Illusion Of Reality
Blockx Waster
message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
Deli wouldn't like it (probably he only likes Rembrandt). But some of
her work did make me wonder.
Nowadays (well, this century), a lot of painters seem to detach
reality as complete as possible from their art. Their art seems to
have no relationship with the world as we know it. It doesn't seem to
depict anything we _could_ encounter except from in the abstract realm
of ideas.
Perhaps it does represent something we could encounter but from a very
different viewpoint and level we are accustomed to use in everyday
life and we simply don't recognize it immediately. Focusing on
vetical/horizontal lines alone or just showing spatial relationships,
or color, or the associations one had with the idea or observation,
etcetera.
Perhaps it represent highly abstract ideas and the art is the attempt
to give this idea substance by denotating it with form and color.
Perhaps it doesn't represent anything else but itself and is standing
in its own right and beauty (or ugliness, whatever).
Perhaps the expression was the process of making it and the work shows
you the tracks of that expression (which reminds me of that dude who
hurled paint at the canvas and started whipping it, performance art
but you could still buy his paintings as a souvenir).
I wonder if incorporating the cues in which we recognize reality
doesn't makes the impact on the onlooker bigger. However: "Photo
realism" in which every part is given the same devotion is quite weak
IMHO, since it ignores the fact that we distribute attention unequally
and in a deliberate way. There's no telling what the artist thought so
special about the scene he/she depicted (apart from the selection of
viewpoint and selection of subject). Nor did the artist transform the
scene in a way to show what he/she discovered in it (if it looks
_like_ a circle then draw it _as_ a circle etc).
Is it not so that if we don't recognize "cues of reality" in a
painting that we simply take it for what it is? Does this lessen the
impact it has on us because we don't have any associations with it?
(unless it is accompanied by a catchy title to direct us, like "Autumn
Rhytm" of Pollock).
The idea is what needs to be conveyed. Ideas have their source in
ourselves and observation. Beauty is an experience within us but it
needs to be recognized before we can sense it, recognition by
observation or imagination (the two are more or less the same). I
believe association plays a major role in the recognition of beauty,
or ugliness, or whatever we can sense.
Observation and dreams affect us and they look real to us although
they don't manifest themselves as photos, yet the _impression_ of
reality is there. Could it be that both complete photo realism and
complete abstraction have a lesser impact because they don't give the
onlooker the impression of realism?
Okay, you can flame me now ;-)
Blockx Waster
>Well, I've went to C.S. Koch's homepage immediately after I read Kay's
>message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
>about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
Before I get completely flamed to the ground, let me give an example
of what I consider complete abstraction and of what I consider having
the impression of reality:
This one is of C.S.Koch and is IMHO completely abstract:
http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/cskoch/aquarell007.htm
Really, I don't know what it is. There are lines but they don't seem
to denotate contours (contourlines occlude but there are no lines that
dissapear behind another). Perhaps they are wires but then again there
seems to be deliberate spilling which show that these lines don't
denotate anything else but the lines they really are: the result of
painting. They do make up some forms: a big rectangle in which a
smaller orange one seems to float within with legs attach to 3 of its
corners. We seem to look at the smaller one from below (considering
the legs). Lots of color spill which didn't seem to happen in a
deliberate, controlled way. The whole thing looks like it has been
executed very hastily. Sketchy pencil lines which could denotate
movement or change. Spatial relations....
Really, I don't have a clue. It doesn't look like anything although it
does look nice. I can't associate it with anything else but a
painting.
Now, take a look at this one of Alison, which IMHO gives the
impression of reality:
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk/draw1.htm
Again, I don't know what it is (therefor it must be abstract ;-) But
at the first glance we experience objects, for the forms are not the
result of lines but of contrast with their surroundings. And the forms
delineate shape since there is natural shading and texture. There are
shadows. For the background I make up a floor, and a wall and a
skirting-board at the left side halfway up. A strange object in a dark
and old room, for there is no colour and the light effect gives me the
impression of old and faded stuff. The total is gloomy because of the
shadows and the single small lightsource, and the "old and yellowed"
feel the texture gives me.
But yet, as I look longer at it I see details that contradict my
impression of an odd shaped object in an old and dark room. There are
lines at the left side (which must be wires in this realistic setting)
but they cast no shadow. They can't be cuts in the object since they
run parallel but do not follow the shape of the object as indicated by
the shading. There are cuts on the right side however. Sometimes I
can't make up where the foreground ends and the background starts. And
what is that circle doing there in the center? Etcetera.
These "paradoxical" details disturb the capturing of the object which
was initialy recognized by the cues of shading, texture (wrinkles,
stains, cuts) and form by contrast. I can't make up its exact shape
although I do have the undenieable impression that I'm dealing with a
real object and thus should be able to make up the shape.
Now, the whole gives me an impression of a gloomy reality but the
details yield an underlying threat for there are details that disturb
this reality in a way that disables me to understand the picture in
terms of reality.
I'm not looking at a drawing alone, I'm looking at a drawing of
something because I got the impression of reality. This raises
questions about the nature of what it is that is depicted.
I'm not saying that only art which successfully incorporates the
illusion of reality is good art. But I believe that this kind of art
makes a bigger impact since it "forces" itself into our own reality
and therefor needs to be dealt with.
[ somewhere in the UK Alison reads this article ]
"A dark, gloomy room with an object in it???? He's weirder than I
thought!" ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<th...@is.not.it> writes
>This one is of C.S.Koch and is IMHO completely abstract:
>
>http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/cskoch/aquarell007.htm
>
>Really, I don't know what it is. There are lines but they don't seem
>to denotate contours (contourlines occlude but there are no lines that
>dissapear behind another). Perhaps they are wires but then again there
>seems to be deliberate spilling which show that these lines don't
>denotate anything else but the lines they really are: the result of
>painting. They do make up some forms: a big rectangle in which a
>smaller orange one seems to float within with legs attach to 3 of its
>corners. We seem to look at the smaller one from below (considering
>the legs). Lots of color spill which didn't seem to happen in a
>deliberate, controlled way. The whole thing looks like it has been
>executed very hastily. Sketchy pencil lines which could denotate
>movement or change. Spatial relations....
That is what I like about these drawings - they seem to have spontaneity
but also look quite controlled - loose but not random .. does that make
sense ? Incidentally, they look as if they are done, I think, in ink and
bleach ... which is a medium I us all the time. Some inks bleach out to
several different shades of blue and sepias - Quink ink is the one I
use. This lady works in a very different way to me - I have to fill the
plane and cut back into it ... with the bleach it is possible to take
away from what has been put down. I envy her being able to leave the
space around .... I still think totally in negative spaces.
>
>Really, I don't have a clue. It doesn't look like anything although it
>does look nice. I can't associate it with anything else but a
>painting.
And what better way to look at it !
>
>Now, take a look at this one of Alison, which IMHO gives the
>impression of reality:
>
>http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk/draw1.htm
>
NOOOOOOOOO. Then I have failed !!!!
>Again, I don't know what it is (therefor it must be abstract ;-) But
>at the first glance we experience objects, for the forms are not the
>result of lines but of contrast with their surroundings. And the forms
>delineate shape since there is natural shading and texture. There are
>shadows. For the background I make up a floor, and a wall and a
>skirting-board at the left side halfway up. A strange object in a dark
>and old room, for there is no colour and the light effect gives me the
>impression of old and faded stuff. The total is gloomy because of the
>shadows and the single small lightsource, and the "old and yellowed"
>feel the texture gives me.
>
Snip snip for brevity ... criminal I know ..
>[ somewhere in the UK Alison reads this article ]
>
>"A dark, gloomy room with an object in it???? He's weirder than I
>thought!" ;-)
No, no you sound like my friend Paul Gates ... he writes just like this
(see the *interview*. Going to save it if you don't mind because I am
always fascinated about what people have to say.
The paintings that I am doing now really reflect these drawings - it is
the first time this has ever happened which is what I wrote kay about a
*breakthrough*. Watch this space !
Cheers !
a beerortwo
Alison.
Erik A. Mattila
only slurred speech. Put your fears asided. (as if you were really
worried about getting 'flamed').
Blockx Waster wrote:
> Well, I've went to C.S. Koch's homepage immediately after I read Kay's
> message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
> about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
>
> Deli wouldn't like it (probably he only likes Rembrandt). But some of
> her work did make me wonder.
>
> Nowadays (well, this century), a lot of painters seem to detach
> reality as complete as possible from their art. Their art seems to
> have no relationship with the world as we know it. It doesn't seem to
> depict anything we _could_ encounter except from in the abstract realm
> of ideas.
I can't put my finger on it, but I have read theory which claims that
there is no 'abstract' art -- no matter what, painting is always
representational. My own thinking goes along these lines, although I'm
open to the concept of complete abstraction.
For example, the examples you provided in you other post, Koch and
Raimes, I 'saw' representation in both. In Koch, I 'saw' a piece of
paper and and envelope -- not to mention an overbearing signature that
has become part of the composition. In Raimes, I 'saw' Frtiz Lang's
"Metropolis," or at least the graphic millieu from which Lang extracted
his imagery. Funny thing about this is that both artist may protest what
I saw in terms of their intentions. What can I say?
Maybe this, and this applies to a response I wanted to make to your post
on raf about the 'reader's share' of the work of art. In narrative
analysis, the term 'diegesis' is used (as in Lyotard -- that part of the
story that the reader provides). Much of what you are describing, I
think, it just that -- in order for intelligibility to occur, the viewer
has to fill in some blanks. In this sense, the more 'meaningless' a
paijnting is, the greater it's potential for becoming personalized is.
An empty spiderweb, mabe, waiting for an occupant (victim or master).
On the other hand very pedantic art, wherin the artist imposes his ideas
on the viewer, seems to me to establish a distance which may be
insurmountable. I think I'm taliking about the issue difference between
a work of art that can only be viewed as a spectacle, and one that
becomes personally meaningful to a viewer. (I think I'm really drifting
away from your topic - sorry.)
> Perhaps it does represent something we could encounter but from a very
> different viewpoint and level we are accustomed to use in everyday
> life and we simply don't recognize it immediately. Focusing on
> vetical/horizontal lines alone or just showing spatial relationships,
> or color, or the associations one had with the idea or observation,
> etcetera.
>
> Perhaps it represent highly abstract ideas and the art is the attempt
> to give this idea substance by denotating it with form and color.
>
> Perhaps it doesn't represent anything else but itself and is standing
> in its own right and beauty (or ugliness, whatever).
Yes, itself. A painting that concretely exists in nature, without
referencing anything beyond that (but may include a 'big picture' of
western civilization, art markets, museums etc.)
> Perhaps the expression was the process of making it and the work shows
> you the tracks of that expression (which reminds me of that dude who
> hurled paint at the canvas and started whipping it, performance art
> but you could still buy his paintings as a souvenir).
The same could be said of art criticism. Once, several years ago, I went
with two friends to the ocean to paint seascapes. One of us (it wasn't
me) got frustrated, cussed, and hurled his painting into a tide pool.
Myself and my other compatriot, because we were art critics and we felt
supportive, went over and urinated on the painting, floating in the tide
pool. This is 'Action Art Criticism', I think.
> I wonder if incorporating the cues in which we recognize reality
> doesn't makes the impact on the onlooker bigger. However: "Photo
> realism" in which every part is given the same devotion is quite weak
> IMHO, since it ignores the fact that we distribute attention unequally
> and in a deliberate way. There's no telling what the artist thought so
> special about the scene he/she depicted (apart from the selection of
> viewpoint and selection of subject). Nor did the artist transform the
> scene in a way to show what he/she discovered in it (if it looks
> _like_ a circle then draw it _as_ a circle etc).
It probably does. People generally seem to like that with which they are
familiar. The outrageous success of MacDonalds and other chains, even
retail stores, is testimony to that. When you go to MacDonalds, you know
exactly what you are going to experience beforehand, and as the
experience unfolds, it seems to be self-validating. That is why
mythology is so popular (Campbell, Jung, Star Wars etc.) The myths are
'pre-known' and operate just like Denny's Restaurant. The reader
'already knows' the outcome, but in a way is not fully aware that it is
'already' known. As the myth unfolds, the reader experiences that sense
of "sure, I knew that" which is extremely pleasurable.
A good painting of the ruins of the Roman Collisium engages the viewer
like this, and reading of the painting involves quite a bit of viewing
competence and experience. Thus, in my biew, a substancial part of the
package of 'aesthetic experience' is familiarity and knowing.
> Is it not so that if we don't recognize "cues of reality" in a
> painting that we simply take it for what it is? Does this lessen the
> impact it has on us because we don't have any associations with it?
> (unless it is accompanied by a catchy title to direct us, like "Autumn
> Rhytm" of Pollock).
Pollock once based his work on Navajo Sand Paintings - playing around
with that alphebet of symbols etc. When he did it, was he representing
what Navajo symbols represented, or was he representing the symbols, on a
second order of abstaction (so we would call Pollock's sandpaintings
'metasandpaintings', or paintings about paintings. In that sense,
Pollocks sandpaintings are 'more real' than the Navajo sandpaintings, in
that the Navajo's were using a very abstract system of symbology that
represented very abstract concepts. Pollock was only portraying that -
the sandpainting (hoping that it would be significant by virtue of being
rather 'Jungian'.)
> The idea is what needs to be conveyed. Ideas have their source in
> ourselves and observation. Beauty is an experience within us but it
> needs to be recognized before we can sense it, recognition by
> observation or imagination (the two are more or less the same). I
> believe association plays a major role in the recognition of beauty,
> or ugliness, or whatever we can sense.
Maybe just the framework on which an idea could be constructed is what
'needs' to be conveyed. Again, why should an artist attempt to deprive
the viewer her/his share of the 'writing' of the painting. Well, this is
one of the problems with 'titles' for paintings. Does the 'title' invade
the painting, setting out a systems of restraints and frontiers that
cannot be crossed as far as signification is concerned? I think so.
> Observation and dreams affect us and they look real to us although
> they don't manifest themselves as photos, yet the _impression_ of
> reality is there. Could it be that both complete photo realism and
> complete abstraction have a lesser impact because they don't give the
> onlooker the impression of realism?
>
> Okay, you can flame me now ;-)
A few months back I posted a question on RAF about Walter Benjamin's term
"Ur Forms," and there was no response. I think this concept is very
applicable to the discussion here, although I am not clear on the term or
the concept. It appared in Buck Morss' book on Benjamin's unfinished
'magnum opus' on the Paris Arcades (the first shopping centers). My
sense of the term is that is the visual equivalent to Foucault's
'espisteme.' Benjamin seems to have been preparing to discuss and/or
define a class of symbols that don't need interpretation or consensus in
order to 'mean' that may appear in any given culture at any given time.
These would tend to be completely 'naturalized' or accepted as a 'given'
by the members of a culture where they appear. Anyway, perhaps someone
in this esteemed groups knows more about it.
Best,
Erik
The Dialectics of Seeing : Walter Benjamin and the Arcades Project
(Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought Series) by Susan
Buck-Morss Paperback Reprint edition (October 1991) MIT Press; ISBN:
0262521644
The artist formerly known as Kay
Blockx Waster wrote in message <37496ee1...@news.euronet.nl>...
:Well, I've went to C.S. Koch's homepage immediately after I read Kay's
:message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
:about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
That's your testosterone clouding your reading vision... I never said she
was good looking, I said the guys would enjoy looking at her pic. I didn't
even know if she was single, but I did mention that Dan was NOT <heehee>...
She is very attractive and I was lurking in
alt.binaries.pictures.animated.gifs (being new to the computers, I am
fascinated with this movable stuff!) and I noticed that 2 group members
there had met, fallen in love and got married! Single guys (if there are
any here) - take Heart! It can happen... How close are you to Switzerland?
I think you should write her and give us all the details. Now I have to go
and read the rest of your review. I skimmed through it before and it is
very well-written critique. I had better go view the 2 sites you are
speaking about which I believe are Allison's and the next Mrs.. Blockx
Waster.
