Why isn't furry in art gallaries?
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
--
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.
Furotica
simply put, its because 'stylized' art such as furry characters really arent
'accepted' as art by the so called 'fine artists'. you could take the best damn
illustration of batman (or whatever) in the world, and odds are it would be
snubbed by museum curators, as well as the crowd and the artists on display.
i have no idea why anime, comics, or toon art isnt accepted like it should
be....but its NOT. and that, unfortunately, is how it stands.
thus, you will probably never see furry art get its pop anywhere it really
should....save for inside the fandom.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> i can give you the lowdown on that one.
> simply put, its because 'stylized' art such as furry characters really arent
> 'accepted' as art by the so called 'fine artists'.
Then why did "Pop" art get hung in gallaries?
mhirtes
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb 2002 06:41:49 GMT, Furotica <furo...@aol.com> wrote:
> > i can give you the lowdown on that one.
> > simply put, its because 'stylized' art such as furry characters really arent
> > 'accepted' as art by the so called 'fine artists'.
>
> Then why did "Pop" art get hung in gallaries?
One word: marketing
mhirtes
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
Probably for the same reasons why they don't have any paintings of
dragons, sword-weilding barbarians, or the Starship Enterprise.
Reemember that scene from Steve Martin's "The Jerk", where he wrote home
about the "masterpiece" he bought (and it was just some typical Boris
Vallejo type stuff)? There's a reason why that's funny.
Furotica
painting in a museum but some moron can paint a red triangle and a blue circle
and its the star attraction. heh.
Mike & Carole Curtis
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus) <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote in
message news:slrna7h06f....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
Copies of THE POKER PLAYING DOGS hang in many of our finer mobile homes.
Mike
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
>far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
Beacuse furry is generally too representational and apolitical to make it with
the bleeding edge art critics who dominate what's "In" in the art world...
Skill just doesn't matter anymore, in the art world nor does historical
importance, it's your "Message" that counts...
If you want to read a good book on the subject try "Exhibitionism, art in the
era of intolerance" by Lynne Munson
On the other hand, furry does shock just enough people that a NEA grant (routed
through one of the convention's perhaps, sincethe NEA doesn't fund individuals
anymore) isn't out of the question.
On the Gripping hand, I think it's more likely that no one artist has a
sufficent body of gallery-ready work available, 9' x 12''s just don't cut it...
iBuck
Homepage at http://lanceradvanced.com/Furry
"You can have it these ways :Fancy,Correct,Quickly- Pick 2"
LancerAdvancd iBuck
Because when it came along it was radical, now the famous pieces are
classical... but try to do pop art type work today and you probably won't get
to far, the shock value has worn off...
Fallen Weeble
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
You want the truth? Idont think most furs cna handle the truth.
Go to the next post if you cant.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Art is sposed to communicate something.
Communicate something new...
Communicate something about its time in hsitory...
Most furry art doesnt do any of that.
Much of furry art communicates diffrent stuff and none of it is new:
See how big my mammarys are...
Aint I a cute pinup...
See how far my nippys stick out...
See how horny I am...
I wonder how horny I can make you...
See how big a weenie I can take...
See how many of us can do it at the same time...
I love being bound...
...foreget about saying someting about our time in history!
Most of The rest of furry art doesnt say much besides:
What a pretty wolf (fox, tiger, whatever)...
This is how I draw anubis (bast, whatever)...
Here is a anthro lion slaying a dragon...
...see? no artistic "meat" to it at all, no matter how well its'
drawn.
(Sure sometimes a peice of "real" art said some of these thinnngs too,
but "real" art doesnnt make that its main message...or its ONLY
message...it says other mor imp9ortant things too.)
Now I like furry art as much as thenext person...I really do. But
putting chester or falstaff on the same level as winged victory or
picasso's guernica ? Get real!
Face it...utnil furry art says something worth saying...it will never
be anuything but eye-candy.
Kitryn de Pluie
<dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> had the audacity to state the following:
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
Uh...because it's not fine art.
--
Kitryn de Pluie the Anthro Fox
DC: DC2.H^Mcf Gm L6f W T Pw Sku Cbk,bag,ebl,cag,wrb A- Fr++"mango" Nu
M(r+v+++1|2*) Ov+3 F+o R+ Ac+++ J+ S- U--- I V Q Tc++[anything but
programming] E
LancerAdvancd iBuck
anuything but eye-candy.
What does the Calder Mobile hanging in the lobby of the Smithsonian say?
What does Wright's "Falling Water" say?
What does the DaVinci's "Mona Lisa" say?
What does Pachabel's "Cannon in Dur" Say?
None of these has a -MESSAGE- but I doubt you'd find anyone but a frothing new
wave critic dismissing them as art...
LancerAdvancd iBuck
What's fine art?
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>>Uh...because it's not fine art.
>
>What's fine art?
But seriously, sometimes I think the only diffrence between furry art and fine
art is the quantum leap in the amount of talk the artist has to make about the
piece to the critics and the amount of money that the piece is going for...
Art isn't about the work anymore, it's what people -say- about the work...
Matt J. McCullar
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there?
They can't display what they don't get to show, or know about.
Mickey Spillane once said, "Literature is what people read." That being
said, fine art is what people want to look at often enough to hang in their
homes. A great deal of what I see hanging in furry art shows is indeed good
enough to qualify. It's just that the overwhelming majority of people who
buy art don't know about it.
Other art purchasers are not really interested in the picture for art's
sake, but for its poential monetary value.
There are plenty of furry artists who have enough product ready for an
entire show. Monika Livingstone, for example, and she's also done plenty of
art that's not strictly furry, either... showing instead real animals in
realistic scenes.
A couple of years ago I took a Brian McPherson B&W print into my local frame
shop to get it framed and matted. Both the clerk behind the counter and the
customer ahead of me had never seen anything like it and greatly admired
it -- wanting to know who had drawn it and where they could see more of it.
(Yet another reason to put your web address on your prints, folks!) Their
reaction caught me by surprise, and of course I was thrilled. (Not because
I had done the drawing, but I had created the characters in it. And this
was G-rated stuff, too!)
Matt J. McCullar
Arlington, TX
Gabriel Gentile
MIX!
Besides, there's too many copyright matters involved.
Michael Russell
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
There are about 50 animation art galleries in the USA.
There are over 200 wildlife art galleries in the USA.
The Cartoon Art Museum which was in Boca Raton is being moved back to
the New York / Conneticut area.
There are many science museums that often use cute animal oriented
artwork, icons, and banners to assist with the educational material.
