A bit on art . . .
Randolph Fritz
alt.callahans post!]
"This was something we did in the elementary architectural design
class. As a lesson in visual communication, our instructor had us
draw representations of emotional sorts of subjects using no formal
symbols--marks on the board only. The subjects were printed on little
slips of paper Mr. Lorimer had prepared for the class. We did our
drawings (all the same size), pasted the slip on the back & signed
them on the back. Then we brought them in, hung them up, & tried to
guess the meanings.
"The lesson: the whole class agreed on meanings astonishingly quickly
(not always the ones the artists intended--quality varied a lot).
Just line and form--no symbols, no representation of objects. Art
really does communicate; even abstract art. Wow."
R.
Earthwind
Earthwind, who's been in heavy lurk mode/mood, sticks his head down from
the rafters. "A wee question Randolf, did the class interpret the
drawings as a group or as individuals. I suspect the former and would be
interested in seeing the latter: if the people individually interpreted
the drawings, wrote those down, then compared answers."
--
Paul Hinecker
pm_...@vega.concordia.ca
Randolph Fritz
Earthwind <pm_...@vega.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>"What I was thinking of, though, was that speed of interpretation you
>spoke of might have been more related to the nature of the group to than
>to the art itself. Was the art communicating to the people or the people
>communicating well with each other?"
>
"If the resulting interpretations were simply arbitrary, they wouldn't
have hit near the artists intentions, which no-one in the class knew
at all--the subjects were pulled from a hat (well, really a box). As
it was, consensus on the recognizably clearest pieces (work on a
near-professional level) was accurate and most hit pretty near. Also,
I doubt there would have been any consensus at all without the pieces
on the wall as a basis to form one. So, no, there's good reason to
believe people were responding to the visible work."
R.
Sanford E. Walke IV
: In article <3iotai$b...@newsflash.concordia.ca>,
I'm having a lot of difficulty following this thread, and it seems like an
intreresting one (probably because it's causing me difficulty). Could you
please explain again, in layman's terms, what you are talking about?
-----
Sandy
se...@izzy.net
"Cuius testiculos habes, habes cordia et cerebellum."
I don't speak for anyone but me, and sometimes not even that.
Earthwind
[snip]
>"I think there is an abstract language we share, however it is
>that we learn it."
"Thinking the same way I did when I first commented does the experiment
you mention work cross culturally? What I mean is whether or not, say, I
group of Maori would produce the same emotional correspondences as your
class? Does this abstract language form at the cultural level (and thus
vary by culture) or is it based in the basic hardwiring of our brains
(and thus not varying significantly by culture)."
--
Paul Hinecker
pm_...@vega.concordia.ca
Earthwind
>I'm having a lot of difficulty following this thread, and it seems like an
>intreresting one (probably because it's causing me difficulty). Could you
>please explain again, in layman's terms, what you are talking about?
"Well what geared my response was wondering whether or not the ability of
the art class to agree quickly on the meanings of abstract drawings was
due to something intrinsic to the art (the art communicating to the
people thus leading to similar interpretations) or because the people
were communicating well with each other and arriving at a group decision."
"This actually something that bothers me a bit about abstract art: is
there any constancy of interpretation by the people who view the art.
With non-abstract art (yes, I'm making a distinction that actually does
not exist absolutely but it may be useful to think of ideal types here) I
find that while there is variation in interpretation it's never as vast
as when dealing with purely abstract art. I tend to think of art as an
attempt on the part of the artist to communicate something and when
vastly varying interpretations of pieces I wonder if the art is succesful."
"In the same vein I have suspicion that the success of abstract art in
the art world is that it is being evaluated by other artists. I have many
artist friends and they seem to be able draw far more out of abstract
pieces than I ever see. They also seem more able to agree on meaning than
non-artists I've spoken to. It almost seems like a specialisation
problem. Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
the purpose of art."
--
Paul Hinecker
pm_...@vega.concordia.ca
Doug Quarnstrom
: "Then I read _Drawing on the Artist Within,_ by Betty Edwards,
: (author of _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain,_ which as far
: as I'm concerned WILL teach people who claim they CANNOT draw
: a straight line--how to draw beautifully.
It is a fact that anyone who wants to take the time can learn to
draw competently.
: Can't vouch from personal
: experience, as I was already one of the can-draw people, although
: in my opinion it explained to me finally why some people _didn't_
: draw like I did,
Well, I taught myself to draw before I found the book, but it is
true that many of the exercises are invaluable in teaching you how
to see.
: and why I could draw the way I did. Anyway, if
: you doubt me, just look at the before and after pictures by her own
: students...) Anyway, she had _her_ students draw in eight boxes,
: just squiggles and random patters, one box for anger, one box for
: joy, one box for peacefulness, one box for depression, one box
: for human energy, one for femininity, one for illness, one of
: the student's choice. Comparing the different drawings does yield
: interesting patterns of the choices students make to convey the
: emotions--lots of similarity within any one emotion, in spite of
: the great variety of styles."
: "I think there is an abstract language we share, however it is
: that we learn it."
I would like to see your work some time.
doug
Sanford E. Walke IV
: "We got to do something similar in a psychology class: the prof told
: us to draw (without seeing what others were drawing) masks expressing
: various emotions, such as anger and sadness. Then we compared
: drawings and he pointed out that the anger ones had sharp, pointed
: angles and dark, heavy lines, while the sad or peaceful ones tended
: to be light with circles and smooth, flowing lines."
So this is what the original poster was talking about, drawing things to
represent emotions? For some reason, I could *not* understand that by
reading the original post, or any of the followups, for that matter.
: "Then I read _Drawing on the Artist Within,_ by Betty Edwards,
: (author of _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain,_ which as far
: as I'm concerned WILL teach people who claim they CANNOT draw
: a straight line--how to draw beautifully.
I can draw straight lines just fine. I use tools to do it. It's called
drafting. I couldn't draw a recognizable animal or face or anything with
non-geometric curves if my life depended on it. I even have trouble
with projected views of round surfaces. I can never seem to find a part
of the french curve that matches.
: Can't vouch from personal
: experience, as I was already one of the can-draw people, although
: in my opinion it explained to me finally why some people _didn't_
: draw like I did, and why I could draw the way I did.
And, just in case you didn't know, people like you drive people like me NUTS!
I spent hours on various learn-to-draw books in Jr. High, and apparently
never learned a damn thing.
: Anyway, if
: you doubt me, just look at the before and after pictures by her own
: students...) Anyway, she had _her_ students draw in eight boxes,
: just squiggles and random patters, one box for anger, one box for
: joy, one box for peacefulness, one box for depression, one box
: for human energy, one for femininity, one for illness, one of
: the student's choice. Comparing the different drawings does yield
: interesting patterns of the choices students make to convey the
: emotions--lots of similarity within any one emotion, in spite of
: the great variety of styles."
: "I think there is an abstract language we share, however it is
: that we learn it."
I think it's definitely learned. I'll admit, though, that I can seldom see
it. If presented with something I'm supposed to interpret visually, I fail.
Whether it's supposed to be an emotional interpretation or a scientific one,
I am clueless. Even when I know the mathematics behind it, I can't understand
a complex graph at all. I'd rather look at the numbers. This gave me a lot
of problems in EE classes, where the instructor would say, after writing an
equation on the board, "Now, by visualising the graph of this function..."
I'd be scribbling away, trying to plug in numbers and draw the damn thing,
since I had no idea what he was talking about. I can't look at a graph and
see an equation, and it doesn't work the other way either. Same thing
happens with emotional subjects. Someone showed me a picture of 3 kittens
in a basket with their mother, and asked me how what I saw made me feel.
I had no idea what they wanted to hear. I told them, "I see 4 cats. It
doesn't affect how I feel at all. It's just a picture." Bingo, quick trip
to the school counselor. Now I know I'm supposed to say something about
security or protectiveness or something. Still don't feel it, though.
It's just a picture.
I remember visually, though. That's the weird thing, IMO. I remember
things by visualizing either where I read it (actually seeing and re-reading
the page in my mind) or where I was when I heard or saw or experienced it.
RubyTwo
>Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
>that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
>the purpose of art."
RubyTwo agrees. "Abstract art almost always leaves me cold, which
I feel guilty about admitting, because I draw myself and feel that
therefore I should 'appreciate' more art."
"I'm very good at drawing, and that's honesty, not bragging--I know
that much about my own abilities by now. But I don't consider myself
an artist because I don't put much thought into what the finished picture
will look like, I don't try to convey a mood by angle or shadow or
composition...I don't try to _communicate_ anything. I just draw what
I see, and I see very well, and so I get pictures that look like something,
and sometimes, serendipitously, they even convey something more than
the mere object I drew. But it's not deliberate. I'm too lazy to be a
real artist."
{RubyTwo smiles. "I get plenty of praise for my lazy efforts because
what I draw comes out looking like the object it's supposed to. That
praise is enough to keep me happy. ...I find I always try to let new
people I meet see something I've drawn as soon as possible, because
that's the one thing I've ALWAYS been able to get approval for, so I
feel kind of insecure if anyone doesn't know, 'Hey! I can DRAW!' I've
gotten better lately, but not much, since I couldn't resist posting it
here...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
=============
Rub...@aol.com
afn0...@freenet.ufl.edu
The Uncaged Tiger
mitg...@math.ufl.edu (RubyTwo) wrote:
}Paul Hinecker
}>Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
}>that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
}>the purpose of art."
}
}RubyTwo agrees. "Abstract art almost always leaves me cold, which
}I feel guilty about admitting, because I draw myself and feel that
}therefore I should 'appreciate' more art."
"I don't know much about art, but I know what I like. If I have to take
classes in order to interpret a piece, it ain't art. I'm not that picky, I
just insist that it look like something."
}
}"I'm very good at drawing, and that's honesty, not bragging--I know
}that much about my own abilities by now. But I don't consider myself
}an artist because I don't put much thought into what the finished picture
}will look like, I don't try to convey a mood by angle or shadow or
}composition...I don't try to _communicate_ anything. I just draw what
}I see, and I see very well, and so I get pictures that look like something,
}and sometimes, serendipitously, they even convey something more than
}the mere object I drew. But it's not deliberate. I'm too lazy to be a
}real artist."
}
"IMHO, 'real' artists are too lazy to find ways to get their message and
symbols across in a way people can understand."
}{RubyTwo smiles. "I get plenty of praise for my lazy efforts because
}what I draw comes out looking like the object it's supposed to. That
}praise is enough to keep me happy. ...I find I always try to let new
}people I meet see something I've drawn as soon as possible, because
}that's the one thing I've ALWAYS been able to get approval for, so I
}feel kind of insecure if anyone doesn't know, 'Hey! I can DRAW!' I've
}gotten better lately, but not much, since I couldn't resist posting it
}here...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
"Sure!"
UT
RubyTwo
>>"I think there is an abstract language we share, however it is
>>that we learn it."
>
>"Thinking the same way I did when I first commented does the experiment
>you mention work cross culturally? What I mean is whether or not, say, I
>group of Maori would produce the same emotional correspondences as your
>class? Does this abstract language form at the cultural level (and thus
>vary by culture) or is it based in the basic hardwiring of our brains
>(and thus not varying significantly by culture)."
>
"Dang!" RubyTwo is chagrined at her ethnocentricity. "I hadn't even
thought of that."
"My only data is from the classes this woman taught and then wrote
about; would assume the students all share a common culture, that is,
U.S."
RubyTwo has a sudden thought and flips back to the book. "I know she
compares the patterns they get with paintings and drawings by famous
artists that seem to use the same patterns to communicate similar
emotions, although it's all arguable."
"At a glance, it appears the artists may all have been European ones.
I didn't dig further."
"I know I don't consider music to be a universal language; it's so
culture-based, maybe language-based, that music from a different
culture, the first time you hear it, often sounds like noise and not
music at all. It's a learned thing."
"So art could be a learned language. Question: how learned is
body-language? (Smile & frown: same everywhere?) If art is
to gesture as music is to speech, maybe art is more universal
(not completely, but more) as body-language may be (not learned
but unconscious, like posture and liars giving themselves
away by certain gestures) more universal than spoken languages.
RubyTwo loves making up theories on the spot.
RubyTwo
>non-geometric curves if my life depended on it.
"Yes you can! You just need to be taught how."
>: Can't vouch from personal
>: experience, as I was already one of the can-draw people, although
>: in my opinion it explained to me finally why some people _didn't_
>: draw like I did, and why I could draw the way I did.
>
>And, just in case you didn't know, people like you drive people like me NUTS!
RubyTwo smiles happily; she lives for this.
>I spent hours on various learn-to-draw books in Jr. High, and apparently
>never learned a damn thing.
"I really do recommend _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain_--it
is the ONLY learn-to-draw book I've ever read that seemed worth a
damn thing. I haven't read that many, though. There may be others."
>
>
>I think it's definitely learned. I'll admit, though, that I can seldom see
>it. If presented with something I'm supposed to interpret visually, I fail.
"I can't interpret most visual things. I feel like I should be able to, as
a supposed 'artist.' When I've read explanations and interpretations of
famous paintings, THEN I can see what's going on, and I'm impressed,
but I'd never get it on my own. Composition is a mystery to me.
"But...there were definitely some shared assumptions going on in those
abstract patterns. And they were reflected in the famous works she used
in comparison. For example, looking at Martin Johnson Heade's "Twilight,
Salt Marshes," probably no one would suggest joy or energy, although they
might argue over whether it reflected depression, peacefulness or
loneliness; its overall patterns had elements in common with the abstract
patterns students came up with for all of these."
>Whether it's supposed to be an emotional interpretation or a scientific one,
>I am clueless. Even when I know the mathematics behind it, I can't understand
>a complex graph at all. I'd rather look at the numbers.
"Well, I guess in that area I'm a lot more visual. I can grasp things
visually where numbers tell me nothing; I also get a lot more out of
reading than I do out of hearing something."
Same thing
>happens with emotional subjects. Someone showed me a picture of 3 kittens
>in a basket with their mother, and asked me how what I saw made me feel.
>I had no idea what they wanted to hear. I told them, "I see 4 cats. It
>doesn't affect how I feel at all. It's just a picture." Bingo, quick trip
>to the school counselor. Now I know I'm supposed to say something about
>security or protectiveness or something. Still don't feel it, though.
>It's just a picture.
"Hm." RubyTwo thinks about this. "When I see a picture of cats,
I get all warm & cuddly--but I have all sorts of pleasant associations
with the concept 'Cat.' I don't know that the visual pattern of the picture
itself would have that much to do with it--as in, are the cats arranged
in some angular pattern, or circular pattern, or other pattern to provoke
some particular emotion. The word-clue 'Cat' would have much more
to do with the response than the picture itself."
>I remember visually, though. That's the weird thing, IMO. I remember
>things by visualizing either where I read it (actually seeing and re-reading
>the page in my mind) or where I was when I heard or saw or experienced it.
RubyTwo tries to remember how she remembers. "I visualize pages a
lot...I should remember most things visually, since I don't understand
most things unless I can visualize them. But...I'm not sure that I _do_
remember visually."
Randolph Fritz
RubyTwo <afn0...@freenet.ufl.edu> wrote:
>
>"I know I don't consider music to be a universal language; it's so
>culture-based, maybe language-based, that music from a different
>culture, the first time you hear it, often sounds like noise and not
>music at all. It's a learned thing."
>
"The perception of rhythm and pitch are universal, though. Rhythm is very
portable, so much so that rhythms are now busily travelling culture to
culture."
>"So art could be a learned language. Question: how learned is
>body-language? (Smile & frown: same everywhere?) If art is
>to gesture as music is to speech, maybe art is more universal
>(not completely, but more) as body-language may be (not learned
>but unconscious, like posture and liars giving themselves
>away by certain gestures) more universal than spoken languages.
>
"I believe smile and frown are human universals. In fact, frowns seem
to be mammalian universals. On the other hand, the significance of
gestures like beckoning, nodding, and shaking ones head are
culture-dependent.
"I'd venture that some visual elements are learned and some elements
are human-basic. Smooth lines suggest calm, trembling lines fear,
jagged ones anger. These are tied to basic motions & I doubt vary
much. On a quite different level, the experience of gravity is a
human universal; hence horizontals, verticals, diagonals gain meaning.