Scarlett
The artist formerly known as Kay
Blockx Waster wrote in message <374a8332...@news.euronet.nl>...
:On 24 May 1999 16:28:07 GMT, th...@is.not.it (Blockx Waster) wrote:
:
:>Well, I've went to C.S. Koch's homepage immediately after I read Kay's
:>message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
:>about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
All I found is 5 of her works. No picture and certainly no information
about Switzerland. I wonder why...
:Before I get completely flamed to the ground, let me give an example
:of what I consider complete abstraction and of what I consider having
:the impression of reality:
I doubt if anyone here will flame anyone. We may disagree but as long as it
is civil then no one is harmed, correct?
:This one is of C.S.Koch and is IMHO completely abstract:
:http://members.xoom.com/_XOOM/cskoch/aquarell007.htm
:
:Really, I don't know what it is. There are lines but they don't seem
:to denotate contours (contourlines occlude but there are no lines that
:dissapear behind another). Perhaps they are wires but then again there
:seems to be deliberate spilling which show that these lines don't
:denotate anything else but the lines they really are: the result of
:painting. They do make up some forms: a big rectangle in which a
:smaller orange one seems to float within with legs attach to 3 of its
:corners. We seem to look at the smaller one from below (considering
:the legs). Lots of color spill which didn't seem to happen in a
:deliberate, controlled way. The whole thing looks like it has been
:executed very hastily. Sketchy pencil lines which could denotate
:movement or change. Spatial relations....
Yes, I see the haste and spontaneity. I would hazzard to say that the
colored painted splashes are made first and then the lines are placed last
to tie the work together, kind of like the Automotist Surrealists, first,
the accidental forms and secondly the planned forms (lines) to bring the
work together. Very biomorphic forms in the colors and sensual linear
quality.
You state that you consider Claudia's art totally abstract. I have to
disagree. I see a bit of a deKooning type influence here. There are
"implied" forms which, IMHO, make this a teeny bit representational in the
way the deKooning's works were "Women". If she had given us titles with
specific names of certain *objects*, I believe we would say, "Oh, yes, I
see..." But, that is another discussion entirely; non-objective abstraction
vs. representational abstraction. To me, the works of Rothko, Mondrian and
Malevich are totally non-objection abstraction (I'm sure many others can be
included here)... I really can't categorize Claudia's work in this manner -
but abstraction? Absolutely!
:
:Really, I don't have a clue. It doesn't look like anything although it
:does look nice. I can't associate it with anything else but a
:painting.
How about just calling it art? I like your critique of her work.
:Now, take a look at this one of Alison, which IMHO gives the
:impression of reality:
:
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk/draw1.htm
I can't wait, but it takes me so long to download the pictures and I just
caught a fly out of the air with my tongue, so I guess I'm hungry. I'll be
back when the troth is empty. Then I can go through Allison's whole site.
One criticism I would offer Claudia, in a friendly spirit (having learned
the hard way) is to try to always include a lot of recent works on her site.
It is laid out very professionally and I like the work, but gallery dealers,
collectors, reviewers, etc. will wonder, as I did, why all the works are
dated 1988 with only one from 1999. Like a resume, the most current should
be listed in front and large gaps of no work looks confusing, like 1988 was
the best year for her. Even if it was, hints of works-in-progress, etc.
might make her look like a more productive artist. I apologize if she is
lurking or I have offended anyone. I learned the hard way (in a newspaper
review) when I was criticized for showing *old*(2 years old) work that had
been seen before, different gallery, same town. The reviewer certainly
noticed and I have not made that mistake again, it was quite embarrassing!
:
The artist formerly known as Kay
Blockx Waster wrote in message <374a8332...@news.euronet.nl>...
:On 24 May 1999 16:28:07 GMT, th...@is.not.it (Blockx Waster) wrote:
:
:
:Now, take a look at this one of Alison, which IMHO gives the
:impression of reality:
:
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk/draw1.htm
:Again, I don't know what it is (therefor it must be abstract ;-) But
:at the first glance we experience objects, for the forms are not the
:result of lines but of contrast with their surroundings. And the forms
:delineate shape since there is natural shading and texture. There are
:shadows. For the background I make up a floor, and a wall and a
:skirting-board at the left side halfway up. A strange object in a dark
:and old room, for there is no colour and the light effect gives me the
:impression of old and faded stuff. The total is gloomy because of the
:shadows and the single small lightsource, and the "old and yellowed"
:feel the texture gives me.
:But yet, as I look longer at it I see details that contradict my
:impression of an odd shaped object in an old and dark room. There are
:lines at the left side (which must be wires in this realistic setting)
:but they cast no shadow. They can't be cuts in the object since they
:run parallel but do not follow the shape of the object as indicated by
:the shading. There are cuts on the right side however. Sometimes I
:can't make up where the foreground ends and the background starts. And
:what is that circle doing there in the center? Etcetera.:
:These "paradoxical" details disturb the capturing of the object which
:was initialy recognized by the cues of shading, texture (wrinkles,
:stains, cuts) and form by contrast. I can't make up its exact shape
:although I do have the undenieable impression that I'm dealing with a
:real object and thus should be able to make up the shape.
:
:Now, the whole gives me an impression of a gloomy reality but the
:details yield an underlying threat for there are details that disturb
:this reality in a way that disables me to understand the picture in
:terms of reality.
:
:I'm not looking at a drawing alone, I'm looking at a drawing of
:something because I got the impression of reality. This raises
:questions about the nature of what it is that is depicted.
:
:I'm not saying that only art which successfully incorporates the
:illusion of reality is good art. But I believe that this kind of art
:makes a bigger impact since it "forces" itself into our own reality
:and therefor needs to be dealt with.
:
:[ somewhere in the UK Alison reads this article ]
:
:"A dark, gloomy room with an object in it???? He's weirder than I
:thought!" ;-)
I believe you are critiquing Allison's drawings above, so I will do the same
and in another post, I'll critique the paintings.
At first I was confused by your descriptions, Blockx (if I may call you by
your first name), because I didn't know you were talking about her drawings
and her paintings have vibrant colors. Back to the drawings:
The drawings, to me, show the aggressive side of Allison's nature. When I
looked at them, that's the word that first came to my mind - aggressive.
Also, somewhat disturbing. Don' t take this as an insult, Allison, I mean
it as a compliment. (Nothing I hate more in art than a *Hallmark Card*
quality). The artist that immediately came to my mind was Nancy Grossman
whom I had the privilege to attend a lecture. The drawing images are
powerful but also projecting toward the viewer, as if they are intending to
invade our space. This, to me, is part of what makes the imagery
*threatening*. For example, Drawing 3 gives me the feeling of bondage or
massacre. I think Drawing 4 gave me the feeling of flight from something
disturbing. Very psychosocial on a personal level.
Someone else may look at the work and see lovers, buildings, etc. Most
likely, we all bring our own personal psyches to these works which result in
such diverse interpretations of different works, Blockx. I absolutely
enjoyed these!
Kay (no one is used to my other name)
The artist formerly known as Kay
Blockx Waster wrote in message <
:Now, take a look at this one of Alison, which IMHO gives the
:impression of reality:
:
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk/draw1.htm
:
:Again, I don't know what it is (therefor it must be abstract ;-)
(I may use that as a quote Mr.. Waster!)
Now for a general critique of Alison's website (minus drawings)
At first, I was afraid to visit it because on the *other n.g. certain people
had mentioned her appearance, but she is a cute blonde and if she had put
her picture in the n.g., I would have recommended her as well to the single
guys (but forget it Blocx, she has a lover - I think - in the U.S.) Now,
back to the important thing, her art! No, I'll start with the entire layout
of the web site. It was very impressive. Did you have someone do it
professionally? It contained a picture, a well-written bio, interview
(which sneaked in a wonderful artists statement which I always hate to read
and moreso to write - but it sneaked it in in a way that made it clear in
relation to the works and not the usual generic version that I have given
and read). Divided wonderfully! Hey Dan - how come Alison's downloaded
faster than yours? I was surprised! Usually they take forever to download,
even Claudia's is much slower! I wonder.... Back to the paintings. I
viewed these right after the drawings, before I had read anything or seen
your picture. I like the way you separate your series. I went to New Work
first (was impressed that it was recent because Claudias work from 1988 had
me a bit wary.) These are NOT as disturbing nor aggressive as your
drawings, yet, I can relate to the *threat* I perceive from the drawings and
don't feel threatened by the paintings. Perhaps because it is because the
paintings gave me the feeling of being in a world that is not MY world. I
looked and immediately what came to my mind was "a kind of underwater life
that humans don't know of" I had the feeling of *wet* and *underwater*
immediately. An aquatic world of darkness teeming with life, because the
forms are very alive, yet a life more pristine and pure than ours - simply
because we are unaware of the coexistence of it. We haven't *polluted* it
with our discovery. I do get a feeling of darkness, but this is not
threatening because it is part of the natural underwater habitat, to me.
Your Mindscape series gave me very similar feelings so I'll be very brief
here. I noted that you included size and as I remarked to Dan, I do like
large size and I feel that 5' x 5' was a good size. This too has a
underworld watery effect on me. The Spacescape series departed from the
underworld of water and went exactly where the title implied, to the upper
unexplored regions of Space. Forms, colors and shapes, not from earth, not
from the underwater region, but a type of undulating hot aquatic wave filled
with life, but one very different from what we experience. #8 really
fulfilled this description, to me.
Then I read the interview and was displeased and pleased both. I was
pleased because the words *cosmic* and *ocean* were used which proved (to
me) that I was interpreting your intent correctly which made me feel oh so
smart. I was displeased because the interview said it all, what more could
I add? But, I DID read the interview after I had formed the above written
analysis of the work! Honest!!!!
Blocx, I couldn't say Alison's work is more realistic abstraction than
Claudia's. In fact, I am still leaning toward the opinion that Claudia's is
more realistic than Alison's (because of that DeKooning thing I have in my
head).
Finally, my disclaimer. I am not an art critic. I am not an art theorist.
I have expressed my observations which will vary from other's because of our
different *history*...
O.K. I lied when I said "finally" in the paragraph above. I like the way
Mr. Waster critiques the work. This gives me a point to start and form my
own opinion. I am extremely uncomfortable jumping right in and giving a
long concisive analysis and Blocx Waster is great at it. So, I propose he
do so with Dan and others so I can jump in later!
S.
The artist formerly known as Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:
:The paintings that I am doing now really reflect these drawings - it is
:the first time this has ever happened which is what I wrote kay about a
:*breakthrough*. Watch this space !
:Cheers !
:a beerortwo
:Alison.
I'm very much looking forward to it!
Kay
The artist formerly known as Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <3749BBAC...@tomatoweb.com>...
(snip)
:
:For example, the examples you provided in you other post, Koch and
:Raimes, I 'saw' representation in both. In Koch, I 'saw' a piece of
:paper and and envelope -- not to mention an overbearing signature that
:has become part of the composition. In Raimes, I 'saw' Frtiz Lang's
:"Metropolis," or at least the graphic millieu from which Lang extracted
:his imagery. Funny thing about this is that both artist may protest what
:I saw in terms of their intentions. What can I say?
Hi Erik,
I didn't see Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" in Raimes. Much too organic and
Metropolis was very geometric (to me), wasn't it a type of "cubism"
influenced film. I love it - but I love "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" the
absolute most! Wait a minute.... You are talking about the drawings too?
Maybe... But, still too organic in comparison to Metropolis. Now I would
agree that the drawings are Caligaresque with the disorienting diagonals and
the "feel" of the work. Yes, Caligari! (Sorry for the interuption, I was
on my way out...)
Kay
(snipped very interesting stuff from Erik except am curious as to why they
all - Erik included - urinated on the friend's painting who threw it into
the ocean, must be a *guy* thing?)
:
Erik A. Mattila
The artist formerly known as Kay wrote:
> snipped
>
> (snipped very interesting stuff from Erik except am curious as to why they
> all - Erik included - urinated on the friend's painting who threw it into
> the ocean, must be a *guy* thing?)
I offered this as an example of expressionistic art criticism, Kay. Maybe a
bit of perfornance art criticism.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
The artist formerly known as Kay wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <3749BBAC...@tomatoweb.com>...
> (snip)
> :
> :For example, the examples you provided in you other post, Koch and
> :Raimes, I 'saw' representation in both. In Koch, I 'saw' a piece of
> :paper and and envelope -- not to mention an overbearing signature that
> :has become part of the composition. In Raimes, I 'saw' Frtiz Lang's
> :"Metropolis," or at least the graphic millieu from which Lang extracted
> :his imagery. Funny thing about this is that both artist may protest what
> :I saw in terms of their intentions. What can I say?
>
> Hi Erik,
> I didn't see Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" in Raimes. Much too organic and
> Metropolis was very geometric (to me), wasn't it a type of "cubism"
> influenced film. I love it - but I love "Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" the
> absolute most! Wait a minute.... You are talking about the drawings too?
> Maybe... But, still too organic in comparison to Metropolis. Now I would
> agree that the drawings are Caligaresque with the disorienting diagonals and
> the "feel" of the work. Yes, Caligari! (Sorry for the interuption, I was
> on my way out...)
> Kay
Well, that just goes to show you how capricious 'reading' a painting can be.
To tell you the truth, this was my initial impression when I looked at the
drawing Paul posted the URL to. After looking at the others, the first looked
less like Metropolis.
I think cubism did have its influence on Lang's imagery, but I think Jugenstil
and Art Nuevo had more of an influence. (sorry, had to resott to Spanish, can't
spell them French wirds real good).
Hey, here's a game that I got from Wayne Thiebaud in one of his lectures on
theory & criticism. Take two artists whose styles produce a third. Example:
Hokusai + Durer = Hockney
Pollaiuolo + Tanguey = Koons
Van Gogh + Ingres = Lichstenstein
and so on.
Erik
Blockx Waster
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
>Blockx Waster wrote in message <37496ee1...@news.euronet.nl>...
>:Well, I've went to C.S. Koch's homepage immediately after I read Kay's
>:message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
>:about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
>
>
>That's your testosterone clouding your reading vision... I never said she
>was good looking, I said the guys would enjoy looking at her pic. I didn't
>even know if she was single, but I did mention that Dan was NOT <heehee>...
>She is very attractive and I was lurking in
>alt.binaries.pictures.animated.gifs (being new to the computers, I am
>fascinated with this movable stuff!) and I noticed that 2 group members
>there had met, fallen in love and got married! Single guys (if there are
>any here) - take Heart! It can happen... How close are you to Switzerland?
>I think you should write her and give us all the details. Now I have to go
>and read the rest of your review. I skimmed through it before and it is
>very well-written critique. I had better go view the 2 sites you are
>speaking about which I believe are Allison's and the next Mrs.. Blockx
>Waster.
>Scarlett
>
>
Hehe, yes, desires and beliefs do form part of perception. R.Solso, in
his nice introductionary book "Cognition and the visual arts", urged
the reader and his students to ask themselves "What do I _see_?". But
one could also ask themselves "What do I believe I see?" or "What do I
desire to see?". Ah! The wishfull eye ;-)
[ somewhere in Switzerland apres ski ]
TC : " Hello, sweety! Wanna hang out with a dutch Master?"
Koch: "Scram creep! I know you, you're that perverted asshole calling
himself TechnoCrate or Blockx Waster.Well, you're wasting your time."
TC starts doing his showoff tricks with a once flat #16 bristle: "You
know... I got a _much_ bigger brush ready to go."
At this point Koch empties her glass over TC's head and leaves.
TC: "Ah! She wants me, it's clear that she's playing hard to get."
