the halfwits out there in
cyberspace are too blown out to defend their position. They can
only speak to those who agree with them. It was that way when I
went to art school.
... No skill no art.
Mani DeLi
Jack A. Krueger
You have not yet, or will you ever have anything of value to contribute
to the "life commitment" required for the field called "high art".
In other words look for some other kind of work.
Jack A. Krueger
Charles Eicher
Deli) wrote:
> Ce> or, to paraphrase, there is no stupid art, only stupid
> people.
>
> Perhaps you are right, only stupid people. Stupid artists, stupid
> critics, stupid museum directors, stupid teachers and stupid rich
> collectors. Never the less I prefer to label what they are into,
> stupid art!
I think you missed my point. I was calling YOU stupid.
Your agenda to declare the modern art world as 'stupid' and 'talentless'
serves no purpose. If you have something to contribute to the art world,
please do so. Go paint a painting that's better than deKooning if you are
able. Somehow I doubt you can.
It is an indisputable fact that the entire artworld is engaged in a dialog
about modernism, postmodernism, and abstract art. Myself, and many others
draw a considerable amount of enjoyment and advancement from modern art.
If you prefer to ignore this, you will be left behind. It appears to me
that your messages are merely sour grapes that the art world has ignored
your 'talent'...
The modern art world has suffered more than a few idiots who declare it
stupid. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last. But when the
history of the world is written, the names of deKooning, Dali, etc will
all be in there. But YOU won't be remembered for your criticism. It is
always easier to criticise than create. It is easier to tear down than to
build. People always are quick to criticise what they don't understand. I
would accept your criticism more readily if you showed ANY understanding
of these works you loathe so much. To you, they are all just "schmiery"
paint on canvas.
From my own personal experience, I find that the works that I originally
dislike, then as I learn about them, come to understand and even enjoy,
are the best experiences of all. I invite you to learn what art is about,
and perhaps even have one of these experiences. Please leave behind your
pathetic art-school attitude and open yourself up to something new. When
you are able to learn from artworks that you dislike as well as like, THEN
you can call yourself an artist.
Mani Deli
Ja> Student work has no point nor gets a point.
Why? Because most art teachers are the product of a tradition of 70 years of
incompetence. Most Art students don't acquire skill, they learn to lecture.
Many enter school talented and take courses on how to create practically
nothing and pass it of as art.
I once had a very dadaistic experience. Nature called while I was visiting an
art department of a prestigious university. I went and did my thing. On
reaching for the paper I noticed a carefully drawn arrow pointing up at it,
below this was written "Art degree take one."
I won't enter a debate as to whether this was art or not.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Mani Deli
> At least De Kooning is better than pictures of birds.
Get a magnifing glass and look at a birds nest painted by Robert Landsdown.
Now imagine the detail blown up wall size. What would you get? Abstraction?
Abstract Expressionism.
> Actually, I'm glad this "stupid art" thread got started. I think
> there needs to be more artistic discourse on stupid art.
Do some extra curricular reading in one of those super glossy quartely art
magazines.
> I went through
> a period where I tried to make my art as stupid as possible. I did a
> whole series of drawings of my thumb with Bic pens that were running
> out of ink or leaking. Unfortunately, I had to chalk up the series as a
> failure, because no matter how stupid I tried to make the drawings,
> somebody thought they were brilliant. Are there any other artists on
> the net who are trying for stupidity? And do they have any tips?
Tip: Try selling your masterpieces for more then stupid abstract money.
> BTW, I did a piece once made of cat vomit, and it didn't look
> anything like De Kooning.
So did I it looked more like a Pollock. For better results try bat shit and
aim at Franz Klein!
Mani Deli
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
Malden Access Television
reach me you can at smi...@world.std.com
I've followed this argument with great interest. I can see points on both
sides of the matter, but I do agree that the intellectual elitism in art
has distanced people from it. I know intelligent people who shudder at
the word "artist". Why? the perception that you need a college degree in
art history to comment on art. That is ridiculous. Anyone should be able
to voice their opinion about a piece of artwork with no fear of appearing
stupid.
To me the question isn't "Is the artwork good or bad?" or whether
it is stupid or not. I usually think: Did it affect me? Will I remember it?
How did it affect me? If an artwork is eminently forgettable, it
demonstrates its own mediocrity.