On the other hand, some graphics are plainly
culture-dependent--letters, for instance. In between--it's a tough
question."
R.
Randolph Fritz
Earthwind <pm_...@vega.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>"In the same vein I have suspicion that the success of abstract art in
>the art world is that it is being evaluated by other artists. I have many
>artist friends and they seem to be able draw far more out of abstract
>pieces than I ever see. They also seem more able to agree on meaning than
>non-artists I've spoken to. It almost seems like a specialisation
>problem. Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
>that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
>the purpose of art."
>
"I think you're comparing random pieces of abstract art with the best
that history has to offer. Now if you looked at the minor figures of
representational art through history, you'd probably see pieces that
were bad in the way of bad photographs; ok finish, but who cares
anyway? It's pieces with something to say that survive."
R.
Sanford E. Walke IV
: "In the same vein I have suspicion that the success of abstract art in
: the art world is that it is being evaluated by other artists. I have many
: artist friends and they seem to be able draw far more out of abstract
: pieces than I ever see. They also seem more able to agree on meaning than
: non-artists I've spoken to. It almost seems like a specialisation
: problem. Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
: that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
: the purpose of art."
I agree with this. (See my post on what I can and can't visualize.) I have
a really tough time seeing a large red canvas with a wide green horizontal
stripe as art.
gent...@xmission.com
mitg...@math.ufl.edu (RubyTwo) wrote:
}
}=>"I'd venture that some visual elements are learned and some elements
}=>are human-basic. Smooth lines suggest calm, trembling lines fear,
}=>jagged ones anger. These are tied to basic motions & I doubt vary
}=>much. On a quite different level, the experience of gravity is a
}=>human universal; hence horizontals, verticals, diagonals gain meaning.
}=>On the other hand, some graphics are plainly
}=>culture-dependent--letters, for instance. In between--it's a tough
}=>question."
}>R.
}
}Can't add a thing to that. Well, maybe one interesting thing. The
}pattern that kept coming up in femininity: crossed lines, like x's.
}Wavy lines on the x's, to be sure, but still a surprise to the author.
}On further inspection she found them in many works of arts showing
}women--women with crossed arms, etc., poses and compositions with
}a strong x-shaped motif--even an adverisement with x-shaped bars
}on the chair legs, a wrap-type shirt that made an x, and a pose with
}crossed legs and arm to the side that kept repeating the x. Interesting
}because it isn't the shape that might come to mind if you were asked
}what a feminine shape would be--I would have guessed curves, circles,
}that sort of thing (which also recurred).
}
"Book called _Subliminal Seduction_. Talks about how subliminal messages are
used in advertising, and how they get them in there. Used to blow it off, but
then I started finding some blatant alteration that created 'embedded' sexes."
"Like a cigarette ad that had one, and only one, of the model's eyes showing a
lot of wrinkles. If you looked, you could quite easily find the letters S E
X."
UT
RubyTwo
>=...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
UT
>"Sure!"
RubyTwo grins. "You asked for it! At John's www site,
http://www.math.ufl.edu/~mitgardt (rec.sport.football.college),
I did MOST of the icons, and in the bitmap section, I did the
gif on Two Gators Chomping a Nole (my best to date), as well
as a Gator one, Mississippi one, Texas A&M one, and maybe
another, don't recall. They're the first few in the bitmap
section, because he uploaded them first. Two Gators was
the first one using PCPaintbrush, the others were Deluxepaint
and therefore limited in resolution."
RubyTwo
=>> It's a learned thing."
=>
=>"The perception of rhythm and pitch are universal, though. Rhythm is very
=>portable, so much so that rhythms are now busily travelling culture to
=>culture."
RubyTwo concedes. "Good point; hadn't thought of that. Rhythm for
sure at least. I don't know much about pitch."
=>>"So art could be a learned language. Question: how learned is
=>>body-language? (Smile & frown: same everywhere?)
=>
=>"I believe smile and frown are human universals. In fact, frowns seem
=>to be mammalian universals. On the other hand, the significance of
=>gestures like beckoning, nodding, and shaking ones head are
=>culture-dependent.
"I wasn't sure about the non-smile, non-frown gestures (nods, etc.)
Couldn't remember. I do remember that once in elementary
school we were taught some sort of little song to the effect that
gestures weren't the same in every culture, so 'give 'em a pinch
of skin!' (hold up forearm, pinch a little skin together w/ two fingers,
and smile) and that pinch of skin was supposed to be a universal
gesture of brotherhood or something. We all thought it was crazy
because we never knew anyone who'd heard of it."
=>"I'd venture that some visual elements are learned and some elements
=>are human-basic. Smooth lines suggest calm, trembling lines fear,
=>jagged ones anger. These are tied to basic motions & I doubt vary
=>much. On a quite different level, the experience of gravity is a
=>human universal; hence horizontals, verticals, diagonals gain meaning.
=>On the other hand, some graphics are plainly
=>culture-dependent--letters, for instance. In between--it's a tough
=>question."
>R.
Can't add a thing to that. Well, maybe one interesting thing. The
pattern that kept coming up in femininity: crossed lines, like x's.
Wavy lines on the x's, to be sure, but still a surprise to the author.
On further inspection she found them in many works of arts showing
women--women with crossed arms, etc., poses and compositions with
a strong x-shaped motif--even an adverisement with x-shaped bars
on the chair legs, a wrap-type shirt that made an x, and a pose with
crossed legs and arm to the side that kept repeating the x. Interesting
because it isn't the shape that might come to mind if you were asked
what a feminine shape would be--I would have guessed curves, circles,
that sort of thing (which also recurred).
Sanford E. Walke IV
: >I couldn't draw a recognizable animal or face or anything with
: >non-geometric curves if my life depended on it.
: "Yes you can! You just need to be taught how."
I don't even want to know, now. I don't really have any use for the skill,
and there are too many other things I need to learn about.
<snip>
: >I remember visually, though. That's the weird thing, IMO. I remember
: >things by visualizing either where I read it (actually seeing and re-reading
: >the page in my mind) or where I was when I heard or saw or experienced it.
: RubyTwo tries to remember how she remembers. "I visualize pages a
: lot...I should remember most things visually, since I don't understand
: most things unless I can visualize them. But...I'm not sure that I _do_
: remember visually."
I'm absolutely positive I remember visually, especially mechanical things.
If I can see how something is put together before I take it apart, I *can* get
it back together. I just try things until it *looks* right.
Point in fact:
A friend of mine, about 4 years ago, got a new paintball gun, an Illustrator
(which I always thought was a great name for a paintball gun). He didn't
have time to fiddle with it, and I was pretty much the airsmith for the guys
I played with then, so he handed it to me NIB and said check this out for me.
I fiddled with it, and screwed with it, and mucked about with it, and took
it apart and put it back together, cause that's the kind of guy I am. It
was a nice `gun, and a pretty solid design. Just last month, a different
friend of mine said "Hey, do you know anything about Illustrators? I took
mine apart and I can't figure out how to put it back together." Mind you,
I haven't touched one in 4 years. I took the box-o-parts that he gave me, and
put it together correctly on the first try, just by visuallizing what that
one I had fiddled with so long ago looked like inside.
Darice L. Lowenberg
> Paul Hinecker
> >Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
> >that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
> >the purpose of art."
>
> RubyTwo agrees. "Abstract art almost always leaves me cold, which
> I feel guilty about admitting, because I draw myself and feel that
> therefore I should 'appreciate' more art."
Magistra raises her glass to RubyTwo and Paul. "Huzzah! I have to place
myself in your camp; I went to the Ringling museum this weekend and it
was *wonderful* to see so much Renaissance art... all those huge Rubens
paintings arouse much more emotion in me than any abstract piece ever
has. Then again, I've known for quite some time that I was born in the
wrong century. I like canonical writers and classical art. Is that so
*evil*?" :)
> "I'm very good at drawing, and that's honesty, not bragging--I know
> that much about my own abilities by now. But I don't consider myself
> an artist because I don't put much thought into what the finished picture
> will look like, I don't try to convey a mood by angle or shadow or
> composition...I don't try to _communicate_ anything. I just draw what
> I see, and I see very well, and so I get pictures that look like something,
> and sometimes, serendipitously, they even convey something more than
> the mere object I drew. But it's not deliberate. I'm too lazy to be a
> real artist."
"Ruby, you sound like me. I can copy what I see, to a certain extent; I
used to babysit and I would draw coloring sheets for 'my' kids. But I
don't use art to express my moods. Drawing is not my art; writing is.
Drawing to me is a tool." Magistra pulls out a sketchpad and draws a
passable horse and rider, dinosaur, and other goodies. "Get out your
crayons..."
> {RubyTwo smiles. "I get plenty of praise for my lazy efforts because
> what I draw comes out looking like the object it's supposed to. That
> praise is enough to keep me happy. ...I find I always try to let new
> people I meet see something I've drawn as soon as possible, because
> that's the one thing I've ALWAYS been able to get approval for, so I
> feel kind of insecure if anyone doesn't know, 'Hey! I can DRAW!' I've
> gotten better lately, but not much, since I couldn't resist posting it
> here...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
Wanna read a murder-mystery? :)
Magistra
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&& Darice L. Lowenberg && "Placetne, magistra?" &&
&& magi...@gate.net && "Placet." &&
&& St. Petersburg FL && -- Dorothy Sayers, _Gaudy Night_&&
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Astera5844
Singer considers and replies:
Abstract art definitely is not for everyone. I went into the
modern art wing in Philladelphia recently and one of the exhibits was a
huge amount of bright red/pink raggedy ann yarn suspended from the middle
of the strands from the ceiling. It looked like a giant abstract octopus.
. . or a muppet. I am sure Jim Henson would be proud, bless his soul.
Earthwind
Earthwind:
>>"In the same vein I have suspicion that the success of abstract art in
>>the art world is that it is being evaluated by other artists. I have many
>>artist friends and they seem to be able draw far more out of abstract
>>pieces than I ever see. They also seem more able to agree on meaning than
>>non-artists I've spoken to. It almost seems like a specialisation
>>problem. Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
>>that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
>>the purpose of art."
Randolph:
>"I think you're comparing random pieces of abstract art with the best
>that history has to offer.
"That's entirely possible, although some of the pieces that come to my
mind are/were in major galleries. The one that comes immiediately to mind is
the _Voice of Fire_ (can't remember the artist), a piece purchased by the
National Gallery of Canada for $1.5 million. It's 3 stripes (two blue
seperated by a red). Now artists I've spoken to tend to see a lot in it
(usually they speak of choice of colours) and I respect their opinion.
However, VOF seems to only really speak to trained artists, they're the
only ones I've encountered the can understand it. What this says to me is
that perhaps the language of artists is (like many things in our society)
becoming increasingly specialised. Sometimes I think that artists are
moving from being the creative members of a community to being a community
of creative people."
Randolph
> Now if you looked at the minor figures of
>representational art through history, you'd probably see pieces that
>were bad in the way of bad photographs; ok finish, but who cares
>anyway? It's pieces with something to say that survive."
"Agreed, but I'd add that the pieces that survive will have to be
delivering their messages in a language that transcends their particular
time."
--
Paul Hinecker
pm_...@vega.concordia.ca
Doug Quarnstrom
: >I couldn't draw a recognizable animal or face or anything with
: >non-geometric curves if my life depended on it.
: "Yes you can! You just need to be taught how."
I agree 100%.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: "IMHO, 'real' artists are too lazy to find ways to get their message and
Oh REALLY? Who is it really who is lazy?
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: RubyTwo (mitg...@math.ufl.edu) wrote:
: : >I couldn't draw a recognizable animal or face or anything with
: : >non-geometric curves if my life depended on it.
: : "Yes you can! You just need to be taught how."
: I don't even want to know, now. I don't really have any use for the skill,
: and there are too many other things I need to learn about.
Well, there is a difference between CAN'T and don't want to.
doug
gent...@xmission.com
understandable. Abstract artists don't want to do that. I have other classes
it is much more worthwhile for me to take. Period.
UT
Doug Quarnstrom
: > >Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
: > >that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
: > >the purpose of art."
: >
: > RubyTwo agrees. "Abstract art almost always leaves me cold, which
: > I feel guilty about admitting, because I draw myself and feel that
: > therefore I should 'appreciate' more art."
: Magistra raises her glass to RubyTwo and Paul. "Huzzah! I have to place
: myself in your camp; I went to the Ringling museum this weekend and it
: was *wonderful* to see so much Renaissance art... all those huge Rubens
: paintings arouse much more emotion in me than any abstract piece ever
: has.
I am fortunate enough to love both. Why limit yourself. Certainly not
all abstract art appeals to me, and it is way easier to like representational
art, but the abstract can be very very beautiful or provocative.
: > "I'm very good at drawing, and that's honesty, not bragging--I know
: > that much about my own abilities by now. But I don't consider myself
: > an artist because I don't put much thought into what the finished picture
: > will look like, I don't try to convey a mood by angle or shadow or
: > composition...I don't try to _communicate_ anything. I just draw what
: > I see, and I see very well, and so I get pictures that look like something,
: > and sometimes, serendipitously, they even convey something more than
: > the mere object I drew. But it's not deliberate. I'm too lazy to be a
: > real artist."
: "Ruby, you sound like me. I can copy what I see, to a certain extent; I
: used to babysit and I would draw coloring sheets for 'my' kids.
I am pretty good at drawing as well. Drawing what you see is not just
copying though, the artist's hand always introduces elements of the
artist.
: > {RubyTwo smiles. "I get plenty of praise for my lazy efforts because
: > what I draw comes out looking like the object it's supposed to.
Me too, but I still work to improve. Impressing people who cannot
draw is way too easy to let it be my guide...
: That
: > praise is enough to keep me happy. ...I find I always try to let new
: > people I meet see something I've drawn as soon as possible, because
: > that's the one thing I've ALWAYS been able to get approval for, so I
: > feel kind of insecure if anyone doesn't know, 'Hey! I can DRAW!' I've
: > gotten better lately, but not much, since I couldn't resist posting it
: > here...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
: Wanna read a murder-mystery? :)
Wanna come up and see my etchings?
doug
Michael Holmes
[...]
: "This actually something that bothers me a bit about abstract art: is
: there any constancy of interpretation by the people who view the art.
: With non-abstract art (yes, I'm making a distinction that actually does
: not exist absolutely but it may be useful to think of ideal types here) I
: find that while there is variation in interpretation it's never as vast
: as when dealing with purely abstract art. I tend to think of art as an
: attempt on the part of the artist to communicate something and when
: vastly varying interpretations of pieces I wonder if the art is succesful."
"Aesthetics/philosophy of art issues are interesting, but can get pretty
personal and subjective really quickly. Is art communication? Is
art utilitarian? Can art be non-utilitarian and non-communicative and
still be art? I have my own personal preferences on the matter, but have
not yet heard a 'definition of art' that satisfied me."
: "In the same vein I have suspicion that the success of abstract art in
: the art world is that it is being evaluated by other artists. I have many
: artist friends and they seem to be able draw far more out of abstract
: pieces than I ever see. They also seem more able to agree on meaning than
: non-artists I've spoken to. It almost seems like a specialisation
: problem. Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
: that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
: the purpose of art."
/* looks off into space as he mentally 'scans' for artworks that have
significance for him. "I'm a non-artist. TRUST me on this one! And
I tend to prefer abstract/modernistic/surrealistic pieces over
representational pieces as a general rule. But there are plenty of
non-abstract pieces I like, too."
"I like pieces that 'throw me for a loop' - that unbalance me
momentarily - pieces that I can't 'figure out' or that easily
have multiple meanings and layers - these are the types I like the
best! I don't quite know how to describe the sensation that I
get from such mild disorientation (of if that's even the best way
to describe it) but it's something I tend to seek in many forms...
'The Prisoner', Grant Morrison's 'Doom Patrol', Laurie Anderson,
'Liquid Sky'...there's a lot of things I find really neat, and
most people tend to think I'm nuts for enjoying them so much... "
['I don't *get* it' 'I don't either - isn't it GREAT!' 'You're WEIRD.']
"On the other hand, most full exhibits of representational paintings
seem a little, well, dull to me... unless there is something
particular dynamic or unusual, or if there is some 'hook' to the
piece that I really like, I won't tend to _really_ enjoy the exhibit.