And again TC fails to see that it is reason which transforms
observation into the perception of his reality where hopes and desires
are satisfied (BTW reason is never objective, it can successfully
defend two opposing statements at the same time. A prime example of
this is D.A.F. de Sade's "Justine" where the dirty rotten ones justify
their lewd conduct by reason)
Blockx Waster
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>You state that you consider Claudia's art totally abstract. I have to
>disagree. I see a bit of a deKooning type influence here. There are
>"implied" forms which, IMHO, make this a teeny bit representational in the
>way the deKooning's works were "Women". If she had given us titles with
>specific names of certain *objects*, I believe we would say, "Oh, yes, I
>see..." But, that is another discussion entirely; non-objective abstraction
>vs. representational abstraction. To me, the works of Rothko, Mondrian and
>Malevich are totally non-objection abstraction (I'm sure many others can be
>included here)... I really can't categorize Claudia's work in this manner -
>but abstraction? Absolutely!
>:
Well, I did recognize women in de Kooning's paintings (although I
don't think I want to meet them ;-) And I don't recognize anything in
the well known work of Rothko, Mondrian and Malevich although I
learned that Mondrian was inspired by Broadway with its many lights.
But still I don't recognize anything in that painting of Koch (I did
in other paintings of her). Indeed, as you said, a title might help us
out and Klee thought that the title and the painting formed a untiy.
There's a lot to say for that for if we look at the title we start to
have ideas about it and the painting amplifies and directs those
ideas, the other way around goes as well (it's more usual to look at
the painting first). The painting is a context but we don't recognize
anything in it but upon reading the title we have our ideas about the
title placed in the context of the painting. Words on themselves are
much too many sided to convey ideas without a context.
I agree that the term total abstraction is misleading. Ideas are
always in terms of reality, however abstract they appear to be. Non
objective abstraction is a much better term for we don't recognize it
although we recognize the painting in terms of color, shape, etc.
Blockx Waster
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>Blockx Waster wrote:
>
>> Well, I've went to C.S. Koch's homepage immediately after I read Kay's
>> message that she was a good looking single female ;-) (she's even
>> about my age and Switzerland is not too far off)
>>
>> Deli wouldn't like it (probably he only likes Rembrandt). But some of
>> her work did make me wonder.
>>
>> Nowadays (well, this century), a lot of painters seem to detach
>> reality as complete as possible from their art. Their art seems to
>> have no relationship with the world as we know it. It doesn't seem to
>> depict anything we _could_ encounter except from in the abstract realm
>> of ideas.
>
>I can't put my finger on it, but I have read theory which claims that
>there is no 'abstract' art -- no matter what, painting is always
>representational. My own thinking goes along these lines, although I'm
>open to the concept of complete abstraction.
>
Well, I now believe my expression of "complete abstraction" is
misleading. Kay provided me with much better terms. Abstraction always
represents something although we might not recognize it as an object
of our reality.
"Shape" is a word, but it's also a concept. However, this concept was
given rise to by observation. Even in our brain shape isn't abstract
for its sources are in perception. Our perceptual system provides us
with the mechanisms which recognize shape but these mechanisms also
incorporate shape itself (just like computer programs are completely
useless without a computer). Abstractions are derived which ofcourse
means there must be something of which they're derived from. Without
its source they're meaningless (like chinese is to me ;-)
Without our observing (and feeling) perceptual system there is no
shape at all. Color blind people (complete born monochromates) are
puzzled by this strange property we (the ones with normal color
vision) attach to objects. They hear us talk about it and see us
reacting to it but although they start having ideas about color they
can't understand it (O. Sacks had a nice documentary about color blind
people).
>For example, the examples you provided in you other post, Koch and
>Raimes, I 'saw' representation in both. In Koch, I 'saw' a piece of
>paper and and envelope -- not to mention an overbearing signature that
>has become part of the composition. In Raimes, I 'saw' Frtiz Lang's
>"Metropolis," or at least the graphic millieu from which Lang extracted
>his imagery. Funny thing about this is that both artist may protest what
>I saw in terms of their intentions. What can I say?
>
Yes, the signature (I forgot to mention) was so evident it must be
part of the painting. Signatures are a quick scribble denotating our
name but they're also very personal since they are an expression of
our body and temperament.
The painting itself also looks like a quick scribble. Is it also a
signature? Is it the signature of something which signs its name with
form and color?
Ah! I'm still clueless but I still think it's a nice painting ;-)
I loved Metropolis, it was the image of the technocracy but I don't
really associate it with Alison's drawings (apart from the black/white
geometry part). The Metropolis stood high and was concrete. Its
ordered geometry, repetitions and straightness defied the nature which
it tried to master, wield and replace. The technology which challenges
nature and states "This here is the power of man, you cannot go
further". Ofcourse, in the attempt to replace man itself (by making a
woman BTW) the power of nature was unleashed and Metropolis was broken
by the power of the water it had mastered for so long. Now the power
was back where it originated from.
I don't associate Alison's drawing with the image of technology for it
lacks evident and simple geometry, metal and concrete and repetitions.
>Maybe this, and this applies to a response I wanted to make to your post
>on raf about the 'reader's share' of the work of art. In narrative
>analysis, the term 'diegesis' is used (as in Lyotard -- that part of the
>story that the reader provides). Much of what you are describing, I
>think, it just that -- in order for intelligibility to occur, the viewer
>has to fill in some blanks. In this sense, the more 'meaningless' a
>paijnting is, the greater it's potential for becoming personalized is.
>An empty spiderweb, mabe, waiting for an occupant (victim or master).
>
Yes, but I believe the painting also has to direct (or the title).
Associations with reality do IMHO have a bigger impact than
impressions of abstract ideas. IOW I believe that having a painting
"invading" our reality (as Kay said) does have a powerfull impact
since now we start to associate with things we've seen and know.
Photo realism doesn't hit the nail quite right IMHO, I used to paint
as realistical as possible but in being concerned with proper shading
and anatomy I obfuscated the idea in insignificant details and the
sketches were more powerfull. Now I'm trying to find an inbetween by
making the impression of reality rather than a "photo" of it. To me,
it's important to make the fantasy real, make it enter our world but
by doing this in a photo realistical way I loosed the possibility of
transformation which does happen in perception. The idea transforms
the observation and the observation gave rise to the idea, but in
depicting the source of the observation too accurately we loose the
ability to depict the idea.
The impression of reality is not as detailed as a photo. It does have
a number of detailed spots (the small center of the eye experiencing
full color, contrast and the finest details) but the global picture is
equally important and this global picture is quite coarse, being
filled in by the onlooker recognizing shapes, shadows, texture, but
not clearly seeing the detail other than what the brain believes it
is. Therefor: the detail isn't that important.
>On the other hand very pedantic art, wherin the artist imposes his ideas
>on the viewer, seems to me to establish a distance which may be
>insurmountable. I think I'm taliking about the issue difference between
>a work of art that can only be viewed as a spectacle, and one that
>becomes personally meaningful to a viewer. (I think I'm really drifting
>away from your topic - sorry.)
>
Yes, this risk is very present. If we can't fill in blanks (because
there are no blanks) then we can only take it as it is. But yet, this
doesn't mean we can't make discoveries concerning meaning.
>> Perhaps the expression was the process of making it and the work shows
>> you the tracks of that expression (which reminds me of that dude who
>> hurled paint at the canvas and started whipping it, performance art
>> but you could still buy his paintings as a souvenir).
>
>The same could be said of art criticism. Once, several years ago, I went
>with two friends to the ocean to paint seascapes. One of us (it wasn't
>me) got frustrated, cussed, and hurled his painting into a tide pool.
>Myself and my other compatriot, because we were art critics and we felt
>supportive, went over and urinated on the painting, floating in the tide
>pool. This is 'Action Art Criticism', I think.
>
Mmm, this could beat a lengthy article. By taking a picture of that
act you instanteneously make clear your opinion ;-) (BTW did the
painter thought of it as a good idea?)
>> The idea is what needs to be conveyed. Ideas have their source in
>> ourselves and observation. Beauty is an experience within us but it
>> needs to be recognized before we can sense it, recognition by
>> observation or imagination (the two are more or less the same). I
>> believe association plays a major role in the recognition of beauty,
>> or ugliness, or whatever we can sense.
>
>Maybe just the framework on which an idea could be constructed is what
>'needs' to be conveyed. Again, why should an artist attempt to deprive
>the viewer her/his share of the 'writing' of the painting. Well, this is
>one of the problems with 'titles' for paintings. Does the 'title' invade
>the painting, setting out a systems of restraints and frontiers that
>cannot be crossed as far as signification is concerned? I think so.
>
Yes, but a title could also team up with the painting. The painting
being the context of the idea that is within the title. Furthermore:
if the framework isn't specific enough than any idea could be
projected in it and after all (perhaps) artist like to convey their
idea. Perhaps that's why it's difficult to let go of realism.
Ubique
formerly known as Kay <scarl...@theriver.com> writes
I read all the 'critiques'. These people seem to be serious and kind.
Now THAT I like a lot. By the way, one thing they didn't mention --I
think-- is the technical difference between your paintings and drawings:
I mean strictly the difference between applying a pointed instrument to
a piece of paper, and working in a wet environment. Will you tell me
the various steps you take as the drawing unfolds? And all the
materials you use?
Peter.
Ubique
things to do and a five foot square canvas to prime and wrestle with
.... scary and exciting. Tomorrow is another day !
Erik A. Mattila
certain here he discusses the relationship between the photo and the caption,
and it is an easy jump from painting and title.
The title would be like a filter, I think. It defines a reange of possible
meanings for the elements in the painting. while at the same time deselecting
other meanings. Sets the stage, so to speak. My question is, is "Untitled #32"
a title? I think it is. For one thing, it says that the artist doesn't want to
influence the viewer with regards to the purity of the work, or conversely, it
says the artist couldn't think of anything.
If DeKooning, for example, titled a painting "Mona Lisa" we would tend to view
the painting as a portrait of a woman, regardless how abstract it might be, and
also think that it is ---not--- a portrait of a man. So Diebenkorn's Ocean Park
series become landscapes, although there is really nothing to be seen there that
says landscape. It's just that we wouldn't think "portrait' due to the
authority of the title. I just now realized, in thinking about it, that
Diebenkorn has actually painted 'austerity' which the Ocean Park series and the
sourthern california suburbs share.
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Blockx Waster wrote:
> but you could still buy his paintings as a souvenir).
> >
> >The same could be said of art criticism. Once, several years ago, I went
> >with two friends to the ocean to paint seascapes. One of us (it wasn't
> >me) got frustrated, cussed, and hurled his painting into a tide pool.
> >Myself and my other compatriot, because we were art critics and we felt
> >supportive, went over and urinated on the painting, floating in the tide
> >pool. This is 'Action Art Criticism', I think.
> >
> Mmm, this could beat a lengthy article. By taking a picture of that
> act you instanteneously make clear your opinion ;-) (BTW did the
> painter thought of it as a good idea?)
This was a long time ago -- the three of us were 17 -18 years old. As I
recall, the artist was so disenchanted with his attempt at a in situ seascape
that he hardly noticed our criticism. BTW, the fellow went on to become a
successful graphic designer in NYC. So obviously our critique helped.
Erik
Dan Fox
I second that motion - what a terrific thread! I've been reading and
skimming some of it - as I've said, I'm really rushed this week. I'll
specifically address abstration vs. figuration, my teaching experiences,
and the burgeoning wistfulness between TechnoCrate and the beautiful
but elusive Claudia. (TC - tell her you're a sensitive, misunderstood
artist and you're halfway there!)
By the way, I don't know if my site pix take long to load because they're
too big (I checked one, it's only 38K), or it's individual browsers.
They load about the same as other sites for me (with a 56K modem). I'm
looking into compression, and other adjuncts to the site! Geez, there's
a lot to this here web stuff.....
dan
--
-
Alison A Raimes
formerly known as Kay <scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
>I believe you are critiquing Allison's drawings above, so I will do the same
>and in another post, I'll critique the paintings.
>
>At first I was confused by your descriptions, Blockx (if I may call you by
>your first name), because I didn't know you were talking about her drawings
>and her paintings have vibrant colors. Back to the drawings:
>
>The drawings, to me, show the aggressive side of Allison's nature. When I
>looked at them, that's the word that first came to my mind - aggressive.
>Also, somewhat disturbing. Don' t take this as an insult, Allison, I mean
>it as a compliment. (Nothing I hate more in art than a *Hallmark Card*
>quality). The artist that immediately came to my mind was Nancy Grossman
>whom I had the privilege to attend a lecture. The drawing images are
>powerful but also projecting toward the viewer, as if they are intending to
>invade our space. This, to me, is part of what makes the imagery
>*threatening*. For example, Drawing 3 gives me the feeling of bondage or
>massacre. I think Drawing 4 gave me the feeling of flight from something
>disturbing. Very psychosocial on a personal level.
Kay (and including a reply to Peter's)
*Aggressive* is a good way of describing them. To be honest I didn't
ever give my drawings any credibility and have only just been persuaded
to put them on the site by some folks on Artcrit. To me they are like
going to the gym. Daily exercise to keep the mind firm ... to work out
the inner stuff. They are very physical drawings - sometimes I will
cover an entire wall of the studio with paper and do a ten foot by five
footer. Whenever I feel uneasy about the paintings, instead of invading
people's lives and abusing freedom of speech :-), I draw. Initially I
make very gestural, random *slashes* at the paper. Then, with a paper
towel I rub it out. The image remains there but pushed back. Then I hit
it again with more random lines and start to build up on the image that
has appeared. Using an eraser - what we call a putty rubber :-) - I
start to draw over the top and so on, until eventually there are layers
upon layers which have been erased and built up on. I think that is why
they have the theatrical effect.
Bondage in Drawing 3 eh ?? hee hee !! You should have seen the *slave
girl* letter that Peter posted by mistake to Artcrit instead of me ...
that shut them all up for a day ! Massacre ? Well I drew that one
before the Mississippi axe murderer appeared so can't blame him. Without
going into the gory details of my past, there are reasons why there is
this dark side to me which dates back to childhood abuse. Personally,
since I finally started confronting the reasons - it took a period of
being suicidal - life has changed dramatically. Perhaps then, the
paintings reflect the *new* me ? I don't want to eliminate the old me
but bring it comfortably next to the new me.
>
>Someone else may look at the work and see lovers, buildings, etc. Most
>likely, we all bring our own personal psyches to these works which result in
>such diverse interpretations of different works, Blockx. I absolutely
>enjoyed these!
>
Well I am glad - and even more so to finally have someone critically
look at them. Even though Peter says you are a *kind* bunch of folks, I
certainly do not want a gentle appraisal of the work - just honesty and
suggestions. On Artcrit we used to help each other this way all the
time, until someone started sounding like burningchrome and then no one
dared reveal their work.
Thanks for all the time you spent - now, any chance of seeing or hearing
about your work. I imagine your work to abstract, dynamic and gestural.
Anywhere close ?
a beerortwo
Alison.
Alison A Raimes
<th...@is.not.it> writes
>Without our observing (and feeling) perceptual system there is no
>shape at all. Color blind people (complete born monochromates) are
>puzzled by this strange property we (the ones with normal color
>vision) attach to objects. They hear us talk about it and see us
>reacting to it but although they start having ideas about color they
>can't understand it (O. Sacks had a nice documentary about color blind
>people).
Did you see my post to raf about the Hard Edge Painter who has gone
colour blind ? He now sees only monochrome and says that artistically it
is the best thing that happened to him. I will look for the article.
>
>>For example, the examples you provided in you other post, Koch and
>>Raimes, I 'saw' representation in both. In Koch, I 'saw' a piece of
>>paper and and envelope -- not to mention an overbearing signature that
>>has become part of the composition. In Raimes, I 'saw' Frtiz Lang's
>>"Metropolis," or at least the graphic millieu from which Lang extracted
>>his imagery. Funny thing about this is that both artist may protest what
>>I saw in terms of their intentions. What can I say?
I couldn't believe it when you posted this Blockx - during my first year
at college (foundation) - which was when I was suicidal - the History of
Art professor was obsessed with Lang's work - he and I sat and watched a
whole bunch of them (good for suicidal students !) They called me a
*tunnel* painter at that time .... that is where the light concentration
in these drawings come from. They are theatre stages I think.
