Oil paint and materials.
Stephen Morgana
trip to the artist supply store today to see what I was getting myself
into.
The first isle I went down in the store was devoted to canvases. I
found stacks of pre-streached canvases that varied widely in price,
from $3.95 for a 16x20 economy canvas to $15.95 for the same size
canvas on a thicker more substantial frame. Nearby was bulk canvas and
streacher bars (I think they are called), so you can make your own
canvases. I didnt check the prices of that, but I assume it is cheaper
if you make your own. So I was imediately struck with a question, Do I
buy prestreached canvases, or do I learn to make my own, and where/how
do I learn that (maybe it will be covered in the course I'm taking)?
Next I turned to the paint itself. I already have a palette of colors
that I know how to use well in watercolor painting, I was hoping to
find the same colors available in oil paints, and it seemed true if I
stick to Windsor & Newton (the brand I mostly use for watercolor),
though not all of the colors were there. Also I was struck by the huge
range in prices. W&N paints seemed to range between $7 and $10 dollars
for 37ml tubes, whereas there was another brand with HUGE tubes for
about $6. I was taught to avoid cheap paint in watercolor since they
tend not to mix well, Is this true of oil paints too? I was also taught
to buy paints with the highest permanence ratings, but not all of the
brands at the store had charts available rating the colors.
Next I looked at shelves full of mediums, oils, thinners and varnishes
and I started to get dizzy thinking about what that all meant ... I
walked past them down to the brushes. At last something I can
understand, and it looked like it would only take a half an hour of
browsing to choose an initial set of brushes. I turned around and
there was a shelf of palette boards. There were rectangular and oval
wooden ones, and pads of paper disposable ones. Whats the thinking
there?
It was a fun way to spend an hour, and it sure looks like there is a
lot to learn. Soon there will be that smell of oil paints in my home
that I enjoy smelling in the studios at school. :)
--
Stephen
http://homepages.go.com/~scm2000
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Chris
Wanted to say that's quite exciting! Hope things go well.
But your first purchase should be (if you don't already have it) Ralph
Meyer's "The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques"(Viking Press).
It's one of the best investments one can make (&, as you may have noticed,
is quoted extensively on raf). I think the 5th edition is the latest.
As for pre-stretched canvas vs. stretchers/canvas etc...I think the jury
may still be out w/r to archival quality of prestretched canvas but as far
as price goes, I find it's usually cheaper than stretching my own, but not
significantly so (unless I'm splurging on higher quality canvas:). They
have the advantage of mass production and bulk buying. OTOH, if you use
them you give up the advantage of controlling the initial surface.
The thick stretchers (gallery stretchers) are a treat, particularly for
larger work. They hold the surface much more rigidly; and (if you decorate
the sides) don't require framing . In fact, they are a pain to frame,
unless you go minimal (metal or wood strips, etc.) or have a much wider
selection than is available to us in this neck of the woods!
Good luck;
Chris
Chris
Chris wrote:
>
>
> But your first purchase should be (if you don't already have it) Ralph
> Meyer's "The Artist's Handbook of Materials and Techniques"(Viking Press).
Should have been Ralph Mayer.
Apologies;
Chris
Dan Fox
Here are my suggestions, based on my experience (and a LOT of
mistakes) -
Stephen Morgana <scm...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I am planning to start learning how to oil paint this fall, so I made a
> trip to the artist supply store today to see what I was getting myself
> into.
First, I would buy materials from a discount house. Utrecht is the best,
I think. They have stores in most major cities, and also a catalog (and
website), and do very well by mail. Don't pay full price at your local
store.
Buy Utrecht's store brand materials. They are first-quality professional
grade, and much less expensive. They make everything- paint, brushes,
canvas, sketchbooks - all very high quality.
> The first isle I went down in the store was devoted to canvases. I
> found stacks of pre-streached canvases that varied widely in price,
> from $3.95 for a 16x20 economy canvas to $15.95 for the same size
> canvas on a thicker more substantial frame. Nearby was bulk canvas and
> streacher bars (I think they are called), so you can make your own
> canvases. I didnt check the prices of that, but I assume it is cheaper
> if you make your own. So I was imediately struck with a question, Do I
> buy prestreached canvases, or do I learn to make my own, and where/how
> do I learn that (maybe it will be covered in the course I'm taking)?
Because you are starting out, I would definitely use pre-stretched canvas,
the kind that uses the smaller (cheaper) stretchers. Later you will want
to stretch your own and use the heavy, professional stretchers. But that
would be a waste of time right now.
Stay away from the canvas-covered cardboard. Instead, for experimentation
and other things, paint directly on canvas paper - it comes in pads.
Cheaper!
>
> Next I turned to the paint itself. I already have a palette of colors
> that I know how to use well in watercolor painting, I was hoping to
> find the same colors available in oil paints, and it seemed true if I
> stick to Windsor & Newton (the brand I mostly use for watercolor),
> though not all of the colors were there. Also I was struck by the huge
> range in prices. W&N paints seemed to range between $7 and $10 dollars
> for 37ml tubes, whereas there was another brand with HUGE tubes for
> about $6. I was taught to avoid cheap paint in watercolor since they
> tend not to mix well, Is this true of oil paints too? I was also taught
> to buy paints with the highest permanence ratings, but not all of the
> brands at the store had charts available rating the colors.
Your best course is Utrecht oil paints. They are both professional quality
and relatively inexpensive. You are absolutely right about the really cheap
paints - not good for mixing, and also their tinting strength is poor
(meaning that they lose color intensity rapidly when you add a little
white). On the other hand, W&N oils are complete overkill for a beginner.
> Next I looked at shelves full of mediums, oils, thinners and varnishes
> and I started to get dizzy thinking about what that all meant ... I
> walked past them down to the brushes. At last something I can
> understand, and it looked like it would only take a half an hour of
> browsing to choose an initial set of brushes. I turned around and
> there was a shelf of palette boards. There were rectangular and oval
> wooden ones, and pads of paper disposable ones. Whats the thinking
> there?
Get a few basic bristle brushes (inexpensive ones!) and use a disposable
paper palette.
> It was a fun way to spend an hour, and it sure looks like there is a
> lot to learn. Soon there will be that smell of oil paints in my home
> that I enjoy smelling in the studios at school. :)
This will all sort itself out with experience. If you want advice on
which colors to buy, or have other questions, please ask.
--
Dan
'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
http://www.danfoxart.com
Dan Fox
like 'Artist's Guide to Studio Materials' - I can't find my copy to check,
but you should be able to find it under the author's name.
--
Chris
Dan Fox wrote:
>
>
> Stay away from the canvas-covered cardboard. Instead, for experimentation
> and other things, paint directly on canvas paper - it comes in pads.
> Cheaper!