Mildly like it, yes, but rave over it, no."
--
/* ->Michael J.M. Holmes ][ mj...@bu.edu ][ The Happiness Patrol!
:-) "HAPPINESS WILL PREVAIL!!!" (-:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I gave my life to become the person I am right now! Was it
worth what I paid?" -Richard Bach, in _One_
Doug Quarnstrom
: RubyTwo
: UT
: >"Sure!"
Ok, I finally found the gators gif. Yes, your drawing skills
are very good, and the gif comes over quite well.
I have to admit that I don't tend to love computer still art that much,
but I think that I like it better with higher resolution. I never ever
work with CG to do my art, and I probably never will, because up to
now I have found that it removes you too much from the mechanical
manipulation of the media. It seems to flatten the affect a bit.
Well, it is hard for me to describe, but I just don't LIKE the process
of drawing on a computer. But I actually have seen some very
beautiful computer art...
I have been working with very large paper (18x24) and am concentrating
on charcoal at the moment, because of the ease of modelling it gives.
The pieces are to large to scan, but I am thinking of photographing
them and scanning them in some time. At the moment I am working on
a picture of Claudia Schiffer dancing under a very large moon. I
am not particularly fond of CS, but I found this exquisite photograph
of her that I simply HAD to draw...
doug
Claudia Marie
>=>>"I don't consider music to be a universal language.
>=>> It's a learned thing."
>=>
>=>"The perception of rhythm and pitch are universal, though. Rhythm is very
>=>portable, so much so that rhythms are now busily travelling culture to
>=>culture."
>RubyTwo concedes. "Good point; hadn't thought of that. Rhythm for
>sure at least. I don't know much about pitch."
"I recall a PBS show. I think it was a Nova, on music, acoustics, etc.
They discussed a cross-cultural study. They interviewed Westerners,
asking what emotions they associated with different 'tunes' (very simple
things... a slowly falling tone, 3 rapid high tones, etc.) and got
practically unanimous responses. They then asked the same questions
of a group who had not been exposed to Western music (I don't recall
who--this could conceivably be bogus) and got the same judgements:
that, for instance, a certain slowly falling tone represented sadness."
"Perhaps this is like onomatopoeia--these are associated with nature
sounds like animals' howls? I don't know."
Claudia
--
"I don't know why I can't think of anything I would rather do
Than be wasting my time on mountains with you." -- Chess
Sanford E. Walke IV
At one time I did want to, and I tried to, and I failed miserably. At the
moment, I am unable to draw the things described above. I no longer care.
RubyTwo
=>> >Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
=>> >that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
=>> >the purpose of art."
=>> RubyTwo agrees. "Abstract art almost always leaves me cold, which
=>> I feel guilty about admitting, because I draw myself and feel that
=>> therefore I should 'appreciate' more art."
=>Magistra raises her glass to RubyTwo and Paul. "Huzzah! I have to place
=>myself in your camp; I went to the Ringling museum this weekend and it
=>was *wonderful* to see so much Renaissance art... all those huge Rubens
=>paintings arouse much more emotion in me than any abstract piece ever
=>has. Then again, I've known for quite some time that I was born in the
=>wrong century. I like canonical writers and classical art. Is that so
=>*evil*?" :)
"Nope!"
=>> I don't consider myself
=>> an artist because I don't put much thought into what the finished picture
=>> will look like, I don't try to convey a mood by angle or shadow or
=>> composition...I don't try to _communicate_ anything. I just draw what
=>> I see, and I see very well, and so I get pictures that look like something,
=>> and sometimes, serendipitously, they even convey something more than
=>> the mere object I drew. But it's not deliberate. I'm too lazy to be a
=>> real artist."
=>"Ruby, you sound like me. I can copy what I see, to a certain extent; I
=>used to babysit and I would draw coloring sheets for 'my' kids. But I
=>don't use art to express my moods. Drawing is not my art; writing is.
=>Drawing to me is a tool." Magistra pulls out a sketchpad and draws a
=>passable horse and rider, dinosaur, and other goodies. "Get out your
=>crayons..."
RubyTwo pulls out her crayons in happy anticipation. "Scribble!
Scribble! Rub! Rub! Rub!"
>>...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
>
>Wanna read a murder-mystery? :)
RubyTwo smiles ruefully. "Murder-mysteries aren't my best thing...as
a kid I thought the thing was to guess who did it before the end of the
story, and I never could, so I thought, 'I'm no good at murder mysteries,'
and switched to science fiction. But I'd be happy to look at it if you
could understand that I could never praise it the way a connoisseur could."
RubyTwo
=>used in advertising, and how they get them in there. Used to blow it off, but
=>then I started finding some blatant alteration that created 'embedded' sexes."
=>
=>"Like a cigarette ad that had one, and only one, of the model's eyes showing a
=>lot of wrinkles. If you looked, you could quite easily find the letters S E
=>X."
=>
=>UT
RubyTwo pouts. She's looked and looked, but never been able to
spot a for-sure subliminal on her own.
RubyTwo
=>(which I always thought was a great name for a paintball gun). He didn't
=>have time to fiddle with it, and I was pretty much the airsmith for the guys
=>I played with then, so he handed it to me NIB and said check this out for me.
=>I fiddled with it, and screwed with it, and mucked about with it, and took
=>it apart and put it back together, cause that's the kind of guy I am. It
=>was a nice `gun, and a pretty solid design. Just last month, a different
=>friend of mine said "Hey, do you know anything about Illustrators? I took
=>mine apart and I can't figure out how to put it back together." Mind you,
=>I haven't touched one in 4 years. I took the box-o-parts that he gave me, and
=>put it together correctly on the first try, just by visuallizing what that
=>one I had fiddled with so long ago looked like inside.
=>-----
=>Sandy
RubyTwo shakes her head. "My 3-D visualization and mechanical skills
are about nil. It takes me two minutes of twisting and turning before I
can figure out how to turn the paper around in the typewriter to get the
other side of the form to come out right side up.
"I usually lack depth perception, because I'm cross-eyed and my eyes
never did learn to work well together, although I _can_ see 3D in 3D
movies, which never fails to fascinate me. I can't decide if I can see
3D _better_ in those movies. I must be able to see it that way in
real life, or why would I interpret it as 3D?
"It's my opinion that that's why drawing came so naturally--I already
saw things the way they should look on a flat surface. But the drawing
talent runs in my family and my mom points out that Leonardo da Vinci
had great 3D perception. I say I'm not da Vinci."
RubyTwo
"Well, that's not quite fair. An artist can communicate something
in symbols that are so private and particular to him that you would
have to research his life thoroughly to understand what's being said.
I think the burden is on the artist to find a language that speaks to
more than one person, rather than on each person viewing the art to
learn that particular artist's private language. It is the artist, putting
the effort in the creation, who is going out to you, not you who is coming
to him.
"The great works of art and literature, in my mind, are those that
capture something recognizable to all; something we have thought
or felt, something that resonates in all (or at least many) of us;
illustrating in the particular a principal that is general.
" 'In every work of genius we recognize our own rejected thoughts; they
come back to us with a certain alienated majesty.'
Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Self-Reliance," 1844"
(If *I* were creative, not merely capable, I would WANT to create
something that would reach out to people, that people would recognize
and say Hey, that says ___ to me. Maybe if I tried to do this, but
couldn't find the image that communicates, maybe I would get bitter
and lazy and create something in private symbols and sneer at everyone
who couldn't guess all the hidden meanings I'd put in there. Not that
this is what I think modern artists do; but I could see it could happen
to some of them.)
RubyTwo
=>: > >Artists, in some cases, have become so specialised as artists
=>: > >that only other artists can see the message. This seems to me to defeat
=>: > >the purpose of art."
=>: > RubyTwo agrees. "Abstract art almost always leaves me cold, which
=>: > I feel guilty about admitting, because I draw myself and feel that
=>: > therefore I should 'appreciate' more art."
=>: Magistra raises her glass to RubyTwo and Paul. "Huzzah! I have to place
=>: myself in your camp; I went to the Ringling museum this weekend and it
=>: was *wonderful* to see so much Renaissance art... all those huge Rubens
=>: paintings arouse much more emotion in me than any abstract piece ever
=>: has.
>I am fortunate enough to love both. Why limit yourself. Certainly not
>all abstract art appeals to me, and it is way easier to like representational
>art, but the abstract can be very very beautiful or provocative.
RubyTwo admits that she finds some abstract art "really neat," and doesn't
have the hostility toward the whole genre that some people have. But
some of it she just doesn't "get." On the other hand (blush and admit)
some Renaissance art, even while entranced with the skill with which
it's done, she just doesn't get what makes it "classic" as opposed to
merely "really really good." And she even had an art appreciation course!
>I am pretty good at drawing as well. Drawing what you see is not just
>copying though, the artist's hand always introduces elements of the
>artist.
"Yes, but which elements?" RubyTwo grins wickedly.
=>: > {RubyTwo smiles. "I get plenty of praise for my lazy efforts because
=>: > what I draw comes out looking like the object it's supposed to.
>Me too, but I still work to improve. Impressing people who cannot
>draw is way too easy to let it be my guide...
"Unless all you're after is impressing people. That's always been enough
for me. I'm not ambitious. (Hey, I _said_ I was lazy...)"
=>=>..Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
=>: Wanna read a murder-mystery? :)
=>Wanna come up and see my etchings?
(hee hee hee...)
RubyTwo
>: >=...Say, wanna see some GREAT gifs?}
>: UT
>: >"Sure!"
>: RubyTwo grins. "You asked for it! At John's www site,
>: http://www.math.ufl.edu/~mitgardt (rec.sport.football.college),
>: gif on Two Gators Chomping a Nole (my best to date),
>Ok, I finally found the gators gif. Yes, your drawing skills
>are very good, and the gif comes over quite well.
>I have to admit that I don't tend to love computer still art that much,
>but I think that I like it better with higher resolution. I never ever
>work with CG to do my art, and I probably never will, because up to
>now I have found that it removes you too much from the mechanical
>manipulation of the media. It seems to flatten the affect a bit.
>Well, it is hard for me to describe, but I just don't LIKE the process
>of drawing on a computer. But I actually have seen some very
>beautiful computer art...
"I love working on a computer, myself! All the different effects you
can get, and never having to worry about smudging or tearing the paper
or waiting for the paint to dry. That's why I like PC Paintbrush, with
the Crayon, Wet Oil Paint, Charcoal, and other effects--all the fun without
any of the mess."
>I have been working with very large paper (18x24) and am concentrating
>on charcoal at the moment, because of the ease of modelling it gives.
"Sigh...I remember when I was actually pretty good with charcoal. Then
I didn't use it for a while, and now I just can't get the same effects. I
never really learned to use any of the media that well, and just don't feel
comfortable with anything but paper and pencil now. My parents always
discouraged art classes because I was also good in English and Math and
they didn't want me to grow up to be a starving artist. Now I just have
to put up with everyone telling me all the time, 'you should be an artist!'
Don't know how, don't know if it's worth the time, at this late date, to
learn. Should have paid more attention in the art classes I _did_ take,
but it always came too easy...took an oil painting class a year ago, but
I just don't have the patience for oil painting. Waiting for each layer to
dry, trying for the right color, etc. Can't get the instant, impressive results
of whipping out a quick drawing and having everyone ooh and ah."
>The pieces are to large to scan, but I am thinking of photographing
>them and scanning them in some time.
RubyTwo eagerly awaits her chance to view them, something she
_probably_ can't do without just a _twinge_ of jealousy...
gent...@xmission.com
going to give a guy in his twenties a lot of wrinkles on one side, and none on
the other. That was jarring enough that I spent the time to trace out the
letters. Then I started tracing out others, working my way through several
magazines. Now, some were a stretch, but I found them in almost every major
ad. All of the full-page ones had them. That sure seems like one hell of a
coincidence.
UT
"I may be gibbering, but I don't feel I am wrong"
--Mike Falkner
Randolph Fritz
>
>In any medium, it is the responsibility of the originator to make
>himslef understandable. Abstract artists don't want to do that. I
>have other classes it is much more worthwhile for me to take.
>Period.
>
"I think this is a quite unfair characterization of abstract artists
as a group. Still . . . what leads you to this conclusion?"
R.
gent...@xmission.com
communicated any other way, then I'd by in. B^+ 1F ! mr0+3 7!k3 +h!5 (But if
I wrote like this), you would have one hell of a time understanding what I was
saying, and it would have been my own fault the meaning did not come across.
It is the artists responsibility to speak *to* me, not at me.
Michael Holmes
: In article <3jfd8a$s...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
"But what if the process of observing, interpreting, or understanding
a piece is part of what the artist intends? What if the artists thinks
human beings *should* stretch themselves cognitively and creatively
every once in awhile? Why should art be like fast food or USA Today?"
Speaker-to-Minerals
=Earthwind (pm_...@vega.concordia.ca) wrote:
=[...]
=
=: "This actually something that bothers me a bit about abstract art: is
=: there any constancy of interpretation by the people who view the art.
=: With non-abstract art (yes, I'm making a distinction that actually does
=: not exist absolutely but it may be useful to think of ideal types here) I
=: find that while there is variation in interpretation it's never as vast
=: as when dealing with purely abstract art. I tend to think of art as an
=: attempt on the part of the artist to communicate something and when
=: vastly varying interpretations of pieces I wonder if the art is succesful."
=
="Aesthetics/philosophy of art issues are interesting, but can get pretty
=personal and subjective really quickly. Is art communication? Is
=art utilitarian? Can art be non-utilitarian and non-communicative and
=still be art?
No, then it becomes an NEA-funded project.
=/* looks off into space as he mentally 'scans' for artworks that have
=significance for him. "I'm a non-artist. TRUST me on this one! And
=I tend to prefer abstract/modernistic/surrealistic pieces over
=representational pieces as a general rule. But there are plenty of
=non-abstract pieces I like, too."
=
="I like pieces that 'throw me for a loop' - that unbalance me
=momentarily - pieces that I can't 'figure out' or that easily
=have multiple meanings and layers - these are the types I like the
=best!
How about Escher prints?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. I'd appreciate it if you'd
bear that in mind and not try to "interpret" my posts to fit your own
preconceived notions if I'm posting in a serious thread. Remember: If you
throw a strawman into a heated debate, flames are likely to be the result.
Michael Holmes
: In article <3jfn3q$g...@news.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu (Michael Holmes) writes:
: ="Aesthetics/philosophy of art issues are interesting, but can get pretty
: =personal and subjective really quickly. Is art communication? Is
: =art utilitarian? Can art be non-utilitarian and non-communicative and
: =still be art?
: No, then it becomes an NEA-funded project.
/* falls off of his chair, laughing. "That's great!"
: =/* looks off into space as he mentally 'scans' for artworks that have
: =significance for him. "I'm a non-artist. TRUST me on this one! And
: =I tend to prefer abstract/modernistic/surrealistic pieces over
: =representational pieces as a general rule. But there are plenty of
: =non-abstract pieces I like, too."
: ="I like pieces that 'throw me for a loop' - that unbalance me
: =momentarily - pieces that I can't 'figure out' or that easily
: =have multiple meanings and layers - these are the types I like the
: =best!
: How about Escher prints?
/* grins. "I love them! In fact, I have several in my apartment.
I've been lucky in that most of my roommates have like them, too.
I think my first exposure to Escher was in Games Magazine - they had
this connect-the-dots of his 'hand drawing hands' print! After
that, I was hooked... "
Doug Quarnstrom
: : Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy.net) wrote:
: : : RubyTwo (mitg...@math.ufl.edu) wrote:
: : : : >I couldn't draw a recognizable animal or face or anything with
: : : : >non-geometric curves if my life depended on it.
: : : : "Yes you can! You just need to be taught how."
: : : I don't even want to know, now. I don't really have any use for the skill,
: : : and there are too many other things I need to learn about.
: : Well, there is a difference between CAN'T and don't want to.
: At one time I did want to, and I tried to, and I failed miserably.
My first drawings were miserable failures as well. I am pretty firmly
convinced that anyone who wants to put in the time can learn to draw
comptetently.
: At the
: moment, I am unable to draw the things described above. I no longer care.