>>
>Yes, the signature (I forgot to mention) was so evident it must be
>part of the painting. Signatures are a quick scribble denotating our
>name but they're also very personal since they are an expression of
>our body and temperament.
>
>The painting itself also looks like a quick scribble. Is it also a
>signature? Is it the signature of something which signs its name with
>form and color?
When I look at Claudia's work I was instantly jealous (in a nice way). I
always want so much to be able to leave the picture plane enough space
to breath, but instead I invade it. Lately I have been fighting this by
doing the big drawings and then stopping them halfway through. Training
myself towards simplicity.
Incidentally, the reason I am here to tell you all this is that one of
the boys on our course committed suicide during that time. I remember
looking at him one day and sensing a terrible aura. I tried to get him
to come and talk with a group of us but he was so withdrawn - the next
day he was dead. We included him in the graduating show - his sketch
books were deeply troubling and when I compared them to mine, I saw a
mirror reflection. Looking around at the way that he had affected so
many people I snapped right out of my abyss. I guess I owe him my life.
Enough of that - though I think it bears a lot of relevance on the way I
draw today.
Off to have a beer or two now !!!
Alison.
Kay again
Alison A Raimes wrote in message ...
:
:
:Kay (and including a reply to Peter's)
:*Aggressive* is a good way of describing them. To be honest I didn't
:ever give my drawings any credibility and have only just been persuaded
:to put them on the site by some folks on Artcrit. To me they are like
:going to the gym. Daily exercise to keep the mind firm ... to work out
:the inner stuff. They are very physical drawings - sometimes I will
:cover an entire wall of the studio with paper and do a ten foot by five
:footer. Whenever I feel uneasy about the paintings, instead of invading
:people's lives and abusing freedom of speech :-), I draw. Initially I
:make very gestural, random *slashes* at the paper. Then, with a paper
:towel I rub it out. The image remains there but pushed back. Then I hit
:it again with more random lines and start to build up on the image that
:has appeared. Using an eraser - what we call a putty rubber :-) - I
:start to draw over the top and so on, until eventually there are layers
:upon layers which have been erased and built up on. I think that is why
:they have the theatrical effect.
:Bondage in Drawing 3 eh ?? hee hee !! You should have seen the *slave
:girl* letter that Peter posted by mistake to Artcrit instead of me ...
:that shut them all up for a day !
Come on! Post it again - here...:-)
Massacre ? Well I drew that one
:before the Mississippi axe murderer appeared so can't blame him. Without
:going into the gory details of my past, there are reasons why there is
:this dark side to me which dates back to childhood abuse. Personally,
:since I finally started confronting the reasons - it took a period of
:being suicidal - life has changed dramatically. Perhaps then, the
:paintings reflect the *new* me ? I don't want to eliminate the old me
:but bring it comfortably next to the new me.
:
:>Someone else may look at the work and see lovers, buildings, etc. Most
:>likely, we all bring our own personal psyches to these works which result
in
:>such diverse interpretations of different works, Blockx. I absolutely
:>enjoyed these!
:>
:Well I am glad - and even more so to finally have someone critically
:look at them. Even though Peter says you are a *kind* bunch of folks, I
:certainly do not want a gentle appraisal of the work - just honesty and
:suggestions. On Artcrit we used to help each other this way all the
:time, until someone started sounding like burningchrome and then no one
:dared reveal their work.
:
:Thanks for all the time you spent - now, any chance of seeing or hearing
:about your work. I imagine your work to abstract, dynamic and gestural.
:Anywhere close ?
:
:a beerortwo
:Alison.
No. Yes. Usually gestural. Lots of times people are surprised that a man
isn't the artist (duh...) so I guess that could term it dynamic. Not
abstract. Not realism. Narrative. Expressive-representational. Sometimes
it is seriously incredibly profound. Sometimes it is worthless rubbish.
Depends on how I feel. Funny though, I am never frightened at openings
because I am such a procrastinator I'm usually too busy doing all the things
I should have done ages ago and transporting thick wet oil paintings, etc.
to even consider the response. In addition, people who go to specific
galleries are used to their specific genre, that is, that certain places do
Southwest art, others do realism - still life, portraits, etc. others
cutting-edge, etc. and the people who go to these art establishments know
what to expect. That may be part of the problem with the hostility of
newsgroups when you put such diverse styles together, although I always
suspect that most simply don't even make art. I don't have a website
because I don't know how to do one. I did recently purchase one of those
books that tells how but the actual building may take time for this computer
illit. I just recently found out that you can get jpegs here when you
develop a roll of film! I had 2 from old prints made into jpegs and it cost
almost $20! I went into the print shop with around 20 prints and when I
found out the cost only gave them 2:-)
Don't have the courage to post them yet because they aren't abstract and I
feel in the minority here....
Abstraction, to me, if extremely difficult, but I find so MANY people,
including my students want to do it because they don't know how to do it
well and they end up being people with nothing to say and no way to say it.
Some of the BEST art I've seen is abstract but unfortunately, some of the
worse also. Luckily (because I fear bad art), I have seen a lot of really
GOOD abstraction here and nothing bad.
Maybe a good discussion topic later.
Kay
Dan Fox
Kay -
hope to see your work soon -Alison, enjoyed your post - abstract or
figurative, doesn't make any difference to me ... most of my heroes are
figurative artists.
I have to snip your post because of my server's limitations ... is Artcrit
a list? A friend of mine named Phillip Guerstein is on a list named
Artcrit, I think. He says the list format works fine for them.
gotta run as usual.
dan
> Kay
--
-
Quo Vadis
<dan...@erols.com> writes
>
>I have to snip your post because of my server's limitations ... is Artcrit
>a list? A friend of mine named Phillip Guerstein is on a list named
>Artcrit, I think. He says the list format works fine for them.
>
>gotta run as usual.
>
>dan
Now that is a nice guy. I think he and Peter the Sublime used to
correspond ... don't know if they still do. I was going to ask if Kay or
Glenn knew two other participants of Artcrit - Ben Mahmoud and William
Conger - the former would be a good addition to the group, the latter
maybe not ! (we call him King Konger !!!)
We are all dashing ! see you when there is time to breath (still waiting
for your story ...... )
Kay again
alleged heroes are! (Are you a drug runner? Owe money to a loan shark?
Sneaking out the back door from someone else's wife's home?)
Curiously,
Kay
Dan Fox wrote in message <19990527101907.317$N...@newsreader.com>...
:"Kay again" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
:
:Kay -
:
:hope to see your work soon -Alison, enjoyed your post - abstract or
:figurative, doesn't make any difference to me ... most of my heroes are
:figurative artists.
:
:I have to snip your post because of my server's limitations ... is Artcrit
:a list? A friend of mine named Phillip Guerstein is on a list named
:Artcrit, I think. He says the list format works fine for them.
:
:gotta run as usual.
:
:dan
:
:
:> Kay
:
:--
:-
Dan Fox
> Well, if you ever quit *running* then maybe you can let us know who these
> alleged heroes are!
I will - I hope this weekend. Just got back from delivering slides to two
galleries who asked for more, picking up duplicate slides at the photoshop,
seeing a friend's show before it comes down tomorrow, visting a gallery I'm
wooing, making required phone calls, paying bills, photocopying information
for my kids' financial forms for school, answering mail. AND TONIGHT I'M
GONNA PAINT, GODDAMMIT!!
>Are you a drug runner?
I eschew false drugs. Get high on life, I say.
>Owe money to a loan shark?
Naw, just to college loan agencies.
> Sneaking out the back door from someone else's wife's home?
Too old for that, now. Once, 20 years ago, I actually did hide under
a woman's bed when her husband came home unexpectedly. I am here today to
talk to you because he only stayed a few minutes and because I didn't
sneeze. I wonder where she is now? *sigh*
Dan
Ask and it shall be answered.
> Curiously,
> Kay
>
--
-
Erik A. Mattila
Kay again wrote:
> Well, if you ever quit *running* then maybe you can let us know who these
> alleged heroes are! (Are you a drug runner? Owe money to a loan shark?
> Sneaking out the back door from someone else's wife's home?)
> Curiously,
> Kay
>
> Dan Fox wrote in message <19990527101907.317$N...@newsreader.com>...
> :"Kay again" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> :
> :Kay -
> :
> :hope to see your work soon -Alison, enjoyed your post - abstract or
> :figurative, doesn't make any difference to me ... most of my heroes are
> :figurative artists.
> :
> :I have to snip your post because of my server's limitations ... is Artcrit
> :a list? A friend of mine named Phillip Guerstein is on a list named
> :Artcrit, I think. He says the list format works fine for them.
> :
> :gotta run as usual.
> :
> :dan
> :
> :
> :> Kay
Probably a 'rum runner' Kay. Study the speech patterns -- yuk, yuk, yuk.
Erik
Jonathan C
>The title would be like a filter, I think. It defines a reange of possible
>meanings for the elements in the painting. while at the same time deselecting
>other meanings. Sets the stage, so to speak. My question is, is "Untitled #32"
>a title? I think it is. For one thing, it says that the artist doesn't want to
>influence the viewer with regards to the purity of the work, or conversely, it
>says the artist couldn't think of anything.
Scene: an art gallery
Enter stage right, an impoverished artist (IA) and a well to do gallery
owner (GO)
GO: "So, what do you call that one then?"
IA: "That's untitled"
GO: "Um-hm. And, that one over there?"
IA: "That's untitled"
GO: "No, no, can't have two pictures with the same name, it'll confuse
the customers."
IA: "But I want it to be untitled too"
GO: "That's better. Untitled #2. I like it. So we call the first one
Untitled #1, ok ?"
Not much of an argument, Erik, but another possibility to add to your
list. Really just wanted to see if I could post without giving too much
away in the header.
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Clift
(jonathan at ipsart dot demon dot co dot uk)
Erik A. Mattila
E
Quo Vadis
<jona...@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>Not much of an argument, Erik, but another possibility to add to your
>list. Really just wanted to see if I could post without giving too much
>away in the header.
>
>Jonathan
The header says you are posting from ipsart.demon.co.uk, that your IP
address is 194.222.93.247 and that you are using Turnpike 3.05 - why
aren't you using 4 (it has a spell check and all !) ???? I checked the
IP address and this seems to be true !!!!! the only thing it doesn't
reveal is your true identity - but if your name is Jonathan then I would
assume your Email address is jona...@ibsart.demon.co.uk.
Welcome !
Dan Fox
Hi Jonathan - I see you've dealt with gallery owners, too. Name work is
an interesting subject - I've been promising everyone here long posts on
the interesting topics raised - maybe this weekend I'll get to it and
include this one.
Nice to have you with us!
dan
> Scene: an art gallery
> Enter stage right, an impoverished artist (IA) and a well to do gallery
> owner (GO)
>
> GO: "So, what do you call that one then?"
> IA: "That's untitled"
> GO: "Um-hm. And, that one over there?"
> IA: "That's untitled"
> GO: "No, no, can't have two pictures with the same name, it'll confuse
> the customers."
> IA: "But I want it to be untitled too"
> GO: "That's better. Untitled #2. I like it. So we call the first one
> Untitled #1, ok ?"
>
> Not much of an argument, Erik, but another possibility to add to your
> list. Really just wanted to see if I could post without giving too much
> away in the header.
>
> Jonathan
--
-
Alison A Raimes
>had mentioned her appearance, but she is a cute blonde and if she had put
>her picture in the n.g., I would have recommended her as well to the single
>guys (but forget it Blocx, she has a lover - I think - in the U.S.)
>
Glenn and I in bed together now ... so I offered to oblige her ... hee
hee. What say Glenn ?
> Now,
>back to the important thing, her art!
Godforbid ! lets talk men, Kay !
>No, I'll start with the entire layout
>of the web site. It was very impressive. Did you have someone do it
>professionally?
Yes - my friend in the next studio - but when she presented it to me it
had all sorts of nasty, flowery stuff. I didn't want to offend her so
used the excuse that I wanted fast downloading rather than fancy
patterned backgrounds. I think her artistic professionalism was offended
... whoops. Last year a guy in Florida did it and that one was really
nasty ... too American for me ! When I expressed my *concerns* he said
he had given the site a *corporate* look ... and then charged me 150
bucks ....... ayeeeeeeee. At Graphic design school they taught us simple
outlays and particular text layouts that remain my rules. He was really
offended to find I got someone else to do it this year.
>It contained a picture, a well-written bio, interview
>(which sneaked in a wonderful artists statement which I always hate to read
>and moreso to write - but it sneaked it in in a way that made it clear in
>relation to the works and not the usual generic version that I have given
>and read).
My friend Paul wrote it ! He is a star ... completely mad - he fits
right into the stereotypical image of a mad scientist. I love him !
>Divided wonderfully! Hey Dan - how come Alison's downloaded
>faster than yours? I was surprised!
I get my work photographed by a professional onto slide - then have them
put onto CDrom (ten cost around 15 bucks) - when they go onto the site
they are reduced down as far as possible without losing clarification. I
haven't been able to access Dan's site yet - going to try this weekend.
Hey ! look at me catching up ... come on Dan or I will leave ya behind.
Cheers
abeerortwo
Alison.
Jonathan C
seem to have anything to do with art (and is hardly even funny).
I quite like Lauri's idea of self-certification.
We could have an A rating for Aesthesis, a T rating for Theoria, a C
rating for the Chimp arguments, and I'll monopolise the sad ratings :(
Quo Vadis <ubi...@somewhere.in.cosmos> wrote:
>In article <NmIP3HAw...@ipsart.demon.co.uk>, Jonathan C
><jona...@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>
>>Not much of an argument, Erik, but another possibility to add to your
>>list. Really just wanted to see if I could post without giving too much
>>away in the header.
>>
>>Jonathan
>
>The header says you are posting from ipsart.demon.co.uk, that your IP
>address is 194.222.93.247 and that you are using Turnpike 3.05 - why
>aren't you using 4 (it has a spell check and all !) ???? I checked the
>IP address and this seems to be true !!!!! the only thing it doesn't
>reveal is your true identity - but if your name is Jonathan then I would
>assume your Email address is jona...@ibsart.demon.co.uk.
>
>Welcome !
>
Hey, are you saying my spelling is a problem? I've only been here a few
minutes and I'm being flamed already...
[Techie bit for Alison] Immediately afer the Turnpike bit, it says
"(16)". If you look in your own headers it says "(32)". That's shorthand
for 16-bit and 32-bit. Now you can guess what operating systems we are
using (in your case it's either 98 or NT), and why I'm stuck at 3.05,
wivout a spel cheker.
It was only an experiment to see how much I could change, I don't really
want to be anonymous (my e-mail address was there, as the second line of
the signature, in human readable form). Now, would you like me to spell
out your e-mail address in plain text ready for the software that scoops
them off of news posts for mailing list use?
I can't prove who I am (none of us can, short of showing birth
certificates), but, what you can do, if you want, is to go to DejaNews
and read all the things I've ever posted to Usenet. It will tell you
whether I'm nasty/nice, silly/sensible, deep/shallow, and all those
kinds of things. I think I'm nice/silly(in a sensible kind of
way)/shallow(with hidden depths), but you might think different.
OK clever-clogs, now the tough one. What's my shoe size?
Jonathan
--
Jonathan Clift
Jonathan C
>Jonathan C <jona...@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>
>Hi Jonathan - I see you've dealt with gallery owners, too. Name work is
>an interesting subject - I've been promising everyone here long posts on
>the interesting topics raised - maybe this weekend I'll get to it and
>include this one.
>
>Nice to have you with us!
>
>dan
>
I'll be interested to read how you approach this. My first thoughts
would err towards a Taxonomy of Titling (very Victorian of me!), with
categories such as 'Descriptive - refers to story illustrated', and so
on.
BTW I've only dealt with gallery owners from the other side of the
business; buying rather than selling.
--
Jonathan C
Quo Vadis
<jona...@somewhere.in.the.uk> writes
>Hey, are you saying my spelling is a problem? I've only been here a few
>minutes and I'm being flamed already...
Hee hee ... no, it was me that needed the spellchecker or i would be
flamed at every instance !