>
>
I'm curious about the canvas-board (canvas covered cardboard). I haven't used
it for years, but I do have framed & backed work on it from the late 60's that
hasn't seemd to suffer from any ill effects (other than what I applied to the
surface under the influence of late teenage hormones :). Though as a surface to
work on, I don't like the weakness, warping and the general texture.
Cheers;
Chris
Dan Fox
> I'm curious about the canvas-board (canvas covered cardboard). I haven't
> used it for years, but I do have framed & backed work on it from the late
> 60's that hasn't seemd to suffer from any ill effects (other than what I
> applied to the surface under the influence of late teenage hormones :).
> Though as a surface to work on, I don't like the weakness, warping and
> the general texture.
>
The points you mentioned - weakness, warping, and general texture are what
I object to, myself. Since the canvas is mounted on cardboard, it suffers
from moisture, mostly. A professional restorer can preserve anything - I've
seen ink drawings on newspaper from 1935 - but in general I think the
boards are inferior to canvas pads, or just raw canvas tacked to a board.
Stephen Morgana
danf...@yahoo.com(Dan Fox) wrote:
> Hi, Stephen -
>
> Here are my suggestions, based on my experience (and a LOT of
> mistakes) -
>
<deletions>
> Your best course is Utrecht oil paints. They are both professional
quality
> and relatively inexpensive. You are absolutely right about the really
cheap
> paints - not good for mixing, and also their tinting strength is poor
> (meaning that they lose color intensity rapidly when you add a little
> white). On the other hand, W&N oils are complete overkill for a
beginner.
My reasoning for going with the W&N is that I am already using them for
watercolor. This way I can have the exact same palette of colors that
I am used to.
<deletions>
> --
> Dan
>
> 'The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom.' - Blake
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
--
Stephen Morgana
"M." <bra...@direct.net> wrote:
> Winsor & Newton excel at watercolour paints but they did not
> get a good rating for their oil paints with the Hebblewhite book, a
> nd I have not found them to be very good. Even their watercolours
> are no longer the best, Schminke WCs are much better, more finely
ground
> and they do not harden in the tube like W & N.
>
> My instructor said to ignore the trade names of colours and
> concentrate on what is on your palette by sight. Recognize
> colours by sight, not trade names. Just a few thoughts.
>
Yes, when I am using the paints I use them by sight and by my
experience of how they will mix and their other properties. But when
it comes to buying paints, I doubt that DaVinci "cadmium red" is even
the same color as W&N's paint of the same name. You cant ignore the
trade name othewise the mixing and other properties of your paints will
change. I know this by seeing other students struggling while mixing
inferior quality paints.
Erik A. Mattila
70's. The market was proliferated with inexpensive drill presses that were
made in Korea - you could buy one for 150. In the Fine Woodworking
magazine a series of letters were exchanged. There were two schools - the
'master craftsmen' school who woulding use a chisel that cost less than
fifty dollars, and the 'bargain basement' crowd. One letter, however, was
from a tool importer, and he more or less closed the issue. He said that
any powertool's most important component was the castings -- that is what
you are paying for (mostly). The Korean drill presses had perfectly
adaquate castings, no better or no worse than a German or American machine
(who frequently subcontract to other foundries) and the castings were a
phenomenal. He went on to explain how you could purchase a better quality
morris-chuck and end up with a quality machine at about 75% savings.
I look at the art materials industry in the same way, and I think it is a
giant rip-off. The archival concern has been used as a marketing tool, and
it makes people feel happy to get looted, since it's all part of consumer
society anyway.
You caveat is well taken, but what are these 'unknown' additives? The
truth of the matter is that cheap paints have less additives. What you are
buying is the pigments. I would say it would be more likely to get into
chemical trouble with costly paints, since these may have some exotics
added. At any rate, you can find out what is in the paints from the
manufacturer. Finally, what's wrong with engine oil? (As long as it's
Super Heavey Duty).
Another thing to think about is how the artist uses the color. Most don't
really need paint that meets the manufacturing standards that high end
producers advertise. I would say that if you were doing work that required
incredibly fine grinding and some sorts of additives (that you didn't want
to add yourself) then the extra expense would be justified. You can
purchase all select structural lumber to frame a house, but in the end it
would be conspicuous consumption, as there is no design advantage.
But who am I to complain? If one want's to shell out a lot of cash for
paint, go for it. I'm just saying that most of won't really benefit from
it.
Erik
Chris wrote:
> Hi Erik;
>
> I think one problem you might run into when mixing cheaper oils with
> more expensive ones would be the different natures of the carrier itself
> - eg linseed oil (sometimes poppy seed oil ) in the better brands, who
> knows what in the less expensive ones - unknown oils, waxes, siccatives,
> old engine oil...
>
> With the better brands - where quality control isn't too much of a
> problem - I don't see any reason not to mix, provided the bases are the
> same (or similar). So much of what one looks for in a color is
> subjective anyway; its just that it's so $%^& expensive to try them all
> out. (I wish they'd sell 5 ml sample tubes!).
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
Chris
You bring up some good points; the case of the drill press is a good
example. I know an automotive tool jobber who derives no end of
amusement from the fact that a certain mid-price chain-store set of
tools is made precisely as one of the top-end lines - same factory,
similar castings, same metal; the only real difference being marketing &
packaging. The low end range was a different case all together, though.
As for the binders and colours - If you flip through the Pearl catalog
(for example) you'll see quite a range of both - but you'll note that it
is pretty much only the most expensive brands (Blockx and Sennelier)
that advertise "no fillers, siccatives, or waxes" (Blockx) or "purest
first pressed oils, without any fillers" (Sennelier). One mid-range
brand I haven't tried, but looks interesting, is Schmincke's Mussini
brand, advertised as being ideal for glazing (which I do moderate
amount of..). Grinding is an issue that's still being debated, since
grinding into the finest possible powder does not necessarily yield the
best possible results. This is discussed somewhere in Mayer, for
example.
You are quite right about letting the need determine the price (I don't
think I'd choose Blockx $160/35 ml vermillion to do a big poster :), but
as a rule of thumb I'd try and move as high as reasonably affordable,
even for oil sketching. That's just experience - I tried cheap (talens,
pebeo), low-middle (van Gogh) - all which I found flat, shallow, almost
acrylic in their finish, without the quick-drying ability of acrylics.
It's also part technique, as I like working with highly thinned paints
(either turps or linseed oil, or both), so I need good colour density &
distribution.
For the most part I'm ok with the midrange Rembrant + a Grumbacher or
two. I like the latters' cadmium red deep, despite its peculiar
consistency. Though I am ordering a basic pallette of Sennelier just to
try it out. I'd be curious as to other readers experiences with specific
colours/brands, if they'd care to contribute!