There are certainly many things to care about in life. Drawing need
not be one of them....
doug
Michael Holmes
: In article <3jfd8a$s...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
"Hunh. That's interesting, but I don't know if I'd agree. Of course,
like I said, this is a pretty subjective area. Why should the originator
want to make themselves understandable? Or why should they want to make
themselves *easily* understandable? If it's easy, a lot of times, it
doesn't 'stick'. Things that I have to put a little effort into, OTOH,
tend to make a longer-lasting impression."
"But, yeah, it certainly may be more worthwhile for you to spend
your time in other pursuits... it's kind of like arguing about
which operas are better, or why jazz is better than classical...
very personal, very subjective. We all can't be experts on everything!
(but it'd be fun trying... )"
/*, purple guy, looking to get a degree in 'being a Renaissance Man'
Michael Holmes
: In article <3jhumt$m...@news.bu.edu>, mj...@bu.edu (Michael Holmes) wrote:
: }"But what if the process of observing, interpreting, or understanding
: }a piece is part of what the artist intends? What if the artists thinks
: }human beings *should* stretch themselves cognitively and creatively
: }every once in awhile? Why should art be like fast food or USA Today?"
: Then I think the artist is presuming way too much on my desire to receive his
: communication.
"OK, but lots of people might feel quite differently. Additionally, why
does art have to be communication? What does it communicate? Is that
communication the same for everyone?"
And, one more time, what does deliberately obscuring the
: message add to the message?
"Spending more time on the piece, which tends to make it more
memorable? Something that comes too easily is often forgotten
quite quickly... and I don't know that there is necessarily any value in
making every single communication easy and simple, either."
"But, then again, I've already expressed a preference for being
discombobulated by art, literature, and film. So, I guess, I
*like* deliberately obscure things!"
Doug Quarnstrom
: Yeah maybe. I often feel envy at the work of others, but it never
: totally discourages me. I already have a scan of an old Pieta
: drawing I did a long time ago. I posted it to callahans. If
: someone can tell me how to split it up into smaller pieces, I
: will post it to alt.binaries.pictures so you can see it if you
: want.
I figured out how to do it. I reposted the pieta picture in alt.binaries.
pictures.misc. Anyone who wants to can go there and look at it.
I think I did a reasonably competent job of drafting it, although there
are some pretty big flaws, especially in the shoulders of Mary.
My hatching technique is also rather rudimentary. But this picture
is about a year and a half old. I think I have improved since then,
although maybe not in the techniques in which this drawing needs
improvement. At the time I did it, it probably represented the limits
of my drafting ability. Whether that is still true, I do not know, since
I have not recently been that ambitious...
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <3jfd8a$s...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) wrote:
: }The Uncaged Tiger (gent...@xmission.com) wrote:
: }: "IMHO, 'real' artists are too lazy to find ways to get their message and
: }: symbols across in a way people can understand."
: }
: }Oh REALLY? Who is it really who is lazy?
: }
:In any medium, it is the responsibility of the originator to make himslef
:understandable.
I do not agree with this at all. Some work can be asked of the
reader. Ulysses is an amazing work of art, and I would not ask
Joyce to make it accessible to the average person. Accessibility
is only one element in the world of art, and art that is difficult
to understand probably has things to say that more accessible art
does not.
: Abstract artists don't want to do that.
Really? I find that some people instinctively "understand" absrtract
art. Some people don't. I had to LEARN to appreciate Van Gogh. I
am glad I did.
: I have other classes it is much more worthwhile for me to take.
Oh, I do understand. One cannot be asked to learn about everything.
But suggesting that artists have a responsibility to make it easy
for anyone to engage their work with no effort at all is going
way too far, and is simply not true.
To suggest that the artist is being lazy by not pandering is unfair.
Joyce worked his ass off to write his books. You may not WANT to
understand them, but there is no laziness on the part of Joyce, because
he did not make it easy for you. The same is true of other abstract
artists. There is often more to abstract art that meets the eye
of the untrained observer, and it is unfair to suggest that this
is strictly the product of some laziness of the artist.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In <3jfd8a$s...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
: >The Uncaged Tiger (gent...@xmission.com) wrote:
: >: "IMHO, 'real' artists are too lazy to find ways to get their message and
: >: symbols across in a way people can understand."
: >
: >Oh REALLY? Who is it really who is lazy?
: >
: >doug
: "Well, that's not quite fair.
No, of course it isn't fair, but neither was the original assertion.
Let us simply agree that aplying the word lazy ine EITHER case
is not necessarily justified.
: An artist can communicate something
: in symbols that are so private and particular to him that you would
: have to research his life thoroughly to understand what's being said.
ABSOLUTELY, and Joyce did this to some extent. His work is still
beautiful and has nothing to do with laziness.
: I think the burden is on the artist to find a language that speaks to
: more than one person,
No. There is NO burden on the artist whatsoever to do ANYTHING for
the viewer. If the artist wants a broad appeal, then he should find
something that appeals broadly, but he or she has no RESPONSIBILITY
to do so.
: rather than on each person viewing the art to
: learn that particular artist's private language. It is the artist, putting
: the effort in the creation, who is going out to you, not you who is coming
: to him.
It is both as a matter of fact. I go to Joyce much more than Joyce
comes to me.
: "The great works of art and literature, in my mind, are those that
: capture something recognizable to all;
I am not sure whether I agree or disagree. This is certainly true
of the enduring popular works, but there are exceptions.
: something we have thought
: or felt, something that resonates in all (or at least many) of us;
: illustrating in the particular a principal that is general.
Indeed, and some abstract art captures this better than representational
art.
: (If *I* were creative, not merely capable, I would WANT to create
: something that would reach out to people,
What you and I want and what other artists want may not be the same
thing. What I would LIKE to do is to be such a genius that I
subject the art world to my own production...like Picasso...like
Van Gogh...etc.
: that people would recognize
: and say Hey, that says ___ to me. Maybe if I tried to do this, but
: couldn't find the image that communicates, maybe I would get bitter
: and lazy and create something in private symbols and sneer at everyone
: who couldn't guess all the hidden meanings I'd put in there.
Why do you have such a negative attitude about this sort of art?
: Not that
: this is what I think modern artists do; but I could see it could happen
: to some of them.)
Oh yeah, it seems a very common attitude of many artistic dilettantes.
Oh, you just don't UNDERSTAND my work. I agree that it becomes
difficult to tell where bullshit ends and genius begins, but you yourself
seem to recognize that there is a difference between drafting and
creativity. But the man in the street can still be wowed by good
drafting. If this is so, why is not good drafting the sum total of
art? Many people will look at a Van Gogh and say, "Oh, my kid could
do that." Let me tall ya' something. BULLSHIT! I have tried
to copy Van Gogh paintings, and it ain't as easy as it looks.
At one time, the man in the street would have laughed at Van Gogh
as someone who wanted his personal vision of art to be art despite
its lack of appeal to Joe bourgoise art viewer. Van Gogh was a
master painter and was a genius. Art is more than pleasing a
self-satisfied and uneducated public. Art is even encoding things
in a way that almost nobody understands--IF THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO.
The artist has no responsibility to anyone but himself.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <randolphD...@netcom.com>,
: rand...@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz) wrote:
: }In article <3jfk17$am0...@slc11.xmission.com>, <gent...@xmission.com>
: wrote:
: }>
: }>In any medium, it is the responsibility of the originator to make
: }>himslef understandable. Abstract artists don't want to do that. I
: }>have other classes it is much more worthwhile for me to take.
: }>Period.
: }>
: }
: }"I think this is a quite unfair characterization of abstract artists
: }as a group. Still . . . what leads you to this conclusion?"
: }
:If someone could prove to me that those messages/symbols could not be
:communicated any other way, then I'd by in. B^+ 1F ! mr0+3 7!k3 +h!5 (But if
Yes, but the art is in giving me a reason to CARE what you write.
Finnegans Wake is almost that cryptic, but there is a beauty as
well...
:It is the artists responsibility to speak *to* me, not at me.
Nope. The artist has no responsibility to you whatsoever.
doug
gent...@xmission.com
You're right. Although I do think that some abstract artists are laughing all
the way to the bank, there may be (scratch that, is) some merits to abstract
art I don't apreciate.
UT
"I may be gibbering, but I don't see myself as wrong"
--Mike Falkner
gent...@xmission.com
d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) wrote:
}gent...@xmission.com wrote:
}: In article <randolphD...@netcom.com>,
}: rand...@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz) wrote:
}: }In article <3jfk17$am0...@slc11.xmission.com>, <gent...@xmission.com>
}: wrote:
}: }>
}: }>In any medium, it is the responsibility of the originator to make
}: }>himslef understandable. Abstract artists don't want to do that. I
}: }>have other classes it is much more worthwhile for me to take.
}: }>Period.
}: }>
}: }
}: }"I think this is a quite unfair characterization of abstract artists
}: }as a group. Still . . . what leads you to this conclusion?"
}: }
}:If someone could prove to me that those messages/symbols could not be
}:communicated any other way, then I'd by in. B^+ 1F ! mr0+3 7!k3 +h!5 (But
if
}:Iwrote like this), you would have one hell of a time understanding what I
was
}:saying, and it would have been my own fault the meaning did not come across.
}
}Yes, but the art is in giving me a reason to CARE what you write.
}Finnegans Wake is almost that cryptic, but there is a beauty as
}well...
Okay, I don't care what an abstract artist has to say. Simple.
}
}:It is the artists responsibility to speak *to* me, not at me.
}
}Nope. The artist has no responsibility to you whatsoever.
}
Then why should I waste my time, if he doesn't even care to make it
understandable?
UT
"I may be gibbering, but I don't see myself as wrong"
--Mike Falkner
Sanford E. Walke IV
: gent...@xmission.com wrote:
: : In article <3jfd8a$s...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
: : d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) wrote:
: : }The Uncaged Tiger (gent...@xmission.com) wrote:
: : }: "IMHO, 'real' artists are too lazy to find ways to get their message and
: : }: symbols across in a way people can understand."
: : }
: : }Oh REALLY? Who is it really who is lazy?
: : }
: : In any medium, it is the responsibility of the originator to make himslef
: : understandable. Abstract artists don't want to do that. I have other classes
: : it is much more worthwhile for me to take. Period.
: "But what if the process of observing, interpreting, or understanding
: a piece is part of what the artist intends? What if the artists thinks
: human beings *should* stretch themselves cognitively and creatively
: every once in awhile? Why should art be like fast food or USA Today?"
On this subject, abstract art pisses me off because I have NEVER been able to
interpret abstract art in any way. I just don't *see* anything in a few
parallel colored lines. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. No emotion, no mood, no
nothing. Repeated enforced failure is a bad thing to inflict on people, IMO.
I agree with UT, and even go a step further. The "Art Community" consists
of a bunch of people who can't do anything useful, but have agreed to praise
one another's nonsense dribblings, and find "meaning" in nothingness, so as
to give themselves some sense of value, and a way to make a living that
doesn't require them to do anything but what they want to do. Call me cruel,
uninformed, cold-hearted, plebeian, or conspiracy-paranoid if you will.
That's the way I feel. Give me art I can understand anyday.
Sanford E. Walke IV
: "Really, if one is going to insist that the symbolic content is the
: whole story, one might as well just put up a poster with just text."
Pictures (i.e. photographs or illustrations) are full of symbolic content,
by being actual reproductions of real recognizable things. Your poster
concept is invalid for this reason. A picture on a poster is an
illustration of the words on a poster, if there are any, usually. It's
not an abstract concept, it's a real, recognizable thing. Also, I have
several posters with just text on them, and several with no text. I
understand all of them. To me, and apparently to UT as well, symbolic
content IS the whole story, at least visually, because abstract things
has no recognizable content.
gent...@xmission.com
}Speaker-to-Minerals (lyd...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU) wrote:
}[...]
}
}: How about you specify some current ads which have such characteristics?
Name
}: and issue of publication, page on which ad occurs? It could well be that
}: you're assigning significance to things that don't merit it. As it is,
you're
}: simply claiming, without any substantiating evidence, that subliminal
}: advertising is being used.
"Well, now that I've seen this, I will. Do you get BusinessWeek? What about
Time? Reply by email, please, you're back in my killfile."
}
}"Well, even regardless of that - does it work? I can't recall any specific
}paper, so it may be something a professor or two mentioned to me, but
}I don't think that subliminal advertising even works... "
"That book I mentioned used a questionable premise to prove it worked. Theory
was, they spend so much money on it, it must work."
}
}"So it may be that a few companies have tried it (or are still trying it)
}but that it's a pointless exercise."
"You believe the authors, more than a few."
}
}[besides, look at how much advertising is NONsubliminal - skiing women
}in bikinis for a beer commercial??!!??]
}
"Yeah. Hard to give them credit for being subtle."
UT
"I may be gibbering, but I don't see myself as wrong"
--Mike Falkner
gent...@xmission.com
}>
}>"OK, but lots of people might feel quite differently. Additionally, why
}>does art have to be communication? What does it communicate? Is that
}>communication the same for everyone?"
}>
}
}meditation--communication with oneself I suppose. Western art has a
}long tradition of shooting for a single message; I get the impression
}that East Asian art is sometimes less direct."
}
"Yes, but too my understanding, east asian art is trying to communicate as
well, and that communication, although perhaps too deep for me, is apparent to
somebody who grew up in that culture."
Sanford E. Walke IV
: In article <randolphD...@netcom.com>, rand...@netcom.com (Randolph Fritz) writes:
: =In article <3jfk17$am0...@slc11.xmission.com>, <gent...@xmission.com> wrote:
: =>
: =>In any medium, it is the responsibility of the originator to make
: =>himslef understandable. Abstract artists don't want to do that. I
: =>have other classes it is much more worthwhile for me to take.
: =>Period.
: =>
: =
: ="I think this is a quite unfair characterization of abstract artists
: =as a group. Still . . . what leads you to this conclusion?"
: Actually, it seems to me that it's a very fair characterization of abstract
: artists as a group, in that the abstract artists who actually seem to have
: something in mind (other than making a buck off someone too intimidated to
: admit that they think the "art" sucks) seem to be vastly outnumbered by the
: abstract artists who are simply exploiting folks' willingness to bow to some
: self-professed critic's opinion.
I agree completely, and it couldn't have been said better.
James McGarry
: My problem is that I've seen too much abstract art that someone's kid
: really *could* do. If Jackson Pollock drips paint on a canvas, it's
: art and worth big money, but if someone's kid just does it for fun,
: it's worthless. I don't see a difference.
There is a difference in both the intent and the choice. Pollock made a
distinct choice not to paint in a realistic manner. He could have painted
a somewhat realistic, ethereal scene for something like
_Full_Fathom_Five_, but chose instead to paint something he felt would
make other people feel what he felt when reading that particular passage
in Shakespeare.
To each their own taste.
James.
--
==============================================================================
James McGarry | jmcg...@UoGuelph.CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An artist should be fit for the best society and keep out of it. - John Ruskin
==============================================================================
Doug Quarnstrom
: an6...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
: : My problem is that I've seen too much abstract art that someone's kid
: : really *could* do. If Jackson Pollock drips paint on a canvas, it's
: : art and worth big money, but if someone's kid just does it for fun,
: : it's worthless. I don't see a difference.
: There is a difference in both the intent and the choice. Pollock made a
: distinct choice not to paint in a realistic manner. He could have painted
: a somewhat realistic, ethereal scene for something like
: _Full_Fathom_Five_, but chose instead to paint something he felt would
: make other people feel what he felt when reading that particular passage
: in Shakespeare.
I have been drawing and painting for more than 10 years, and I couldn't
copy a Pollock if I tried. What pisses me off is people who bitch
about it because it is "easy to do", when in fact it isn't even
easy to fucking copy much less develop in the first place. It is
fine with me if people don't like it. I don't much care for Pollock
myself, but suggesting that it is easy to do is just typical self-indulgent
ignorance.
doug
Randolph Fritz
Doug Quarnstrom <d...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>: Western art has a
>: long tradition of shooting for a single message; I get the impression
>: that East Asian art is sometimes less direct."
>
>
"Well, I was thinking more of particular works. That said, I'd add
that Giger is focused on the old issue of death-in-life. It's a real
popluar one, what with all the changes in the nature of our perception
of our bodies."