--
Cheers -- Mike Russell .................... Read the Vicki Fox comic strip
http://www.VickiFox.com ........................... The World of Vicki Fox
mailto:mrus...@ix.netcom.com ...................... Vicki Fox Productions
LancerAdvancd iBuck
Why would there be any copyright issues at all? Furry artists are as capable of
creating original characters, and single works as any other artist...
Windchaser
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote
in message news:slrna7h06f....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
The simplest answer is: Because furry artists aren't submitting any, most
likely.
Galleries generally don't deal in 8.5x11" print stuff. They want larger
pieces. And how many furry artists do those?
I do know, for the record, that Bob Drake had art hanging in the
International Museum of Erotic Art in Toledo, Spain. I don't know if they
were 'furry' pieces. (I've never seen non-furry art by him, though.)
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
[...]
>> Then why did "Pop" art get hung in gallaries?
>
> One word: marketing
Ok. Then lets get out there and market.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
wrote in message
news:<slrna7h06f....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>...
>> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
>> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
>> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
>
> You want the truth? Idont think most furs cna handle the truth.
> Go to the next post if you cant.
[...]
> Art is sposed to communicate something.
>
> Communicate something new...
> Communicate something about its time in hsitory...
True, but most of the art I see only communicates its stuff threw
essay next the peace which explains it. Most of the air I see is a
falure to communicate.
[...]
> Much of furry art communicates diffrent stuff and none of it is new:
Most of the gallery set says the following to me:
Look how clever and wankerish I'm being.
> See how big my mammarys are...
> Aint I a cute pinup...
> See how far my nippys stick out...
> See how horny I am...
> I wonder how horny I can make you...
> See how big a weenie I can take...
> See how many of us can do it at the same time...
> I love being bound...
>
> ...foreget about saying someting about our time in history!
But that may well be a meaningfull comment on our time in history.
[...]
> Now I like furry art as much as thenext person...I really do. But
> putting chester or falstaff on the same level as winged victory or
> picasso's guernica ? Get real!
No I would like it on the same leval as the 57th black triangle on
white (the first one was saying something everything after that
didn't) and the calf floating in forhilderide.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
> On Sun 24 Feb 2002 12:56:25a, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
><dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> had the audacity to state the following:
>
>> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
>> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
>> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
> Uh...because it's not fine art.
But anything can be fine art with the right attitude.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>>Then why did "Pop" art get hung in gallaries?
>
> Because when it came along it was radical, now the famous pieces are
> classical... but try to do pop art type work today and you probably won't get
> to far, the shock value has worn off...
Um I think furry could shock some people if it realy wished to.
Kitryn de Pluie
>>Uh...because it's not fine art.
>
> What's fine art?
*urinates on a canvas*
That's fine art.
Cerulean
>Ok. Then lets get out there and market.
The smaller galleries in smaller towns are more than happy to display
anything that shows adequate talent as long as you buy in. For $100 I
could have some wall space in the local gallery for a year; I'm still
deciding whether it would be worth the expense, given how few people
are likely to see it in this town. I'm pretty sure it's the same
almost everywhere; it's just a matter of how much you have to pay.
At the top half of the scale, of course, you have to have an agent,
someone who can speak the pretentious mumbo-jumbo code that translates
to "I'm a member of the club, and I've found another figurehead we can
hype up and milk dry." Upscale galleries will only deal with agents,
and the agents decide who gets to be a big name. This is why artists
who have had only one idea and paint it over and over again are best
for this system; it's all about name recognition. If the paintings all
look alike, then you can look at any one of them and say "Ah! That's a
valuable Shlabotnik!"
(This mechanism is evident in furry fandom as well, but the nature of
the subject matter is such that artists need to be able to make each
pinup look at least a little different for buyers with different
preferences, so that the viewer can tell a male from a female within a
few minutes of examination, and then with careful scrutiny of the
color choices determine whether it is supposed to be a dog, cat,
skunk, fox, or wolf.)
--
___vvz /( Cerulean = Kevin Pease http://cerulean.st/
<__,` Z / ( DC2.~D GmAL~W-R+++Ac~J+S+Fr++IH$M-V+++Cbl,spu
`~~~) )Z) ( FDDmp4adwsA+++$C+D+HM+P-RT+++WZSm#
/ (7 ( 77epueJ - ,,iS37q33M awos +o6 I,,
mhirtes
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 05:00:00 -0600, mhirtes <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote:
> >
> > "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> Then why did "Pop" art get hung in gallaries?
> >
> > One word: marketing
>
> Ok. Then lets get out there and market.
Lotza luck, pal. You'll learn that not many galleries have much interest
in Eric Schwartz art.
mhirtes
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> On 24 Feb 2002 15:22:58 GMT, Kitryn de Pluie <n...@spam.dude> wrote:
> > On Sun 24 Feb 2002 12:56:25a, "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)"
> ><dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> had the audacity to state the following:
> >
> >> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> >> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> >> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
> >
> > Uh...because it's not fine art.
>
> But anything can be fine art with the right attitude.
Unfortnately, furry art does'nt have the right attitude.
Don Sanders
fallen...@hotmail.com says...
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote in message news:<slrna7h06f....@dformosa.zeta.org.au>...
> > I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> > wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> > far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
>
> You want the truth? Idont think most furs cna handle the truth.
> Go to the next post if you cant.
*** Snipped ***
Hmm, I would not exactly call that truth, more like an oppinion. I
think the truth is still two doors down that way.
--
Don Sanders.
Who will only follow truth when it is carved in stone, so get carving!
Fallen Weeble
> >Face it...utnil furry art says something worth saying...it will never be
> anuything but eye-candy.
>
> What does the Calder Mobile hanging in the lobby of the Smithsonian say?
>
> What does Wright's "Falling Water" say?
>
> What does the DaVinci's "Mona Lisa" say?
>
> What does Pachabel's "Cannon in Dur" Say?
>
> None of these has a -MESSAGE- but I doubt you'd find anyone but a frothing new
> wave critic dismissing them as art...
>
You dont think any of thesee have a -MESSAGE-?
Then why are you talking about 'what is art?'
I cant say that the following is THE mesage accepted by historians and
art critics...but these are what these works say to me.
The calder mobile at the smithsonian? Ive seen a coupel of calder
mobiles, tho not the one your talking about, and i'll admit im not
calders biggest fan, but I can say what I learned about abstract aart
(which some of calder's mobles i think can be classifieed as) in
public school. Everyonne appraoches it equulay unprepared and without
preconnceived notions. If you show a shoe to someone from a "modern"
society, theyll know its something you put on your foot. But if you
showw that same shoe to someone from a "primitive" society, he may
thinnk its a cup, or a thing for hurling stones, or something else.