>
>[Techie bit for Alison] Immediately afer the Turnpike bit, it says
>"(16)". If you look in your own headers it says "(32)". That's shorthand
>for 16-bit and 32-bit. Now you can guess what operating systems we are
>using (in your case it's either 98 or NT), and why I'm stuck at 3.05,
>wivout a spel cheker.
See - you learn someut everyday - I just spent three hours on the phone
to Demon because when I installed IE4 this morning it wiped out the
entire dial up information. All I wanted was to be able to see Dan's
work !
>
>It was only an experiment to see how much I could change, I don't really
>want to be anonymous (my e-mail address was there, as the second line of
>the signature, in human readable form). Now, would you like me to spell
>out your e-mail address in plain text ready for the software that scoops
>them off of news posts for mailing list use?
>
I once hit the return button on ten spam messages from one source
...thought that would get em ... it didn't, they bounced back into my
mailbox every day for a week. Seriously though, we are trying to figure
out how to avoid being found here and how to spot the nutter brigade if
they do arrive ... all cloak and dagger stuff. It seems you need to
change your name and Email address to be successful. I hate it too, but
if you publish your name at the end it seems to be fine.
>I can't prove who I am (none of us can, short of showing birth
>certificates), but, what you can do, if you want, is to go to DejaNews
>and read all the things I've ever posted to Usenet. It will tell you
>whether I'm nasty/nice, silly/sensible, deep/shallow, and all those
>kinds of things. I think I'm nice/silly(in a sensible kind of
>way)/shallow(with hidden depths), but you might think different.
>
That sounds brilliant !! can't wait to read you. Normally I am pretty
good natured and love a good natured scrap - at the moment I am a cyber
grump - I will get over it.
>OK clever-clogs, now the tough one. What's my shoe size?
>
>Jonathan
11 ?????? Must be !
So ... how about another clue ? The beer has me stumped.
Cheers !
abeerortwo
Alison.
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>(snipping my own stuff, so there!)
<doing the same ... so nah nah nah na>
>:Bondage in Drawing 3 eh ?? hee hee !! You should have seen the *slave
>:girl* letter that Peter posted by mistake to Artcrit instead of me ...
>:that shut them all up for a day !
>
>Come on! Post it again - here...:-)
It was kind of fun. That one was pretty tame anyway ... if we can get
Peter subscribed I am sure he will do it, by mistake.
>
>No. Yes. Usually gestural. Lots of times people are surprised that a man
>isn't the artist (duh...) so I guess that could term it dynamic. Not
>abstract. Not realism. Narrative. Expressive-representational. Sometimes
>it is seriously incredibly profound. Sometimes it is worthless rubbish.
>Depends on how I feel.
Tell me about it ! I would imagine then that your brushstrokes are quite
loose and that maybe you apply paint quite thickly ? I have a friend
here, called also Kay, who paints very gesturally - sort of abstracted
figures which always seem to have symbolic attachments which apparently
come from the unconscious. She is doing an MA in Art Therapy now and
works with mentally ill patients. Where do you draw your sources from ?
>Funny though, I am never frightened at openings
>because I am such a procrastinator I'm usually too busy doing all the things
>I should have done ages ago and transporting thick wet oil paintings, etc.
>to even consider the response.
They are strange events - I feel like a goldfish at them and tend to
slink off into a corner and hope no one will notice me ... of course
that doesn't happen does it ?
> In addition, people who go to specific
>galleries are used to their specific genre, that is, that certain places do
>Southwest art, others do realism - still life, portraits, etc. others
>cutting-edge, etc. and the people who go to these art establishments know
>what to expect. That may be part of the problem with the hostility of
>newsgroups when you put such diverse styles together, although I always
>suspect that most simply don't even make art. I don't have a website
>because I don't know how to do one.
Get someone to do it for you !
>I did recently purchase one of those
>books that tells how but the actual building may take time for this computer
>illit. I just recently found out that you can get jpegs here when you
>develop a roll of film! I had 2 from old prints made into jpegs and it cost
>almost $20! I went into the print shop with around 20 prints and when I
>found out the cost only gave them 2:-)
CDrom is the way to go. I think I posted about it earlier.
>
>Don't have the courage to post them yet because they aren't abstract and I
>feel in the minority here....
>
That's silly ! To be honest most abstract art today leaves me feeling
robbed - much of it seems to be an easy option and often badly executed.
The process of painting seems to be left behind and all though I am not
necessarily insisting on innovation, it is good to see artists who are
prepared to be a little risky and bring in new processes.
>Abstraction, to me, if extremely difficult, but I find so MANY people,
>including my students want to do it because they don't know how to do it
>well and they end up being people with nothing to say and no way to say it.
>Some of the BEST art I've seen is abstract but unfortunately, some of the
>worse also. Luckily (because I fear bad art), I have seen a lot of really
>GOOD abstraction here and nothing bad.
I often wish I was a figurative painter - that I had a point of
reference for people that didn't make them ask that awful question "But
what is it about ?" I noticed these last few weeks that most people are
saying the same sort of thing about my own work - that it seems to imply
something beyond our understanding. An American lady came into the
gallery yesterday and said something to that effect and got very upset
that she wasn't the first to say it !!! (she came back and bought four
this morning ... yippppeee). What I do look for in non abstract art is
that same implication ... that something is not as it seems - that we
need to look deeper maybe. What do you think ? I mean what is it that we
seem to need from art today ?
>Maybe a good discussion topic later.
>
>Kay
>
Hope so ! I really want to see some of your work ... do it Kay, get
those Jpegs done (a friend with a scanner maybe ?)
a beerortwo
Alison.
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:In article <H2333.11036$Gm1.9...@news1.giganews.com>, Kay again
:<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
:>(snipping my own stuff, so there!)
:
:<doing the same ... so nah nah nah na>
:
:>:Bondage in Drawing 3 eh ?? hee hee !! You should have seen the *slave
:>:girl* letter that Peter posted by mistake to Artcrit instead of me ...
:>:that shut them all up for a day !
:>
:>Come on! Post it again - here...:-)
:
:It was kind of fun. That one was pretty tame anyway ... if we can get
:Peter subscribed I am sure he will do it, by mistake.
:>
:>No. Yes. Usually gestural. Lots of times people are surprised that a man
:>isn't the artist (duh...) so I guess that could term it dynamic. Not
:>abstract. Not realism. Narrative. Expressive-representational.
Sometimes
:>it is seriously incredibly profound. Sometimes it is worthless rubbish.
:>Depends on how I feel.
:
:Tell me about it ! I would imagine then that your brushstrokes are quite
:loose and that maybe you apply paint quite thickly ?
BINGO! (I like drips too.)
I have a friend
:here, called also Kay, who paints very gesturally - sort of abstracted
:figures which always seem to have symbolic attachments which apparently
:come from the unconscious. She is doing an MA in Art Therapy now and
:works with mentally ill patients. Where do you draw your sources from ?
My original sources usually come from literature. I did a "Fairy Tales and
Dreamscapes" series in which I closely re-examined childhood fairy tales:
for example, when you really look at it, "Jack and the Beanstalk" shows Jack
as a theif. Or maybe symbolic of taking over "different" cultures' peoples
and lands. I used zippers (symbolic, yes) as the beanstalks. "Hansel and
Gretel" were urbanized. "Cinderella", commentary on contemporary female
fashion and self-mutilation., etc. I then evolved into my "Homage to
Virginia Woolf" series. All my work is narrative, yet I don't show the
human figure. Recently I've been doing shoes (red high-heels), bricks,
rocks, lots of structural elements to restructure the environment. To call
me a realist would be absurd, yet I'm narrative, so not considered
abstrationist!
:>Funny though, I am never frightened at openings
:>because I am such a procrastinator I'm usually too busy doing all the
things
:>I should have done ages ago and transporting thick wet oil paintings, etc.
:>to even consider the response.
:
:They are strange events - I feel like a goldfish at them and tend to
:slink off into a corner and hope no one will notice me ... of course
:that doesn't happen does it ?
(LOL) I had an opening, 1995 I think, solo show - I had never sold a work
and there were a couple of collectors discussing my work at the opening. I
asked my friends (not a real good idea, folks) if I should hang around and
try to hear what they were saying about it or if I should ignor them or
what? My friends (insanely) advised me to ignor them, not to look too eager
and one of them stood directly and obviously next to them to listen which
may have prompted them to leave. We were'nt as discreet as we thought! (I
did sell a work at that opening, however, but it was when my friends and I
were nowhere near!)
:> In addition, people who go to specific
:>galleries are used to their specific genre, that is, that certain places
do
:>Southwest art, others do realism - still life, portraits, etc. others
:>cutting-edge, etc. and the people who go to these art establishments know
:>what to expect. That may be part of the problem with the hostility of
:>newsgroups when you put such diverse styles together, although I always
:>suspect that most simply don't even make art. I don't have a website
:>because I don't know how to do one.
:
:Get someone to do it for you !
OK
:>I did recently purchase one of those
:>books that tells how but the actual building may take time for this
computer
:>illit. I just recently found out that you can get jpegs here when you
:>develop a roll of film! I had 2 from old prints made into jpegs and it
cost
:>almost $20! I went into the print shop with around 20 prints and when I
:>found out the cost only gave them 2:-)
:
:CDrom is the way to go. I think I posted about it earlier.
Yes. But I did learn you could get it done from slides too, right? I
thought previously that you could only get it done from print negatives. I
learn a lot while reading here:-)
Kay
(who accidently snipped the bottom half of this discussion and Alison's name
and URL)
:
Erik A. Mattila
Kay again wrote:
> Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
> :In article <H2333.11036$Gm1.9...@news1.giganews.com>, Kay again
> :<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
> :>(snipping my own stuff, so there!)
> :
> :<doing the same ... so nah nah nah na>
> :
> :>:Bondage in Drawing 3 eh ?? hee hee !! You should have seen the *slave
> :>:girl* letter that Peter posted by mistake to Artcrit instead of me ...
> :>:that shut them all up for a day !
> :>
> :>Come on! Post it again - here...:-)
> :
> :It was kind of fun. That one was pretty tame anyway ... if we can get
> :Peter subscribed I am sure he will do it, by mistake.
> :>
> :>No. Yes. Usually gestural. Lots of times people are surprised that a man
> :>isn't the artist (duh...) so I guess that could term it dynamic. Not
> :>abstract. Not realism. Narrative. Expressive-representational.
> Sometimes
> :>it is seriously incredibly profound. Sometimes it is worthless rubbish.
> :>Depends on how I feel.
> :
> :Tell me about it ! I would imagine then that your brushstrokes are quite
> :loose and that maybe you apply paint quite thickly ?
>
> BINGO! (I like drips too.)
>
> I have a friend
> :here, called also Kay, who paints very gesturally - sort of abstracted
> :figures which always seem to have symbolic attachments which apparently
> :come from the unconscious. She is doing an MA in Art Therapy now and
> :works with mentally ill patients. Where do you draw your sources from ?
>
> My original sources usually come from literature. I did a "Fairy Tales and
> Dreamscapes" series in which I closely re-examined childhood fairy tales:
> for example, when you really look at it, "Jack and the Beanstalk" shows Jack
> as a theif. Or maybe symbolic of taking over "different" cultures' peoples
> and lands. I used zippers (symbolic, yes) as the beanstalks. "Hansel and
> Gretel" were urbanized. "Cinderella", commentary on contemporary female
> fashion and self-mutilation., etc. I then evolved into my "Homage to
> Virginia Woolf" series. All my work is narrative, yet I don't show the
> human figure. Recently I've been doing shoes (red high-heels), bricks,
> rocks, lots of structural elements to restructure the environment. To call
> me a realist would be absurd, yet I'm narrative, so not considered
> abstrationist!
Red High heels? A couple of weeks ago Mattison, in a name dropping spasm,
mentioned "Squeak K" and I knew she was talking about Squeak Carnwath (Mattison
can't spell worth a dam, and how many Squeaks can there be in the Bay Area?).
When I first got to UC Davis, around 1986, I went to a student exhibit and my
favorite pitcher was one of red high heals with wings (like Mercury's shoes)
and it was dedicated to Squeak. It was an extremely funny painting, anf very
good too. Turns out Squeak was a very funny person, and a very good painter
too. I just got really pissed off at her. I was just filling in space on my
last quarter, and signed up for an intaglio print class with her. The first
assignment was a collegraph, and I loved it. The next assignment was some sort
of spoon-rubbing nonesense, and I told Squeak that I really wanted to stay with
collegraphy -- that I was on a roll. And she turned me down. "You have to do
the assignments." "Jesus, Squeak, I've been printing things for twenty five
years, from a potato print to a 36" Harris offset lithography press.
Collagraphy really excites me. I don't neet this class to graduate. Please,
let me follow my lucky stars!" "Nope" I had no recourse but to boycott her
class (and I guess there's an 'F' somewhere on my transcripts - but it was the
principle of the thing.
So about a year later, when I was in graduate school (history of artr) I was in
the Art Department Office and Squeak walks in. The Department Secretary, who
was always sarcastic, said "Oh, Erik, do you know Squeak?" I said "Yes, Squeak
and I have a love/hate relationship. Squeak fluttered her eyelashes and said
coyly "I don't hate you, Erik. As a matter of fact, I've changed my teaching
strategy. Now I let my students do whatever they wish/" Arrrrrgggggghhhhhh.
But seriously, she's a lovely person, a terrific painter, and the flying red
shoes are a testimony to her greatness.
> :>Funny though, I am never frightened at openings
> :>because I am such a procrastinator I'm usually too busy doing all the
> things
> :>I should have done ages ago and transporting thick wet oil paintings, etc.
> :>to even consider the response.
> :
> :They are strange events - I feel like a goldfish at them and tend to
> :slink off into a corner and hope no one will notice me ... of course
> :that doesn't happen does it ?
>
> (LOL) I had an opening, 1995 I think, solo show - I had never sold a work
> and there were a couple of collectors discussing my work at the opening. I
> asked my friends (not a real good idea, folks) if I should hang around and
> try to hear what they were saying about it or if I should ignor them or
> what? My friends (insanely) advised me to ignor them, not to look too eager
> and one of them stood directly and obviously next to them to listen which
> may have prompted them to leave. We were'nt as discreet as we thought! (I
> did sell a work at that opening, however, but it was when my friends and I
> were nowhere near!)
That's a hilarious story, Kay. It's like the advice of the Jailhouse lawyer
(plead guilty, throw yourself at the mercy of the court)/ You should have
started grasping your stomach and telling your friend how wonderful it would be
if you could afford a hamburger right now. Always go to you openings with a
couple of Chollas hanging from the back of your jacket, so the afficianados
will know you're authentic Arizona.
> :> In addition, people who go to specific
> :>galleries are used to their specific genre, that is, that certain places
> do
> :>Southwest art, others do realism - still life, portraits, etc. others
> :>cutting-edge, etc. and the people who go to these art establishments know
> :>what to expect. That may be part of the problem with the hostility of
> :>newsgroups when you put such diverse styles together, although I always
> :>suspect that most simply don't even make art. I don't have a website
> :>because I don't know how to do one.
> :
> :Get someone to do it for you !
>
> OK
Kay, I just took a look at www.theriver.com and it looks to me like you have
10megbytes for a personal web page that you're paying for anyway. I would be
happy to help you get a webpage up and running. It's not really that
difficult. I do understand how intimidating it can be however. The first web
site I designed, about a year and a half ago, was ready to be uploaded in
Sacramento. I called the company techie for advise -- I didn't have any idea
what I was doing. I talked to this woman for about 15 minutes, about this and
that, on a Friday afternoon. She said they would be closed for the weekend,
and I said I was going to upload this weekend. She said "Good Luck" (with a
rather sarcastic tone) and I felt terrified. But I went ahead with it, and it
turned out perfect. Now, I can do it in my sleep.