FWIW - I would advise Stephen (or anyone else) to avoid colours labeled
"hue" unless they really want that particular affect; I haven't seen one
yet that would be mistaken for the real thing. Though toxicity is a
problem...
Cheers;
Chris
Chris
"M." wrote:
>
> Sennelier is the Cadillac of paints.
> I'm using their pastels and the pigments are
> billiant. Not a lot of art supply stores carry
> their products not only because of the cost
> but they are difficult to deal with.
> It is not impractical to buy the best with paints
> or pastels, their intensity means you use less.
>
I assume that it's the product (not the company) that is difficult to
deal with? As to the quality, I've heard similar; unfortunately the big
store here in Hfx. (Loomis & Toles) doesn't carry it (their oil paint)
either on-site or in the catalog - I think the only Sennelier product
they have is rabbit skin glue.
I was going to place my order through the states - do you know any Cdn
mail suppliers?
Cheers,
Chris
PS - Just in case any critics (John ?) are reading this - when you come
across an artist whose work you like, why not spend a little time
getting some technical details from them - eg paint brands, grounds,
working method? One almost never sees this sort of thing in a review -
except perhaps when the painting is atrocious - but the technical issue
is often the dividing line between 'well designed' and 'effectively
carried out' :)
Erik A. Mattila
to the whole art material discourse, even to the extent of making my own
damar varnish. It seemed simple enough, but one painting that I actually
sold came back to me a few years later and on one part of the painting the
damar glaze was lifting. My conclusion was that there was some grease or
something on the supporting layer, since most of the glaze held up well.
Oh, yes, I had another failure with opaque watercolors (the old Pelikan
'Designer Colors) when I used household powdered detergent (Tide, I think)
to build up a texture. A few years later the enzymes in the detergent had
devoured the paints and the illustration board support. Can you believe
that I did this? I also used motor oil once in a painting, just to see
what would happen. I don't remember, but it wasn't a disaster. I wonder
if it ever dried?
But I do choose good qality paint. I stopped using oils completely several
years ago, for personal reasons, (I was overworking each painting to death)
and I found the shortcomings of acrylics to be the perfect answer. So my
work losened up significantly, and I was happy for it. It's probably my
addictive personality, but when I get into the head-space of painting I
compulsively focus in on a task and tend to overwork it, so with oils there
was always that option of smooth blending and explicit rendering that I
couldn't discipline myself against. After several paintings I came to
realize that they looked much better in the 'blocking in' phase than they
did in the finished phase. Acrylics satisfied me in this respect.
I bought cheap acrylics, and have been disatisfied. "Brea" makes a
horrible line of paint, even though some of the earths are ok, since they
won't dry in the jar in two weeks like some of the high chroma colors of
this brand. The tube colors I avoid at all cost, sticking to liquid
acrylics (except I do buy the Liquitex neutral greys, which aren't
available in jars.) So I pretty much stick to Liquitex and Golden paints,
but as far as I know the WN liquid acrylics are ok. I've had a problem
with Golden drying in the jar (I should just paint more) but Golden has
some very nice colors which are unique. I am wild about the Golden
interference pigments. Hot stuff, in my book.
Some of my favorite colors like Davies Grey and Naples Yellow aren't
available in acrylics, so I purchase these in water color tubes and mix
them with acrylic resin. I've had good luck with this. I also sometime
overpaint acrylics with alkyd resins, if I'm doing more descriptive
rendering. I've done this just for the alkyd patina, if the work called
for it.
But I can see my trend is to break away from art materials. I haven't
painted in a long while, but when I overcome the physical reasons for this
I'll probably continuing using non-art materials. In my last works I was
using toilet paper quite a bit, suspended in acrylic resins and/or gesso.
It's really great stuff. Also kitchen paper towels. I've covered a
support with a series of wonderful built up 'arabesques' that were made by
cutting out a square of paper kitchen napkins, folding it diagonally,
submerging it in rhoplex, then rolling it into a snake like shape with
beautifully tapered ends and pasting it on the support, in various
arabesque shapes.
But I mix different brands of acrylics all the time. When some people look
at the offering at an art supply store, and see the great difference in
price between tubes and jars, then go for the tubes, as it seems it's a
better deal. My experience it that it's the opposite, the jars are a much
better deal since they are loaded with pigment, which is very spare in the
tube colors.
Anyway, I'm somewhere between being a complete paint slob and an
afficianado of high price material. When I get back to work I'm going to
plunge into papier mache and eleminate the canvas/masonite contention
altogether. I'm even considering a flat surface composed of chicken wire,
harware cloth, papier mache, rhoplex, toilet paper etc. as a carrier.
Why? Who knows. I like the experience of making things. For one thing,
though, I think I can make a papier mache substrate that would be more
durable than canvas, masonite, etc. But I really don't care, even though I
would not like to make a painting that decomposed on a client's wall. The
idea of recycling junk to art is interesting, too. Especially expendable
consumer products like toilet paper. Isn't there some sort of statement
there? Suddenly the most humble, valuless product becomes valuale once it
is transposed from junk to art. Detournement.
Best,
Erik
Nancy
--
Anyone know of tech pens
with cartridges and replaceable points in 6x0 besides Rotring Rapidograph?
Also, Last time I bought Blocks was at Jerry's. I needed the palest, most
transparent rose. Liked their rose madder pale immensely.
Chris--I, too, would like more details of the artist's materials. Can't even
get it in a large book most of the time.
Nancy
get it in a large book most of the time. Nancy
Nancy
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:> > > "M." wrote:> > > > Sennelier is the
Cadillac of paints.> > I'm using their pastels and the pigments are> >
billiant. Not a lot of art supply stores carry> > their products not only
because of the cost> > but they are difficult to deal with.> > It is not
impractical to buy the best with paints> > or pastels, their intensity means
you use less.> > > > I assume that it's the product (not the company) that is
difficult to> deal with? As to the quality, I've heard similar; unfortunately
the big> store here in Hfx. (Loomis & Toles) doesn't carry it (their oil
paint)> either on-site or in the catalog - I think the only Sennelier
product> they have is rabbit skin glue.> > I was going to place my order
through the states - do you know any Cdn> mail suppliers?> > Cheers,> >
Chris> > PS - Just in case any critics (John ?) are reading this - when you
come> across an artist whose work you like, why not spend a little time>
getting some technical details from them - eg paint brands, grounds,> working
method? One almost never sees this sort of thing in a review -> except
perhaps when the painting is atrocious - but the technical issue> is often
the dividing line between 'well designed' and 'effectively> carried out' :)>
paleness.
Nancy
<37CA39D6.27F38EFE@tomatow
eb.com>,
"Erik A. Mattila"
<emat...@tomatoweb.com>
wrote:
>
--
I am referring to
watercolor paints re my
experience with Blockx and
Schmincke.