Abstrackt art, everyone goes up to the same way, wether your an
astronoaut or an aboriginie. You get out of it what you put into it.
Like a n inkblot test. What i get out of the calders ive seen is an
odd but plaesing combination of balance and lack-of-balance...at the
same time.
Wrright's Fallingwater? What it says to me is, "I am a building
constructed using ctuting edge technology, with cantilivered
extentionns that make it look like parts of it are flying, using
decorating materials from industrial and commersial settings, yet even
though I am so modoern, I look like fit in with this natural primevel
rock formations and landscape. Oh, and by the way, Im strattling a
runnign river"
Mona Lisa? "Mosst peopel of my time sit for portraits strait-faced.
Not me...im smiling. Im a rebel. Why am i smiling? Maybe im
thinking of the love of my life. mabye leonardo is doing something
funny while he paints. maybe i know a secret. Maybe it doesnt
matter! In any case Im not telling."
Cannon in D? "Im a song based on eight simple notes. From there im
gonna build on it with chords, melodys, counterpoints and
countermelodies. Im gonna repeat and repeat, but always adding or
subrtacting something so that notwo repetitiosn are exactly the same,
and i'll keep sounding fresh each time. Im gonna make you think of
something sweet...your frist love, a pictur that moved you, a fond
memry, the first time you rode a tow wheeler...what it is doesnt
matter. But im gonna make youy thing of something."
=========
Does all stuf that gets billed as "fine art" qualify as fine art? Of
course not. alot of it is pretensious junk that galleries foist onto
to rich people looking for somethiing too hang up int heir homes and
show off to friends and enemise. What makes the fine art "fine" is
that its more than the paint on the canvas. A painting of an apple --
even if its done by a famous artist -- is just a painting of an
apple...unless the artist sucessfuly communicates more than "heres an
apple."
Lots of fans of furry art seem to judge art ONLY on technicla
expperties. Goosd brushwork...nice shading...etc. Nowt rue, these
thinges are very important...but thats not ALL that makes art good.
The best drawn furry art in the world is empty without meaning. Its
like being given a bowl of the most bueatiful friut youve ever
seen...your moouth is watering just looking at it...and wjen you bite
into it, you find out its nothing but wax. Its not art...its just
illustration.
What woud you rather have? Lack of technique or Lack of
thought/deeper meaning?
ANd Why shoud the art community take us seriously when WE dont take
ourselfs seriously? When a gorgous (G-rated) picture of two embracing
felines by Dark Natasha pulls down $50 or $60, while X-rated and
XXX-rated pictures pull donw three digits a throw, what the hell does
that say about furrydom?
It says that furrydom is about skin...even though theres fur on that
skin.
Art aims for your head...or your heart...not your crotch.
DishRoom1
Lancer Advanced iBuck wrote --
Preachy peachy preachy :-p
John Shughart
LancerAdvancd iBuck
>Then why are you talking about 'what is art?'
I'm being rethorical, though the moderen art critic is usually looking for a
message in the work about something other than the work....
In genereal I agree with you, though...
Kathmandu
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote
in message news:slrna7h06f....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
Modern art is a scam, pure and simple. Here is how it works. It started with
impressionism actually. Up until the impressionistic movement, art was
mostly reprentational and the mark of a master was how real he could make
his painting seem. Then came photography which could do a far better job of
presenting reality than a painting ever could. Artists realized this and
moved art away from representational art to something else. Impressionism
was a way to break away from the hyper-detailed representational and went
for the essence, color and movement of a subject, leaving out the
unimportant. It was a revolution in the art world.
The thing was, the artist found they could sell their doubts of color on
canvas that took no where near the time a super-detailed, eye straining
representational painting would take. Hmmm, spend months painting a
landscape or spend less than a week, maybe a few hours even and make the
same money. That's a no brainer, the artists embraced the impressionistic
movement whole heartedly. Once it ran it's course, modernism and cubism took
over. The artist has managed over the years convinced people that art is
supposed to invoke emotion when viewed and detail and reality are nothing.
What it means though, they have hoodwinked a bunch of folks into believing a
white canvas with a single black dot in the center that took all of 10
seconds to paint or a crucifix in a jar of urine is fine art.
To say 'furry' isn't hanging in galleries isn't entirely accurate, you have
to look in the right galleries to see them. 'Furry' isn't an art movement in
of itself, it is a part of a much broader movement called surrealism and you
can see it quite a bit in that context. Donald Roller Wilson's paintings are
a prime example. His chimps in dresses with flowers in their hair and cats
wearing crowns are in several prominent museums and owned by the rich and
famous. http://www.donaldrollerwilson.com It's there, you just have to look.
Other artists have used anthropomorphism.
Kathmandu
PeterCat
> They can't display what they don't get to show, or know about.
> [...]
> There are plenty of furry artists who have enough product ready for
> an entire show. Monika Livingstone, for example, and she's also done
> plenty of art that's not strictly furry, either... showing instead
> real animals in realistic scenes.
There are a number of furry artists whose stuff would be at home in a
fine-art gallery: Chris Goodwin, Krahnos, Pseudo Manitou. They do work
that breaks the stereotype, not the usual toony or wildlife look.
--
The Furry InfoPage! http://www.tigerden.com/infopage/furry/
pete...@Furry.fan.org (PeterCat) Rhal on FurryMUCK (come cuddle!)
--
"I can't believe what he's doing with those shiitake mushrooms!"
Watch "Iron Chef," Fridays and Saturdays at 10pm (ET) on Food Network!
Bob Drake
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
If you make art and want to show stuff in a gallery it's not hard to find
"alternative" galleries or a hip "underground" cafe etc where you can set up
a show. If you don't have enough pictures to fill the place, do a show with
some friends or other local artists. When I lived in Denver I used to
regularly hang pics at a place called Cafe 13 and set up a show together
with 4 other freinds (who all made totally different kinds of art) at
Gallery Bwana downtown. More recently I've shown stuff at International
Museum de l'Erotica in Barcelona Spain, and at Musee de l'Imaginiare here in
France.
The only pictures I've ever had in any galleries have always been of
anthropomorphic animals.
Felyne32k
says...
> over. The artist has managed over the years convinced people that art is
> supposed to invoke emotion when viewed and detail and reality are nothing.
Well, no... not entirely. The Dadaists decided to invoke nothing but
confusion. They were geniuses, in their own right, in their ability to
make a large part of the world go "huh?" and still pay for it, on top of
it all.