10 megabytes is really more space than you need, so you can do a really neat
web site with some hight resolution graphics on it. What you have to do is
email your ISP and tell them you want to create your web site, and they will
mail you an FTP (File Transfer Protocol -- which will probably be
"ftp:theriver.com ") address and username and password (which will probably be
the same as you email password). Anyway, I would be happy to help you in any
way I can, including doing the site for you per your instructions until you can
figure out how to maintain it yourself. It's really not that much more
complicated than posting these emails, except you'll need to have some software
to do it.
> :>I did recently purchase one of those
> :>books that tells how but the actual building may take time for this
> computer
> :>illit. I just recently found out that you can get jpegs here when you
> :>develop a roll of film! I had 2 from old prints made into jpegs and it
> cost
> :>almost $20! I went into the print shop with around 20 prints and when I
> :>found out the cost only gave them 2:-)
> :
> :CDrom is the way to go. I think I posted about it earlier.
>
> Yes. But I did learn you could get it done from slides too, right? I
> thought previously that you could only get it done from print negatives. I
> learn a lot while reading here:-)
>
> Kay
> (who accidently snipped the bottom half of this discussion and Alison's name
> and URL)
> :
Jeeze. Do you know anyone who has a digital camera? Web resolution is so low
(72 dots per inch) that a cosumer model digital camera will give you a better
image than you can display on the web. Once you have the graphic file, you can
tweak the colors in a program like Photoshop, Fireworks or Corel to simulate
the real life sunshine colors to an acceptable degree. Always remember the law
of reproductions - each reproduction diminishes from the original.
Erik
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
>My original sources usually come from literature. I did a "Fairy Tales and
>Dreamscapes" series in which I closely re-examined childhood fairy tales:
>for example, when you really look at it, "Jack and the Beanstalk" shows Jack
>as a theif. Or maybe symbolic of taking over "different" cultures' peoples
>and lands. I used zippers (symbolic, yes) as the beanstalks. "Hansel and
>Gretel" were urbanized. "Cinderella", commentary on contemporary female
>fashion and self-mutilation., etc. I then evolved into my "Homage to
>Virginia Woolf" series. All my work is narrative, yet I don't show the
>human figure. Recently I've been doing shoes (red high-heels), bricks,
>rocks, lots of structural elements to restructure the environment. To call
>me a realist would be absurd, yet I'm narrative, so not considered
>abstrationist!
Wow, this is fascinating. For the last year of my degree I was working
on the issues of *identity* and used Alice and Wonderland as my source.
The Art History department were thrilled and targeted me as a model
student - the Art department were disgusted - took them forever to fight
over my final mark ! Don't know whether you caught my post on the
jabberwocky on raf ? It developed as an interest in how we, as children,
are set preconceived ideas by how we are brought up, that stay with us
throughout life. My father was a physically aggressive man and most of
my childhood was spent in terror - books like Alice and Wonderland
always had a sinister feel to them - yeah yeah ... start the
psychoanalysis NOW ;-) My own work is never narrative and that was the
only piece of work that came close by including text. It was an
interesting piece of work but I wouldn't include it in any future
portfolio presentations !
But I want to tell you about my friend, Paule van Wingaarden: she is the
one crazy on Tapies and also Serano and Mapplethorpe. She is mixed race
- has Dutch and Chinese in her and is one of the most stunningly
sexually attractive women you will ever meet - not so much for beauty
but because she exudes sexual desire - her entire presence is sexual.
Men drool over her and at the same time are absolutely terrified of
her... start the psychoanalysis HERE ;-) Her sources are drawn from
fetishes and the occult (she is a white witch). Her work, like yours, is
narrative - red shoes with huge high heels appear regularly ! She did a
performance piece based on her paintings which was incredibly powerful
and made references to Chinese foot binding and women's fetishes for
shoes - she originally trained as a dancer and choreographer so the
performance was as professional as any theatre production. Fascinating
stuff I can tell you.
Now I must go to work ... loved your *opening* story ... the lessons we
learn eh ?
abeerortwo
Alison
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Glenn Geist
>In article <Rwq23.38369$5e2.6...@news2.giganews.com>, The artist
>formerly known as Kay <scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>>
>>
>>At first, I was afraid to visit it because on the *other n.g. certain people
>>had mentioned her appearance, but she is a cute blonde and if she had put
>>her picture in the n.g., I would have recommended her as well to the single
>>guys (but forget it Blocx, she has a lover - I think - in the U.S.)
>>
>Hey, no one said I was married to him ;-) Anyway, Flowery Showers has
>Glenn and I in bed together now ... so I offered to oblige her ... hee
>hee. What say Glenn ?
I've been through one divorce already. <s>
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
(2nd half - 1st half answered)
You-know-who said:
:That's silly ! To be honest most abstract art today leaves me feeling
:robbed - much of it seems to be an easy option and often badly executed.
:The process of painting seems to be left behind and all though I am not
:necessarily insisting on innovation, it is good to see artists who are
:prepared to be a little risky and bring in new processes.
Kay said:
:>Abstraction, to me, if extremely difficult, but I find so MANY people,
:>including my students want to do it because they don't know how to do it
:>well and they end up being people with nothing to say and no way to say
it.
:>Some of the BEST art I've seen is abstract but unfortunately, some of the
:>worse also. Luckily (because I fear bad art), I have seen a lot of really
:>GOOD abstraction here and nothing bad.
:
:I often wish I was a figurative painter - that I had a point of
:reference for people that didn't make them ask that awful question "But
:what is it about ?"
I'm a figurative painter and they certainly say "But what is it about?"
especially since I don't use the human figure...
I noticed these last few weeks that most people are
:saying the same sort of thing about my own work - that it seems to imply
:something beyond our understanding.
Do you feel comfortable with that? Don't you sometimes paint and wonder
where you get your images from? I think beyond our understanding can be a
good thing as long as we *think or *feel or are somehow *moved by a work of
art.
An American lady came into the
:gallery yesterday and said something to that effect and got very upset
:that she wasn't the first to say it !!! (she came back and bought four
:this morning ... yippppeee).
Congratulations!
: What I do look for in non abstract art is
:that same implication ... that something is not as it seems - that we
:need to look deeper maybe. What do you think ?
I agree totally. If something, in art, is exactly as it seems, then what is
the point? Why not photograph it? Part of the *hatred of anything in our
time, artistically, seems to be a failure to even leave the possibility open
of discovery. It is a terrible shame to close oneself off to this. I got
nothing out of Rothko for 3 years then one day - BAM! (I've never been the
same again) But, I do pride myself of the search which does require an open
mind.
: I mean what is it that we
:seem to need from art today ?
Different people need or seek different things. Some need something to
match their sofa. Some need *pretty to cheer them up. When you get to the
*high art, which I believe most of us here aspire to or do, then you dredge
something out of you whether from experience, observation or feeling and
present it as art. This may provide pleasure from enabling the viewer to
see and connect with something within themselves which is meaningful, yet it
may take on an entirely different personal response then in which the artist
created the work. I love to *feel when I look at art. Whether it is the
remembrance of an experience, and observation of humanity, or the sheer
beauty of the painted surface, each of these can make me feel as well as
making me contemplate something within myself.
:>Maybe a good discussion topic later.
I think I just discussed part of it. Someone else can take the bull by the
horns (oops, probably very Freudian!)
:Hope so ! I really want to see some of your work ... do it Kay, get
:those Jpegs done (a friend with a scanner maybe ?)
I was supposed to have slides taken last Thursday. The person called
Wednesday and told me she would have to reschedule because her father was
having open-heart surgery. My first response? Feelings of relief that I
could work on the paintings a bit longer. After I guiltily acknowledged my
joy at someone else's expense I felt sad for her, but I'm afraid I've bought
some bad Karma! (Damn, now I have to balance it out by doing a bunch of
good deeds and I'll begrudge it so it won't count!)
I seem to have went off the topic of your last paragraph. I will get slides
and CD or JPEGS of new work in 2-3 weeks which I am really anxious to share
with the group. I do have 2 old works that I paid $20 to get made into
JPEGS that open but the color is not true enough for me which I am going to
send to Erik and I think he offered to put them up on his website and I am
going to send the rest to Dan who offered to try and open them. It will
give an idea of what my work is like, but I like new work the best.
Kay
:a beerortwo
:Alison.
:
: ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
: http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
:
Kay again
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
(snipping my own self)
:Red High heels? A couple of weeks ago Mattison, in a name dropping spasm,
:mentioned "Squeak K" and I knew she was talking about Squeak Carnwath
(Mattison
:can't spell worth a dam, and how many Squeaks can there be in the Bay
Area?).
Is Mattison back on raf? I thought she went to become a star in Mexico
after she exploited the Columbine school massacre? I might resubscribe just
for the entertainment she provides and, after all, she is incredibly famous!
('because she says so all the time...)
I went to grad school with a Squeak. How many can there be? She may have
been famous first then went back to school for tenure-track position. Can
you look it up? When did she graduate?
:When I first got to UC Davis, around 1986, I went to a student exhibit and
my
:favorite pitcher was one of red high heals with wings (like Mercury's
shoes)
:and it was dedicated to Squeak.
Crap! I hate that! I did a painting of red high heels with wings!
Everytime I do something new and innovative I find out it's been done. Even
when I thought I'd paint symbolic red high heel shoes, I found out they had
a whole SHOW in NYC about high heel shoes. When I did my Fairy Tale series,
I found out they had done a whole SHOW in NYC. I just bought some window
shades to paint on (thinking I'm doing something unique and liking the
symbolism) and found out that only about a zillion artists have done the
same thing.
It was an extremely funny painting, anf very
:good too. Turns out Squeak was a very funny person, and a very good
painter
:too. I just got really pissed off at her. I was just filling in space on
my
:last quarter, and signed up for an intaglio print class with her. The
first
:assignment was a collegraph, and I loved it. The next assignment was some
sort
:of spoon-rubbing nonesense, and I told Squeak that I really wanted to stay
with
:collegraphy -- that I was on a roll. And she turned me down. "You have to
do
:the assignments." "Jesus, Squeak, I've been printing things for twenty
five
:years, from a potato print to a 36" Harris offset lithography press.
:Collagraphy really excites me. I don't neet this class to graduate.
Please,
:let me follow my lucky stars!" "Nope" I had no recourse but to boycott
her
:class (and I guess there's an 'F' somewhere on my transcripts - but it was
the
:principle of the thing.
So you never learned how to submit or grovel? I hate to say it but I would
do the same thing as she (although I'd let you slide on the grade). The
problem is that most art students (including myself when I was a student)
see themselves as already experts and you really can learn by trying
something you think you know.
:So about a year later, when I was in graduate school (history of artr) I
was in
:the Art Department Office and Squeak walks in. The Department Secretary,
who
:was always sarcastic, said "Oh, Erik, do you know Squeak?" I said "Yes,
Squeak
:and I have a love/hate relationship. Squeak fluttered her eyelashes and
said
:coyly "I don't hate you, Erik. As a matter of fact, I've changed my
teaching
:strategy. Now I let my students do whatever they wish/"
Arrrrrgggggghhhhhh.
So why didn't you sign up for her course again and do what you wanted?
:But seriously, she's a lovely person, a terrific painter, and the flying
red
:shoes are a testimony to her greatness.
It must be pretty cool to have paintings paying you tribute!
(snipping for space)
:Kay, I just took a look at www.theriver.com and it looks to me like you
have
:10megbytes for a personal web page that you're paying for anyway. I would
be
:happy to help you get a webpage up and running. It's not really that
:difficult. I do understand how intimidating it can be however. The first
web
:site I designed, about a year and a half ago, was ready to be uploaded in
:Sacramento. I called the company techie for advise -- I didn't have any
idea
:what I was doing. I talked to this woman for about 15 minutes, about this
and
:that, on a Friday afternoon. She said they would be closed for the
weekend,
:and I said I was going to upload this weekend. She said "Good Luck" (with
a
:rather sarcastic tone) and I felt terrified. But I went ahead with it, and
it
:turned out perfect. Now, I can do it in my sleep.
That is such of a wonderful and generous offer! (My feelings towards
Sqeak's treatment of you have changed, fancy that. If I ever meet her, if I
haven't already, I'll give her a piece of my mind on your behalf!)
:10 megabytes is really more space than you need, so you can do a really
neat
:web site with some hight resolution graphics on it. What you have to do is
:email your ISP and tell them you want to create your web site, and they
will
:mail you an FTP (File Transfer Protocol -- which will probably be
:"ftp:theriver.com ") address and username and password (which will probably
be
:the same as you email password). Anyway, I would be happy to help you in
any
:way I can, including doing the site for you per your instructions until you
can
:figure out how to maintain it yourself. It's really not that much more
:complicated than posting these emails, except you'll need to have some
software
:to do it.
Like what? You mean that I can put up an entire website for free on my
server's allocated space to me? WOW!!! How much is a megabite?
What software?
(snipping Alison & Kay dialogue about CDs)
:Jeeze. Do you know anyone who has a digital camera?
Most likely can borrow one from the college where I work, computer dept.
teacher and I get along. I would have to lie, most likely and pretend it is
for a class but that is a challenge, not a problem.
: Web resolution is so low
:(72 dots per inch) that a cosumer model digital camera will give you a
:better
:image than you can display on the web. Once you have the graphic file,
:you can
:tweak the colors in a program like Photoshop, Fireworks or Corel to
:simulate
:the real life sunshine colors to an acceptable degree. Always remember
:the law
:of reproductions - each reproduction diminishes from the original.
:
:Erik
Huh? Were you talking dirty to me in that last paragraph. I understood
"tweak" but you lost me in the rest. Also, something about reproducing -
did that, no thanks!
Kay
(biting the hand that is offering to feed her - in jest)
Erik,
What I mean was all that stuff in the last paragraph is above my head. I
have some of the programs but haven't used them yet and don't know how.
Don't know about resolutions (except New Years), etc.
:
Kay again
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
(snipping my own self)
:Red High heels? A couple of weeks ago Mattison, in a name dropping spasm,
:mentioned "Squeak K" and I knew she was talking about Squeak Carnwath
(Mattison
:can't spell worth a dam, and how many Squeaks can there be in the Bay
Area?).
Is Mattison back on raf? I thought she went to become a star in Mexico
after she exploited the Columbine school massacre? I might resubscribe just
for the entertainment she provides and, after all, she is incredibly famous!
('because she says so all the time...)
I went to grad school with a Squeak. How many can there be? She may have
been famous first then went back to school for tenure-track position. Can
you look it up? When did she graduate?
:When I first got to UC Davis, around 1986, I went to a student exhibit and
my
:favorite pitcher was one of red high heals with wings (like Mercury's
shoes)
:and it was dedicated to Squeak.
Crap! I hate that! I did a painting of red high heels with wings!
Everytime I do something new and innovative I find out it's been done. Even
when I thought I'd paint symbolic red high heel shoes, I found out they had
a whole SHOW in NYC about high heel shoes. When I did my Fairy Tale series,
I found out they had done a whole SHOW in NYC. I just bought some window
shades to paint on (thinking I'm doing something unique and liking the
symbolism) and found out that only about a zillion artists have done the
same thing.
It was an extremely funny painting, anf very
:good too. Turns out Squeak was a very funny person, and a very good
painter
:too. I just got really pissed off at her. I was just filling in space on
my
:last quarter, and signed up for an intaglio print class with her. The
first
:assignment was a collegraph, and I loved it. The next assignment was some
sort
:of spoon-rubbing nonsense, and I told Squeak that I really wanted to stay
with
:collegraphy -- that I was on a roll. And she turned me down. "You have to
do
:the assignments." "Jesus, Squeak, I've been printing things for twenty
five
:years, from a potato print to a 36" Harris offset lithography press.
:Collagraphy really excites me. I don't neet this class to graduate.
Please,
:let me follow my lucky stars!" "Nope" I had no recourse but to boycott
her
:class (and I guess there's an 'F' somewhere on my transcripts - but it was
the
:principle of the thing.
So you never learned how to submit or grovel? I hate to say it but I would
do the same thing as she (although I'd let you slide on the grade). The
problem is that most art students (including myself when I was a student)
see themselves as already experts and you really can learn by trying
something you think you know.