A final comment on a comment-
[snip]
: To finish, I will quote William Shakespeare:
: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."
: or, to paraphrase, there is no stupid art, only stupid people.
: -----------------------
: Charles Eicher
: cei...@ins.infonet.net
: -----------------------
I don't know if old Will would completely approve of your paraphrase.
I think you two are saying two completely different things. But since
he's dead, who's to complain?
yours in fun
-sarah smiley
smi...@world.std.com
Mani Deli
Ja> Mani Deli,
Ja> You have not yet, or will you ever have anything of value to
Ja> contribute to the "life commitment" required for the field
called
Ja> "high art".
Ja> In other words look for some other kind of work.
"life commitment"... high art...work?
The Inquisition has spoken I guess I'll never make it out to the
"field".
You sound like the type who spends more time writing manifestos
rather than producing anything "of value." Why don't you criticize my
points. Surely someone as creative as you would have something
more to say in defence of his beliefs than the above.
Mani Deli
I will be writing some articles which express my negative views
on MODERN ART. Let the following serve as an introduction. Before
I begin I would like to say that it surprises me how little
response I get in either opposition or agreement. Surely if
MODERN ART is so profound and the ultimate expression of genius I
would get more abject response to my heretical commentary. Is
there a silent majority out there that agrees that the
fashionable fine art today is neither fine nor art? I have yet to
hear from anyone who agrees with some of my views at least on a
public conference. I admit some people have agreed in private
messages. I suppose it is not cool to be openly unfashionable.
It's a tossup as to who to mention first, Rothko, Klein, Warhol
or
Pollock. Perhaps I should pick from the gods first, Mondrian
Matisse, Picasso etc. Any suggestions from cyberspace from those
who would like to toss me to the lions even before I begin?
Introduction
For the last 40 years I have heard little more then unchallenged
orgasmic praise for the so called masters of MODERN ART and their
imitators. I have never read a critic in any newspaper even
mildly criticizing any of the founding fathers of MA or their
predecessors. Denigration is strictly reserved for those artists
who practiced certain evil tendencies such as kitsch,
illustration and commercial art. These are not considered fine
artists and are banned from our museums to intellectual Purgatory
(By that I mean rarely mentioned). Indeed this is just now
beginning to change a bit.
In my student days you might be surprised to know, Art Nouveau
and Art Deco were dead out. There were also lot of no-no artists
who have since entered the classical repertoire: Beardsley,
Mucha, Erte', Harnet, the Hudson River School (better than the
Impressionists in my opinion)to name a few. Those kitschy
illustrators who still raise the tempers of present day critics
were also out. In architecture Gaudi was the paragon of evil as
everything had to be functional. Nobody in art schools even today
knows the names of the great 19th century sculptors although
their work is widely admired. Books on Victorian art and French
Academic art were then nonexistent. Today they beginning to
appear in small quantities which indicates that there is a
rebel taste out there for something other than bread and butter
MODERNISM.
While I was in school in the late 50's the prevailing opinion in
art history books was that artistic evil emanated from the
academic painters of the 19th century. Especially evil to more
scholarly historians were the painters Gerome, Cabanel and
Messionier and the arch-evil Bouguereau. Their
work was hardly to be seen anywhere. Students still condemn
"Academic Art" and can hardly name one academic artist. The
partially accurate history of the evil Academy persecuting the
poor Impressionists was coached in almost biblical terms . A more
accurate version can only be found deep in the stacks of our
larger libraries.
The founding apostle of abstract Impressionism, Clement
Greenberg, took up the cause in the 1940's. His opinions still
prevail. He was the first chief of the Anti-kitsch
Police and founding father of the creed of "flatness." His
definition of sin and moral sincerity in art still stands with
modern day artsy-fartsies. When Greenberg called something
kitsch, commercial or illustration it meant public
excommunication.
In the early 40's the American phase of MODERN ART began. Schools
around the U.S. slowly started to hire expatriate Bauhausers.
Because of this there was a slide to utter artistic incompetence.
Today the pendulum is just
beginning to swing back. The first muttering about change is
coming from a few students who reject the antiquated traditional
Artspeak they hear in school. Instead these students want to
learn how to draw and something about techniques which rely on
something more then mere accident and clever jokes. They want to
create space which is recognizable by the viewer without
necessitating cryptic long- winded lectures on the "language of
Modern Art" and the fourth dimension. To date, they have few
teachers to turn to.
prediction...