They were *conscious* of the idea being a huge joke, which, IMHO, is very
important. A lot of modern artists take themselves too seriously.
--
-Felyne32k, supposed "English Major"
DISCLAIMER: The poster is known to experience judgement
lapses brought by sleep deprivation.
Felyne32k
> ourselfs seriously? When a gorgous (G-rated) picture of two embracing
> felines by Dark Natasha pulls down $50 or $60, while X-rated and
> XXX-rated pictures pull donw three digits a throw, what the hell does
> that say about furrydom?
>
> It says that furrydom is about skin...even though theres fur on that
> skin.
>
> Art aims for your head...or your heart...not your crotch.
>
To be fair, the Chinese, Japanese, and Indian cultures did some
tremendous things with erotica that are considered 'high art', but I
think that is at least partially because they are traditional forms, and
rely on things other than sheer explicitness to arouse...
Kathmandu
"Felyne32k" <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.16e475181...@news.fur.com...
> In article <a5c8gp$je6$1...@velox.critter.net>, kath...@cableone.com
> says...
>
> > over. The artist has managed over the years convinced people that art is
> > supposed to invoke emotion when viewed and detail and reality are
nothing.
>
> Well, no... not entirely. The Dadaists decided to invoke nothing but
> confusion. They were geniuses, in their own right, in their ability to
> make a large part of the world go "huh?" and still pay for it, on top of
> it all.
>
> They were *conscious* of the idea being a huge joke, which, IMHO, is very
> important. A lot of modern artists take themselves too seriously.
I was speaking about the modernists, Dadaists were acomplished artists who
turned reality upsidedown, basically agrandizing the absolutely mundane.
Their work still took talent and it did evolve into the surrealist movement,
which is a very powerful and popular artform. The vast majority of scifi,
fantasy and yes, furry art would fall under the surrealists banner.
Kathmandu who pines for art decco and the days when everything was shaped
like a streamlined toaster...
Leslie_R
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
Hello, I went and had a little e-mail chat with someon on this subject
who's opinions on the matter I thought would prove quite interesting.
So here they are
-Leslie
KARNO SAYS:
I've been to a fine arts school, had gallery exhibitions, and currently
make my living drawing pornographic funny animal comics. So my opinion
of the modern art world vs. furry art is not just based on hearsay. I
believe that modern art critics ( some of the most useless life-forms on
earth ) are engaged in a informal cult of ugliness: If a picture is
pretty and pleasant to look at, then the artist is just chasing the
tastes of the peasants, and his art is therefore "kitch" and worthless.
But if the art is eye-searingly ugly, then the artist must be following
his own vision, caring nothing about the reaction of the rubes. Then the
critic can feel superior to the plebeans by declaring that the latest
pile of steaming garbage is Art. This has created an odd sort of reverse
aesthetic: The uglier something is, the more artistic it is.
In a lot of the trendier galleries, a symbiotic relationship has
developed between artist and critic. You will note that not one of the
"artists" can draw. They are useless people, incapable of creating
beauty, or for that matter, a honest day's work. The critics are even
more useless. They can't even create garbage, just talk about it. But
by conspiring to convince trendoids that the junk in the galleries is
actual art, critics, gallery owners and artists can make a nice living,
without ever having to do any real work. They have contempt for the poor
fools who work at their art, who actually tell stories with picture and
word. That's why furry, or cartoon art in general, will never find favor
in the "fine" galleries. It would expose most of modern art for the
laughable fraud it is, and a lot of "artists" and critics are shit
scared of that. They want to milk their scam for as long as possible.
Ergo, they will never love us, and I think we should forget about them.
- KJARTAN -
Samantha Ann Patterson
>
>
>"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>>
> KARNO SAYS:
>
>I've been to a fine arts school, had gallery exhibitions, and currently
>make my living drawing pornographic funny animal comics. So my opinion
>of the modern art world vs. furry art is not just based on hearsay. I
>believe that modern art critics ( some of the most useless life-forms on
>earth ) are engaged in a informal cult of ugliness: If a picture is
>pretty and pleasant to look at, then the artist is just chasing the
>tastes of the peasants, and his art is therefore "kitch" and worthless.
>But if the art is eye-searingly ugly, then the artist must be following
>his own vision, caring nothing about the reaction of the rubes. Then the
>critic can feel superior to the plebeans by declaring that the latest
>pile of steaming garbage is Art. This has created an odd sort of reverse
>aesthetic: The uglier something is, the more artistic it is.
reknown artist? I find his work exceptionally repulsive. It's
the main reason I don't buy Genus. Or perhaps the definition of
appeal is limited to the tastes of pubescent males.
-Samantha
Elf Sternberg
>>But if the art is eye-searingly ugly, then the artist must be following
>>his own vision, caring nothing about the reaction of the rubes. Then the
>>critic can feel superior to the plebeans by declaring that the latest
>>pile of steaming garbage is Art. This has created an odd sort of reverse
>>aesthetic: The uglier something is, the more artistic it is.
>Err... were this true, wouldn't Karno be an internationally
>reknown artist? I find his work exceptionally repulsive.
Yeah, me too, but he has a point. Personally, I'm rather
pleased to see that something called "The Derriere' Guard" has begun to
spring up in art circles: a reaction (reactionary?) to the "eye-searing"
ugliness that has been popular in "Avante Guard" artwork. The Derriere
Guard (what a great name!) believes in traditional values: art should be
beautiful, statues of people should look like people, and music should
be lyrical.
There are, of course, people who disdain what the Derriere Guard
is for, and there are people who have latched onto DG because they find
themselves only marignally capable of finding their own idiom (see Scott
McCloud's "Understanding Comics") and expressing it. But let's face it:
we have tried everything. There is nothing more to say with art _about
the medium itself_. The only thing left to do with idiom is
idiosyncracy, like Karno's.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/ (under construction)
Promiscuity, done right, is an inherently nerdlike pursuit that
requires discipline, practice and forethought. -- Tracy Quan
They swash! They buckle! New stories at:
http://www.drizzle.com/~elf/bloodybeth/
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
[...]
> Well, no... not entirely. The Dadaists decided to invoke nothing but
> confusion. They were geniuses, in their own right, in their ability to
> make a large part of the world go "huh?" and still pay for it, on top of
> it all.
Yep but the Daddarists where quite clearly having alot of fun.
> They were *conscious* of the idea being a huge joke, which, IMHO, is very
> important. A lot of modern artists take themselves too seriously.