:So about a year later, when I was in graduate school (history of art) I
was in
:the Art Department Office and Squeak walks in. The Department Secretary,
who
:was always sarcastic, said "Oh, Erik, do you know Squeak?" I said "Yes,
Squeak
:and I have a love/hate relationship. Squeak fluttered her eyelashes and
said
:coyly "I don't hate you, Erik. As a matter of fact, I've changed my
teaching
:strategy. Now I let my students do whatever they wish/"
Arrrrrgggggghhhhhh.
So why didn't you sign up for her course again and do what you wanted?
:But seriously, she's a lovely person, a terrific painter, and the flying
red
:shoes are a testimony to her greatness.
It must be pretty cool to have paintings paying you tribute!
(snipping for space)
:Kay, I just took a look at www.theriver.com and it looks to me like you
have
:10megbytes for a personal web page that you're paying for anyway. I would
be
:happy to help you get a webpage up and running. It's not really that
:difficult. I do understand how intimidating it can be however. The first
web
:site I designed, about a year and a half ago, was ready to be uploaded in
:Sacramento. I called the company techie for advise -- I didn't have any
idea
:what I was doing. I talked to this woman for about 15 minutes, about this
and
:that, on a Friday afternoon. She said they would be closed for the
weekend,
:and I said I was going to upload this weekend. She said "Good Luck" (with
a
:rather sarcastic tone) and I felt terrified. But I went ahead with it, and
it
:turned out perfect. Now, I can do it in my sleep.
That is such of a wonderful and generous offer! (My feelings towards
Sqeak's treatment of you have changed, fancy that. If I ever meet her, if I
haven't already, I'll give her a piece of my mind on your behalf!)
:10 megabytes is really more space than you need, so you can do a really
neat
:web site with some high resolution graphics on it. What you have to do is
:email your ISP and tell them you want to create your web site, and they
will
:mail you an FTP (File Transfer Protocol -- which will probably be
:"ftp:theriver.com ") address and username and password (which will probably
be
:the same as you email password). Anyway, I would be happy to help you in
any
:way I can, including doing the site for you per your instructions until you
can
:figure out how to maintain it yourself. It's really not that much more
:complicated than posting these emails, except you'll need to have some
software
:to do it.
Like what? You mean that I can put up an entire website for free on my
server's allocated space to me? WOW!!! How much is a megabyte?
What software?
(snipping Alison & Kay dialogue about CDs)
:Jeeze. Do you know anyone who has a digital camera?
Most likely can borrow one from the college where I work, computer dept.
teacher and I get along. I would have to lie, most likely and pretend it is
for a class but that is a challenge, not a problem.
: Web resolution is so low
:(72 dots per inch) that a consumer model digital camera will give you a
:better
:image than you can display on the web. Once you have the graphic file,
:you can
:tweak the colors in a program like Photoshop, Fireworks or Corel to
:simulate
:the real life sunshine colors to an acceptable degree. Always remember
:the law
:of reproductions - each reproduction diminishes from the original.
:
:Erik
L.Tunkkanen
>
> :When I first got to UC Davis, around 1986, I went to a student
exhibit and
> my
> :favorite pitcher was one of red high heals with wings (like Mercury's
> shoes)
> :and it was dedicated to Squeak.
>
> Crap! I hate that! I did a painting of red high heels with wings!
> Everytime I do something new and innovative I find out it's been done.
Even
> when I thought I'd paint symbolic red high heel shoes, I found out
they had
> a whole SHOW in NYC about high heel shoes. When I did my Fairy Tale
series,
> I found out they had done a whole SHOW in NYC. I just bought some
window
> shades to paint on (thinking I'm doing something unique and liking the
> symbolism) and found out that only about a zillion artists have done
the
> same thing.
That happens to me all the time. When it happens on technical questions,
I am just happy, because I was on a right track, only missed the train.
With artistic work it is more a problem. Of course all the stories have
been told, still my story may be a good one. It is worse
when I see a:-) redwinged shoe painting and KNOW, "I would have done it
better"
- lauri
(snip)
--
//www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Dan Fox
> Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
>
> (snipping my own self)
Isn't that a little, ah, Onanistic?
>
> :Red High heels? A couple of weeks ago Mattison, in a name dropping
> :spasm, mentioned "Squeak K" and I knew she was talking about Squeak
> :Carnwath
> (Mattison
> :can't spell worth a dam, and how many Squeaks can there be in the Bay
> Area?).
The only Squeak I know about is Squeaky Fromm.
> Is Mattison back on raf? I thought she went to become a star in Mexico
> after she exploited the Columbine school massacre? I might resubscribe
> just for the entertainment she provides and, after all, she is incredibly
> famous! ('because she says so all the time...)
Haven't seen her on RAF. I pity the Mexicans. I mean, it's gotta be a blow
to their self esteem to be in the presence of such a big star. She actually
emailed me and asked me to meet her in Mexico (after seeing my ravishing
portrait no doubt...) I didn't answer the email, but later I thought, God,
what a great post I could have made to the group afterwards! Especially if
I took some candid pictures to post with all the gory details!
Dan
Another opportunity lost...
>
Erik A. Mattila
Dan Fox wrote:
> "Kay again" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> > Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
> >
> > (snipping my own self)
>
> Isn't that a little, ah, Onanistic?
'splain 'oanistic'? he said, vocabularistically challenged.
> > :Red High heels? A couple of weeks ago Mattison, in a name dropping
> > :spasm, mentioned "Squeak K" and I knew she was talking about Squeak
> > :Carnwath
> > (Mattison
> > :can't spell worth a dam, and how many Squeaks can there be in the Bay
> > Area?).
>
> The only Squeak I know about is Squeaky Fromm.
That's right, I think she was from the Bay Area also.
> > Is Mattison back on raf? I thought she went to become a star in Mexico
> > after she exploited the Columbine school massacre? I might resubscribe
> > just for the entertainment she provides and, after all, she is incredibly
> > famous! ('because she says so all the time...)
>
> Haven't seen her on RAF. I pity the Mexicans. I mean, it's gotta be a blow
> to their self esteem to be in the presence of such a big star. She actually
> emailed me and asked me to meet her in Mexico (after seeing my ravishing
> portrait no doubt...) I didn't answer the email, but later I thought, God,
> what a great post I could have made to the group afterwards! Especially if
> I took some candid pictures to post with all the gory details!
>
>
Yes, she must be in Mekkiko. When she announced her plan, I posted a question
about this 'new city in Mexico'-- La Ciudad de Gabachas Viejas, which
litterally translates to 'the City of Old Honkey Women.' I don't think M.
understood, because she sent me a private email with the name of the city
(which I can't remember). But I was thinking that her plan was about as
neocolonial as could be -- imagine, some Gringos going to a new tourist trap
to start an 'art scene.' How primitivo! But I'm biased, since I was raised
since babyhood beneath a print of Rivera's "Flower Vendors" and have alway
regarded Mexican art as a fundamental inspiration.
BTW, for those interested, the giant treatise on modern Mexican art is Anita
Brenner's "Idols Behind Altars." Unfortunately out of print. As a special
treat, Brenner devotes a chapter to explaining the 'vacillada,' a native humor
the understanding of which is vital to apprehending Mexican art. It is a
marvelous book -- almost impossible to put down once you start reading.
Erik
Kay again
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
:Yes, she must be in Mekkiko. When she announced her plan, I posted a
question
:about this 'new city in Mexico'-- La Ciudad de Gabachas Viejas, which
:litterally translates to 'the City of Old Honkey Women.'
(snicker)
: I don't think M.
:understood, because she sent me a private email with the name of the city
:(which I can't remember).
ATTENTION ALT.BRALLEN NON-MALE MEMBERS: Why haven't any women received
private e-mails from Mattison?
: But I was thinking that her plan was about as
:neocolonial as could be -- imagine, some Gringos going to a new tourist
trap
:to start an 'art scene.' How primitivo!
I agree, but after the "Columbine" proposal it seemed almost classy!
: But I'm biased, since I was raised
:since babyhood beneath a print of Rivera's "Flower Vendors" and have alway
:regarded Mexican art as a fundamental inspiration.
Yes, very much underrecognized and unacknowledged. Notice when May Flowers
(what's she calling herself now that it's June?) criticized the $4K
restoration of the wonderful Luis Jiminez's "Southwest Pieta"? (I had a
couple of classes with him)
:BTW, for those interested, the giant treatise on modern Mexican art is
Anita
:Brenner's "Idols Behind Altars." Unfortunately out of print. As a special
:treat, Brenner devotes a chapter to explaining the 'vacillada,' a native
humor
:the understanding of which is vital to apprehending Mexican art. It is a
:marvelous book -- almost impossible to put down once you start reading.
Out of print, huh? Drat? Erik, since you are interested and knowledgable
about Mexican art and my classes comprise 80% or more Mexican-American
students, do you know of any good websites where they can see Mexican or
Mexican-American contemporary artists? I can't find any. Maybe there aren't
any. Ditto for African-American artists.
:Erik
Kay
:
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
:>
:>My original sources usually come from literature. I did a "Fairy Tales
and
:>Dreamscapes" series in which I closely re-examined childhood fairy tales:
:>for example, when you really look at it, "Jack and the Beanstalk" shows
Jack
:>as a theif. Or maybe symbolic of taking over "different" cultures'
peoples
:>and lands. I used zippers (symbolic, yes) as the beanstalks. "Hansel and
:>Gretel" were urbanized. "Cinderella", commentary on contemporary female
:>fashion and self-mutilation., etc. I then evolved into my "Homage to
:>Virginia Woolf" series. All my work is narrative, yet I don't show the
:>human figure. Recently I've been doing shoes (red high-heels), bricks,
:>rocks, lots of structural elements to restructure the environment. To
call
:>me a realist would be absurd, yet I'm narrative, so not considered
:>abstrationist!
:
:Wow, this is fascinating. For the last year of my degree I was working
:on the issues of *identity* and used Alice and Wonderland as my source.
This makes me wonder... I thought my works were NOT autobiographical but
now that you mention Alice and Wonderland, I realize that Fairy Tales were
important to me as a child. I read the complete set of Grimm's, Hans
Christian Anderson, etc.
:The Art History department were thrilled and targeted me as a model
:student - the Art department were disgusted - took them forever to fight
:over my final mark !
I've had that happen too. (Love it! Hate it!)
: Don't know whether you caught my post on the
:jabberwocky on raf ?
No, I "unsubscribed" and then, tonight "subscribed" again and it didn't show
up. Sounds fascinating, though.
: It developed as an interest in how we, as children,
:are set preconceived ideas by how we are brought up, that stay with us
:throughout life. My father was a physically aggressive man and most of
:my childhood was spent in terror - books like Alice and Wonderland
:always had a sinister feel to them
Me too. We (my sisters and I) seemed to have spent most of our time being
scared or trying to frighten each other to death! Fairy Tales were the
perfect vehicle at a certain age to self-inflict fear!
- yeah yeah ... start the
:psychoanalysis NOW ;-)
I would, but have discovered that I'm quite comfortable with my own
neuroses.
: My own work is never narrative and that was the
:only piece of work that came close by including text. It was an
:interesting piece of work but I wouldn't include it in any future
:portfolio presentations !
Curious to know, why not?
:But I want to tell you about my friend, Paule van Wingaarden: she is the
:one crazy on Tapies and also Serano and Mapplethorpe. She is mixed race
:- has Dutch and Chinese in her and is one of the most stunningly
:sexually attractive women you will ever meet - not so much for beauty
:but because she exudes sexual desire - her entire presence is sexual.
:Men drool over her and at the same time are absolutely terrified of
:her... start the psychoanalysis HERE ;-)
Well at least you aren't wanting to have sex with your father or mother or
craving a penis!
: Her sources are drawn from
:fetishes and the occult (she is a white witch). Her work, like yours, is
:narrative - red shoes with huge high heels appear regularly ! She did a
:performance piece based on her paintings which was incredibly powerful
:and made references to Chinese foot binding and women's fetishes for
:shoes - she originally trained as a dancer and choreographer so the
:performance was as professional as any theatre production. Fascinating
:stuff I can tell you.
Sounds intriguing, so does she!
:Now I must go to work ... loved your *opening* story ... the lessons we
:learn eh ?
Hindsight!
Kay
:abeerortwo
:Alison
:http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Kay again
Dan Fox wrote in message <19990601121527.244$G...@newsreader.com>...
:"Kay again" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
:> Erik A. Mattila wrote in message
:>
:> (snipping my own self)
:
:Isn't that a little, ah, Onanistic?
Can't find it in the dictionary, Dan. What's it mean?
:> :Red High heels? A couple of weeks ago Mattison, in a name dropping
:> :spasm, mentioned "Squeak K" and I knew she was talking about Squeak
:> :Carnwath
:> (Mattison
:> :can't spell worth a dam, and how many Squeaks can there be in the Bay
:> Area?).
:
:The only Squeak I know about is Squeaky Fromm.
Tell her I said "Howdy!"
:> Is Mattison back on raf? I thought she went to become a star in Mexico
:> after she exploited the Columbine school massacre? I might resubscribe
:> just for the entertainment she provides and, after all, she is incredibly
:> famous! ('because she says so all the time...)
:Haven't seen her on RAF. I pity the Mexicans. I mean, it's gotta be a blow
:to their self esteem to be in the presence of such a big star. She actually
:emailed me and asked me to meet her in Mexico (after seeing my ravishing
:portrait no doubt...) I didn't answer the email, but later I thought, God,
:what a great post I could have made to the group afterwards! Especially if
:I took some candid pictures to post with all the gory details!
(Don't get naked Dan! Imagination is a wonderful thing, while reality can
be disappointing.)
:Dan
:Another opportunity lost...
Or, another narrow escape! Imagine it, Dan: you + Mattison = lifetime of
talking about HER art HER carreer HER networking HER, HER, HER! (Plus trying
to teach her basic spelling & grammer)
<gigglzzz>
Kay
:>
Erik A. Mattila
Kay again wrote:
> Out of print, huh? Drat? Erik, since you are interested and knowledgable
> about Mexican art and my classes comprise 80% or more Mexican-American
> students, do you know of any good websites where they can see Mexican or
> Mexican-American contemporary artists? I can't find any. Maybe there aren't
> any. Ditto for African-American artists.
>
> Kay
> :
There are actually some great Mex art websites. I even cruised through some
the other day, in response to one of your posts.
http://www.mexicanart.com.mx/painters/argudin.html
A really good site, but not great on the reproductions. It's more of a
compendium of artists, and bilingual. (wow, I just got completely hung up
looking at it. Hundreds of contemporary artists. Mattison will have so much
fun teaching them.)
One link I found was to an e- magazine that had much good photography, some of
it Mexican. Among the selection was a photographer who shot a bunch of
precolumbian pornography, which is very rare to fine in any sort of
publication. But Native Americans made quite a bit of pornographic art, and
it's really great stuff (some very humorous).
Anyway, I'll retrieve the urls and post them. You may not want to give you
class the url to the porn. Educational Institutions are happy portraying
Native Americans as a special class of beings, -- you know -- spiritual whooo
ahhhh ooooh (the wail of the harmonium.) Me, I go for the ooo laa laaa.
more later,
Erik
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
>ATTENTION ALT.BRALLEN NON-MALE MEMBERS: Why haven't any women received
>private e-mails from Mattison?
Don't tempt fate pleeeeeeeeeeese !
>Yes, very much underrecognized and unacknowledged. Notice when May Flowers
>(what's she calling herself now that it's June?)
jillian ...... no fun at all
Dan Fox
>
> Yes, she must be in Mekkiko. When she announced her plan, I posted a
> question about this 'new city in Mexico'-- La Ciudad de Gabachas Viejas,
> which litterally translates to 'the City of Old Honkey Women.' I don't
> think M. understood, because she sent me a private email with the name of
> the city (which I can't remember). But I was thinking that her plan was
> about as neocolonial as could be -- imagine, some Gringos going to a new
> tourist trap to start an 'art scene.'