Today's newest addition to fine art is the computer which can
produce the most astounding abstractions at electronic speed.
This will cause a flowering of surrealism (a mosaic of
abstraction and realism) which is the only valid ism of
Modernism. It will require some of the basic skills of the past
surcharged on the evolving techniques of computer graphics. What
will remain of painting as we know it will be strongly influenced
by the computer. Minimalism and nihilism which sums up almost all
of today's multitude of isms, will be out. Yesterday's isms will
be tomorrow's wasims.
to be continued ... Mani DeLi
Jack A. Krueger
CRAIG A VITTER
>
> Student work has no point nor gets a point.
>
Ah... just to clarify what you are saying... student artists do not create
valid works. Is that what you meant?
Hmm... interesting if somewhat misguided and lacking a logical basis.
Craig A. Vitter (BFA photo, May '95)
Craig CAVI...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu-If there were no rocks, we'd all be surfers.
____________________________________________________________________________
While Eeyore frets... and Piglet hesitates... and Rabbit calculates
...and Owl pontificates
...Pooh just is.
Benjamin Hoff,"The Tao of Pooh"
____________________________________________________________________________
shnook...@ins.infonet.net
Actually, I'm glad this "stupid art" thread got started. I think there needs
to be more artistic discourse on stupid art. I went through a period where I
tried to make my art as stupid as possible. I did a whole series of drawings
of my thumb with Bic pens that were running out of ink or leaking.
Unfortunately, I had to chalk up the series as a failure, because no matter
how stupid I tried to make the drawings, somebody thought they were brilliant.
Are there any other artists on the net who are trying for stupidity? And do
they have any tips?
BTW, I did a piece once made of cat vomit, and it didn't look anything like
De Kooning.
Gunther Farmout
"Serving the tri-county area artistically for over 15 years."
shnook...@ins.infonet.net
shnook...@ins.infonet.net
>In article <60.1514.49...@canrem.com>, mani...@canrem.com
>says...
>
>nononononon
>
>neo-neo-neo-neoneo-neoemeo
>
>incidentals incidnetlas
>
>fluxusfluxusfluxusfluxusfluxus
>
>dada?dada?dada?dada>
> ismismismismismismismismisimismimsimismismkmsisims's
>
>pomompmompompompmo pm pomo
>
> allofusartistsallofusartistsallofusartistsallofusartists
>aristsaristsaristsaeliteatistsiknowwhatartistsis
>But YES!!
>
>SUrealismS?? isms? ism?
>
>sue realisms
>blitheringidiotblitheringgeniusblitheringidiotblitheringgeniusgodihatearti
>sts
Bravo!! That was *really* stupid! You have provided me with much food for
thought.
Thanks for the help.
Mani Deli
questions let me repeat some questions which you fail to answer.
What would an EXACT copy of a De Kooning prove?
you said:
CE>Alas, you are apparently unable to recognize anything below
Ce> the surface.
I answered:
I see is nothing below the surface in De Kooning. I don't even
see Painting on the front surface. I see little more than dirty
canvas. Apparently you are more sensitive then I am and can see
below the surface. Do tell us about what it is you see!
I repeat. What do you see below the surface?
You mentioned Keane's bug eyes. and I answered.
Hey I used to know Keane when he was exhibiting in N.Y. in the
50's. Wasn't sure he's still doing the bug eyes. They always
reminded me of the bug eyes in De Kooning's women. Keen's are
better but why not mention someone who can paint well like Dali
or any of the best illustrators instead of someone who couldn't
design a decent towel.
Well why are De Kooning's bug eyes better?
now to your last message
Ce> I think you missed my point. I was calling YOU stupid.
Well why didn't you say so. I guess your indirect circumlocutions are too
cryptic for an insensitive person like me.
Ce> Your agenda to declare the modern art world as 'stupid' and
Ce> 'talentless' serves no purpose.
I don't have an agenda, I don't teach art. I don't "declare the modern art
world as stupid." The only thing one can't avoid is being modern. I'm as much
a part of that world as you. I think there is more quality art produced today
the ever. I just don't think that for the most part it resides in the museums
or is the stuff MODERN ART critics admire. Look at Illustrators Annual, at
Japanese illustration, comic books, animation. Look at what the holy critics
of the average newspaper call, kitsch, commercial and illustration and among
this lot of modern art you will find fine work. It is all work that your
average run of the mill street Abstractionist can't do because he lacks the
skill.
Ce> If you have something to contribute to the art world, please do so.
Didn't know you are the art world arbiter...sorry.
Go paint a painting that's better than deKooning if you are able. Somehow I
doubt you can.
You are right I can't paint that badly.
Ce> It is an indisputable fact that the entire artworld is engaged in a
Ce> dialog about modernism, postmodernism, and abstract art. Myself, and
Ce> many others draw a considerable amount of enjoyment and advancement
Ce> from modern art. If you prefer to ignore this, you will be left behind.
Ce> It appears to me that your messages are merely sour grapes that the art
Ce> world has ignored your 'talent'...
If walking off a cliff is being left behind I prefer to remain behind. I don't
think that imitating 90 year old antiquated MODERN ART is moving forward. Sour
grapes is living in a world where one avoids any negative criticism.
Ce> The modern art world has suffered more than a few idiots who declare
Ce> it stupid. You aren't the first, nor will you be the last.
Name names! I've heard nothing but orgasmic praise for the last forty years.
The only one I can think of is Tom Wolfe. How about ten others.
But when the
Ce> history of the world is written, the names of deKooning, Dali, etc
Ce> will all be in there. But YOU won't be remembered for your criticism.
Dali yes De Kooning no.
Ce> It is always easier to criticise than create.
Wrong in the case of de Kooning. The orgasmic praise he and others receive is
far more difficult to concoct then knocking of miles of dirty canvas. Writing
requires skill.
CE> It is easier to tear down than to build.
I thought one element of MA (I'll abbreviate from now on) was a rejection of
the past.
People always are quick to criticise what they don't
Ce> understand.
I'm criticizing what I understand very well. Better than you.
I would accept your criticism more readily if you showed
Ce> ANY understanding of these works you loathe so much. To you, they are
Ce> all just "schmiery" paint on canvas.
Ce> From my own personal experience, I find that the works that I
Ce> originally dislike, then as I learn about them come to understand and
Ce> even enjoy, are the best experiences of all.
I had the opposite experience. I hung around with some of these phonies and
experienced how their hype worked rather directly. For everyone that made it
there were lots who didn't. They all produced the same sort of crap.
I have even sold that sort of stuff. Have you? Art has been good to me and I
don't get upset by what people believe. I just enjoy pointing out why the
emperor is naked and that the Artsy-fartsys don't realize it yet.
Ce> I invite you to learn what art is about, and perhaps even have one of
these experiences. Please leave behind your pathetic art-school attitude and
open yourself up to
Ce> something new. When you are able to learn from artworks that you
Ce> dislike as well as like, THEN you can call yourself an artist.
Isn't that interesting. That's the same patronizing bullshit I heard in
art-school 40 years ago. All those teachers there turned out to be well
deserved forgotten failures along with the majority of students.
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
CRAIG A VITTER
> At least De Kooning is better than pictures of birds.
>
> Actually, I'm glad this "stupid art" thread got started. I think there needs
> to be more artistic discourse on stupid art. I went through a period where I
> tried to make my art as stupid as possible. I did a whole series of drawings
> of my thumb with Bic pens that were running out of ink or leaking.
> Unfortunately, I had to chalk up the series as a failure, because no matter
> how stupid I tried to make the drawings, somebody thought they were brilliant.
> Are there any other artists on the net who are trying for stupidity? And do
> they have any tips?
Well, not really stupid but, last semester I did some photocollage work that
poked fun of the process of peer critiques. Unfortunately the class didn't
seem to catch on. Oh well, all the great artists are misunderstood...
>
> BTW, I did a piece once made of cat vomit, and it didn't look anything like
> De Kooning.
>
> Gunther Farmout
> "Serving the tri-county area artistically for over 15 years."
> shnook...@ins.infonet.net
Craig CAVI...@vax1.acs.jmu.edu-If there were no rocks, we'd all be surfers.