Right on, I mean they basically admit in there manifesto that there art
is a massive joke.
Kathmandu
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:22:23 -0800, Felyne32k <Fely...@softhome.net>
wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Well, no... not entirely. The Dadaists decided to invoke nothing but
> > confusion. They were geniuses, in their own right, in their ability to
> > make a large part of the world go "huh?" and still pay for it, on top of
> > it all.
>
> Yep but the Daddarists where quite clearly having alot of fun.
>
> > They were *conscious* of the idea being a huge joke, which, IMHO, is
very
> > important. A lot of modern artists take themselves too seriously.
>
> Right on, I mean they basically admit in there manifesto that there art
> is a massive joke.
It doesn't take away from the fact it was art. Good art. Just as I have seen
art that made an indelible impression on me even though it was graphitti on
the side of a rail car, art is where you find it. For me though, art isn't
hanging in a trendy modern art gallery, usually.
Felyne32k
dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au says...
> On 24 Feb 2002 14:58:07 GMT, LancerAdvancd iBuck <lncra...@aol.comstar> wrote:
> >>Then why did "Pop" art get hung in gallaries?
> >
> > Because when it came along it was radical, now the famous pieces are
> > classical... but try to do pop art type work today and you probably won't get
> > to far, the shock value has worn off...
>
> Um I think furry could shock some people if it realy wished to.
>
The Saprophyte
"David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" wrote:
>
> I've been walking around a number of the Gallries in my city and I've
> wonders why isn't there any furry art hanging there? Much of it is
> far better then the shite that they are prepared to show.
>
It is. It just isn't called furry. It you're talking about art _by_
furries, that's a different matter entirely.
Pick up the right issue of, say, "Southwest Art" magazine in the states,
and you might find a fair amount of anthro themed work.
Mostly sculpture, like this:
http://www.gaskillolson.com/GerberFS.asp?ArtDir=Gerber&ArtID=192
which is odd, because she's technically northwest. (also check out
"three stepping" "tango" and "cat's out of town")
Usually, they're more native american influenced, such as:
http://arthurnorby.com/shaman.html
and
http://www.raytracey.com/tobey/
(a lot of Inuit carving fits in here, but purely Native art's a whole
different category altogether. I think I've may have even seen some
native Australian anthro stuff somewhere)
As you can see, I decided to do a little digging around, but all I've
been able to come up with for graphics so far is this: (warning, nudity)
http://www.absolutearts.com/portfolios/l/legner/
and this: (clean)
http://www.tonitapies.com/02-08.htm
although those appear to be from studies for others in page, and these:
http://www.waddington-galleries.com/ARTIST/FLAN/SFLAN.HTM
I plan on looking around some more, though. Gives me a chance to use
some bookmarks I haven't explored in a while. I may drop a post or
two more if I find anything else relevant. Or not.
I was hoping to find a link for that woman who makes those life size
statues of animals sitting on park benches. They're scattered around in
parks in a number major cities. (Wow, some coincidence, eh?) No luck
yet.
It's not like illustrative artwork isn't being shown and occasionally
sold either. A few "furry" pieces have made it into the Spectrum
competition books in the past, in particular the original for the M:TG
card "Miri, Cat Warrior". There is a collectors market for the type,
if not the subject (_including_ Vallejo and Bell) and galleries that
handle work for artists like Michael Whelan.
It's not inconceivable then, that something like the cover art for
"Ensign Flandry" and "Little Fuzzy", or prints thereof, should end up on
the market, if they haven't already. As was pointed out elsewhere, there
_are_ artists within furrydom nearly if not entirely in this class, who
could theoretically garner attention from this area of interest.
There are galleries that deal in storybook style illos, prints, and the
like, too, both old and new. There's a lot of anthro art there already,
and a lot of furry art wouldn't be out of place there. For example:
http://www.artshowplace.com/Artists/P_Neel/p_neel_th3.htm
An online gallery, but you get the idea.
--
The Saprophyte
--
The Saprophyte
Most of furry as we know it is to me fairly directly representational.
A vixen with a cigar is just that, so to speak. I would say that which
isn't would be more consistent with symbolism, though admittedly my
understanding of the distinction is nil. Consider that plenty of anthro
art predates the modern concepts behind surrealism, some by centuries,
and those seem often to be more concerned with satire than intellectual
ideals.
I have no great love of the impressionists myself either, but some of
them were anything but slapdash. I mean, Correct me if I'm wrong, but
isn't this the outfit that produced pointillism? The "get rich quick"
idea doesn't seem to jibe with Van Gogh's sales record, either. 'Sides,
he had an excuse for painting so fast, he was nuts. :)
> Kathmandu who pines for art decco and the days when everything was shaped
> like a streamlined toaster...
Ironic, in that without the trends toward refinement, abstraction and
related ideas brought about by the movements that gave rise of
modernism, there wouldn't have been an Art Deco.
So does this mean we can look forward to some Erte' and Chiperus
inspired work from you? ;)
Kathmandu
news:3C7F155E...@nolocale.com...
>
>
> Kathmandu wrote:
> >
> > "Felyne32k" <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.16e475181...@news.fur.com...
> > > In article <a5c8gp$je6$1...@velox.critter.net>, kath...@cableone.com
> > > says...
> > >
scifi,
> > fantasy and yes, furry art would fall under the surrealists banner.
> >
>
> Most of furry as we know it is to me fairly directly representational.
> A vixen with a cigar is just that, so to speak. I would say that which
> isn't would be more consistent with symbolism, though admittedly my
> understanding of the distinction is nil.
Surrealism is a broad and vey encompassing term. If you paint a cityscape,
that is representational (or rationalism) art. If you put a 800 foot tall
vixen in the middle of it, it becomes surreal. Same with the vixen with the
cigar, the vixen does not exist in the real world but in many ways it is a
symbol of sexuality, sensuality or cleverness therefore it falls under the
surrealist's banner.
Consider that plenty of anthro
> art predates the modern concepts behind surrealism, some by centuries,
> and those seem often to be more concerned with satire than intellectual
> ideals.
Dadaism when viewed today easily falls into the surrealist camp but it
predates the movement too. A relatively recent art movement called Tribalism
has primitive art as its theme. To say that just because it was made before
someone stuck the current nom d'jour on it doesn't make it less valid.
Ancient cave paintings predate Tribalism by, I dunno, 200,000 years but it
is Tribal art in nature. Hieronymus Bosch's vision of Hell is the very
essence of surrealism but it predates the movement by several hundred years.