Worse: Imagine Mattison descending on a Mexican town to start an art scene!
How do you 'start an art scene', anyway?
. . .
>
> BTW, for those interested, the giant treatise on modern Mexican art is
> Anita Brenner's "Idols Behind Altars." Unfortunately out of print. As a
> special treat, Brenner devotes a chapter to explaining the 'vacillada,' a
> native humor the understanding of which is vital to apprehending Mexican
> art. It is a marvelous book -- almost impossible to put down once you
> start reading.
Sounds great - I'll look for it on Bibliofind. The Labrinth (sp) of
Solitude is a major book in my life - especially after spending a lot of
time in Mexico. The real art scene there is in San Miguel de Allende; has
been for many years. God, I hope Mattison hasn't found it!
>
> Erik
--
Dan
'The road to excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
Dan Fox
> Dan Fox wrote in message <19990601121527.244$G...@newsreader.com>...
> :"Kay again" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> (snipping my own self)
> :
> :Isn't that a little, ah, Onanistic?
>
> Can't find it in the dictionary, Dan. What's it mean?
Onanism. From the biblical character Onan, who, we learn, 'spilled
his seed on the ground.' Thus Onanism has come to mean masturbation, even
though biblical scholars tell us that what Onan practiced was premature
withdrawal. Since Onan was condemned by God for the practice, Christians
use the (misinterpreted) story to prove that God doesn't like it when you
whack off. The Catholic church also uses the scholarly interpretation to
instruct its followers to finish what they start - since pulling out is a
clumsy form of birth control.
Since I have never done any of these things, my knowledge is academic.
> :
> :The only Squeak I know about is Squeaky Fromm.
>
> Tell her I said "Howdy!"
She's stopped returning my phone calls.
> :Haven't seen her on RAF. I pity the Mexicans. I mean, it's gotta be a
> :blow to their self esteem to be in the presence of such a big star. She
> :actually emailed me and asked me to meet her in Mexico (after seeing my
> :ravishing portrait no doubt...) I didn't answer the email, but later I
> :thought, God, what a great post I could have made to the group
> :afterwards! Especially if I took some candid pictures to post with all
> :the gory details!
>
> (Don't get naked Dan! Imagination is a wonderful thing, while reality
> can be disappointing.)
Speak for yourself!
> Or, another narrow escape! Imagine it, Dan: you + Mattison = lifetime of
> talking about HER art HER carreer HER networking HER, HER, HER! (Plus
> trying to teach her basic spelling & grammer)
> <gigglzzz>
> Kay
Well, she's so famous, she's gotta have tons of money, right? So I could
be her love slave. Tag along as she starts art scenes in third-world
countries, help counsel the Columbine students, lie on the beach and read,
stretch her canvas, sleep late, .....
Oh, yeah. I'd have to sleep with her.
<barffzzz>
Dan
(Breathing a sigh of relief after all.)
Glenn Geist
>Onanism. From the biblical character Onan, who, we learn, 'spilled
>his seed on the ground.' Thus Onanism has come to mean masturbation, even
>though biblical scholars tell us that what Onan practiced was premature
>withdrawal. Since Onan was condemned by God for the practice, Christians
>use the (misinterpreted) story to prove that God doesn't like it when you
>whack off. The Catholic church also uses the scholarly interpretation to
>instruct its followers to finish what they start - since pulling out is a
>clumsy form of birth control.
>
>Since I have never done any of these things, my knowledge is academic.
Then explain those hairy palms!!! <s>
Onan was supposed to impregnate his sister in law, since her husband
had just died - it ws the commandment of God to do this. The story is
interpreted in a way to steer attention from the fact that God used to
command us to do all kinds of things we would rether not attribute to
him. It was for not doing his best to get her pregnant that he was
punished.
Perhaps it's another instance of using God to back up societal norms.
When the norm changes, we don't want god to be saying that so we rig
the interpretation.
Kay again
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <3754F7BC...@tomatoweb.com>...
:
:
:
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
I wrote:
> I noticed these last few weeks that most people are
>:saying the same sort of thing about my own work - that it seems to imply
>:something beyond our understanding.
>
Kay asked:
>Do you feel comfortable with that? Don't you sometimes paint and wonder
>where you get your images from? I think beyond our understanding can be a
>good thing as long as we *think or *feel or are somehow *moved by a work of
>art.
I feel comfortable that people recognise I am trying to imply something
more than we are able to see with the human eye. Recently my focus has
gone to hell ... strangely enough since I joined raf ;-). Prior to that
my time was spent with my head in a philosophy book as much as it was
painting ... I was getting a buzz reading about stuff that was really
changing my perception of the world and that was changing the way I was
working. Casting off the old clothes and really starting to re-evaluate.
So yes, when I paint/draw I always wonder where my images come from -
sometimes they don't seem to have any reference although they always
have concerns for light and depth - sometimes they are clearly drawn
from a source. The ones with no reference don't sell (I call these my
*real* work) and the ones that clearly have a focal point sell like hot
cakes.
>
> An American lady came into the
>:gallery yesterday and said something to that effect and got very upset
>:that she wasn't the first to say it !!! (she came back and bought four
>:this morning ... yippppeee).
>
>Congratulations!
I couldn't celebrate - I felt guilty that I was the newest in the co-op
and had the biggest sale ... it got even worse when the same lady came
back yesterday and bought another three. Weird mixed emotions ... i made
myself feel better because I remembered that the gallery will get 20
percent and that will benefit all of us. Phew !
>I agree totally. If something, in art, is exactly as it seems, then what is
>the point? Why not photograph it? Part of the *hatred of anything in our
>time, artistically, seems to be a failure to even leave the possibility open
>of discovery.
Hear, hear
>It is a terrible shame to close oneself off to this. I got
>nothing out of Rothko for 3 years then one day - BAM! (I've never been the
>same again) But, I do pride myself of the search which does require an open
>mind
That is a very special ability ... to be able to look at something you
already had established an opinion on and then see it in a different
way. I am going to toast you tonight when I have my glass of wine.
>Different people need or seek different things. Some need something to
>match their sofa. Some need *pretty to cheer them up.
That doesn't bother me at all. I really believe that people *should*
enhance their lives this way if that is what they need. Of course I
would love to go round all their homes and re-educate them but you can't
take on the world all at once eh ?
Snipped the rest because we are doing it elsewhere !
Cheers !
Alison.
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
:
:I wrote:
:> I noticed these last few weeks that most people are
:>:saying the same sort of thing about my own work - that it seems to imply
:>:something beyond our understanding.
:Kay asked:
:>Do you feel comfortable with that? Don't you sometimes paint and wonder
:>where you get your images from? I think beyond our understanding can be a
:>good thing as long as we *think or *feel or are somehow *moved by a work
of
:>art.
:
:I feel comfortable that people recognise I am trying to imply something
:more than we are able to see with the human eye.
I think that is very apparent in your work. It takes the viewer to a
different level of consciousness altogether.
Recently my focus has
:gone to hell ... strangely enough since I joined raf ;-).
Seriously, I get good feelings from ngs but the bad feelings I get are
dominent and I am spending my time composing scathing answers in my head to
someone who has sparked my ire. This is definitely NOT conducive to
painting! (or any art form). Good grief! I'm the kind of person who can't
have ANY distractions when I enter the creative realm, I even forget to eat,
etc. When I get a block of time set aside to paint, I just "unsubscribe"
and clear my mind. It works! When I decide to goof off again and I
resubscribe, it is like a fresh start, I can't even remember who my *freinds
or *foes are specificly!
Prior to that
:my time was spent with my head in a philosophy book as much as it was
:painting ... I was getting a buzz reading about stuff that was really
:changing my perception of the world and that was changing the way I was
:working. Casting off the old clothes and really starting to re-evaluate.
It is so amazing - new knowledge! I agree with you. Our whole perception
can change and isn't that a wonderful thing?
:So yes, when I paint/draw I always wonder where my images come from -
:sometimes they don't seem to have any reference although they always
:have concerns for light and depth - sometimes they are clearly drawn
:from a source. The ones with no reference don't sell (I call these my
:*real* work) and the ones that clearly have a focal point sell like hot
:cakes.
I assume your *real* work is closest to your heart? Then that is *your art
and should be cherished. I don't worry about sales at this point (though
they are always nice). I know many people who advise: "don't be anxious to
sell!" These are usually people who have sold work for $1K and who have
made reputations for themselves and 10 years later their work is going for
over 100K and they sure would like their old work back!
:> An American lady came into the
:>:gallery yesterday and said something to that effect and got very upset
:>:that she wasn't the first to say it !!! (she came back and bought four
:>:this morning ... yippppeee).
:>
:>Congratulations!
:
:I couldn't celebrate - I felt guilty that I was the newest in the co-op
:and had the biggest sale ...
Artist's success guilt? Also, other artists (world-wide) sometimes have
problems with success that isn't their own. Very competitive in a co-op.
: it got even worse when the same lady came
:back yesterday and bought another three. Weird mixed emotions ... i made
:myself feel better because I remembered that the gallery will get 20
:percent and that will benefit all of us. Phew !
:
:>I agree totally. If something, in art, is exactly as it seems, then what
is
:>the point? Why not photograph it? Part of the *hatred of anything in our
:>time, artistically, seems to be a failure to even leave the possibility
open
:>of discovery.
:
:Hear, hear
:
:>It is a terrible shame to close oneself off to this. I got
:>nothing out of Rothko for 3 years then one day - BAM! (I've never been
the
:>same again) But, I do pride myself of the search which does require an
open
:>mind
:
:That is a very special ability ... to be able to look at something you
:already had established an opinion on and then see it in a different
:way. I am going to toast you tonight when I have my glass of wine.
:
And I will have a glass of wine for you with my toast this morning!
:
:Cheers !
:Alison.
Kay
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>This makes me wonder... I thought my works were NOT autobiographical but
>now that you mention Alice and Wonderland, I realize that Fairy Tales were
>important to me as a child. I read the complete set of Grimm's, Hans
>Christian Anderson, etc.
I expected to find work a little like Paula Rego's when you described it
Kay - but yours are more complicated through the simplicity of them -
not *crowded* and *loaded* like Rego's but still suggestive. What I
really liked is the use of perspective ... pulling the viewer into the
picture frame, which reminds me of the way a fairy tale leads you into
the *land*. It's clever the way you are able to juxtapose precision with
the fluidity of some of the brushstrokes (in the huts). I would imagine
you have had all sorts of readings of them and I guess that is always
going to be an individual response unless you state what your intentions
are. Do you ever ?
Alison
Quo Vadis
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Seriously, I get good feelings from ngs but the bad feelings I get are
>dominent and I am spending my time composing scathing answers in my head to
>someone who has sparked my ire. This is definitely NOT conducive to
>painting! (or any art form). Good grief! I'm the kind of person who can't
>have ANY distractions when I enter the creative realm, I even forget to eat,
>etc. When I get a block of time set aside to paint, I just "unsubscribe"
>and clear my mind. It works! When I decide to goof off again and I
>resubscribe, it is like a fresh start, I can't even remember who my *freinds
>or *foes are specificly!
The idea of newsgroups is great - a forum to meet and network and also,
if like me you work so much in isolation, a chance to continue in
solitude, but not to be alienated. I spend up to eighty hours a week
here in this studio (on a bad van driving week). Like you though, I find
myself focusing on the most ridiculous things and composing answers ...
I am not a natural writer and don't feel comfortable with the way I
write, which is evident in how many misinterpretations my words receive.
Often though, I find that I am writing to myself on the groups ... just
talking out loud. It is a great way to remind yourself of stuff that is
collecting dust in files. But yes, logging out is good idea when the
work demands ... got to get the priorities right yes ?
ayardofaleortwo
Alison.
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message <102KaEBw...@raimes.demon.co.uk>...
:In article <Fo453.3276$4b.9...@news2.giganews.com>, Kay again
:<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
:
:>This makes me wonder... I thought my works were NOT autobiographical but
I state my responses *ad nauseum*! I know exactly what I want to say and by
the time, I'm finished, I know how to say it. But I have had people see
different things which come from within them, maybe different experiences.
For example, a hut or home - for some it can, based on their experience,
mean comfort. Others may have a feeling of claustrophobia. Others may have
suffered abuse within the home. Each person will react to a specific
visualization of a recognizable object with their own experiences. I
believe that this is also carried over into abstraction for those with an
open mind. Others close their eyes and yell obscenities. Well, they do
that with mine too, at times, and I'm no abstractionist (though I believe my
newest images are more non-representational than in the past). BUT, the
most interesting part is when other people make comments and sometimes they
enlighten me and I realize that I DID mean blah, blah, blah (they stuff they
said) and hadn't even realized it! I guess that is how art critics do their
thing. The one pic. "Cinderella: If the Shoe Fits" was reviewed and in the
paper in color (Tucson) and the review stated that it mixed women's
expectations learned from Fairy Tales and integrated commentary on
contemporary fashion and women's self-mutilation! Well, that was quite a
handful to think about, BUT, I thought about it and it COULD be somewhat
truthful, even though that wasn't my full intent in the beginning:-) I have
wrote this somewhere, perhaps, but I love Franz Marc's "Animal Destinies"
and I had a great Art History professor who gave a fantastic lecture about
the work, complete with Nordic mythology, Marc's beliefs, and Marc's death
in WWI a year after the work was completed... Most of us left the lecture
with goosebumps that day! I could have appreciated Animal Destinies on its
own merit, but with the surrounding intent & historical knowledge - WOW!
Kay
Kay again
Quo Vadis wrote in message ...
:<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
:
:>Seriously, I get good feelings from ngs but the bad feelings I get are
:>dominent and I am spending my time composing scathing answers in my head
to
:>someone who has sparked my ire. This is definitely NOT conducive to
:>painting! (or any art form). Good grief! I'm the kind of person who
can't
:>have ANY distractions when I enter the creative realm, I even forget to
eat,
:>etc. When I get a block of time set aside to paint, I just "unsubscribe"
:>and clear my mind. It works! When I decide to goof off again and I
:>resubscribe, it is like a fresh start, I can't even remember who my
*freinds
:>or *foes are specificly!
:The idea of newsgroups is great - a forum to meet and network and also,
:if like me you work so much in isolation, a chance to continue in
:solitude, but not to be alienated. I spend up to eighty hours a week
:here in this studio (on a bad van driving week). Like you though, I find
:myself focusing on the most ridiculous things and composing answers ...
Yes! Even when I went to bed last night I was composing a post or something
(blush).
:I am not a natural writer and don't feel comfortable with the way I
:write, which is evident in how many misinterpretations my words receive.
You write very well. I think most of us have our words misinterpreted at
some point. As Marilyn stated, the *tone* is absent and necessary to
understand in what way a statement is presented, hostile, sarcastically,
humorously...
:Often though, I find that I am writing to myself on the groups ... just
:talking out loud. It is a great way to remind yourself of stuff that is
:collecting dust in files. But yes, logging out is good idea when the
:work demands ... got to get the priorities right yes ?
:ayardofaleortwo
:Alison.
Good grief, Alison! I was thinking exactly the same thing before I read
your post!!!! i have been wondering what my attraction is to these n.g.s
and I realized that I am the type of person who, when angry, writes a
scathing letter, telling the person how wrong, rotten, damned, etc. they are
and then I don't mail it. With these n.g.s if you think about art, and I
confess to being obsessed with art, I think about it all the time, you can
use the ng as a type of *thought expression*... While also learning
information from time to time, it serves me as a conduit for my thoughts.
If I read an article I can post about it. If I have a thought about an
artist or material I can post about it. I can think about other posts that
connect with my *art mindset* and post back. In reality, I DO talk about
art with my friends but, being a friend, I do NOT call them each time I
think about art and discuss it with them (which would be around 10x a day,
minimum!) Also, it is very nice to get feedback when it isn't
hate-filled... Maybe we are pursueing it for the same reasons? Others?
Kay: