Furry art mentioned in post modernist art book
Jacques De Molay
wide variety of compelingly crap modern art, e.g a giant inflatable
turd on some books (at least, That's what it looked like to me...)
They also have a large bookshop, I picked up a book IIRC, the title
was "animals in postmodern art", and there was, as plates in the book,
some reproductions of a series of photographs, in which the artists
was seeking to deal with our attitudes towards pets, And in these
photos they have a pictire of a women kissing a cat, And in the
commentry on that art, It suggested that you should not confuse that
art, with furry art.
The book was published in 2000, And I find it interesting that they
should even bother to mention furry art style/genre/whatever it is at
all, since as far as I know, "furry art" has never been mentioned in a
book before, and I doubt if it's ever recieved a serious look at the
art (not the people, and not in the "ooh, sex" way).
I also looked at some pictures by bouze (sp?) and Fragonade, and I
have to say,
They are Softcore but...
*raises eyebrow*
... for gentlemen. (which apparantly makes all the difference)
---
"It is simply not possible for a kinetic energy weapon to
penetrate deeply enough into the earth to contain a nuclear explosion."
Skyfire
Wow. I'm surprised that furry art actually got a mention in an art
text.'
I always thought that non-furs looked down on furry art because either
it was bad quality and/or obscene. I sometimes wonder why art lovers
don't mind staring at a statue of a big naked human male(like
Michaelangelo's David), but seem to shudder at a fox or skunk with
breasts and a vagina.
You know, maybe it's time that someone put out a book surveying furry
art.
Ostrich
>
> Wow. I'm surprised that furry art actually got a mention in an art
> text.'
>
There've been at least two efforts (that I'm aware of) in the past two
years to put together furry gallery shows, one in Los Angeles and one
in Toronto. Neither came to anything that I'm aware of, in large part
because very few seemed willing to take the risk of displaying their
art outside the fandom. Someone might mock them, you know.
-Ostrich! <")
Mr. unXcitement
Well, perhaps a gallery show showcasing animal art in general both
anthropomorphic and non-morphic could be helpful. Sneaking in kinda
among the realistic non-morphic type art, you know. Haha.
Michael Hirtes
bugm...@hotmail.com (Mr. unXcitement) wrote:
As far as i know, the only examples where furry art has been galleried
has been as a side-promotion to Castro's "Plushies and Furries"
screenings.
Karl Meyer
"Ostrich" <ost...@raex.com> wrote in message
news:c6752e89.03080...@posting.google.com...
Given the art I've seen at the last several years worth of furry cons, there
are maybe 5 artists who have demonstrated the level of skill to do gallery
class work. At least half of those already do comercial art outside the
fandom. Any of them could easily do a show featuring just their work
individually if they wanted to push for that. None of them would have to
label it as 'furry' because it would stand on it's own without the genre
label attached.
Ostrich
news:bh4isk$fj2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> Given the art I've seen at the last several years worth of furry cons,
there
> are maybe 5 artists who have demonstrated the level of skill to do gallery
> class work.
Come now. We live in a world where people will pay money to own a Jackson
Pollack original, and where a cooler full of beer cans that's been set on
fire qualifies as a sculpture. Skill isn't what sells with the gallery
crowd - novelty is. I'm pretty sure that furry art, marketed not for its
own sake, but rather as a sort of 'tribal' or 'outsider' art, would be a
hit.
-Ostrich! <")
Ken Pick
> > was "animals in postmodern art", and there was, as plates in the book,
> > some reproductions of a series of photographs, in which the artists
> > was seeking to deal with our attitudes towards pets, And in these
> > photos they have a pictire of a women kissing a cat, And in the
> > commentry on that art, It suggested that you should not confuse that
> > art, with furry art.
>
> text.'
Take another look at that mention. "A woman kissing a cat... should
not confuse that... with furry art." Implied that "Furry art"
involves erotic/romantic themes between humans and animals, i.e.
bestiality.
Chris Beilby
> Take another look at that mention. "A woman kissing a cat... should
> not confuse that... with furry art." Implied that "Furry art"
> involves erotic/romantic themes between humans and animals, i.e.
> bestiality.
Yeah. Basically, Davey-shit is trolling again.
Griffure
thing you cannot understand nor love.
Skill is the way of the crafstman, not of the artist. And many in the
fandom are and will always be craftsmen. An artist is someone who tries
to change the world he lives in, not to get 5 bucks on furbid.
Art has been dissociated from skill from the mid-nineteenth century. The
split has been done by the Impressionnists.
Don't dream, we are only entertainers. Some of us are skilled, other no
(I'm not). There has always been a confusion about the words "art",
"artists". Some will say people like Musha, Rockwell were artist. In
fact they weren't. Skilled poster designers. And there again, they have
had an impact on their times. Art, not art... Who can tell ?
Art today is something rather awkward for people that are not prepared
to see it. Many artist are working about ... genetic manipulations and
hybridation. That has been a gret trend thees pas 3 years. Try
http://www.ekac.org/transgenicindex.html, for instance.
Yelling agains art you cannot understand, you ressemble to these people
that bark against furryness : they don't understand, so it's to be
burned down.