Now does the vixen truely embody the absolute definition of surrealism, is
it a representation of the subconscience to produce a piece of the
fantastic? You bet it is, the vixen is ripe with Fruedian symbolism. Just
because Doug Winger didn't set out to paint a surrealist picture doesn't
mean he didn't do it and we all know how some of his art is the very
definition of surreal. The imagery in Chuck Jones' "Duck Dodgers of the
24th 1/2 Century" where Daffy walks under the huge electric eye is the very
heart and soul of surrealism, humour included. Just because limp-wristed
psudointellectuals don't flutter around it spilling their double mocha
lattes on themselves in their excitment doesn't mean it isn't so. Just
because it isn't melting watches on a tree or a man in a bowler hat having
bird problems doesn't exclude it from being quanified in the realm of the
surreal.
> I have no great love of the impressionists myself either, but some of
> them were anything but slapdash. I mean, Correct me if I'm wrong, but
> isn't this the outfit that produced pointillism?
Depends on the size of the dots.. :) A photograph is pointillism to the
extreme and I have seen some that rival a photograph. In that sense they are
not impressionistic painting because it does not strip away but instead it
creates a representional work done in a different style. Beside that, the
amount of art produced in pointillism is minute compared to the amount done
in the 'finger paint" style of most impressionists. There are always
exceptions to any form of quantification.
The "get rich quick"
> idea doesn't seem to jibe with Van Gogh's sales record, either. 'Sides,
> he had an excuse for painting so fast, he was nuts. :)
Very few impressionists artists ever "got rich" since their art was not
accepted well by bourgoise of their day. The value and importance of their
art wasn't realized until most of them were dead. The art dealers are the
ones who "got rich" and it is much the same today.
>
> > Kathmandu who pines for art decco and the days when everything was
shaped
> > like a streamlined toaster...
>
> Ironic, in that without the trends toward refinement, abstraction and
> related ideas brought about by the movements that gave rise of
> modernism, there wouldn't have been an Art Deco.
> So does this mean we can look forward to some Erte' and Chiperus
> inspired work from you? ;)
Could be, Erte' anyway, don't know Chiperus. His "Two Vamps" is inspiring as
is the "Stranded" sculpture. "The Slave" done as a furry would be awesome.
:) Paul Howard Manship, now there was a sculptor...
Kathmandu, dumbass redneck at large
The Saprophyte
Kathmandu wrote:
>
> "The Saprophyte" <NormD...@nolocale.com> wrote in message
> news:3C7F155E...@nolocale.com...
> >
> >
> > Kathmandu wrote:
> > >
> > > "Felyne32k" <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.16e475181...@news.fur.com...
> > > > In article <a5c8gp$je6$1...@velox.critter.net>, kath...@cableone.com
> > > > says...
> > > >
> > > which is a very powerful and popular artform. The vast majority of
> scifi,
> > > fantasy and yes, furry art would fall under the surrealists banner.
> > >
> >
> > Most of furry as we know it is to me fairly directly representational.
> > A vixen with a cigar is just that, so to speak. I would say that which
> > isn't would be more consistent with symbolism, though admittedly my
> > understanding of the distinction is nil.
>
> Surrealism is a broad and vey encompassing term. If you paint a cityscape,
> that is representational (or rationalism) art. If you put a 800 foot tall
> vixen in the middle of it, it becomes surreal. Same with the vixen with the
> cigar, the vixen does not exist in the real world but in many ways it is a
> symbol of sexuality, sensuality or cleverness therefore it falls under the
> surrealist's banner.
>
True, except that much of the sexuality is blatant, almost redundant,
and the example falters somewhat when you shift to species other than
foxes and felines for erotica, and when one uses a non-clever fox, or
un-fun otter, etc.
That is, for every on model symbolic use, there may be at least one off
model used arbitrarily. It's all fantasy, but it divides unevenly in to
two camps, rational fantasy (the sci in sci-fi), and irrational fantasy
(everything else.) Think of the "people with tails" destination some
fans use to separate some furry work from others. I guess my point was
that it's surreal, but not surrealist. I would think it makes a
difference whether the artist is using surreal incongruity for
amusement, shock value
or direct symbolism rather than to deliberately subvert rational
thinking.
> Consider that plenty of anthro
> > art predates the modern concepts behind surrealism, some by centuries,
> > and those seem often to be more concerned with satire than intellectual
> > ideals.
>
> Dadaism when viewed today easily falls into the surrealist camp but it
> predates the movement too. A relatively recent art movement called Tribalism
> has primitive art as its theme. To say that just because it was made before
> someone stuck the current nom d'jour on it doesn't make it less valid.
> Ancient cave paintings predate Tribalism by, I dunno, 200,000 years but it
> is Tribal art in nature. Hieronymus Bosch's vision of Hell is the very
> essence of surrealism but it predates the movement by several hundred years.
>
Except that bosch's painting have a definite symbolism to them the
meaning of which has been lost. At the time, they were meant to be read
as plainly as a book, like the so-called "sermons in stone" of
contemporary medieval cathedrals, or the "language of the flowers"
employed by the victorians and. (Kind of a primitive version of the
hanky code)
> Now does the vixen truely embody the absolute definition of surrealism, is
> it a representation of the subconscience to produce a piece of the
> fantastic? You bet it is, the vixen is ripe with Fruedian symbolism. Just
> because Doug Winger didn't set out to paint a surrealist picture doesn't
> mean he didn't do it and we all know how some of his art is the very
> definition of surreal. The imagery in Chuck Jones' "Duck Dodgers of the
> 24th 1/2 Century" where Daffy walks under the huge electric eye is the very
> heart and soul of surrealism, humour included. Just because limp-wristed
> psudointellectuals don't flutter around it spilling their double mocha
> lattes on themselves in their excitment doesn't mean it isn't so. Just
> because it isn't melting watches on a tree or a man in a bowler hat having
> bird problems doesn't exclude it from being quanified in the realm of the
> surreal.
>
Like I said, surreal but not necessarily surrealist. Intent should count
for something besides a single adjetive. Espesially since if modern
psychology is to be believed, Frued, and thus the surrealists, got it
entirely wrong. Not to mention that it can put a lot of stuff in a
_whole_ new light. Like Amara's work, Nip and Tuck, most of yerf... ;)
> > I have no great love of the impressionists myself either, but some of
> > them were anything but slapdash. I mean, Correct me if I'm wrong, but
> > isn't this the outfit that produced pointillism?
>
> Depends on the size of the dots.. :) A photograph is pointillism to the
> extreme and I have seen some that rival a photograph. In that sense they are
> not impressionistic painting because it does not strip away but instead it
> creates a representional work done in a different style. Beside that, the
> amount of art produced in pointillism is minute compared to the amount done
> in the 'finger paint" style of most impressionists. There are always
> exceptions to any form of quantification.
>
Ah, but there are levels to that, too. Monet's Waterlilies and Casset's
figural work (along with most american impressionism) are worlds away
from most of the other french crap, occasionally almost photo realistic
in their own way. I prefer more realistic stuff like tissot(sp?) and
waterhouse myself, and they're considered prettified hacks, so I see
where you're coming from.
> The "get rich quick"
> > idea doesn't seem to jibe with Van Gogh's sales record, either. 'Sides,
> > he had an excuse for painting so fast, he was nuts. :)
>
> Very few impressionists artists ever "got rich" since their art was not
> accepted well by bourgoise of their day. The value and importance of their
> art wasn't realized until most of them were dead. The art dealers are the
> ones who "got rich" and it is much the same today.
>
Which kind of goes against the implication of an attempt at usurping the
art market by the impressionists themselves.
> >
> > > Kathmandu who pines for art decco and the days when everything was
> shaped
> > > like a streamlined toaster...
> >
> > Ironic, in that without the trends toward refinement, abstraction and
> > related ideas brought about by the movements that gave rise of
> > modernism, there wouldn't have been an Art Deco.
> > So does this mean we can look forward to some Erte' and Chiperus
> > inspired work from you? ;)
>
> Could be, Erte' anyway, don't know Chiperus. His "Two Vamps" is inspiring as
> is the "Stranded" sculpture. "The Slave" done as a furry would be awesome.
> :) Paul Howard Manship, now there was a sculptor...
>
It'd help if I spelled it right. Chiparus, with an "a". Czech, Did
cryselephantine (Ivory trimmed) Bronzes. lots of Exotic dancing girls in
stylized costumes. Lot of artists did those, but he was one of the best,
And the only other name I can pull out of hat quick.
--
The Saprophyte
--
Kathmandu
>
>
> Kathmandu wrote:
> >
> > "The Saprophyte" <NormD...@nolocale.com> wrote in message
> > news:3C7F155E...@nolocale.com...
> > >
> > >
> > > Kathmandu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "Felyne32k" <Fely...@softhome.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.16e475181...@news.fur.com...
> > > > > In article <a5c8gp$je6$1...@velox.critter.net>,
kath...@cableone.com
>
> meaning of which has been lost. At the time, they were meant to be read
> as plainly as a book, like the so-called "sermons in stone" of
> contemporary medieval cathedrals, or the "language of the flowers"
> employed by the victorians and. (Kind of a primitive version of the
> hanky code)
Just because it has a hidden meaning makes it even more a work of a
surrealist just as many surrealists use symbols and such in our modern
times. I think we are splitting hairs here really.
>
> > Now does the vixen truely embody the absolute definition of surrealism,
is
> > it a representation of the subconscience to produce a piece of the
> > fantastic? You bet it is, the vixen is ripe with Fruedian symbolism.
Just
> > because Doug Winger didn't set out to paint a surrealist picture doesn't
> > mean he didn't do it and we all know how some of his art is the very
> > definition of surreal. The imagery in Chuck Jones' "Duck Dodgers of the
> > 24th 1/2 Century" where Daffy walks under the huge electric eye is the
very
> > heart and soul of surrealism, humour included. Just because limp-wristed
> > psudointellectuals don't flutter around it spilling their double mocha
> > lattes on themselves in their excitment doesn't mean it isn't so. Just
> > because it isn't melting watches on a tree or a man in a bowler hat
having
> > bird problems doesn't exclude it from being quanified in the realm of
the
> > surreal.
> >
>
>
> Like I said, surreal but not necessarily surrealist. Intent should count
> for something besides a single adjetive. Espesially since if modern
> psychology is to be believed, Frued, and thus the surrealists, got it
> entirely wrong. Not to mention that it can put a lot of stuff in a
> _whole_ new light. Like Amara's work, Nip and Tuck, most of yerf... ;)
>
In my experience I have come to the conclusion that Frued was neither
entirely right nor entirely wrong. The same with the surrealists, plus the
veiwing of a piece of art is completely subjective to the viewer,
independant of the artists intent. I look at a picture by Amara and I can
see elements of the surrealist, just as I can with most Scifi and Fantasy. I
am using the more recent view of surrealism and not hung up on the early
20th century definition though.
The fact many of them couldn't make rent was more a modivator than getting
rich. If it takes you a day to paint a picture as opposed to a month and the
rent is due, what do you think you would paint?
> >
> > Could be, Erte' anyway, don't know Chiperus. His "Two Vamps" is
inspiring as
> > is the "Stranded" sculpture. "The Slave" done as a furry would be
awesome.
> > :) Paul Howard Manship, now there was a sculptor...
> >
>
>
> It'd help if I spelled it right. Chiparus, with an "a". Czech, Did
> cryselephantine (Ivory trimmed) Bronzes. lots of Exotic dancing girls in
> stylized costumes. Lot of artists did those, but he was one of the best,
> And the only other name I can pull out of hat quick.
I hadn't ever seen his work, thanks for pointing them out. Nice work but
Erte' is much more interesting to me, his styling just makes me go, "hey,
thats cool," Manship has that same sort of impact but different. Erte' is
very sensual where Manship is bold. Chirparus leaves me flat, I don't get
that art deco feel like I do with Erte'.
David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)
>
> "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au> wrote
> in message news:slrna7odt5....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
[...]
>> Right on, I mean they basically admit in there manifesto that there art
>> is a massive joke.
>
> It doesn't take away from the fact it was art.
I never said that it wasn't.
Kathmandu
> On Tue, 26 Feb 2002 20:24:33 -0600, Kathmandu <kath...@cableone.com>
wrote:
> >
> > "David Formosa (aka ? the Platypus)" <dfor...@dformosa.zeta.org.au>
wrote
> > in message news:slrna7odt5....@dformosa.zeta.org.au...
>
> [...]
>
> >> Right on, I mean they basically admit in there manifesto that there art
> >> is a massive joke.
> >
> > It doesn't take away from the fact it was art.
>
> I never said that it wasn't.
I think you misunderstood what I meant by that. I meant just because they
did it as a joke or whatever doesn't diminish or take away from the fact it
was damned good artwork. Just as artwork that appears in Mad Magazine can
still be considered good art. I didn't mean to imply you didn't think
Dadaist art wasn't art.