I found that I cannot use
cheap paper when I am
using other than pen and
ink, i.e., any kind of
color.
When I go in the hardware
store and ask about
different supplies, the
guys there always want to
know what it is for. If I
make the mistake of
telling them it is for my
art, they treat me like an
amateur hardware purchaser. Better to say
it is for the toilet.
Toilets are pro. :)
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
>
[some rather amusing incidents snipped...]
>
I think you better write an addendum to Mayer! (The staying power of
Tide vs. Arctic Power, 10w30 or 5w40? :) Though I think you'll have to
leave the section on degenerating art to Julian Schnabel.
I'm nuch more conservative - pastels, charcoal, oils, watercolour,
pencil - but I think that's more because I like to not think too much
about the properties, and work with them by instinct. With the oils in
particular I agree on how easy it is to overwork a painting - one reason
I thin at times with nearly straight linseed oil - it's much harder to
paint over, and forces the decision. OTOH, one of my favourite paintings
was done when I got really pissed at an incredibly boring & retentive
job, so redid it with gobs of colours & my fingers. It's here:
http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB/Geraniums.html (Laugh if you
want, maybe it's a child only a parent could love:) Very satisfying,
though not particularly health concious or easy on the wallet...but it's
still stuck on the masonite!
I've also enjoyed working with unprimed (but sized) canvas & oils, it's
a very different experience, but you can get some interesting effects,
especially in the transition from paint that gets absorbed into the
surface, and the layers that rest on top.
Re recycling junk to art - have you ever been to the Watts Towers? I was
there in '71 or so, quite impressive. I wonder if they are still
standing.
BTW - Rembrant makes an acrylic Naples Yellow (I picked up some by
accident one day.)
Cheers;
Chris
Erik A. Mattila
Chris wrote:
Yes, I lived near them for a few years in the 60s. They're still there.
In the early seventiies LA County was going to tear them down, because the
engineering was completely unknown, and they thought they could be a
hazard. Fortunately some people in the art support community came forward
and underwrote the expense for testing. They attached cables and tried to
pull them over, using the good old ten to one safty factor, and the towers
didn't budge. They are incredibly sound. Sam Rodia knew what he was
doing.
>
>
> BTW - Rembrant makes an acrylic Naples Yellow (I picked up some by
> accident one day.)
Wow, that's good news.
Erik
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
(snip for space)
:But I can see my trend is to break away from art materials. I haven't
:painted in a long while, but when I overcome the physical reasons for this
:I'll probably continuing using non-art materials.
This sounds very Post-Modern, Erik. "Non-traditional art materials"
: In my last works I was
:using toilet paper quite a bit, suspended in acrylic resins and/or gesso.
:It's really great stuff.
In college, I wrote a book on toilet paper. The instructor loved it. You
had to unroll the entire thing to read it all and the more you unrolled, the
crazier the ramblings were. Fun stuff, especially in grade school when you
wet it in the bathroom sink and throw it up on the ceiling where it sticks
and dries and becomes part of a multi-participant sculptural ceiling
installation.
: Also kitchen paper towels. I've covered a
:support with a series of wonderful built up 'arabesques' that were made by
:cutting out a square of paper kitchen napkins, folding it diagonally,
:submerging it in rhoplex,
What is rhoplex?
then rolling it into a snake like shape with
:beautifully tapered ends and pasting it on the support, in various
:arabesque shapes.
Never seen paper towel art, sounds good.
(snip)
:
:Anyway, I'm somewhere between being a complete paint slob and an
:afficianado of high price material. When I get back to work I'm going to
:plunge into papier mache and eleminate the canvas/masonite contention
:altogether. I'm even considering a flat surface composed of chicken wire,
:harware cloth, papier mache, rhoplex, toilet paper etc. as a carrier.
:Why? Who knows.
I saw a show where the artist made a paper mache figure, about 3 feet high
standing in the gallery next to his works, looked just like the figures in
his works - great show and wonderful effect!
: I like the experience of making things. For one thing,
:though, I think I can make a papier mache substrate that would be more
:durable than canvas, masonite, etc. But I really don't care, even though I
:would not like to make a painting that decomposed on a client's wall. The
:idea of recycling junk to art is interesting, too. Especially expendable
:consumer products like toilet paper. Isn't there some sort of statement
:there?
Sorry, Erik, I like it but it sounds totally PoMO. I love the idea, but
Rauschenburg seems to be a big influence. Maybe I'm projecting, but he has
a great book, well, he didn't write it, it's about his art and I want to buy
it. I love the combine paintings and I love combined media. I have been
collecting tar paper that flies off people's roofs in these monsoons. I
look like a garbage picker, well, I confess - I AM a garbage picker! If I
see something interesting sticking out of someone's garbage, I will retrieve
it! OK, I confess further - I will PURPOSELY cruise the alleys on garbage
day (when the pickings are ripe) to get a better haul. I have brought home
stuff that smelled and had to be left outside to air a few days. But the
treasure of a curly rusted bed spring!!!! What's better than that?
Suddenly the most humble, valuless product becomes valuale once it
:is transposed from junk to art. Detournement.
I'm getting that Rauschenberg book! The problem that I see with combining
materials is that people may paint along with the organic/man-made materials
added, but the painting had better be darned strong because the non-painted
material will overpower it every time! Off to get a busted up pillow with
feathers flying out and an old stained mattress with springs poking through,
Kay
::Best,
:Erik
:
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
:Well, I'll confess. In 1990 I had a job as director of physical plant at a
:college, and I found a dead bird. It was amost mumified, but it had
partially
:rotted away -- it's little bird skull was there, some ribs, and the rest
was
:feathers and dried bird hyde.
And so you took it away. That's not odd Erik <snicker> and I'm sure that
any co-workers seeing you do so wouldn't think you were weird.
:
What I found remarkable was the little bird had
:died in a classic Roger Tory Petersen pose -- you know, the Bird artist
(how to
:identify the birds in your area. It just screamed 'art' to me.
Since it was partially decomposed maybe it just *gasped* art to you?
:I prepared an 8" x 10" panel, with a block of balsa wood glued on, covered
it
:with maroons and ultramarines and toilet paper until I was satisfied. I
:epoxyed the dead creature's feet on the top of the balsa block, after I had
:coated the carcass with krylon several times (until the stink vanished).
I didn't know krylon would be enough. It worked?
Then
:I painted the carcass, applied various colored glitter,
Ooh, glitter sounds great!
and when the piece was
:finished I named it "Lord of the Dawn" which is a name for Quetzalcoatl,
which
:in turns is the mythological figure in Mexican myth signifying death and
:resurrection.
Isn't that "Lady of the Snakey Skirts" aka "Virgin of Guadalupe"? Isn't it
a she? But I do think she had a son with many of the same attributes whose
name sounded familiar. Damn! I've forgotten so much about her and I wrote
a research paper on her in grad school and did a series about her!
: I even sold the piece (to a Mexican, as a matter of fact).
It sounds like something I would buy. The Mexican's I've known were much
more receptive to contemporary art than most Anglos. Virgin of Guadalupe
everywhere here, on churches, tatoos, cars, etc. The glitter effect sounds
wonderful. Getting the urge to do more assemblage? I remember when I took
sculpture I absolutely loved working with my hands and sanding, sanding,
sanding - carving, carving, carving (etc.) Got calluses all over them and
went to a type of art gathering and met a French sculptor (pretty famous but
forgot her name) and we didn't speak each other's lingo but I let her feel
my calluses and we became best friends instantly. Of course, I was a fraud
because I wasn't a sculptor, just a student taking a required sculpture
class, but who was I to disallusion her? The point is, I may have liked
sculpture more than painting at some point but the school really encouraged
painting, especially for women. Combined media was a class I loved and I
have done many assemblages but again, not encouraged much for males or
females. I've been sticking stuff on paintings and doing assemblages for
quite a while, but may read that Rauschenberg & go crazy!
Kay
:Erik
:
Erik A. Mattila
college, and I found a dead bird. It was amost mumified, but it had partially
rotted away -- it's little bird skull was there, some ribs, and the rest was
died in a classic Roger Tory Petersen pose -- you know, the Bird artist (how to
identify the birds in your area. It just screamed 'art' to me.
I prepared an 8" x 10" panel, with a block of balsa wood glued on, covered it
with maroons and ultramarines and toilet paper until I was satisfied. I
epoxyed the dead creature's feet on the top of the balsa block, after I had
coated the carcass with krylon several times (until the stink vanished). Then
I painted the carcass, applied various colored glitter, and when the piece was
finished I named it "Lord of the Dawn" which is a name for Quetzalcoatl, which
in turns is the mythological figure in Mexican myth signifying death and
resurrection. I even sold the piece (to a Mexican, as a matter of fact).
Erik
Kay wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> (snip for space)
> :But I can see my trend is to break away from art materials. I haven't
> :painted in a long while, but when I overcome the physical reasons for this
> :I'll probably continuing using non-art materials.
>
> This sounds very Post-Modern, Erik. "Non-traditional art materials"
>
> : In my last works I was
> :using toilet paper quite a bit, suspended in acrylic resins and/or gesso.
> :It's really great stuff.
>
> In college, I wrote a book on toilet paper. The instructor loved it. You
> had to unroll the entire thing to read it all and the more you unrolled, the
> crazier the ramblings were. Fun stuff, especially in grade school when you
> wet it in the bathroom sink and throw it up on the ceiling where it sticks
> and dries and becomes part of a multi-participant sculptural ceiling
> installation.
>
> : Also kitchen paper towels. I've covered a
> :support with a series of wonderful built up 'arabesques' that were made by
> :cutting out a square of paper kitchen napkins, folding it diagonally,
> :submerging it in rhoplex,
>
> What is rhoplex?
>
> then rolling it into a snake like shape with
> :beautifully tapered ends and pasting it on the support, in various
> :arabesque shapes.
>
> Never seen paper towel art, sounds good.
>
> (snip)
> :
> :Anyway, I'm somewhere between being a complete paint slob and an
> :afficianado of high price material. When I get back to work I'm going to
> :plunge into papier mache and eleminate the canvas/masonite contention
> :altogether. I'm even considering a flat surface composed of chicken wire,
> :harware cloth, papier mache, rhoplex, toilet paper etc. as a carrier.
> :Why? Who knows.
>
> I saw a show where the artist made a paper mache figure, about 3 feet high
> standing in the gallery next to his works, looked just like the figures in
> his works - great show and wonderful effect!
>
> : I like the experience of making things. For one thing,
> :though, I think I can make a papier mache substrate that would be more
> :durable than canvas, masonite, etc. But I really don't care, even though I
> :would not like to make a painting that decomposed on a client's wall. The
> :idea of recycling junk to art is interesting, too. Especially expendable
> :consumer products like toilet paper. Isn't there some sort of statement
> :there?
>
> Sorry, Erik, I like it but it sounds totally PoMO. I love the idea, but
> Rauschenburg seems to be a big influence. Maybe I'm projecting, but he has
> a great book, well, he didn't write it, it's about his art and I want to buy
> it. I love the combine paintings and I love combined media. I have been
> collecting tar paper that flies off people's roofs in these monsoons. I
> look like a garbage picker, well, I confess - I AM a garbage picker! If I
> see something interesting sticking out of someone's garbage, I will retrieve
> it! OK, I confess further - I will PURPOSELY cruise the alleys on garbage
> day (when the pickings are ripe) to get a better haul. I have brought home
> stuff that smelled and had to be left outside to air a few days. But the
> treasure of a curly rusted bed spring!!!! What's better than that?
>
> Suddenly the most humble, valuless product becomes valuale once it
> :is transposed from junk to art. Detournement.
>
Erik A. Mattila
>
> Isn't that "Lady of the Snakey Skirts" aka "Virgin of Guadalupe"? Isn't it
> a she? But I do think she had a son with many of the same attributes whose
> name sounded familiar. Damn! I've forgotten so much about her and I wrote
> a research paper on her in grad school and did a series about her!
Nope, you're thinking of Coatlique - literally 'she of the serpent skirt.'
Quetzal = feather, coatl = serpent, Plumed Serpent, and he's a he, altough
gender isn't that significant. Most of the Mexican dioses have duel natures or
aspects, like the godhead, ometeotl (ome - 2, teotl = lord).
The Chocolatl Madona story is pretty much a fabrication of the Spanish Friars.
They pulled the same thing off in several parts of the world -- like the pagan
epic, the Book of Revelations, being so popular, according to D.H. Lawrence,
among British coal miners, in order to seduce the heathens into believing.
It's called paternalism, but on the other hand, those friars were 'fathers.'
after all. But I'm glad the Mexicans have a Virgin who doesn't look anemic.
> : I even sold the piece (to a Mexican, as a matter of fact).
> It sounds like something I would buy. The Mexican's I've known were much
> more receptive to contemporary art than most Anglos. Virgin of Guadalupe
> everywhere here, on churches, tatoos, cars, etc. The glitter effect sounds
> wonderful. Getting the urge to do more assemblage? I remember when I took
> sculpture I absolutely loved working with my hands and sanding, sanding,
> sanding - carving, carving, carving (etc.) Got calluses all over them and
> went to a type of art gathering and met a French sculptor (pretty famous but
> forgot her name) and we didn't speak each other's lingo but I let her feel
> my calluses and we became best friends instantly. Of course, I was a fraud
> because I wasn't a sculptor, just a student taking a required sculpture
> class, but who was I to disallusion her? The point is, I may have liked
> sculpture more than painting at some point but the school really encouraged
> painting, especially for women. Combined media was a class I loved and I
> have done many assemblages but again, not encouraged much for males or
> females. I've been sticking stuff on paintings and doing assemblages for
> quite a while, but may read that Rauschenberg & go crazy!
> Kay
I stopped reading art rags years ago. There's nothing wrong with simultaniety
or reinventing thewheel over and over again. I don't believe in originality
much -- I think it's a fool's errand. I just grew sick of two dimensionality.
But I liked to paint. I kept looking at the canvas and panel and wanting it to
start having some more dimensionality. Remember I told you about the fake
holograms, I mean paintings of holograms which seemed to me to be a fraud about
fraud about fraud. So another of my unfinished pieces is a panel, that bursts
off the surface, which I call "I laugh at your Gods". It's got a lot of goo
gaws, and those arabesques I wrote about. Can't wait to get back to that.
I'll want to make it as tacky as possible, because I sincerely believe there is
absolutely nothing noble about art. Anyway, why don't you not read Raunchyberg
and just get on with the program? Lean on yourself.
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>It sounds like something I would buy. The Mexican's I've known were much
>more receptive to contemporary art than most Anglos. Virgin of Guadalupe
>everywhere here, on churches, tatoos, cars, etc. The glitter effect sounds
>wonderful. Getting the urge to do more assemblage? I remember when I took
>sculpture I absolutely loved working with my hands and sanding, sanding,
>sanding - carving, carving, carving (etc.) Got calluses all over them and
>went to a type of art gathering and met a French sculptor (pretty famous but
>forgot her name) and we didn't speak each other's lingo but I let her feel
>my calluses and we became best friends instantly. Of course, I was a fraud
>because I wasn't a sculptor, just a student taking a required sculpture
>class, but who was I to disallusion her? The point is, I may have liked
>sculpture more than painting at some point but the school really encouraged
>painting, especially for women. Combined media was a class I loved and I
>have done many assemblages but again, not encouraged much for males or
>females. I've been sticking stuff on paintings and doing assemblages for
>quite a while, but may read that Rauschenberg & go crazy!
>Kay
Rauschenberg has certainly played his part in urging art students away
from traditional 2D painting. For me it was Kurt Schwitters - we were
set a brief in Graphic Design School where we had to produce a piece of
work in the style of an assigned artist along a theme - mine was Time
and Schwitters. I think that assignment influenced all of my future in
art .... it certainly got me out of Graphics - I was transferred to Fine
Art on the basis of that one piece of work.
When I was in Chile I was introduced to several artists whose work
resembled Rauschenberg - after commenting about it, I soon learned that
the Chilean people had been producing art like this long before R was
born. The idea of including personal memorabilia into art is long
ingrained in the Latin American's idea of what art is - do you remember
me writing about the Arpilleras with Ariane on r.a.f ? Its a pity we so
often identify such *progress* in art as belonging to mainstream
artists.
And what about people like Joseph Cornell and Susan Hiller who *box* up
items that would generally be considered rubbish ?
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>absolutely nothing noble about art. Anyway, why don't you not read Raunchyberg
>and just get on with the program? Lean on yourself.
>
>Erik
>
Stupid thing for a seemingly intelligent man, who quotes people and
books like they were *laws*, to say - don't you think ?
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote:
:
:And what about people like Joseph Cornell and Susan Hiller who *box* up
:items that would generally be considered rubbish ?
Joseph Cornell has a special place in my heart! I'm not familiar with Susan
Hillar. You simply must get the film about Louise Nevelson. Found objects
comprised most of her work. Wonderful scenes about finding pieces in the
garbage.
Kay
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote:
:>absolutely nothing noble about art. Anyway, why don't you not read
Raunchyberg
:>and just get on with the program? Lean on yourself.
:>
:>Erik
:>
:Stupid thing for a seemingly intelligent man, who quotes people and
:books like they were *laws*, to say - don't you think ?
Yes, Erik certainly quotes his own sources, but he is certainly not "stupid"
so I assume that was a flame.
Kay
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
:Well, you see, the whole 'found object' project is based on having the
piece of
:junk 'speak to you.' It's just not as much fun if you approach with a
preconceived
:idea.
Well please explain to me how anyone in the industrialized countries on this
planet, especially ones with any college education at all can possibly
escape preconceived ideas? We are affected by not only our education, but
Beevus & Butthead (sp?), South Park, McDonalds, serial killers, etc. Unless
one lives in Plato's Cave, we cannot escape our influences, educational as
well as geographical/social/economic/racial. We are all programmed from an
early age and will automatically have "preconceived ideas" - even people who
think they are "purists" cannot escape this.
(snip)
:Erik
:
Erik A. Mattila
junk 'speak to you.' It's just not as much fun if you approach with a preconceived
idea.
As for quoting books and/or people, it simply means that something is discussed
that is not the author's idea. It's interesting that you see this as a form of
autocraticism. Is Baudrillard autocratic when he cites Seneca, in your view?
Erik
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <37CB7538...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>Hi Erik;
>You are quite right about letting the need determine the price (I don't
>think I'd choose Blockx $160/35 ml vermillion to do a big poster :),
Blockx doesn't sell that one anymore, it's replaced by a pyrrollo
version (anyway, most painters using Blockx use the cadmium red-orange
as a vermillion, close enough :-)
> but
>as a rule of thumb I'd try and move as high as reasonably affordable,
>even for oil sketching. That's just experience - I tried cheap (talens,
>pebeo), low-middle (van Gogh) - all which I found flat, shallow, almost
>acrylic in their finish, without the quick-drying ability of acrylics.
>It's also part technique, as I like working with highly thinned paints
>(either turps or linseed oil, or both), so I need good colour density &
>distribution.
>
>For the most part I'm ok with the midrange Rembrant + a Grumbacher or
>two. I like the latters' cadmium red deep, despite its peculiar
>consistency. Though I am ordering a basic pallette of Sennelier just to
>try it out. I'd be curious as to other readers experiences with specific
>colours/brands, if they'd care to contribute!
>
I've never tried Sennelier (I should one day however) but did all
lines of Talens (Amsterdam, Van Gogh and Rembrandt) and Blockx which
became my favorite. For every brand I made "test boards" (paper,
linen, canvas boards) on which I put all colors (I use about 30-40 of
every brand) and often-used mixtures, dilluted with turpentine,
mediums, pure, tempered with whites, done with painting knives,
bristles, sable brushes, etc. I use them as a reference.
Rembrandt is okay, Van Gogh and Amsterdam are indeed as you say: flat,
lifeless, etc. To get some results with those paints recquires an
excellent painter, not a beginner. It takes a lot of excercise to
become a good painter, it only takes some more money to get good
materials so why hamper yourself with lousy paints if you can pay to
avoid them?
Blockx is absolutely excellent, I would be amazed if there are brands
which are significantly better. The better colors really "work" in
mixtures. They all do handle differently however (that's the price of
not adding anything to the pigments except from poppy or line oil). It
either takes the right amount of medium or a very soft brush to get a
smoothed out cobalt violet surface for instance (it's a nice color
however, albeit a pricy one at 40 U$). OTOH the cadmiums handle
superbly and can be applied straight from the tube. Most have a very
nice consistency. Very chromatic, it takes a lot of zinc white to
temper the cadmium colors, so I guess that makes em cheap again :-)
Burnt Sienna, Umber, Yellow Ochre, these kind of colors don't show
much difference with those of cheaper brands (but then again: they're
not expensive either from Blockx).
If I would have a small purse then I would at least buy the following
colors of Blockx (and the rest of a cheap brand):
-Cobalt blue (very hard, cold, electric but also deep blue)
-Cadmium red and yellow (they make a statement :-)
-Blockx blue (excellent transparant phtalocyanine blue, pure it's
almost black, some zinc white and it's a deep, warm blue, this one
works tremendously in mixtures)
These four colors already add a tremedous expression power to your
palet (now this is _Red_ ;-) and you normally don't use them in large
quantities so they should last a while.
So, my advice would be for a beginner: the colors that will be used as
_colors_ should be of a good brand (and Blockx is one of them, Old
Holland and Sennelier are others but I've never used them), you can
buy cheap ones for subdued colors like Yellow Ochre, Burnt Sienna and
stuff.
>FWIW - I would advise Stephen (or anyone else) to avoid colours labeled
>"hue" unless they really want that particular affect; I haven't seen one
>yet that would be mistaken for the real thing. Though toxicity is a
>problem...
Toxicity is only a problem if you eat your paint or smear it in open
wounds (you shouldn't do such a thing, especially not with true
vermillion which contains mercury).
There's absolutely no subtitute for flake white (also called cremnitz
white or just lead white). I use it all the time and I'm still alive
:-)
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Well, you see, the whole 'found object' project is based on having the piece of
>junk 'speak to you.' It's just not as much fun if you approach with a
>preconceived
>idea.
>
>As for quoting books and/or people, it simply means that something is discussed
>that is not the author's idea. It's interesting that you see this as a form of
>autocraticism. Is Baudrillard autocratic when he cites Seneca, in your view?
>
>Erik
>
He is autocratic if he tells someone to *lean on themselves* or stop
reading a book and *get on with the project*.
--
Alison
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Yes, Erik certainly quotes his own sources, but he is certainly not "stupid"
>so I assume that was a flame.
>Kay
>
Correct.
Erik A. Mattila
about life in general. At any rate, it was just another way of saying 'go for
it.' I apologize - I'll mind my tongue in the future.
Erik
Kay wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> :Well, you see, the whole 'found object' project is based on having the
> piece of
> :junk 'speak to you.' It's just not as much fun if you approach with a
> preconceived
> :idea.
>
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <37CC6F48...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >Well, you see, the whole 'found object' project is based on having the piece of
> >junk 'speak to you.' It's just not as much fun if you approach with a
> >preconceived
> >idea.
> >
> And when did an artist ever do this ?
Often - from DuChamp forward (or backward).
>
>
> >As for quoting books and/or people, it simply means that something is discussed
> >that is not the author's idea. It's interesting that you see this as a form of
> >autocraticism. Is Baudrillard autocratic when he cites Seneca, in your view?
> >
> >Erik
> >
> He is autocratic if he tells someone to *lean on themselves* or stop
> reading a book and *get on with the project*.
Well, I had no ill intent writing that to Kay. I think you may be reading
'hostility' where it doesn't exist.
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
>Often - from DuChamp forward (or backward).
Duchamp didn't have an agenda ????????????????????????????????? It seems
apparent to me that *irony* was his the avant-garde and irony was his
agenda. Did I get this wrong ?
>
>Well, I had no ill intent writing that to Kay. I think you may be reading
>'hostility' where it doesn't exist.
>
>Erik
That may be so. Kay *has* an agenda, as both an artist and a human
being. I am certainly learning from her - she is probably one of the
most honest artists I ever met. I usually *read* people pretty well.
--
Alison
PS. How am i supposed to categorise this for Lauri ????
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <37CDA3C2...@tomatoweb.com>...
:Gosh, Kay, I was talking about 'found objects.' I agree with what you say
:about life in general. At any rate, it was just another way of saying 'go
for
:it.' I apologize - I'll mind my tongue in the future.
:
:Erik
Don't apologize. We'll both live. We have very often misunderstood one
another. I remember agreeing with you about something you had said about
Wayne Thiebald (sp?) and you got hostile, thought I was attacking him. I
had to explain that I was *not* flaming your statement but that I was, in
fact, in total agreement with what you had said and I then had to dissect
both of our posts to prove it. Remember? Well, Rauchenberg is a favorite
of mine and the dead bird you described brought a work of his to my mind
of - Surprise! - a dead chicken on the top of a pillow or something. He may
have found it or he may have murdered it and he may have paid a poultry
*hit-man*/*hit-woman* to do the deed for him. I just enjoyed the heck out
of it whatever the process and for painters who want to paint, yet add the
element of junk (or as the upscale junkers call it - "junque") to their art,
then Rauschenberg is a big influence that made so much of it "fine art".
Duchamp is the master, of course, but do you think that he (Duchamp) had no
influence on Rauschenberg? I'll answer it for you - he was the biggest
influence on Rauschenberg! Since I don't have Duchamp today, I'll stick to
Rauschenberg for my combined-media fix.
Kay
Kay
even be a good idea but I am a person who gets lots of exercise from
wandering around wondering what I am doing in a certain place and what my
original intent was for going into that room (or store). The "hostility" -
real or imagined was very likely received and sent from everyone here. (In
this post). So since I like being challenged and Alison and Erik are so good
at challenging me (mentally) I am going to just talk art, life, anecdotes,
etc.
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
:
:
:Alison A Raimes wrote:
:> He is autocratic if he tells someone to *lean on themselves* or stop
:> reading a book and *get on with the project*.
:
:Well, I had no ill intent writing that to Kay. I think you may be reading
:'hostility' where it doesn't exist.
:
:Erik
:
:>
:> --
:> Alison
:>
:> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
:> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
:
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote:
(snip)
: I
:was merely talking about finding objects and making art out of them, rather
:than seeking objects that you have already decided you want to make art out
:of.
Then this seems to be separating assemblage and combined media into two
camps saying one is the correct way to do things and another is not. I've
seen artists do one or the other or both. Nevelson, for example, in her
film talks about a wood banister she found at an abandoned school and
another piece in the trash. These had their place in her mind in a work as
she conceived it. Then, she also bought those other pieces of steel to weld
the work together. As a whole, the found and the bought or sought couldn't
be distinguished. We both have mentioned using glitter. I buy mine. I
would much prefer finding fairy dust but they are much too fast and I can't
grab them in time. But, the blown-off roof shingles I find in the alley say
"look at how beautiful I am, look at my shape, my texture" and I take them
with the element of chance with no pre-conceived aim. So I am Bi in that
respect. Sometimes find, sometimes seek. There may be many artists who
work exclusively with found objects but I'm not too familiar with them. I
like the element of chance combined with the element of conceptuality.
Kay
Erik A. Mattila
invent something.
You love being pissed-off at people, don't you? It's your 'raison etre',
right?
Well, here's something really substancial for you to get pissed off about: I
was merely talking about finding objects and making art out of them, rather
than seeking objects that you have already decided you want to make art out
of. Isn't that a horrible thing to think? Now go for it, Alison -- get your
rocks off.
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <37CDA663...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >
> >Often - from DuChamp forward (or backward).
>
> Duchamp didn't have an agenda ????????????????????????????????? It seems
> apparent to me that *irony* was his the avant-garde and irony was his
> agenda. Did I get this wrong ?
>
> >
> >Well, I had no ill intent writing that to Kay. I think you may be reading
> >'hostility' where it doesn't exist.
> >
> >Erik
>
> That may be so. Kay *has* an agenda, as both an artist and a human
> being. I am certainly learning from her - she is probably one of the
> most honest artists I ever met. I usually *read* people pretty well.
> --
> Alison
> PS. How am i supposed to categorise this for Lauri ????
Try category "PD" (pathological drivel)
>
>
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>This is hilarious. If you can't find anything real to get pissed off about --
>invent something.
>
>You love being pissed-off at people, don't you? It's your 'raison etre',
>right?
>
>Well, here's something really substancial for you to get pissed off about: I
>was merely talking about finding objects and making art out of them, rather
>than seeking objects that you have already decided you want to make art out
>of. Isn't that a horrible thing to think? Now go for it, Alison -- get your
>rocks off.
Oooooooooooooh, don't you sound pissed off too - nothing pissed about my
post if you read it again. I think if you will find some very serious
critical art questions in it. You still haven't answered - do you think
that when Duchamp made art from *ready mades* he didn't have an agenda ?
Why do you find that so difficult to answer ?
Bad news for you, Erik - I am in one hell of a good mood. *You* misread
*me*.
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote:
:
:Bad news for you, Erik - I am in one hell of a good mood. *You* misread
:*me*.
I misread Erik, he misread you and the circle goes round and round but any
talk at all about Duchamp makes me deliriously happy, though I'm no expert.
I know that Duchamp was a certifiable genius! This makes me think that
spontaneity, with him, would be very difficult don't you think. Just too
danged intelligent. And his obsession with Chess, not a game with a big
element of chance. Very thoughtful. Very planned. A thoughtful game. Most
Dada artists moved on to the Surrealist movement but I wouldn't think of
Duchamp as a Surrealist participant as much as perhaps Man Ray. But, I could
be wrong. He could have been so intelligent that he could find the roof
shingle I've been babbling about, pick it up and have a flash of brilliance
to conceive the entire work. Hmmmm. I'm arguing both sides of the coin but
I don't know which is the correct one. Maybe both?
Kay
Erik A. Mattila
really inconsiderate of me.
Erik
Kay wrote:
> Erik A. Mattila wrote:
> (snip)
>
> : I
> :was merely talking about finding objects and making art out of them, rather
> :than seeking objects that you have already decided you want to make art out
> :of.
>
Kay
Erik A. Mattila wrote in message <37CE22E9...@tomatoweb.com>...
:OK, have it your way. I formally retract my statements about 'fun.' It
was
:really inconsiderate of me.
:
:Erik
I looked for the word and couldn't find it. I don't remember what context
it was used in. I didn't find the post offensive on either of our sides and
frankly, I don't know what in the world you are talking about with "fun" and
"inconsiderate". I don't remember calling you inconsiderate, but I have
called you "fun" and I simply don't know what you are referring to. I think
you might be defensive to something you are reading that I am NOT writing.
Erik, when I insult someone, I am usually very clear about it. I am not
aware of insulting you today.
Kay
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>I looked for the word and couldn't find it. I don't remember what context
>it was used in. I didn't find the post offensive on either of our sides and
>frankly, I don't know what in the world you are talking about with "fun" and
>"inconsiderate". I don't remember calling you inconsiderate, but I have
>called you "fun" and I simply don't know what you are referring to. I think
>you might be defensive to something you are reading that I am NOT writing.
>Erik, when I insult someone, I am usually very clear about it. I am not
>aware of insulting you today.
>Kay
>
This is what Erik was referring to, Kay.
In article <37CC6F48...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >Well, you see, the whole 'found object' project is based on having the piece of
> >junk 'speak to you.' It's just not as much fun if you approach with a
> >preconceived
> >idea.
> >
One has to consider the possibilities that it takes an artist's eye to
have a found object *speak*. Without that trained eye garbage remains
garbage. In this context it is impossible for an artist to approach the
project without preconceived ideas - it is all part and parcel of how
they look at the world.
Kay
read posts with a magnifying lens and I don't memorize them, I skim them and
this is getting old, boring and tedious. I am not playing this silly game
any longer.
Kay
Alison A Raimes wrote in message <5nUwT9BO...@raimes.demon.co.uk>...
:In article <czpz3.10120$k4.2...@news4.giganews.com>, Kay
John Haber
>Hillar.
Me neither, and ditto about Cornell.
>You simply must get the film about Louise Nevelson. Found objects
>comprised most of her work.
Interesting. I could never react to her. I always felt she was
trying so hard to be profound, calling up all these dark forces. It
was ripe for a joke.
john
Erik A. Mattila
Nevelson's work. And her personality -- tactlessly flamboyant, definitely 'high
camp'? She reminds me of Ava Gardner in "Night of the Iguana."
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>Kay:
>>Joseph Cornell has a special place in my heart! I'm not familiar with Susan
>>Hillar.
>
>Me neither, and ditto about Cornell.
Hmmmm. I know she shows in NYC, John. I will have to look it up - she
did a video piece called *Belshazzar's Feast* in about 1983 which she is
best know for. I will write more on her over the weekend ..... have to
go to work now.
Ali
John Haber
LOL. I'd forgotten Nevelson's portraits in photography. How chic.
Nice to see all the sharp people here.
John