But, practice, get skilled. Remember Hokusai. Have heard about Hokusai?
At the age of 75 the master Hokusai said :
"All that I have produced before the age of 70 is not worth taking into
account. At 73, I learned a little about the real structure of nature,
of animals, plants, trees, birds, fishes and insects. In consequence,
when I am 80, I shall have made still more progress. At 90, I shall
penetrate the mystery of things; at 100, I shall certainly have reached
a marvelous stage; and when I am 110, every thing I do, be it a dot or a
line, will be alive."
Griffure
Karl Meyer
"Ostrich" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message
news:bh60mh$3172$1...@velox.critter.net...
When was the last time you saw prisma colored line art in a gallery for sale
as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art? Forget it.
Likewise, laser print or any other kind of print other than maybe
lithographs are pretty much right out. There just aren't that many artists
in the fandom working in professional art media and have the skill to pull
it off.
Ostrich
news:bh68dm$ajf$1...@news-reader4.wanadoo.fr...
>
> You have no clues to understand a Jackson Pollock. Stop shouting against
> thing you cannot understand nor love.
Shouting against? When have I done that? If it pleases the Emperor to
appear in public naked, that's fine with me. Don't expect me to pretend
that he's wearing clothes, though.
-Ostrich! <")
BR
> When was the last time you saw prisma colored line art in a gallery for
> sale as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art?
> Forget it. Likewise, laser print or any other kind of print other than
> maybe lithographs are pretty much right out. There just aren't that many
> artists in the fandom working in professional art media and have the
> skill to pull it off.
The art(istic) is in the media, not the artist. Gotcha ;)
--
-T. H. Huxley
If a little knowledge is dangerous, were is the man who has
so much as to be out of danger?
The Saprophyte
Karl Meyer wrote:
> "Ostrich" <x...@xxx.com> wrote in message
> news:bh60mh$3172$1...@velox.critter.net...
>
>>Karl Meyer <fer...@rcn.com> wrote in message
>>news:bh4isk$fj2$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>>
>>>Given the art I've seen at the last several years worth of furry cons,
>>
>>there
>>
>>>are maybe 5 artists who have demonstrated the level of skill to do
>>
> gallery
>
>>>class work.
>>
>>Come now. We live in a world where people will pay money to own a Jackson
>>Pollack original, and where a cooler full of beer cans that's been set on
>>fire qualifies as a sculpture. Skill isn't what sells with the gallery
>>crowd - novelty is. I'm pretty sure that furry art, marketed not for its
>>own sake, but rather as a sort of 'tribal' or 'outsider' art, would be a
>>hit.
>
>
> When was the last time you saw prisma colored line art in a gallery for sale
> as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art? Forget it.
(snip)
There are different types of galleries, and different levels of what
constitutes "fine art." If they're illustration quality, then there's
little reason they wouldn't be handled by a gallery specializing in
illustrative art, essentially as fine art. (Subject matter not
withstanding) The distinction is mostly academic anyways.
--
The Saprophyte
--
iBuck
Skill is just that, -skill-, it is not a "way" of anything. All else being
equal, An artist with it, will go further than an artist without it.
>An artist is someone who tries
to change the world he lives in, not to get 5 bucks on furbid.
No.. that's an the definiton of a -activist- , not an artist. John Ashcroft or
George Bush try to change the world, but they are not artists..
>Art has been dissociated from skill from the mid-nineteenth century. The
> split has been done by the Impressionnists.
No.. the split was done by the photographers, skill became somewhat
redundant, because a representation of realism, could be produced other ways,
at the same time that the arts had become mired in the Acadamy's love of still
life and portratiure.
You're definitoion of art has been skewed by the fact that for the last 30
years, the arts have been funded and pushed for -political- purposes..
starting when the Nixon administration started channeling goverment arts
fuuding to left wing elites in order to curry their votes..
"You can have it Quickly,Correct, Complex - Pick 2"
iBuck
>as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art? Forget it.
When was the last time you saw line art in a gallery for sale as fine art since
Lichentinstin?
It's -not- about the media..
Right now the media includes, elephandt dung, collage, oils, string,
formaldhide, sectioned cows and full body castins in fiberglass.
What sells as "Fine art" right now is what either pisses right wing
politicians, aor pleases the political strokings of the big name art critics..
What an artist -says- a peice is about has triumpherd over whatthe peice is
about..
I won't say it's not art, but the art is no longer contained to the pice you
bring hme to hang up, you now have to drag the whole social context with you..
Samantha Ann Patterson
>Pollack original, and where a cooler full of beer cans that's been set on
>fire qualifies as a sculpture. Skill isn't what sells with the gallery
Ever notice that the people who have this opinion of 'modern art' are
often the same people that will shell out $500 for a mass-produced
replica of a japanese sword and stick it on their wall, or $100 for a
toy car they stick in a shoebox under their bed?
You'd think they'd at LEAST like the work of Andy Worhol.
Samantha Ann Patterson
Griffure <webm...@griffure.com> wrote:
>But, practice, get skilled. Remember Hokusai. Have heard about Hokusai?
>At the age of 75 the master Hokusai said :
>
>"All that I have produced before the age of 70 is not worth taking into
>account. At 73, I learned a little about the real structure of nature,
>of animals, plants, trees, birds, fishes and insects. In consequence,
>when I am 80, I shall have made still more progress. At 90, I shall
>penetrate the mystery of things; at 100, I shall certainly have reached
>a marvelous stage; and when I am 110, every thing I do, be it a dot or a
>line, will be alive."
>
I believe though that Hokusai was also strongly buddist and therefore
might also have said something along the lines of 'You cannot teach a
blind man to see.'
Personally, not being a buddist, I can't really even justify using the
word 'man' when we talk about this guy, but I thought it worth noting.
Anyhow. Grousing at him will just make him jam his fingers deeper in
his ears and shout more piously that his view is the only REAL view.
He's demonstrated time and again that he has no desire to think about
anything. I find, with that sort, it's best just to ridicule them and
move on.
I think Hokusai would have agreed that it is better to spend your life
creating things, even if they are not understood, than to waste your
life in destructive pursuits such as bickering with a fanboy.
-Samantha, who ashamedly only became aware of Hokusai's work about a
month ago herself.
Samantha Ann Patterson
BR <brodr...@comcast.MUNGED.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 17:15:39 -0500, Karl Meyer wrote:
>
>> When was the last time you saw prisma colored line art in a gallery for
>> sale as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art?
>> Forget it. Likewise, laser print or any other kind of print other than
>> maybe lithographs are pretty much right out. There just aren't that many
>> artists in the fandom working in professional art media and have the
>> skill to pull it off.
>
>The art(istic) is in the media, not the artist. Gotcha ;)
>
For the purposes of gallery, sometimes true. For instance, collectors are
less likely to buy watercolours than oils because watercolours have a tendency
to break down quickly and not prove to be a good long-term investment. On
they whole, they'll also tend to avoid acrylics in favour of oils just
out of tradition. (Acrylics are actually more durable tho, so this one is
foolish) But in short. Yeah. Media can be a factor in the purchases of
collectors.
-Samantha
Samantha Ann Patterson
Another collector of Hotwheels and obselete weaponry tells us what
REAL art is. Fascinating.
It's too bad they can't claim its polarized on this one. There's
entirely too many 'sophisticates' that collect old toys and such like too
for them to claim that their narrow views are just opposite the broad
views of the 'other side'.
Sorry guys. I'm afraid you'll just have to concede you're small-
minded on this one. :)
Like that'll happen.
Ohwell. so long as everyone else knows it. :)
In article <20030811113559...@mb-m18.aol.com>,
Matt Harpold
"iBuck" <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote in message
news:20030811113559...@mb-m18.aol.com...
> >When was the last time you saw prisma colored line art in a gallery for
sale
> >as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art? Forget it.
I've seen every medium and style you can imagine in galleries, from colored
pencil to pen and ink, to oils, to brick, to straw to WHATEVER. Because I
actually GO to galleries once in a while, because I enjoy looking at art.
> When was the last time you saw line art in a gallery for sale as fine art
since
> Lichentinstin?
>
> It's -not- about the media..
>
> Right now the media includes, elephandt dung, collage, oils, string,
> formaldhide, sectioned cows and full body castins in fiberglass.
>
> What sells as "Fine art" right now is what either pisses right wing
> politicians, aor pleases the political strokings of the big name art
critics..
>
Dude, you're a retard. Go to an actual fucking gallery, gop visit the art
walks in your nearest big city, and stop parroting what you hear other
naysaying assholes say about the art scene. Forget what you think you know.
You don't know a damn thing. I can walk downtown to the Pearl district in
portland and find half a dozen galleries that sell stuff that my mother
would be overjoyed to have on her wall. i know of three galleries that sell
indie comic book pages as art, since we have a fairly robust comic book
scene.
Jesus living fuck, am I tired of people bagging on art. Those who can, do.
Those who can't, act like you.
-Matt/Turbine
Matt Harpold
> > > Given the art I've seen at the last several years worth of furry cons,
> > there
> > > are maybe 5 artists who have demonstrated the level of skill to do
> gallery
> > > class work.
I personally know more than ten. You're not even paying attention. Then
again, I seek out good art, I don't wait for it to reach a convention for it
to be valid.
> > Come now. We live in a world where people will pay money to own a
Jackson
> > Pollack original, and where a cooler full of beer cans that's been set
on
> > fire qualifies as a sculpture. Skill isn't what sells with the gallery
> > crowd - novelty is. I'm pretty sure that furry art, marketed not for
its
> > own sake, but rather as a sort of 'tribal' or 'outsider' art, would be a
> > hit.
>
> When was the last time you saw prisma colored line art in a gallery for
sale
> as serious art? For illustrator work that's fine. As fine art? Forget it.
> Likewise, laser print or any other kind of print other than maybe
> lithographs are pretty much right out. There just aren't that many artists
> in the fandom working in professional art media and have the skill to pull
> it off.
And you too! Go to a damn gallery walk sometime! You don't know a fucking
thing. Jesus! TWO DAYS AGO I visited a gallery (that also contained a video
arcade, because in Portland, all preconceptions you have about galleries are
quickly smashed) where most of the work on display was indie comic art, and
giant wall sized digital prints. Not laser prints, but inkjet prints.Do you
have any earthly idea how expensive it is to get a run of lithos printed?
Trust me, it's expensive. And since some artists work digitally, they need a
solution for that. Enter inkjet prints that are archival that work great for
small runs.
And I can rattle off a dozen or more artists in the fandom who do have the
skill in spades to compete with artists I see on gallery walks. There's
plenty of them on Yerf alone. Will they do well by making furry pinups?
Maybe not. But if they wanted to nudge their work in a direction that people
who aren't furries would pay for, they could easily do it.
There's incredible artists in this scene, working their asses off, and
everyone seems to somehow not see them, and they only see the kids on VCL,
or the line art cartoony stuff that's been around for ten years. I don't get
it. The
-Matt/Turbine
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> You have no clues to understand a Jackson Pollock. Stop shouting against
> thing you cannot understand nor love.
However the perpose of art should be to communicate something, if art
fails to do that then it has failed as art. I've walked into
galleries and seen artworks with small essays posted up beside them
explaining the art. To my mind you might as well have taken down the
artworks and left the essays.
> Skill is the way of the crafstman, not of the artist. And many in the
> fandom are and will always be craftsmen. An artist is someone who tries
> to change the world he lives in, not to get 5 bucks on furbid.
If no one can understand what the art is saying then how can they
change the world? High art has become so detached from the world
anyway that its unlikely to have any real impact outside there own
little world.
--
Please excuse my spelling as I suffer from agraphia. See
http://dformosa.zeta.org.au/~dformosa/Spelling.html to find out more.
Free the Memes.
iBuck
>REAL art is. Fascinating.
I collect neither hot wheels or obslete weaponry, (not that if I did do it
would have -anything- to do with my qualifications to judge what art is) and I
happen to have a degree in graphic arts.
I'm quite qualified to offer my opinion on what art is...
You on the other hand seem to have entirely missed my point that people are
defininging as "Art" that narrow range of overly political art that currently
is called "Fine Art" and dismiss the rest..
Samantha Ann Patterson
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 22:03:00 +0200, Griffure <webm...@griffure.com> wrote:
>[...]
>
>> You have no clues to understand a Jackson Pollock. Stop shouting against
>> thing you cannot understand nor love.
>
>However the perpose of art should be to communicate something, if art
>fails to do that then it has failed as art. I've walked into
>galleries and seen artworks with small essays posted up beside them
>explaining the art. To my mind you might as well have taken down the
>artworks and left the essays.
>
>> Skill is the way of the crafstman, not of the artist. And many in the
>> fandom are and will always be craftsmen. An artist is someone who tries
>> to change the world he lives in, not to get 5 bucks on furbid.
>
>If no one can understand what the art is saying then how can they
>change the world? High art has become so detached from the world
>anyway that its unlikely to have any real impact outside there own
>little world.
>
I strongly disagree with this. Not everyone understands the context
everyone else speaks from. If we did, there would probably be no more
wars. An 8 year-old from Texas, for instance may not understand why a
yellow six-pointed star wrapped with barbed wire could some an 80-year-old
jewish man to tears. A computer programmer may not understand the
symbol of a paint-stained dust-mask held by a robotic arm in the same way
a displaced automotive factory worker might. Different symbols mean
different things to different people. Explaining the context does not
take away from the art. Rather the contrary, it expands your ways of
thinking and gives you new ways to apply a particular set of symbols
and new things to look for in the world around you.
Here's two examples I find appropriate.
1) Comparing art to math. There are some universally understood symbols
in art, just as there are simple mathematical statements like 1+1=2.
There is also art that LOOKS simple e=MC^2 for instance, but without the
lengthy proof (explaination) it would be an unimportant formula. There
are also math symbols like 'r' which could be rate, radius, or ratio
depending on the context. There are plenty of reasons to explain the
context in math, no matter how much some people might want to say 1+1=2
is the only truth. Much like modern art, Calculus can even twist
everything around and prove that 1+1=3 if you understand all the principles
involved.
2) Let's use secret-society fiction as an example. What's that pyramid
and eye symbol on the back of the dollar bill? Think back to when you
first heard that it might be a symbol of some secret society. Had you
even paid attention to it at all up until that point? Did you start
realizing that symbol in other places once you became aware of the
fact that some people put extra significance to it it? That is what
an explaination of art can do; Open your mind up to a whole new set
of posibilites that you might not have thought of on your own.
You only cheat yourself by immediately discounting a piece of art just
because YOU don't understand it.
-Samantha
iBuck
>walks in your nearest big city, and stop parroting what you hear other
>naysaying assholes say about the art scene.
>Jesus living fuck, am I tired of people bagging on art. Those who can, do.
?Those who can't, act like you.
Did you bother to actually -read- what I had to say before pumped out that
stream of bildge?
What I have a problem with is people insisting that "Art" or "Fine Art" has
to be political..
What I'm sick of is people getting acclaim as a nartist based on how many right
wingers they piss off with their artwork, regadless of wether their peic has
-any- staying value..