Randolph Fritz
Doug Quarnstrom <d...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
>
>: And the viewer has no responsibility to consider it art.
>
>ABSOLUTELY. The viewer has no responsibility to the artist whatsoever.
>
"Isn't the freedom wonderful? Art (except as swept up in broader
social policies like advertising or propaganda) is non-coercive. I
really appreciate that."
R.
Speaker-to-Minerals
=: Actually, it seems to me that it's a very fair characterization of abstract
=: artists as a group, in that the abstract artists who actually seem to have
=: something in mind (other than making a buck off someone too intimidated to
=: admit that they think the "art" sucks) seem to be vastly outnumbered by the
=: abstract artists who are simply exploiting folks' willingness to bow to some
=: self-professed critic's opinion.
=
=So you are suggesting that the fact that I like certain abstract art is
=because I am willing to bow to the opinion of a critic?
Nope. Not, of course, unless you've, e.g., paid several thousand dollars for a
piece of "art" which consists of a panel whose upper left half is painted one
color and whose lower right half is painted another. That's it.
=Your opinion here, STM, is just another broad generalization that is
=based on little more than personal dislike for the work.
No, it's based on my opinion that something like what I described above takes
about 15 minutes to create, has absolutely NO creative element, and yet, at
least back in the 70s, often sold for several thousand dollars.
=Suggesting that abstract artists as a general group are out to scam
=the public is nothing more than idle slander.
No, it's not slander; in particular, I've pointed out that some abstract
artists don't do that. Also, I've not mentioned a particular artist. And it's
based on several decades of what often passes for abstract "art."
Doug Quarnstrom
[mydescription of a piece deleted]
>"I would probably think something like that was neat, so I would
>accept it. On the other hand, take the sculptures at Turlington and
>CSE at UF campus. At CSE you have 'the Fries,' a bunch of girders
>stuck at all angles (like a 3-D asterisk) and painted bright yellow.
>The name of the sculpture is 'Alachua' (for our county, I guess). I
>might think it was 'neat' if it didn't clash HORRIBLY with its
>surroundings, steps leading up to a brick arch (well, not an arch,
>but I'm not an architect) framing the Century Tower and the prettiest
>Gothic building on campus, the music building. There's no beauty
>or poetry or harmony in it at all. In an urban concrete setting it
>might have seemed appropriate."
Yes. I am defending the genre in general against some ufair criticism,
but I do not deny that the trivial and uninteresting exist. I would
still call them art, since the only definition of art I have found
that works for me insists that I allow them to be called art. This
dose not mean I will find them interesting or appealing or anything
like that.
:"Then there's the Turlington Turd, which at least blends in. It's
:a big potato-shaped rock on a pedestal. At Halloween sometimes
:they dress it up like Mr. Peanut. It blends in with the colors of its
:surroundings, so at least I find it inoffensive, if pointless."
I do think that a lot of the modern art world has become a haven for
the chronically talentless and hopelessly unmotivated. But I do not
necessarily see this as bad. It is a little like evolution to me.
As rules and limits break down, you get an adaptive radiaion of
artistic behaviors so that all available niches get filled. The
stupid and the trivial are available niches, so they get filled.
In general, this makes for a much more interesting world in my opinion.
If you like photo realism, you can find it. If you like dadaism, well,
there it is. If you like performance art, guess what, we have it.
If you like conceptual art that self-reflexively pokes fun at the
art world (which I think the urinal piece does), hey, there it is!
But to equate all of the excesses of absurdity of the modern art world
with abstract art in general is quite simply ignorant in my opinion.
Abstraction is a valid aspect of most art.
>->: >Why do you have such a negative attitude about this sort of art?
>
>->: Suspicious of some of it that doesn't seem beautiful or meaningful
>->: or ANYTHING to me, why it deserves the name "Art" when it looks
>->: like something done with no effort or thought at all.
>
>->I understand this too, but my earlier point was simply to say that
>->at times the amount of effort needed to pull off an artistic work is
>->not at all obvious to the uninformed. I have heard people say that
>->a two-year-old could paint like Van Gogh, but the statement is absurd.
>->It is harder than it looks!
>"I agree that most abstract art is NOT easy or simple, or at least not
>so much as people think it is. Hey, I don't think the 'Fries' were easy
>to put up. But I think the idea, at least for its surroundings, was a
>little lame."
>"I just don't like it when I go to a museum and see a bowl made out
>of flattened soda cans. Neat, maybe. Hard, possibly. Art? Questionable.
>Looks like a high school project to me. 'Go make something environmental.'
Well, ok, Ruby, but I would extend a friendly challenge to you to
form a definition of what art is. You don't have to tell me what
you come up with, but I myself simply cannot find one that satisfies
all the things that please me while excluding those that do not. People
with more limited ranges of taste possibly have more success than I.
>->: Obviously not
>->: all abstract art fits in this category. I have very mixed feelings toward
>->: "abstract art" as a class, because some of it I like a lot, but don't
>->: feel comfortable with some pieces where people say, "It's good, because
>->: it's Art."
>->Yeah, some people have a very different attitude about art, and I think
>->the more you are in the art world, the harder it is to avoid having your
>->definition of what is art broadened.
>"Agreed. I probably lack the basic art vocabulary to see the profundity
>in something deceptively simple.
Look at the abstractions in some primitive art. Sometimes the art is
not very realistic, although the attempt is made. But are ancient
fertility dolls to be excluded from the realm of art, because the
maker abstracted certain parts of what were considered important
about the female and distorted them?
I think that sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between the
simple yet profound and the merely simple --- my example of the
light sculptuer was meant to suggest that surface impressions
may be deceptive.
> But sometimes I wonder if the artists
>who do the 'fries' and coke-can sculptures aren't using a very sophisticated
>vocabulary to say the equivalent of 'Hi, Mom!'"
Hahahaha. Yes. I bet that often it is more like a sophisticated vocabulary
they use to say, Duh! There is no question that dullards abound everywhere,
and in a discipline that refuses to impose standards of any sort, you are
likely to see a haven for dullards--rather like internet in general. :)
>->: Happened to come in on that side of the argument first.
>->: I'm as likely to take the other side against people who hate all abstract
>->: art because "It's bad because it doesn't look Real." (Well, that's not
>->: exactly a fair characterization, but you know.)
>->So much of what even a representational artist thinks about is abstract.
>->When you do a drawing of someone'e body, you have to decide where to put
>->the borders if you want the drawing to be interesting. This decision is
>->VERY important and is based on very abstract considerations of the
>->beauty of the negative spaces and the like.
>"Sigh. That's why I'm not an artist. Took art classes every year in
>school and they never once mentioned negative space, just kept giving
>us new materials to play with.
WHAT? You never heard about negative space? Sheesh. That truly is
amazing! It is one of the more fundamental aspects of art. You
mentioned that you had read _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain_?
If you haven't, it is really good.
> Finally got into an honors art class, and
>they put me and my (future) brother-in-law in a room together and said,
>'do whatever you want, we know you're talented.'
Yes, well, it is easy to understand your contempt for this. It is hard
to find art teachers who are willing to give you the criticism you
desire. I guess I have been lucky recently...
> I was never so
>disappointed in my life. That's why I listened to my parents when they
>said go into science or English instead."
Well, I think that literature, in general, suffers from the same
phenomena.
> Some artists simply choose
>->to make these considerations the subject of the work itself. Also,
>->some abstraction, like cubism comes from the fact that two-dimensional
>->art has always been limited in a way that sculpture is not. Since
>->the parallax is removed, two-d art is already rather abstract, and
>->painters have sometimes been irritated that they are limited to only
>->one view. Cubist art is a very valid outgrowth of this limitation and
>->an effort to see whether it can be transcended. Duchampe did some
>->very beautiful cubist stuff...
>"So...we need hologram art...:) Uh...never mind...I guess that would
>amount to sculpture."
Yes, it would. The problem of the artist having to impose an arbitrary
viewpoint has troubled artists for some time and led directly to cubism.
Some might think of cubists as lazy, poor drawers, but Picasso was
a very brilliant draftsman who wanted to explore this technical aspect
of art and try to find interesting solutions for it. In the process, he
created Guernica and Woman Crying, both of which I find utterly
beautiful.
Someone here recently criticized a painting with three horizonal stripes
of colors. Yes, it is trivial, but simplification and reduction are
always a big part of art, and it is within the bounds of possibility that
this artist was abstracting a seascape to its fundmental elements. This
would give you three horizontal stripes of color. Ok, this is PROBABLY
not what motivated this artist, but I would hesitate to condemn this
artist as brain dead until I had seen a body of work so that I could
get a feel for WHY he had done what he had done. I PROMISE you Ruby,
if you start doing landscapes you WILL look for ways to abstract
what you see to as to draw it effectively. Take my word for it
you WILL. So are we to say that only a ceratiain amount of abstraction
is useful or allowed before it falls out of the realm of art? No,
I think it is absurd to do that. Right now I have a LOT of trouble
with landscape, because I cannot abstract enough to grasp the whole
well enough to render it.
>->: "Uh...it's the ones that the Public raves over that I usually can't
>->: understand why they're calling it Art.
>->Like I bet you hate the guy who wraps islands in pink cellophane.
>"Well...that is actually KIND of neat. Maybe I just have no taste...:)"
I hated the guy at first, but I see a certain charm in the madness, and
frankly, I do not consider it IMPOSSIBLE that this man's work will
end up informing archtects in their work.
>>: >The artist has no responsibility to anyone but himself.
>>: "That's why he's starving."
>>Yep. Joyce struggled for his art. I am glad he did.
>"I had to struggle for Joyce's art too. I'm not so sure I'm glad.
Hah. That's ok. I understand. It is a taste that I would be very
surprised if all people shared.
>"Question, your opinion: I know there's a lot that can be found
>in Joyce's work. (repeating patterns, deep meanings, etc.) Did
>he see them as he wrote, or was he 'inspired,' tapping into his
>subconscious, and we see so much in it because the subconsious
>is so rich in symbols and meanings and hiding things in wordplay?
Well, Joyce referred to himself as a man with a grocer's assistants
mind. This basically meant her remembered EVERYTHING, even the
utterly trivial. Some of the depth of his work is simply a sheer
deluge of detail about what he lived and read, and given that he
read pretty extensively in philosophy and history, the works
have a pretty deep patina as a matter of course. But all this
was built on the top of a poetic skill with prose that is
unmatched in my opinion. Hey!, I find Joyce rather inacessible,
and Finnegans Wake is especially so, but still Ulysses is deep,
because Joyce was Fucking brilliant, and he definitely had something
to say. The way in which he said it took advantage of the depth
that is there and the ambiguity to endow the books with a depth of
coding that may very well transcend what the author put in.
Finnegans Wake, I guess, is really like that, and people like to
read it like the bible and look for things that happened later that
were predicted by the book. Much of this "predictive" ability
happens because Joyce's style of punning and multiple meanings
allows for pretty broad interpretation of any given section.
>"And, under which circumstances would his art be more valid, or
>does it matter?
I, myself, wish the man had spent more time writing stories like
_the dead_. I bemoan the fact that he spent so much of his genius
in creating work that is so opposed to being read casually.
But to select what I think you mean, I will assume want to know,
would Joyce have been a better artist if he had been more
accessible? I do not know the answer. I am inclined to say
no. Is Shakespeare a failed artist because thousands of high school
droolers hate his work when they are forced to read it? I would
say not. Of course Will was quite popular in his day and is so
now, but if we assume that the judgement of people too lazy
to engage his work proactively is a valid measure of his genius,
we should ask how many people it takes to remove the label of
art from a man's work? I think I have to believe that a man's
genius is totally and utterly independent of the audience's
reaction to him, but that it is a truly fortunate man whose
genius coincides with mass appeal. There is certainly a genius
involved in appealing to the masses, but that is not the kind
of genius Joyce was. I hope you can agree that appealing
to mass tastes is not the only sort of genius.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: Doug Quarnstrom (d...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: : Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy.net) wrote:
: : : : The artist has no responsibility to anyone but himself.
: : : Unless he wants to eat.
: : As I said, most artists I know work regular jobs to eat.
: Yeah, Jackson Pollack is down there at the car wash every day, isn't he?
I believe he is dead, but I could be wrong. Still, I am sure you
will understand the basic truth behind the assertion that most
artists are not Jackson P.
doug
Jonathan Hatch
: Doug Quarnstrom (d...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
: : Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy.net) wrote:
: : : : The artist has no responsibility to anyone but himself.
: : : Unless he wants to eat.
: : As I said, most artists I know work regular jobs to eat.
: Yeah, Jackson Pollack is down there at the car wash every day, isn't he?
"Yeah, I'm sure most artists' work sells for as much as Jackson Pollack's,
don't they. I mean, who ever heard of an artist not making enough money to
live on without a second job, right? Every person who's ever picked up a
paintbrush and painted Spanky the clown from the matchbook cover sells
paintings to rabid collectors for at least $1,000,000 a pop, don't they?
"Sorry if that sarcastic tone seems a bit harsh. I was trying to imitate
Sandy's.
--
Yog Shoggoth a.k.a. Jonathan Hatch a.k.a. Cap'n Crash&burn
Someone objected to my last .sig as offensive to Pakistanis. While it *is*
possible that they were putting me on, I would not want to take the
chance. I try to avoid offending people whenever possible. Except Mimes.
RubyTwo
>the academics going for centuries. I think it was pretty conscious."
>R.
(Grin!) "I know there are a lot of English graduates going to be very
grateful to him for that, too. We have already started to write whole
essays and teach whole classes on the silences in Shakespear--times
when a character is on stage and NOT saying something--which may
seem to indicate we've wrung his words pretty dry..."
Rub...@aol.com, who actually found that Shakespeare class very
illuminating and fun.
RubyTwo
->but I do not deny that the trivial and uninteresting exist. I would
->still call them art, since the only definition of art I have found
->that works for me insists that I allow them to be called art. This
->dose not mean I will find them interesting or appealing or anything
->like that.
"OK...I can buy that." RubyTwo accepts Doug's argument and drops
her own.
->I do think that a lot of the modern art world has become a haven for
->the chronically talentless and hopelessly unmotivated. But I do not
->necessarily see this as bad. It is a little like evolution to me.
->As rules and limits break down, you get an adaptive radiaion of
->artistic behaviors so that all available niches get filled. The
->stupid and the trivial are available niches, so they get filled.
->In general, this makes for a much more interesting world in my opinion.
"Fair enough..." RubyTwo accepts this too.
->But to equate all of the excesses of absurdity of the modern art world
->with abstract art in general is quite simply ignorant in my opinion.
->Abstraction is a valid aspect of most art.
RubyTwo stands corrected.
->Well, ok, Ruby, but I would extend a friendly challenge to you to
->form a definition of what art is. You don't have to tell me what
->you come up with, but I myself simply cannot find one that satisfies
->all the things that please me while excluding those that do not. People
->with more limited ranges of taste possibly have more success than I.
"Uh...uhh....uhhh......"
"I guess my personal, working definition of art is either something
neat enough in its own right that you would say, 'cool, that was worth
doing,' or something that at least could be explained, by someone
who understood art well enough, WHY someone thought it was worth
doing and someone else thought it was worth keeping in a museum."
->I think that sometimes it can be hard to distinguish between the
->simple yet profound and the merely simple --- my example of the
->light sculptuer was meant to suggest that surface impressions
->may be deceptive.
RubyTwo concedes this.
->> But sometimes I wonder if the artists
->>who do the 'fries' and coke-can sculptures aren't using a very sophisticated
->>vocabulary to say the equivalent of 'Hi, Mom!'"
->Hahahaha. Yes. I bet that often it is more like a sophisticated vocabulary
->they use to say, Duh! There is no question that dullards abound everywhere,
->and in a discipline that refuses to impose standards of any sort, you are
->likely to see a haven for dullards--rather like internet in general. :)
"AH-HA!" A flash of light for RubyTwo. "THAT's what I object to
in the genre of abstract art--that it seems to be the realm of _abstract
art_ that is 'a discipline that refuses to impose standards of _any_ sort'
(emphasis added). I have no problem if you say there are standards and
I'm simply undereducated and unaware of them. But for me, for anything
to be art--writing, painting, sculpture, dance--there HAVE to be SOME
standards. You can bend the standards, defy them, break them, and
achieve something noteworthy--but the standards have to be there, to
measure against, or the whole field becomes meaningless. To my mind."
->>"Sigh. That's why I'm not an artist. Took art classes every year in
->>school and they never once mentioned negative space, just kept giving
->>us new materials to play with.
->WHAT? You never heard about negative space? Sheesh.
"Oh, no, I've heard of it. They just never mentioned it in any of my
classes. I find the idea fascinating but have never learned enough about
it on my own. I lack the basic drive."
->amazing! It is one of the more fundamental aspects of art. You
->mentioned that you had read _Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain_?
->If you haven't, it is really good.
"Yes, it is! Unfortunately I don't have it now."
->> Finally got into an honors art class, and
->>they put me and my (future) brother-in-law in a room together and said,
->>'do whatever you want, we know you're talented.'
->Yes, well, it is easy to understand your contempt for this. It is hard
->to find art teachers who are willing to give you the criticism you
->desire. I guess I have been lucky recently...
->> I was never so
->>disappointed in my life. That's why I listened to my parents when they
->>said go into science or English instead."
->Well, I think that literature, in general, suffers from the same
->phenomena.
"Apparently, I was luckier in my English teachers than in my art teachers.
When they gave me some tools with which to evaluate literature, I was
taken with it because it _worked._ It _made sense._ I could take it
and apply it to something I read out of class and could see why something
worked and was good writing and why something else seemed lame in
comparison. My own tastes ran to SF and not the classics, but at least
after taking these classes I could see what was in the classics that I
had missed, and what's more, why I liked some SF stories better than
others.
"Now, lots of people rag on English majors because they say How do
you know it's REALLY in there or how can you know what the author
REALLY meant. To me, that's not the point at all, although I've never
been able to explain it. It's something like, if an author really senses
deeply how the world is and how it works, you WILL find these patterns
in his work whether he meant to put them there, whether they came from
a subconscious feeling of rightness as he wrote, or whether they just can
be found in any writing that is a true reflection of the world because
that's how things work. But they ARE there. I can find them, and point
to them. And the better/deeper/truer/more artfully crafted or more
intuitively something was written, the more patterns you will be able
to find, overlapping in deeper and deeper layers. This is something I
believe in because I can see it, and it works. And it doesn't MATTER if
it's a pattern only I would find because it is the kind of pattern I tend
to look for in things--the reader never reads exactly what the author
wrote--what matters is that only really GOOD writing will let me find
any patterns at ALL. Even though everyone finds a different piece of the
elephant, and describes it differently, doesn't mean the elephant isn't
there. And some works can hide an elephant, while others can only hide
a small mouse. So there you are."
"And I DID say I didn't know how to explain it, didn't I?"
->The problem of the artist having to impose an arbitrary
->viewpoint has troubled artists for some time and led directly to cubism.
"Funny, reducing something to 2D on paper has always been the _fun_
part for me. Seeing how something really looks instead of seeing what
I assume is there. But then, I never had good depth perception."
I PROMISE you Ruby,
->if you start doing landscapes you WILL look for ways to abstract
->what you see to as to draw it effectively.
(grin) "I know, that's why I gave up on my last landscape. I like
people better. We're already hardwired to abstract people--seeing
faces in random cracks and dots, for example. Landscape is background,
much harder to deal with, in my mind."
->>"Question, your opinion: I know there's a lot that can be found
->>in Joyce's work. (repeating patterns, deep meanings, etc.) Did
->>he see them as he wrote, or was he 'inspired,' tapping into his
->>subconscious, and we see so much in it because the subconsious
->>is so rich in symbols and meanings and hiding things in wordplay?
->Well, Joyce referred to himself as a man with a grocer's assistants
->mind. This basically meant her remembered EVERYTHING, even the
->utterly trivial.
"That may make it easier to believe that someone could write like
that on purpose. Otherwise it would be practically impossible."
->>"And, under which circumstances would his art be more valid, or
->>does it matter?
->But to select what I think you mean, I will assume want to know,
->would Joyce have been a better artist if he had been more
->accessible?
"No, I was thinking more in terms of if you think his art is more
valid as art because he did it intentionally, or if you think art is
better art if it is inspired and taps the subconsious. The muse
theory versus...whatever the versus would be. Just idly musing...:)"
Sanford E. Walke IV
: In article <3jnktg$9...@izzy4.izzy.net>,
: Sanford E. Walke IV <se...@izzy.net> wrote:
: >
<snip>
: >understand all of them. To me, and apparently to UT as well, symbolic
: >content IS the whole story, at least visually, because abstract things
: >has no recognizable content.
: "Perhaps so. It may be this is why you have trouble drawing lines; if
: you don't perceive abstract content, you'd certainly have problems.
: It could be that line and form just don't reach you, the way music
: doesn't reach some people."
I really don't understand your response at all. What do you mean by
"line and form just don't reach you"? This is not a flame of any kind,
just seeking knowledge. What is abstract content? Can anyone give a
definition of this? Can you name some pieces, maybe, that we could
discuss, so as to have a common basis for discussion? I have access to
some really good libraries here in A^2, I'm sure I could find something
you name.
While we're at it, what's negative space?
gent...@xmission.com
..
}
}: : Tell ya' what dude. Go get some paint and try it! Then tell me how
}: : little effort it takes.
}
}: But, since it's art, no one can tell you that it's right or wrong, right?
}
}One can tell how close you have come to a Pollock.
}
}: No one but you will know when you are finished, either.
}
}Give it a try. See how close you can get it to look like a Pollock.
}
}: Because you are
}: the artiste. <- said with all the snobby accent possible
}: Seem pretty easy to me.
}
}Try it.
}
}: paint some lines, some squiggles, make up some
}: meaning. Magic. Art.
}
}Try it.
}
..
}
}How do you know it is an incredible amount of work.
}
..}
}I have never done this easy. I have no idea how much knowledge of the
}media is needed to pull of what Pollock does. I am simply suggesting
}that it may be more than you think. Try it.
}
}: Abstract Artists do whatever they feel like, and call it art.
}
}This is not true at all. I sometimes do abstract art. There is more to it
than
}what you suggest.
}
}: MJ makes
}:music, and if people don't like it, it don't sell, and if it isn't
recognizable
}: as music, it isn't even music. Even, to get more accurate, Art of Noise
}: is recognizable as music.
}
}: : : My problem is that I've seen too much abstract art that someone's kid
}: : : really *could* do. If Jackson Pollock drips paint on a canvas, it's
}: : : art and worth big money, but if someone's kid just does it for fun,
}: : : it's worthless. I don't see a difference.
}
}: : to COPY a Jackson Pollock. Come on, I DARE ya'!!!
}
}: He's not saying that his kid could copy a Pollock. He's saying that the
}: designs that Pollock creates could have as easily been created by a child.
}
}Try it. Get a kid to try it. See how close they come.
}
}: I don't see any creativity in flicking paint at a canvas. Neither does he.
}
}Then it should be real easy for you to copy.
}
}
}: Ah, so you have to be the "right kind of person" to be an artist?
}
}No, but you aren't going to get a recording contract just because you
}have an opinion about Michael Jackson.
}
}: I see.
}: No elitism there, eh?
}
}....hasn't anything to do with elitism. It just means that many of these
}people that get their stuff in gallerys have long histories of art work
}that may differ from what you are criticizing. Getting your work into
}a museum involves more than simply putting something on a pedastel. The
}assertion is a gross simplification. If it isn't, I suggest you get
}your work into a museum and let me know where the exhibit is.
}
}doug
}
"Okay, correct me if I am wrong. You seem to be saying that abstract art is
an excercise in technique. Trying different things, in ways that are not
possible in commercial art. My question still remains the same, why should I,
a non-artist, care if Pollock can do things with a spatula that other artists
find inspiring?"
"Not being an artist, I don't care if stripes in primary colors show a
fantasic use of balance and incredible technique. It doen't say anything to
me."
Doug Quarnstrom
:"Huh? I read that five times, and I still didn't understand it. How can line
:and form, in and of themselves, have meaning? I understand symbols, and one
:of the reasons I want that VR program is because my coordination isn't up
:painting or sculpting.
Once again I will point out that sculpting is easier than it looks.
I bet you could do it.
: But I still don't understand how you can have have
: meaning in the absence of symbols."
Beauty can exists without meaning.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: >I have been drawing and painting for more than 10 years, and I couldn't
: >copy a Pollock if I tried. What pisses me off is people who bitch
: >about it because it is "easy to do", when in fact it isn't even
: >easy to fucking copy much less develop in the first place. It is
: >fine with me if people don't like it. I don't much care for Pollock
: >myself, but suggesting that it is easy to do is just typical self-indulgent
: >ignorance.
: <I agree. Even though the work itself seems pretty "primitive," the use
: of color and the balance of each piece is really amazing. It's not just
: someone remembering his fingerpainting days, the man is quite good.>
And frankly, there MAY be more knowledge of the way the media behaves
to do what Pollock does than people realize. I expect if I tried to
do what he did I would get mud.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: From: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
: >
: >an6...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
: >
: >: From: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
: >
: >: >Why do you have such a negative attitude about this sort of art?
: >
: >: I think the reason many people have a negative view of abstract art
: >: is that it seems that it's just a scam being run on the general public.
: >
: >Well, this is a false view. This is not to say that a scam is not
: >being run on the public, but art and the art establishment are not
: >one and the same, although they do sleep together.
: In your opinion it's false, because you get something from abstract art.
: I don't.
: >: I look at them and I see something that appears to have taken
: >: very little time or imagination to create,
: >
: >Tell ya' what dude. Go get some paint and try it! Then tell me how
: >little effort it takes.
: Are we talking about art, or are we talking about painting?
We are talking about Pollock.
: >: >Oh yeah, it seems a very common attitude of many artistic dilettantes.
: >: >Oh, you just don't UNDERSTAND my work. I agree that it becomes
: >: >difficult to tell where bullshit ends and genius begins,
: >
: >: Exactly.
: >
: >But there is genius as well as bullshit. You seem to insist it is ONLY
: >bullshit.
: I may seem to be insisting that, but I don't believe I actually have declared
: that that's all there is to it. I have a vague feeling that may be the case,
: but I've not seen enough of it to make such a definitive statement. Nor am
: I inclined to see enough to do so.
Ah. See no evil...
Yes, it is much easier to bathe in ignorance and pontificate without
knowledge.
: >: >do that."
: >
: >: My problem is that I've seen too much abstract art that someone's kid
: >: really *could* do. If Jackson Pollock drips paint on a canvas, it's
: >: art and worth big money, but if someone's kid just does it for fun,
: >: it's worthless. I don't see a difference.
: >
: >Go get some paint and a canvass and a two-year-old, and you just TRY
: >to COPY a Jackson Pollock. Come on, I DARE ya'!!!
: Oh, sure, *copying* random dribbles of paint on a canvas would be incredibly
: tedious difficult work - if not impossible. But I feel that a *similar*
: work could be created pretty easily.
Copy a Pollock. I DARE ya!
: The guy may have had some special
: technique, but at the root of it, he's just pouring paint out of a bucket.
Yeah, that's all he's doing, even though he MAY have had some special
technique.
: Anyway, why did you suddenly go from "someone's kid" to "two-year-old?"
: Are you afraid a three-year-old could do it?
Do it yourself. You are older than three.
: >: A guy puts 3 or 4 wide horizontal stripes on a canvas in primary colors,
: >: and he's an artist. I don't see the point.
: >
: >...not sure I do either. This idea carried to extremes creates a
: >canvas that is one solid color. I have a tough time admiring that
: >work, but I certainly would not let my disdain for one artist
: >taint my view of an entire genre.
: I notice that you didn't challenge me to reproduce this.
Try it. Try to create a canvase with an even tone that is totally
smooth using a brush. I DARE ya.
:
: >: A painting of a can of Campbell's soup is considered art.
: >
: >Pop art is an odd phenomenon. Again. Get an air brush and tell me
: >how easit it is to create a perfect C. soup can. Come on. I dare ya'!
: My ability to draw has nothing to do with the artistic value of a work.
No, but it has everything to do with your ability to sit on the sidelines
and pontificate ignorantly about how "EASY" it is.
: Are you trying to say that competent draftsmanship is the sole criterion
: used in judging art?
Absolutely not, but if somebody says something is easy, I expect they
have some real experience to back up the claim.
: >: Hell, I'll put
: >: a real, live box of Mac&Cheese on a pedestal. Somebody find me a gallery
: >: for my first showing.
: >
: >What background do you have that would justify a gallery paying any
: >attention to you?
: What difference could that possibly make?
Many artists who get into galleries have a body of work that may
differ from that which you are aware. Given that you are unwilling
to actually view the art, you never will be aware of it.
: When you look at a something,
: it's only art if the creator is a Certified Artist(TM)?
Nope, but getting into a gallery involves more than walking in the
door with a box.
: If an "artist"
: puts the Mac&Cheese box on a pedestal, it's art; but if I do it, it's
: not? *Is that what you're trying to say?*
No, but I can understand why you are confused.
: Maybe I'm making a statement when I do it: "Boy, this abstract art sure
: is cheesy, Mac."
: >: I just get the distinct impression that "art" is solely determined by a
: >: select group of self-important critics who are allowed to lead art
: >: "appreciators" around by the nose because they believe they're hip by
: >: pretending to understand what the critics are making up.
: >
: >This may be part of the equation, but it is not for a second the entire
: >equation, and it still doesn't justify condemning abstract art as
: >a genre.
: You're right. The fact that I can find almost nothing redeeming in
: abstract art is the reason I condemn it. Everyone else is welcome to
: form their own opinions.
Yada yada yada.
: >: It would not surprise me at all to learn that critics are paid under the
: >: table to "like" certain artists. I'm not saying that it happens, but it
: >: would sure explain a lot to me.
: >
: >Then explaine to me how Margaret Weiss and Tracy Hickman get book writing
: >jobs.
: Publishers believe that people will buy it. I'm not sure what that had to
: do with what I said.
Someone is being paid under the table. It explains a lot.
: >: The Shadow
: >: "Have you seen the black velvet Elvis? That one *speaks* to me."
: >
: >You are kidding right?
: Yes. But would it matter? Just because you see nothing in the genre
: doesn't mean that it isn't there.
Now tell me, dear correspondent, where I condemned the genre in general?
You have blasted an entire genre of which you are almost entirely
ignorant, whereas I see nothing inherenty unartistic about painting
on velvet...
: You can't have it both ways.
I am not seeking to Chumley.
: I'd have
: a hard time accepting that my opinion that abstract art is junk is wrong,
: but you're opinion about black velvet Elvis paintings is right.
Let me see, you are condemning millions of paintings under an EXTREMELY
broad label, and I am commenting on one kind. And I do not rule out
the possibility that I could see a velvet elvis I admire.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <3k1qpl$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
: =gent...@xmission.com wrote:
: =: }
: =: }Nope. The artist has no responsibility to you whatsoever.
: =: }
: =: Then why should I waste my time, if he doesn't even care to make it
: =: understandable?
: =
: =I am not suggesting to you that you SHOULD waste your time man. You
: =have no responsibility to the artist either.
: That's not what the folks at the NEA claim.
Ok, but please note that I am not trying to defend the NEA, ok?
: =Pursue what you love.
: =There is enough diversity of taste to allow people to love many different
: =sorts of things.
: =
: =I recently ragged on star trek novels as a medium not worthy of my time,
: =but plenty of people do consider them worthy of their time.
: Yeah, but you're not being forced to pay for THEIR books.
I understand your point Speaker. Public funding IS another matter.
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <3k1ras$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
Actually, death in life seems a good first stab at the meaning of
Giger's body of work. But I think there is more to it than that.
The biomech stuff doesn't QUITE fit in that, nor does the strictly
architectural stuff of his NY City portfolio. But for a lot of
his stuff, he does seem to focus a lot of the corruption and
degradation inherent in living.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <3k1rq4$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
I guess one of the things that tweaks me so much about people
condemning a whole genre without being familiar with it is that
I sometimes do it myself, and later find value where I thought there
was none. This irritates me about myself, and I guess I let this
irritation extend to others...
doug
cm...@pegasus.unm.edu
: >"I believe Joyce commented that _Finnegan's Wake_ was going to keep
: >the academics going for centuries. I think it was pretty conscious."
: >R.
: (Grin!) "I know there are a lot of English graduates going to be very
: grateful to him for that, too. We have already started to write whole
: essays and teach whole classes on the silences in Shakespear--times
: when a character is on stage and NOT saying something--which may
: seem to indicate we've wrung his words pretty dry..."
"Not to mention one of my favorite undergraduate classes, "Sex and
Shakespeare". Now, I would never presume to question a person who has a
doctorate in this stuff <G>, but, geez, it's amazing what can be read
into old writings..."
Cat-Dancing
Marc C Allain
>Doug Quarnstrom (d...@fc.hp.com) wrote:
>: RubyTwo (mitg...@math.ufl.edu) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>: Indeed, and some abstract art captures this better than representational
>: art.
>
>Funny, I've never seen any that did. At all.
>
><snip>
>: The artist has no responsibility to anyone but himself.
>
>Unless he wants to eat.
Not true. We have the National Endowment for the Arts. This means
that we taxpayers are supporting artists but get no say in which
artists. It doesn't matter whether the taxpayers approve of the
material or understand the material. In fact, it apparently doesn't
matter even if taxpayers object to the material. The NEA board
decides who gets money.
Frankly, I find the idea more offensive than any of the art. It
used to be, an artist either earned his/her way directly in a
commercial sense or got a patron. In the latter case, the art had
to be pleasing to the patron. Thanks to the NEA, that is no longer
the case.
--
I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. Patchmaker
But if you'd like me to play one, I'll even Marc C Allain
make housecalls. M...@CHRISTA.UNH.EDU
Andy May
> Doug Quarnstrom <d...@fc.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >: Western art has a
> >: long tradition of shooting for a single message; I get the impression
> >: that East Asian art is sometimes less direct."
> >
> >I wonder what the single message of H.R. Giger is...
> >
>
"Probably something along the lines of "I really shouldn't have
eaten those funny mushrooms"..."
[journeyman]
--
an6...@anon.penet.fi
From: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
>an6...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>: From: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
>: >an6...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
>: >: From: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom)
>: >: >Why do you have such a negative attitude about this sort of art?
>: >
>: >: I think the reason many people have a negative view of abstract art
>: >: is that it seems that it's just a scam being run on the general public.
>: >
>: >Well, this is a false view. This is not to say that a scam is not
>: >being run on the public, but art and the art establishment are not
>: >one and the same, although they do sleep together.
>
>: In your opinion it's false, because you get something from abstract art.
>: I don't.
>
>: >: I look at them and I see something that appears to have taken
>: >: very little time or imagination to create,
>: >
>: >Tell ya' what dude. Go get some paint and try it! Then tell me how
>: >little effort it takes.
>
>: Are we talking about art, or are we talking about painting?
>
>We are talking about Pollock.
Ok. I was under the impression that we were talking about abstract art
in general, but if you want to narrow it down to Pollock, we could do that
too.
I still don't see what in the above exchange makes you think we were only
talking about one artist. I left it in so you could tell me.
>: I may seem to be insisting that, but I don't believe I actually have declared
>: that that's all there is to it. I have a vague feeling that may be the case,
>: but I've not seen enough of it to make such a definitive statement. Nor am
>: I inclined to see enough to do so.
>
>Ah. See no evil...
Actually, it's more like, "See no more of stuff I thought was generally
crap." I've got better things to do with my time. There may be good
writing in bodice-ripping romance novels or 25 cent western novels, but I
think the likelihood of my finding good writing is higher if I look
elsewhere. I view abstract art in much the same way.
>Yes, it is much easier to bathe in ignorance and pontificate without
>knowledge.
What knowledge do I need other than my own opinion? You yourself admitted
that the viewer has no responsibility to the artist. Now you *seem* to
be saying that I have a responsibility to have a certain amount of knowledge.
>: >Go get some paint and a canvass and a two-year-old, and you just TRY
>: >to COPY a Jackson Pollock. Come on, I DARE ya'!!!
>
>: Oh, sure, *copying* random dribbles of paint on a canvas would be incredibly
>: tedious difficult work - if not impossible. But I feel that a *similar*
>: work could be created pretty easily.
>
>Copy a Pollock. I DARE ya!
I answered that in the above paragraph. Perhaps you'd like to read it
this time.
>: I notice that you didn't challenge me to reproduce this.
>
>Try it. Try to create a canvase with an even tone that is totally
>smooth using a brush. I DARE ya.
Thanks for rectifying the error.
Why must I use a brush? Did the original artist use a brush? Do the
tools used in creating art make it art?
>: >: A painting of a can of Campbell's soup is considered art.
>: >
>: >Pop art is an odd phenomenon. Again. Get an air brush and tell me
>: >how easit it is to create a perfect C. soup can. Come on. I dare ya'!
>
>: My ability to draw has nothing to do with the artistic value of a work.
>
>No, but it has everything to do with your ability to sit on the sidelines
>and pontificate ignorantly about how "EASY" it is.
Actually, my ability to draw DOESN'T have anything to do with my ability
to pontificate. They're two separate skills. Apparently, my ability to
draw DOES have something to do with how you view my opinions. Why? Are
only capable artists able to distinguish art from junk?
>: Are you trying to say that competent draftsmanship is the sole criterion
>: used in judging art?
>
>Absolutely not, but if somebody says something is easy, I expect they
>have some real experience to back up the claim.
So *that's* the problem. You think I'm saying that it's easy for me to
do. I'm not saying that in all cases. Here's an example of what I'm talking
about when I say "easy." Say the Olympic weightlifting gold medalist can
lift 400 lbs. Say I can lift 100 lbs. Am I constrained to say that the
medalist did something difficult when lifting 200 lbs, just because I can't
do it? In my eyes, he didn't really do anything difficult *for him*. He
didn't strain himself to do it.
You seem very fond of repeating the "argument" "YOU try it!" over and over.
The fact that a limited number of people can perform a skill does not by
itself make that skill worthwhile. Or is wiggling your ears now performance
art? I could never draw the turtle that the art schools used in magazine ads,
but I doubt many people would consider that art.
>Many artists who get into galleries have a body of work that may
>differ from that which you are aware. Given that you are unwilling
>to actually view the art, you never will be aware of it.
True. I can live with that.
>: When you look at a something,
>: it's only art if the creator is a Certified Artist(TM)?
>
>Nope, but getting into a gallery involves more than walking in the
>door with a box.
So it's only art if you get into a gallery? I'm really not asking these
questions just to push your buttons, although it looks like they might
be doing just that. I've always had problems with the line between art
and not-art in the abstract art world.
I don't really have a handle on what makes me consider something art.
Everybody altogether now, "I just know what I like." *Usually* it's
something that I find enjoyable to look at, something I find visually
interesting (over repeated viewing), and something that stimulates
positive emotions within me. There are exceptions. I've never cared for
art that was created to shock or "challenge" me. I find life to be shocking
and challenging enough for me.
I'm sure that our definitions of art don't overlap much, but I've been asking
you these annoying questions because I feel that you've just been declaring
that certain things are "art" and I have no feel for why you classify them
that way. If I had a handle on what you meant when you said "art," we
might find a way to reach an understanding.
>: If an "artist"
>: puts the Mac&Cheese box on a pedestal, it's art; but if I do it, it's
>: not? *Is that what you're trying to say?*
>
>No, but I can understand why you are confused.
Could you maybe take some time to help ease my confusion?
>: >This may be part of the equation, but it is not for a second the entire
>: >equation, and it still doesn't justify condemning abstract art as
>: >a genre.
>
>: You're right. The fact that I can find almost nothing redeeming in
>: abstract art is the reason I condemn it. Everyone else is welcome to
>: form their own opinions.
>
>Yada yada yada.
This is ridiculous. Do you just type because you like the feeling on your
fingertips? If you have nothing to say, cut out the text and save us all
some disk space. If you don't like what I said, tell me why. I doubt
that "Yada yada yada" convinced a whole lot of people that you're right.
I know it didn't convince me.
>: >: "Have you seen the black velvet Elvis? That one *speaks* to me."
>: >
>: >You are kidding right?
>
>: Yes. But would it matter? Just because you see nothing in the genre
>: doesn't mean that it isn't there.
>
>Now tell me, dear correspondent, where I condemned the genre in general?
>You have blasted an entire genre of which you are almost entirely
>ignorant, whereas I see nothing inherenty unartistic about painting
>on velvet...
Are we talking about a genre or are we talking about Pollock? You keep
switching on me.
If you see nothing unartistic about it, why would it even occur to you
to ask if I was kidding? I interpreted your question to mean that you
felt that black velvet Elvis paintings were trash. If I'm wrong, then
I withdraw my comment. I just find it a strange question to ask. I
doubt you would have questioned my sincerity if I'd instead said I liked
some random Rembrandt.
>I am not seeking to Chumley.
How does one Chumley? I don't care if you Chumley or not (whatever it is).
>: I'd have
>: a hard time accepting that my opinion that abstract art is junk is wrong,
>: but you're opinion about black velvet Elvis paintings is right.
>
>Let me see, you are condemning millions of paintings under an EXTREMELY
>broad label,
I had no idea Pollock was so prolific.
I defy you to show me where I said categorically that all abstract art is
bad. I've said things like:
"I see something that appears to have taken very little time or imagination
to create" ^^^^^^^
"Everyone else is welcome to form their own opinions."
and I've been greeted with answers like:
"Copy a Pollock. I DARE ya!"
"Yada yada yada."
If you want to try to have a meaningful discussion, I'm willing to meet
you halfway. If the above is all you're going to contribute, I've got
better things to do.
The Shadow
"Willing to Chumley once. Twice if I like it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to ad...@anon.penet.fi.
gent...@xmission.com
d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) wrote:
}gent...@xmission.com wrote:
}:"Huh? I read that five times, and I still didn't understand it. How can
line
}:and form, in and of themselves, have meaning? I understand symbols, and one
}:of the reasons I want that VR program is because my coordination isn't up
}:painting or sculpting.
}
}Once again I will point out that sculpting is easier than it looks.
}I bet you could do it.
"Unlikely. I suffer extreme purpose tremor, if something isn't already at the
level of reflex, I need a lot more patience to learn it than I can usually
find."
}
}: But I still don't understand how you can have have
}: meaning in the absence of symbols."
}
}Beauty can exists without meaning.
}
"And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We're back where we started."
Jane Beckman
she's not entirely unprejudiced. Something to do with *very
close* members of her family who are in art reference books.
>But, since it's art, no one can tell you that it's right or wrong, right?
>No one but you will know when you are finished, either. Because you are
>the artiste. <- said with all the snobby accent possible
But now she bursts out giggling. "Tile, tile, tile!" she says
maniacally, and Doug and Sandy both probably think she's taken
leave of her senses. She's controlling herself,though.
"I'm sorry, but you have to have been there, for when my
father was convincing the Catalina Island Company to redo his
1929 murals into tile, in the '80's, and went on about how
this could not be farmed out to a "mere artisan" and had to be
done by "a true artist"! I thought it was pretty snobby.
Especially for a *mere theater designer,* which wasn't
considered to be "art" at the time. Especially since some
were arguing what we now know as Art Deco wasn't art. Amazing
what 50 years will do..."
>Seem pretty easy to me. paint some lines, some squiggles, make up some
>meaning. Magic. Art.
"All depends on what you put into those "squiggles." I have a
great "abstract" my father did that looks like a Piranisi
dungeon, seen underwater. You might see rainbows. Others
see--paint. And what about "Flight," one that looks rather
like something like a birdlike object going between the tines
of a tuning fork---all quite dimensional, with complex
shadings. Yes, it's magic, because I *love* this painting,
and I can't figure out why, but it makes me feel good. I
haven't the foggiest idea of what it actually IS, but I know
what I like..."
>
>Abstract Artists do whatever they feel like, and call it art.
"On the other hand, writers write whatever they feel like and
call them stories. Some are better at their craft than others
(refer to the Eye of Argon thread...)"
>: What background do you have that would justify a gallery paying any
>: attention to you?
>
>Ah, so you have to be the "right kind of person" to be an artist? I see.
>No elitism there, eh?
Jilara snickers again. "Paul Valerie. Turns out after
people paid megabucks for his "investment" paintings, he
hadn't attended the Sorbonne at all. Now, it didn't change
the paintings---which I thought were not *my* taste---but it
did change the value. That is, indeed, elitism."
"I might add that it was my father's factory art: his building
design and mural work, and the annonymous Botticelli-esque
paintings he did for Bullocks during the depression, that paid
his bills. Ironically, people came to like the buildings,
over many decades, and that's the stuff that ended up in
books. His best friend Tyrus Wong did greeting cards. Ironically,
Ty became well-known as an artist for those, as well. Most
would tell you none of these are "art."
--
Jilara the Exile [ja...@swdc.stratus.com]
That's how freedom will end: not with a bang, but with a rustle of file
folders. If you love any of your rights, defend all of them!
-Joe Chew, on the net
Mark Beirne Lively
Doug Quarn...@fc.hp.co (6738)
> an6...@anon.penet.fi wrote:
> : Are we talking about art, or are we talking about painting?
> We are talking about Pollock.
so niether :)
> Try it. Try to create a canvase with an even tone that is totally
> smooth using a brush. I DARE ya.
I once spent quite a while looking at a Pollack work. I went over it
inch by inch looking for some texture, some shading difference, anything
that would have more then a red spot on a green field(more like
rust-maroon olive-gray...) I couldn't find any. I looked at larger
sections. I took in the whole. There was nothing... You mean to tell
me its intentional? Okay. If you want to reproduce it. 1 mix up paint
in gallon size quantities. To get the smooth finish let it dry really
well then go over it with a microgrit sandpaper...
> Many artists who get into galleries have a body of work that may
> differ from that which you are aware. Given that you are unwilling
> to actually view the art, you never will be aware of it.
That is true. Then again to quote the bard "For his generosity i
praised him, but for his ambition, I slew him"
> : Yes. But would it matter? Just because you see nothing in the genre
> : doesn't mean that it isn't there.
> Now tell me, dear correspondent, where I condemned the genre in general?
> You have blasted an entire genre of which you are almost entirely
> ignorant, whereas I see nothing inherenty unartistic about painting
> on velvet...
Its a bit kitschich and trite but aside from that...
> Let me see, you are condemning millions of paintings under an EXTREMELY
> broad label, and I am commenting on one kind. And I do not rule out
> the possibility that I could see a velvet elvis I admire.
Old or young.
-Bear, engineer who needs sleep.
Liv...@cmu.edu
Speaker-to-Minerals
=Yes. I am defending the genre in general against some ufair criticism,
=but I do not deny that the trivial and uninteresting exist. I would
=still call them art, since the only definition of art I have found
=that works for me insists that I allow them to be called art. This
=dose not mean I will find them interesting or appealing or anything
=like that.
And what definition of "art" might that be? That someone has managed to sell
the schlock as art?
=:"Then there's the Turlington Turd, which at least blends in. It's
=:a big potato-shaped rock on a pedestal. At Halloween sometimes
=:they dress it up like Mr. Peanut. It blends in with the colors of its
=:surroundings, so at least I find it inoffensive, if pointless."
=
=I do think that a lot of the modern art world has become a haven for
=the chronically talentless and hopelessly unmotivated. But I do not
=necessarily see this as bad.
Why not?
=It is a little like evolution to me.
=As rules and limits break down, you get an adaptive radiaion of
=artistic behaviors so that all available niches get filled. The
=stupid and the trivial are available niches, so they get filled.
=In general, this makes for a much more interesting world in my opinion.
=If you like photo realism, you can find it. If you like dadaism, well,
=there it is. If you like performance art, guess what, we have it.
=If you like conceptual art that self-reflexively pokes fun at the
=art world (which I think the urinal piece does), hey, there it is!
And if you like utterly meaningless and uninteresting shit that takes no
creativity and minimal time to produce, you can find that too. And pay through
the nose for it.
=But to equate all of the excesses of absurdity of the modern art world
=with abstract art in general is quite simply ignorant in my opinion.
=Abstraction is a valid aspect of most art.
Oh, certainly it is. But abstract art gives the con artists an excuse to
produce nothing and call it an abstraction. An abstraction of what, though?
That's a central question. If it's not an abstraction of anything, how do you
justify calling it abstract art?
=Well, ok, Ruby, but I would extend a friendly challenge to you to
=form a definition of what art is. You don't have to tell me what
=you come up with, but I myself simply cannot find one that satisfies
=all the things that please me while excluding those that do not. People
=with more limited ranges of taste possibly have more success than I.
You claim to have a definition of art. Why are you so coy about posting it?
=> I was never so
=>disappointed in my life. That's why I listened to my parents when they
=>said go into science or English instead."
=
=Well, I think that literature, in general, suffers from the same
=phenomena.
Don't forget Sturgeon's Law.
=I, myself, wish the man had spent more time writing stories like
=_the dead_. I bemoan the fact that he spent so much of his genius
=in creating work that is so opposed to being read casually.
=But to select what I think you mean, I will assume want to know,
=would Joyce have been a better artist if he had been more
=accessible? I do not know the answer. I am inclined to say
=no. Is Shakespeare a failed artist because thousands of high school
=droolers hate his work when they are forced to read it? I would
=say not.
Well, in this case, the failure is on the part of the high school teachers. If
they'd explain the puns and the sexual innuendo, the students would undoubtedly
appreciae Shakespeare's work more. Of course, most high school teachers
probably don't understand the puns themselves....
Mark Beirne Lively
> "Not to mention one of my favorite undergraduate classes, "Sex and
> Shakespeare". Now, I would never presume to question a person who has a
> doctorate in this stuff <G>, but, geez, it's amazing what can be read
> into old writings..."
I don't know. You don't have to read that much in. All you have to do
is get around the language. Most of the bawd in shakespeare was right
out in the open.
-Bear
Liv...@cmu.edu
Joseph Knecht
hm. a definition i recently read of "art" is an activity of human creativity
and intuition powered by the strength of human will. that's a fairly broad
definition, and i feel "art" is a fairly broad concept. *shrug*
oh, and this is from _Warfighting: The U.S. Marine Corps Book of Strategy_,
originally distributed (and possibly written, i'm unsure) by Commandant
General A.M. Gray. the above definition is used in the explanation of
the conduct of war as an art, rather than a science.
dave
RubyTwo
>Shakespeare". Now, I would never presume to question a person who has a
>doctorate in this stuff <G>, but, geez, it's amazing what can be read
>into old writings..."
>Cat-Dancing
"Oh yes! I remember attending a version of Romeo and Juliet that even
had a few innuendos the Shakespeare scholar who took us there hadn't
thought of!"
Mercutio, back to audience, apparently urinating against a wall, sees
one of the Montagues coming: "(gasp) My naked weapon is out!"
(zip, zip)
(Yes, the line is in there, look it up...but we never saw it played
THAT way before!)
Rub...@aol.com, who wants to be Cat Tail-Shining
RubyTwo
->knowledge of *the traditional forms* are necessary before one
->can do *good* abstracts. That's what I'm attempting to show
->with my father's stuff. (And very frankly, even he
->occasionally hit a real clunker when he did abstract.)"
"Agreed! I feel the same way--apologies to anyone whom this
upsets--when people tell me they like to write poetry, but not
to read it. Same principal."
an6...@anon.penet.fi
From: ja...@swdc.stratus.com (Jane Beckman)
>artist? Are you saying that designing an Art Deco urinal to
>blend with an Art Deco restroom requires no artistic sense?
It probably requires a sense of aesthetics to do it so it really blends
in well, but I would have a hard time calling such a person an artist.
>Buying it and hanging it on the wall, well, isn't that what
>you would do when you go out and buy a print of a painting?
>Does that make you an artist?
No, it doesn't. That's my point. Buying a urinal and putting it on the
wall is no more art than me hanging up a poster from _The Lion King_.
>>>: Hell, I'll put
>>>: a real, live box of Mac&Cheese on a pedestal. Somebody find me a gallery
>>>: for my first showing.
>
>"And I submit that "design" is a form of art. I know, I'm not
>snobby enough. Try to design that can of soup, now. Or that
>box of mac&cheese. I'm serious. Do you *know* that the classic
>can or box is the best form? Will it appeal to the consumer?
>What should the label look like? Believe it or not, they
>actually pay people mere money to do this stuff. They're
>usually called "commercial artists" and "package designers."
>And unlike the "artistes," they actually make a living from
>this.
I understand that. I'm saying that I don't think it's art to reproduce
that can of soup on a canvas. Why should someone who draws it well get
paid big money for it, and the person who actually designed the thing
gets nothing but his normal salary?
I'm not saying that there isn't an art to designing packaging (although
I'm not sure how much there is), I'm saying that I don't see much art in
drawing it.
>"My aunt was a greeting card artist. Was she a "real" artist?
>I'm actually interested in viewpoints and why folks think what
>they think, yea or nay."
I would have to answer "maybe." I'd have to see some of the art that
you're talking about to give a more definitive answer. I never really
know what I'm going to consider art until I see it.
>>>: I just get the distinct impression that "art" is solely determined by a
>>>: select group of self-important critics who are allowed to lead art
>>>: "appreciators" around by the nose because they believe they're hip by
>>>: pretending to understand what the critics are making up.
>
>"Hey, perceptive insight!"
Thanks. Although it's a bit of a run-on sentence. Now that I look at it,
I start to get a little lost by the end, and I knew what I meant.
The Shadow
"Will write run-on sentences for food."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to he...@anon.penet.fi.
If you reply to this message, your message WILL be *automatically* anonymized
and you are allocated an anon id. Read the help file to prevent this.
Doug Quarnstrom
: ->"In short, I really believe that practice, disipline, and a
I agree to a very large extent. Anyone who cannot manage the traditional
forms is robbing themselves of some essential skills and may very
well be fooling themselves as to their real artistic skill.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: While we're at it, what's negative space?
Negative space is the space that exists around the object you are drawing.
If someone is standing with thier hands on their hips, the space enclosed
by the edges of their torso and the inside of their arms is considered
negative space. It is possible to draw a form by concentrating on the
shapes of the negative space rather than on the shape of the forms themselves.
I am not sure this gets the concept across, but it really is difficult to
get in the habit of looking at the shapes of the negative areas rather
than the shapes of the object as a tool for drawing. It is a very very
helpful tool and it is important for beginners to learn to look at
the negative space.
Also, an object on a canvase, if it intersects the edge, will create a
negative space shape between itself and the edge of the canvas. Artists
pay attention to these shapes, because balancing and harmonizing them, and
making them inherently beatiful, is a big part of what composition is
all about.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: Frankly, I find the idea more offensive than any of the art. It
: used to be, an artist either earned his/her way directly in a
: commercial sense or got a patron.
The patron often being the church. Michelangelo scandalized his patron
pope by paintint the naughty bits. Subversive bastard...
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: >
: >Nope, but getting into a gallery involves more than walking in the
: >door with a box.
: So it's only art if you get into a gallery? I'm really not asking these
: questions just to push your buttons, although it looks like they might
: be doing just that. I've always had problems with the line between art
: and not-art in the abstract art world.
I have problems in figuring out where the line between art and not
art exists in general. It is not an easy question to answer.
: I don't really have a handle on what makes me consider something art.
: Everybody altogether now, "I just know what I like."
Ok, me too. The problem is that in trying to quantify what I like, I have
never been able to come up with a consistent definition that does not
push the boundaries of art out to very abitrary points.
: *Usually* it's
: something that I find enjoyable to look at, something I find visually
: interesting (over repeated viewing), and something that stimulates
: positive emotions within me. There are exceptions. I've never cared for
: art that was created to shock or "challenge" me. I find life to be shocking
: and challenging enough for me.
: I'm sure that our definitions of art don't overlap much, but I've been asking
: you these annoying questions because I feel that you've just been declaring
: that certain things are "art" and I have no feel for why you classify them
: that way. If I had a handle on what you meant when you said "art," we
: might find a way to reach an understanding.
My definition of art is basically that anything which forces me to make
an aesthetic judgement is art. Period.
: If you want to try to have a meaningful discussion, I'm willing to meet
: you halfway. If the above is all you're going to contribute, I've got
: better things to do.
I have deleted the rest of the post in an effort to return the discussion
to a civil tone. I will accept the blame for it having diverged from
said tone. I don't really know if I have any useful insight to offer
you on the subject.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <3k9o3g$d...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,
: d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) wrote:
: }gent...@xmission.com wrote:
:}:"Huh? I read that five times, and I still didn't understand it. How can
:line
:}:and form, in and of themselves, have meaning? I understand symbols, and one
:}:of the reasons I want that VR program is because my coordination isn't up
:}:painting or sculpting.
:}
:}Once again I will point out that sculpting is easier than it looks.
:}I bet you could do it.
:"Unlikely. I suffer extreme purpose tremor, if something isn't already at the
:level of reflex, I need a lot more patience to learn it than I can usually
:find."
Haha. I understand completely.
:}
:}: But I still don't understand how you can have have
:}: meaning in the absence of symbols."
:}
:}Beauty can exists without meaning.
:}
:"And beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We're back where we started."
And perhaps that is really all there is to be said.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
: In article <3k7nac$m...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>, d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) writes:
: =Yes. I am defending the genre in general against some ufair criticism,
: =but I do not deny that the trivial and uninteresting exist. I would
: =still call them art, since the only definition of art I have found
: =that works for me insists that I allow them to be called art. This
: =dose not mean I will find them interesting or appealing or anything
: =like that.
: And what definition of "art" might that be? That someone has managed to sell
: the schlock as art?
No. The working definition I have is that anything that forces me
to make an aesthetic judgement is art.
: =:"Then there's the Turlington Turd, which at least blends in. It's
: =:a big potato-shaped rock on a pedestal. At Halloween sometimes
: =:they dress it up like Mr. Peanut. It blends in with the colors of its
: =:surroundings, so at least I find it inoffensive, if pointless."
: =
: =I do think that a lot of the modern art world has become a haven for
: =the chronically talentless and hopelessly unmotivated. But I do not
: =necessarily see this as bad.
: Why not?
...keeps them busy.
: =It is a little like evolution to me.
: =As rules and limits break down, you get an adaptive radiaion of
: =artistic behaviors so that all available niches get filled. The
: =stupid and the trivial are available niches, so they get filled.
: =In general, this makes for a much more interesting world in my opinion.
: =If you like photo realism, you can find it. If you like dadaism, well,
: =there it is. If you like performance art, guess what, we have it.
: =If you like conceptual art that self-reflexively pokes fun at the
: =art world (which I think the urinal piece does), hey, there it is!
:And if you like utterly meaningless and uninteresting shit that takes no
:creativity and minimal time to produce, you can find that too. And pay through
: the nose for it.
Ok.
: =But to equate all of the excesses of absurdity of the modern art world
: =with abstract art in general is quite simply ignorant in my opinion.
: =Abstraction is a valid aspect of most art.
: Oh, certainly it is. But abstract art gives the con artists an excuse to
: produce nothing and call it an abstraction.
Probably so.
: An abstraction of what, though?
: That's a central question. If it's not an abstraction of anything, how do you
: justify calling it abstract art?
...depends on your definition of Art, Speaker.
: =Well, ok, Ruby, but I would extend a friendly challenge to you to
: =form a definition of what art is. You don't have to tell me what
: =you come up with, but I myself simply cannot find one that satisfies
: =all the things that please me while excluding those that do not. People
: =with more limited ranges of taste possibly have more success than I.
: You claim to have a definition of art. Why are you so coy about posting it?
I have posted it twice now. Do understand that it is not a definition of
art, but it is simply the one I used. My friendly challenge to you
Speaker was meant to be FRIENDLY. I am curious. What is your definition
of art?
: => I was never so
: =>disappointed in my life. That's why I listened to my parents when they
: =>said go into science or English instead."
: =
: =Well, I think that literature, in general, suffers from the same
: =phenomena.
: Don't forget Sturgeon's Law.
Yeah.
: =I, myself, wish the man had spent more time writing stories like
: =_the dead_. I bemoan the fact that he spent so much of his genius
: =in creating work that is so opposed to being read casually.
: =But to select what I think you mean, I will assume want to know,
: =would Joyce have been a better artist if he had been more
: =accessible? I do not know the answer. I am inclined to say
: =no. Is Shakespeare a failed artist because thousands of high school
: =droolers hate his work when they are forced to read it? I would
: =say not.
:Well, in this case, the failure is on the part of the high school teachers. If
:they'd explain the puns and the sexual innuendo, the students would undoubtedly
:appreciae Shakespeare's work more. Of course, most high school teachers
:probably don't understand the puns themselves....
Haha.
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
:: This is not true at all. I sometimes do abstract art. There is more to it than
:: what you suggest.
: I've never seen any that would suggest this. I'm talking about totally
: non-representational stuff.
Ok. Have you seen the design work of Frank Loyd Wright? He did a number
of abstract works that are utterly nonrepresentational that I consider
to be simply beautiful. I offer this to you in the hopes that you
might see it and enjoy it.
: <snip>
: : : Ah, so you have to be the "right kind of person" to be an artist?
: : No, but you aren't going to get a recording contract just because you
: : have an opinion about Michael Jackson.
: But you *can* get a recording contract by producing recognizable music, with
: no other qualifications. You *can't* get a recording contract by producing
: stuff totally unrecognizable to humans as music.
Sandy, have you listened to various works of the Residents? Some of it
is barely recognizeable as music, and they got recording contracts.
This is just a counterpoint. Even the world of music "suffers" from
the relaxing of standards...
doug
Doug Quarnstrom
any product of human artifice that forces me to make an aesthetic
judgement to be art. Of coure art then ranges from the lame to the
amazing and from the ridiculous to the sublime.
doug
barbara trumpinski
shut up, kevin?
--
kit...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
/\ /\ smotu "my life's a soap opera, isn't yours?"
{=.=} '...the conspiracy of the living is to help one
~ another carry on.' rita mae brown
RubyTwo
"From the sublime to the ridiculous, to the sublimely ridiculous,
to the ridiculously sublime..."
Now why can't I remember where that's from?
Rub...@aol.com
"I talk about the gods, I am an atheist. But I am an
artist too, and therefore a liar. Distrust everything I
say. I am telling the truth."
--Ursula K. LeGuin
Jonathan Hatch
: But you *can* get a recording contract by producing recognizable music, with
: no other qualifications. You *can't* get a recording contract by producing
: stuff totally unrecognizable to humans as music.
"Ever hear any of Negativeland's weirder pieces? (like sycamore?) Certain
air pudding style music? John Cage (I think is his name)?
"None are truly recognizable as music without saying (before playing it)
something that indicates that it is to be treated as music. I believe all
three have had pieces get recording contracts.
--
Yog Shoggoth a.k.a. Jonathan Hatch a.k.a. Cap'n Crash&burn
If guns were outlawed, only outlaws would have guns.
If cars were outlawed, only outlaws would have cars.
If laws were outlawed, only outlaws would have laws.
If marriage were outlawed, only outlaws would have inlaws.
gent...@xmission.com
d...@fc.hp.com (Doug Quarnstrom) wrote:
}Sanford E. Walke IV (se...@izzy.net) wrote:
}
}: While we're at it, what's negative space?
}
}Negative space is the space that exists around the object you are drawing.
}If someone is standing with thier hands on their hips, the space enclosed
}by the edges of their torso and the inside of their arms is considered
}negative space. It is possible to draw a form by concentrating on the
}shapes of the negative space rather than on the shape of the forms
themselves.
}I am not sure this gets the concept across, but it really is difficult to
}get in the habit of looking at the shapes of the negative areas rather
}than the shapes of the object as a tool for drawing. It is a very very
}helpful tool and it is important for beginners to learn to look at
}the negative space.
"Remember the illusion of two faces or a lamp? Like that, only more so."
UT
"I may be gibbering, but I don't see myself as wrong"
--Mike Falkner
Read both sides of the news.admin.net-abuse.* argument and vote:
Pro: <URL:http://http.bsd.uchicago.edu/~t-pierce/news/voteyes.html>
Con: <URL:http://iems.jpl.nasa.gov/~dave/voteno.html>