Blank
To the idea of stupid art: The big problem I can find with making stupid
art is: if your not really stupid, it is pretentious, and usually doesn't
work.
blank
Ophun
mars...@mala.bc.ca
I have various things to respond to... The first is Mani DeLi:
I found it very hard to follow your "article" I'm not really
sure if I could grasp what the heck you were trying to say about
all the isms. But I did have a few thoughts run through my head
like, The rumblings I have heard are that artists are afraid that there
isn't anything new to do and are having a hard time finding their own
style. Modernism to me is the struggling transitional period into the
next school of art. I must say that it is pretty ugly stuff but so was
my stuff when I was just learning. Worhall(sp?) is a man on his own.
I mean looking at his art you could say thatit is comercialism at it's
finest but it was efective in its day. I think that Sarah Smiley was
right to say that we should judge or look at art as how it affects us.
I for one am caught up in the idealism of the Renaissance. It doesn't
matter how hard I try I could never be as good as the greats of that time.
I don't have the patience. My responce to you is relax and wait for it to
happen. This century may have been a write off for you but I have a few
favorites... The set for Tim Burton's Batman for instance. I have never
been soo affected by statues before that movie. I am a child of the seventies
thus a tv child, but I have apreciation for local art public art and
computer art. Hey I'm talking on one aren't I?
The second reply is to Gunther Farmout (Is that your real name? -Sorry
I had to ask :).
I have a different problem when it comes to my art. I try for realism
or at least something close and I end up with cartoon like sketches. I THINK
they are stupid but then I get like A's and B's. I just don't understand...
I also have the problem of my friends saying they are briliant, I should
also note that these people are not art students. (I'm not really either, it's
just a hobby.)
Let's continue this thread it's interesting...
@>->- Tricia Marshall
Nanaimo, Canada
********************************************************************
"Ever Dance with the Devil in the pale moon light?"
-The Joker, Batman.
********************************************************************
Daniel F Powell
<shnook...@ins.infonet.net> wrote:
[scrape scrape scrape]
>
> BTW, I did a piece once made of cat vomit, and it didn't look anything like
>De Kooning.
I have to concur. Talented cats are hard to come by.
>
> Gunther Farmout
> "Serving the tri-county area artistically for over 15 years."
> shnook...@ins.infonet.net
Dan
----
rm...@umich.edu "Living? The servants will do that for us."
Villiers de l'Isle-Adam
http://www.umich.edu/~rmutt/HomePage.html
AMETHIST
> critics, stupid museum directors, stupid teachers and stupid rich
> collectors. Never the less I prefer to label what they are into,
> stupid art!
stupidity is not the issue
art is about your value system
thank you for sharing your dogmatic value system
p.s.... no art no art
ANDREJ MURNIK
>[...] I do agree that the intellectual elitism in art
>has distanced people from it. [...]
>[...]Anyone should be able to voice their opinion about a piece of
>artwork with no fear of appearing stupid.
I agree almost at all. Not !at all", because too many times I
met people, who just expressed a superficial opinion on a work of art.
The matter is in the fact that a lot of people (also professionally
realated with art) forgets to be humile. The questions you put yourself
are all good and many others are: how he/she made it, step by step? is
it moving me? could it move other people? what's innovative - not new -
in this piece? is the artist sincere? etc. Putting ourselves so many
questions, we "risk" to understand art, just at the moment because we
have no preconceived opinion.
Against the behaviour of those people, who think that's possible
to say "Yes/No" just in few seconds, the only defence is aggressive:
"Shut up, you ignorant"! Don't you think so? How could you otherwise
explain the fact that many artists and other people who deal with art
are so arrogant by one side and so nice, when the feel in the right
environment (i.e. with people who don't pretend to judge just having
seen, but, eventually, only after having looked)?
>A final comment on a comment-
>[snip]
>: To finish, I will quote William Shakespeare:
>: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so..."
>: or, to paraphrase, there is no stupid art, only stupid people.
>: -----------------------
>: Charles Eicher
>: cei...@ins.infonet.net
>: -----------------------
Art never is stupid... if it's art.
People never are stupid... if they're curious.
---
ţ SLMR 2.1a ţ andrej...@galactica.it - "EcceTheEra"
shnook...@ins.infonet.net
Gunther Farmout
"Serving the tri-county area artistically for over 15 years"