Skill is out the window, it's what the message is that counts. And sometimes
that message isn't even in the paining, or installation..
I have a probem with the ampount of attention such peices get, and I don't
think it make me a retard to perfer peices that have some possibility of
staying power...
But what I really have a problem with is people insisting that those types of
peices are the -only- valid art form..
As far as i'm concerned the ebbb and flow of what is -perfered- in the culture
at hand does not define what "Art" is..
If you accept that, then you have to -dismiss- the works outside that narrow
slice..
Are those works who's buzz I dislike, art.. hell yes.. - but so are
countless other peices, and I -will- come down on people who dismiss them..
Samantha Ann Patterson
iBuck <lncra...@aol.com.star> wrote:
>> Another collector of Hotwheels and obselete weaponry tells us what
>>REAL art is. Fascinating.
>
>I collect neither hot wheels or obslete weaponry, (not that if I did do it
>would have -anything- to do with my qualifications to judge what art is) and I
>happen to have a degree in graphic arts.
>I'm quite qualified to offer my opinion on what art is...
Nonono. You're quite qualified to critique business cards,
powerpoint presentations, and websites. (Which I might add, there is a
more than ample supply of those which need a good mocking)
In fact, if anything, since you focused your studies on making cereal
boxes pretty, it seems rather likely you'd be bitter and resentful towards
the dubiously-labeled 'fine art'. Nevermind all of that though.
Lets skip down a bit.
>You on the other hand seem to have entirely missed my point that people are
>defininging as "Art" that narrow range of overly political art that currently
>is called "Fine Art" and dismiss the rest..
The THREAD is titled, 'Furry art mentioned in post modernist art book'
and was about furry art being seen as post-modernist fine art. You chose
to rail against 'modern' art media, seemingly because no one takes your
magic marker seriously and make the same-old tired wailings about how
art critics don't understand boxtop art.
Or at least so it appeared to me. Perhaps I just don't stand your artfully-
posted flame bait and you should explain the context or heck, present
it in a different media. ;)
iBuck
>take away from the art.
I don't think David was saying that the explnation -subtracts- from the art,
but that a peice that required less of an explanation is a superior one.
>Rather the contrary, it expands your ways of
thinking and gives you new ways to apply a particular set of symbols
and new things to look for in the world around you.
But this assumes that the expanation will be available, if it's not, the work
may fail to communicate, and thus fail as art to the veiwer.
I persoanlly won't go as far as David.. though.. if you take away the
painings, the artwork is as incomplete, as if the essay was not there.
But to ofen people do not regard the whole- the art and it's context as
explained by the artist - as the artwork.. and that totality is all to often
too ephermeal for my tastes..
iBuck
>because YOU don't understand it.
Or feel cheated, when that understanding is not made available..
Ostrich
>
> Go to a damn gallery walk sometime! You don't know a fucking
> thing. Jesus! TWO DAYS AGO I visited a gallery (that also contained a video
> arcade, because in Portland, all preconceptions you have about galleries are
> quickly smashed) where most of the work on display was indie comic art, and
> giant wall sized digital prints.
Well, coincidentally enough, I spent Saturday afternoon at a gallery
before hauling my reactionary ass off to see a Herman's Hermits
concert.
-Ostrich! <")
iBuck
>powerpoint presentations, and websites. (Which I might add, there is a
>more than ample supply of those which need a good mocking)
>
>In fact, if anything, since you focused your studies on making cereal
>boxes pretty, it seems rather likely you'd be bitter and resentful towards
>the dubiously-labeled 'fine art'. Nevermind all of that though.
I will, because I'm not about to explain the entirety of my eductional
background to you, which frankly was -not- focused on Graphic Design, which
you to have prematurely jumped to he conclusion it was because my college's art
degree happens to be named "Graphic Arts"
>The THREAD is titled, 'Furry art mentioned in post modernist art book'
>and was about furry art being seen as post-modernist fine art.
And the post I was replying to, had drifted off that a bit, as threads tend to
do on usenet.. which you seem not to have noticed..
>You chose
>to rail against 'modern' art media, seemingly because no one takes your
>magic marker seriously and make the same-old tired wailings about how
>art critics don't understand boxtop art.
The -specific- post I was replying to was one that I felt was enitely to
-classical- in it's reasoning about why furry peices don't appear (almost to
the point of insult) with the implication that only oils and such make gallery
shows.. Which is manafestly false, given the media that have shown up in such
shows as "Sensation"..
I have stron opinions about about modern (and postmodern) art critisisim,
which I do feel has become -entirely- too politically motivated. As such, I
don't feel that the art the critics endores is nesc that which is most
derserving of acclaim or attention.
It's a mater of opinion, it may well be a sentiment that's been around for a
while, but that hardly invalidates it...
>Or at least so it appeared to me. Perhaps I just don't stand your artfully-
>posted flame bait and you should explain the context or heck, present
>it in a different media. ;)
If anyones flame bait is artfully posted to the point of incomprehensibly, it's
yours..
Just as a point.. if you look back in art history.. the artists who were the
ones who turned out to -matter- in art history, were the ones who were
dismissed by critics off, not the ones who pleased them...
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnbjg5s9....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>>If no one can understand what the art is saying then how can they
>>change the world? High art has become so detached from the world
>>anyway that its unlikely to have any real impact outside there own
>>little world.
>
> I strongly disagree with this. Not everyone understands the context
> everyone else speaks from. If we did, there would probably be no more
> wars.
I don't totally aggry wiht this but I'll accept it for the sake of
argument.
>[...] Different symbols mean
> different things to different people. Explaining the context does not
> take away from the art. Rather the contrary, it expands your ways of
> thinking and gives you new ways to apply a particular set of symbols
> and new things to look for in the world around you.
I'll accept that, and for a cross cultureal perspective I may not
understand totally the meaning of a nice bit of traditional japnaise
art I see, not knowing the symboles and not being drenched in there
culture. Infact there are most likely the rich symbolic languge of
western proture is lost to me as well.
However there is a point of dimmishing returns, the smaller the
cummonity sharing thouse set of symboles the less effective it is as a
means to communitcate. Much of the art i see (there is a gallery on
the way home from work and I vist it everytiime there is a new show)
rather then refuring to universal symboles or symboles of the
cultureal upbeinging of that creator, useses a perasonl idolect.
Creating art that can only be understood by that artist him or her
self.
> Here's two examples I find appropriate.
>
> 1) Comparing art to math. There are some universally understood symbols
> in art, just as there are simple mathematical statements like 1+1=2.
> There is also art that LOOKS simple e=MC^2 for instance, but without the
> lengthy proof (explaination) it would be an unimportant formula. There
> are also math symbols like 'r' which could be rate, radius, or ratio
> depending on the context. There are plenty of reasons to explain the
> context in math, no matter how much some people might want to say 1+1=2
> is the only truth. Much like modern art, Calculus can even twist
> everything around and prove that 1+1=3 if you understand all the principles
> involved.
In maths the proofs are the artworks, the results are just byproducts of
the proofs.
> 2) Let's use secret-society fiction as an example. What's that pyramid
> and eye symbol on the back of the dollar bill?
This is another case where there is a need to tranlaste symboles
accross cultures as I lack that artwork on my dollar bill (infact we
lack any dollar bills at all).
[...]
> You only cheat yourself by immediately discounting a piece of art just
> because YOU don't understand it.
I don't, infact I'm quite tolorent of not understanding stuff[0], but
there is a point where I belave that nobody can understand it. And
the people who carry on as if they are fooling themselves.
[0] I don't understand lots of the anime i watch, my favourate book I
don't understand that well[1] and not that I have come in contact with
a person with deeper musica abilities I relize how little I understood
of the lyrics of some of my favourate soungs.
However as I re-expreneced them new meaning was gained each time.
Life events would expose me to knew knolige that allowed the artwork
to communicate to me on a diffrent leval. I can tell the diffrence,
but hidden meaning is diffrent to no meaning at all. And all of my
favourate artworks can be appricated at some sort of niive leavle as
well.
[1] Gobel Echea Bach
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
[...]
> For the purposes of gallery, sometimes true. For instance, collectors are
> less likely to buy watercolours than oils because watercolours have a tendency
> to break down quickly and not prove to be a good long-term
> investment.
On the other hand they payed quite a pritty peny for "Blue poles"
which was painted with house paint and will brake down.
iBuck
>'art' - or even a necessary one.
Then just what is it that their peices are missing that disqualifies it as art?
Me, I'll call it art.. Peices that show more that just technical ability are
-better- art..
Similarrally a peice with message, I'll also call art.. If it's well executed,
it's better art...
The best works have both... but the lack of one or the other does not
disqualify a peice as "Art"
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
[...]
> Ever notice that the people who have this opinion of 'modern art' are
> often the same people that will shell out $500 for a mass-produced
> replica of a japanese sword and stick it on their wall, or $100 for a
> toy car they stick in a shoebox under their bed?
I'm not in those catagories so your going to have to find something
else to insult me buy. And while you are at it your going to have to
explain to me why you consider that an insult.
Samantha Ann Patterson
><cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>> Ever notice that the people who have this opinion of 'modern art' are
>> often the same people that will shell out $500 for a mass-produced
>> replica of a japanese sword and stick it on their wall, or $100 for a
>> toy car they stick in a shoebox under their bed?
>
>I'm not in those catagories so your going to have to find something
>else to insult me buy. And while you are at it your going to have to
>explain to me why you consider that an insult.
>
there's absolutely nothing wrong with collecting toys or swords or postage
stamps. I just find it odd that people who tend to carry on about some
gun or sword or toy car they purchased will turn around and whinge about
artwork someone else purchased. It's unlikely that they will ever be
attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas that can only be killed with an
authentic replica blade. These things are overpriced wall art and
fundamentally no different from 'modern' art.
Now if I'd wanted to make the issue and insult, I'd have said something
not-very-clever that I'd gleaned from the Discovery channel and babble
something like: Neanderthal didn't understand art either and look
what happened to him.
Then I would carry on for a paragraph or two blithering from disseminated
TV knowledge about how understanding art is supposedly the true indicator
of intellect and such like that.
So um... Stop with the chest-beating. It's so primative. ;)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> I don't think so. I think people would look at it and soon come to the
> conclusion that it all looked pretty much the same, and that few people
> working in it had any ideas that weren't obvious, peurile or simply
> prurient.
This one I aggry totally with you on. Furry seems to be lacking good
ideas. Not that the gallery set seems to be outside that "obvious,
peurile or simply prurient" class of ideas, it may be that all the
good ideas are used up.
> I'm not sure you're correct that novelty is the crucial factor
> that the gallery set like. They do however like ideas, and furry art is
> conspicuously lacking in those.
Interestingly while yerf is offered up as the best furry has to offer,
it seems to be the one most lacking in ideas, the most souless.
The Saprophyte
Samantha Ann Patterson wrote:
> In article <slrnbjipp2....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>>On 11 Aug 2003 17:50:23 GMT, Samantha Ann Patterson
>><cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
>>
>>[...]
>>
>>
>>>Ever notice that the people who have this opinion of 'modern art' are
>>>often the same people that will shell out $500 for a mass-produced
>>>replica of a japanese sword and stick it on their wall, or $100 for a
>>>toy car they stick in a shoebox under their bed?
>>
>>I'm not in those catagories so your going to have to find something
>>else to insult me buy. And while you are at it your going to have to
>>explain to me why you consider that an insult.
>>
>
> Uh. I was not making an effort to insult you. I was making an observation.
Not a surprising reaction on his part. You could probably make phone sex
sound antagonistic. You seem to have a distinct talent for it.
Accidental antagonism, that is. I...wouldn't know about the other.
> there's absolutely nothing wrong with collecting toys or swords or postage
> stamps. I just find it odd that people who tend to carry on about some
> gun or sword or toy car they purchased will turn around and whinge about
> artwork someone else purchased. It's unlikely that they will ever be
> attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas that can only be killed with an
> authentic replica blade. These things are overpriced wall art and
> fundamentally no different from 'modern' art.
>
> Now if I'd wanted to make the issue and insult, I'd have said something
> not-very-clever that I'd gleaned from the Discovery channel and babble
> something like: Neanderthal didn't understand art either and look
> what happened to him.
>
> Then I would carry on for a paragraph or two blithering from disseminated
> TV knowledge about how understanding art is supposedly the true indicator
> of intellect and such like that.
>
Good thing you didn't, or I'd have had to butt in and counter with a bit
I read in Discover magazine about beads found with neanderthal remains.
Doubtless I would have followed up with something nonsensical about
the concept of ornament being not far removed from art, and the whole
conversation would have gone downhill from there.
Just as well then, don't you agree?
> So um... Stop with the chest-beating. It's so primative. ;)
Now you've done it. You've gone and insulted the work of Bobby Mcferrin.
You, madame, are a graceless philistine.
--
The Saprophyte
--
(Disclaimer: Kree-gah!)
Griffure
Griffure.
Griffure
>>Skill is the way of the crafstman, not of the artist.
>
>
> Skill is just that, -skill-, it is not a "way" of anything. All else being
> equal, An artist with it, will go further than an artist without it.
>
>
>>An artist is someone who tries
>
> to change the world he lives in, not to get 5 bucks on furbid.
>
> No.. that's an the definiton of a -activist- , not an artist. John Ashcroft or
> George Bush try to change the world, but they are not artists..
Dull, dull, dull. In the same way, you'd call Bush a land artist as he
has re-designed Bagdad... Activists passes. Artists stay.
>
>
>>Art has been dissociated from skill from the mid-nineteenth century. The
>> split has been done by the Impressionnists.
>
>
> No.. the split was done by the photographers, skill became somewhat
> redundant, because a representation of realism, could be produced other ways,
> at the same time that the arts had become mired in the Acadamy's love of still
> life and portratiure.
No ! Even without the arrival of photography, the skill would have been
given away. Yet, the words of Baudelaire about Manet speak for you, I
agree. Have you ever noticed that in the XIXth, there were no more
pittore a fresco, that the sculpture was getting more and more "modern".
The trend was there. The emerging of individualism has lead the artist
to create his own set of artistic practice, disengaged from the
sclerotic skill that was taught in academic schools. It has led them to
get their own skill, not based upon social convenances, but upon a kind
of satori of the viewer. Even you would tell a good cubist painting from
a bad one.
>
> You're definitoion of art has been skewed by the fact that for the last 30
> years, the arts have been funded and pushed for -political- purposes..
> starting when the Nixon administration started channeling goverment arts
> fuuding to left wing elites in order to curry their votes..
>
Fundings have never made a good artist. It's an alkemy, not a matter of
polotical opinion.
Griffure
>>>>Given the art I've seen at the last several years worth of furry cons,
>
> And you too! Go to a damn gallery walk sometime! You don't know a fucking
> thing. Jesus! TWO DAYS AGO I visited a gallery (that also contained a video
> arcade, because in Portland, all preconceptions you have about galleries are
> quickly smashed) where most of the work on display was indie comic art, and
> giant wall sized digital prints. Not laser prints, but inkjet prints.Do you
> have any earthly idea how expensive it is to get a run of lithos printed?
> Trust me, it's expensive. And since some artists work digitally, they need a
> solution for that. Enter inkjet prints that are archival that work great for
> small runs.
>
> And I can rattle off a dozen or more artists in the fandom who do have the
> skill in spades to compete with artists I see on gallery walks. There's
> plenty of them on Yerf alone. Will they do well by making furry pinups?
> Maybe not. But if they wanted to nudge their work in a direction that people
> who aren't furries would pay for, they could easily do it.
>
> There's incredible artists in this scene, working their asses off, and
> everyone seems to somehow not see them, and they only see the kids on VCL,
> or the line art cartoony stuff that's been around for ten years. I don't get
> it. The
>
> -Matt/Turbine
>
>
There are nice things ont the VCL too ;-)
Being an artist is to be involved into something other that the fandom.
Take your sketches and go and see the director of a gallery. What will
you tell him, that you are skilled so it's art. No way. He will reply
something that he does not do handcrafted american art.
Art is more. Try to read some book. I posted some times ago about a
performance of Joseph Beuys : "How to Explain Paintings to a Dead Hare"
(read it http://www.artandculture.com/arts/artist?artistId=89). He was
just sitting on a chair with a dead hare, describing his work to this
little corpse.
And his voice is still deafening.
And the rabbits of Barry Flanagan are still dancing and running.
And this is art : a brain, with stories to tell to change the world, and
a way to embody these stories into something.
But I agree, it may be ink on paper with glossy colors.
Griffure
Samantha Ann Patterson
Griffure <webm...@griffure.com> wrote:
>Samantha Ann Patterson wrote:
>> <much prattle>
>>
>You're a nice person. Thanks.
Reverand David Saunders
until great Birnam wood to high alt.fan.furry. hill shall come against
him.
>> Take another look at that mention. "A woman kissing a cat... should
>> not confuse that... with furry art." Implied that "Furry art"
>> involves erotic/romantic themes between humans and animals, i.e.
>> bestiality.
>
>Yeah. Basically, Davey-shit is trolling again.
Umm... no, I was trying to help people by enlighting stuff.
But you... You're the one who go's whineing behing people's back to
whine about VCl and YERF, simply because the people there got fed up
with your incessent whineing and backstabbing, i suggest you take
yourself elsewhere.
---
Priest Of The Universal Church Triumphant of the Apathetic Agnostic
---
"It is simply not possible for a kinetic energy weapon to
penetrate deeply enough into the earth to contain a nuclear explosion."
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
<cir...@deeptht.armory.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnbjipp2....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
[...]
>>I'm not in those catagories so your going to have to find something
>>else to insult me buy. And while you are at it your going to have to
>>explain to me why you consider that an insult.
>>
> Uh. I was not making an effort to insult you. I was making an observation.
> there's absolutely nothing wrong with collecting toys or swords or postage
> stamps. I just find it odd that people who tend to carry on about some
> gun or sword or toy car they purchased will turn around and whinge about
> artwork someone else purchased.
But no one asks for "Authentic Replica Blades" to be meaningfull, no
one expects a matchbox toy to communicate to them at a deep and
perhaps spirtral leval. But people expect that of art, I expect it of
art and I get upset when my expectations are not relized.
> It's unlikely that they will ever be
> attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas that can only be killed with an
> authentic replica blade.
Yes but if you where attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas and you could
only be defeated by an authentic replica blade wouldn't you be a
little pissed if it didn't work?
[...]
> So um... Stop with the chest-beating. It's so primative. ;)
But I got a real good rythm going, this whole body procussion thing
rocks!
Samantha Ann Patterson
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
>
>But no one asks for "Authentic Replica Blades" to be meaningfull, no
>one expects a matchbox toy to communicate to them at a deep and
>perhaps spirtral leval. But people expect that of art, I expect it of
>art and I get upset when my expectations are not relized.
replica is. Maybe it's not the same 'meaning' that other forms of
art have but it is something significant to them.
>> It's unlikely that they will ever be
>> attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas that can only be killed with an
>> authentic replica blade.
>
>Yes but if you where attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas and you could
>only be defeated by an authentic replica blade wouldn't you be a
>little pissed if it didn't work?
Nah. I'd just beat them to death with my modern art sculpture. ;)
Rick Pikul
cir...@deeptht.armory.com says...
> In article <slrnbjo29c....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>,
> David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote:
{Foomph...}
> >> It's unlikely that they will ever be
> >> attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas that can only be killed with an
> >> authentic replica blade.
> >
> >Yes but if you where attacked by a horde of ghost ninjas and you could
> >only be defeated by an authentic replica blade wouldn't you be a
> >little pissed if it didn't work?
>
> Nah. I'd just beat them to death with my modern art sculpture. ;)
I'll have you know that the correct weapon of choice from art
pieces is an Inuit carving.
(Don't mess with our PM, he'll take you down with a choke hold,
then hit you over the head with a chunk of soapstone.) :}
--
Phoenix
Samantha Ann Patterson
Is THAT what that was in 'The clockwork Orange'?
I thought it was something else. *blush*
-Samantha