Kathmandu
The Saprophyte
Kathmandu wrote:
>
> "The Saprophyte" <NormD...@nolocale.com> wrote in message
> news:3C802F3A...@nolocale.com...
> >
> >
> > Kathmandu wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Saprophyte" <NormD...@nolocale.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C7F155E...@nolocale.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kathmandu wrote:
> kath...@cableone.com
> >
> > Except that bosch's painting have a definite symbolism to them the
> > meaning of which has been lost. At the time, they were meant to be read
> > as plainly as a book, like the so-called "sermons in stone" of
> > contemporary medieval cathedrals, or the "language of the flowers"
> > employed by the victorians and. (Kind of a primitive version of the
> > hanky code)
>
> Just because it has a hidden meaning makes it even more a work of a
> surrealist just as many surrealists use symbols and such in our modern
> times.
>
That's the point. At the time they were made, the meaning wasn't hidden.
His paintings were openly interpretable. To the rennaissence mind, hell
paintings were a good example of what they could look forward to if they
didn't toe the line. Often they were literal interpretations of biblical
passeges. An even better example of the same principle would be certain
non-judeochristian religeous art. As far as the creators are concerned,
what they've portrayed was/is perfectly real, regardless of how the
subject matter looks to us. (stylistic extremes not withstanding)
I'd say most early anthro creators (with notable exceptions) weren't
overly concerned with psychological exploration. They were mostly just
trying to tell stories and make the occasional point, furries being just
a tool of expedience. Things may have shifted more towards your POV in
modern times, but I'd say that still holds true to some extent.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of surrealism in furry, but there is
a lot that can be taken at face value. Like the "people with animal
heads" example, some furries are furry for a reason, (if only 'cuz
they're purdy) others aren't.
Take our hypothetical vixen again. Do you look at a pic of her and go
"mmmm vixen" or do you look and go "mmmm subconscious manifestation of
the libido"? ('course now you start to get into weird teritory about
visual cues and hardwired instinctual responces)
Or take a certain story involving a lionine alien and a lutrine genetic
chimera getting it on underwater aboard a giant starfaring watertanker.
Is it wholey strange and dreamlike, or can it be read as a straight-
forword narrative of plausible, if unlikely, speculative events?
I would think if you can look at something and say "okay, this makes
total sense", it's not very surreal, even if that sense is only convayed
by a specific context. (i.e. overt symbolism)
Oh, and I wouldn't call tribal influenced art tribal anymore than I
would call asian influenced art asian. Not unless it was taken directly
from an original design. Okay, I might, but it wouldn't be entirely fair
to either.
>I think we are splitting hairs here really.
That would depend on how you define "split" and "hair". ;)
(snip)
could say that all art is surrealistic since it's idealised and built up
on subconscious
how then do you destinguesh science fiction from science fantasy?
> >
> >
> > Like I said, surreal but not necessarily surrealist. Intent should count
> > for something besides a single adjetive. Espesially since if modern
> > psychology is to be believed, Frued, and thus the surrealists, got it
> > entirely wrong. Not to mention that it can put a lot of stuff in a
> > _whole_ new light. Like Amara's work, Nip and Tuck, most of yerf... ;)
> >
>
> In my experience I have come to the conclusion that Frued was neither
> entirely right nor entirely wrong.
In hindsight, that would seem to be more the case.
The same with the surrealists, plus the
> veiwing of a piece of art is completely subjective to the viewer,
> independant of the artists intent.
Than if a headhunter might find a typical norman rockwell painting
surreal, it must be so. Obvious intent can mean the world. A graphical
model of, say, spatial geometry and physical properties under unusual
conditions may be ostensibly surreal, but foremost to it's nature, it
serves a purpose as an important piece of research data.
Not that it can't be both, but the one should take precidence over the
other or it loses it's intended meaning, and becomes just another weird
picture.
>I look at a picture by Amara and I can
> see elements of the surrealist, just as I can with most Scifi and Fantasy.
I can't particulary vouch for Amara, but I think some people would be
more than a little upset to have it said their characters signified
something other than what they intended them to. I already tend to look
at the world through spooge covered glasses. It's not wise to encourage
me. ;)
I
> am using the more recent view of surrealism and not hung up on the early
> 20th century definition though.
>
Every definition I've seen (including yours) states that surrealism is
concerned with the subconscious, I.E. the non-rational mind, and a lot
of furry is anything but irrational.
All fantastic art derives from the imagination, but not every enchanted
castle or interstellar warship is a phalic symbol, despite what the
(pseudo)intellectuals would have us believe.
(snip)
> > > The "get rich quick"
> > > > idea doesn't seem to jibe with Van Gogh's sales record, either.
> 'Sides,
> > > > he had an excuse for painting so fast, he was nuts. :)
> > >
> > > Very few impressionists artists ever "got rich" since their art was not
> > > accepted well by bourgoise of their day. The value and importance of
> their
> > > art wasn't realized until most of them were dead. The art dealers are
> the
> > > ones who "got rich" and it is much the same today.
> > >
> >
> > Which kind of goes against the implication of an attempt at usurping the
> > art market by the impressionists themselves.
>
> The fact many of them couldn't make rent was more a modivator than getting
> rich. If it takes you a day to paint a picture as opposed to a month and the
> rent is due, what do you think you would paint?
>
Now who's splitting hairs? ;)
Depends on what some suck...er, Discerning patron was willing to pay. :)
Seriously, a livelyhood is a hell of a thing to risk on an experimental
style. In those straits, expedience is preferable, but you're going to
want to go with what actually _sells_. The furry market's a good model
of this. You can draw all the quick and dirty art you want, but if it
isn't, shall we say, dirty enough for anyone...
Van Gogh's brother owned a gallery, for crying out loud. The only
reason Vincent was _able_ to keep painting is because his brother
supported him out of his own pocket. (that was just in Smithsonian, BTW)
Maybe they weren't all like that, but what I've seen implies that by and
large, they were anything but self-sufficient.
> > >
> > > Could be, Erte' anyway, don't know Chiperus. His "Two Vamps" is
> inspiring as
> > > is the "Stranded" sculpture. "The Slave" done as a furry would be
> awesome.
> > > :) Paul Howard Manship, now there was a sculptor...
> > >
> >
> >
> > It'd help if I spelled it right. Chiparus, with an "a". Czech,
_Romanean_, not czech. *grrr*
> > cryselephantine (Ivory trimmed) Bronzes. lots of Exotic dancing girls in
> > stylized costumes. Lot of artists did those, but he was one of the best,
> > And the only other name I can pull out of hat quick.
>
> I hadn't ever seen his work, thanks for pointing them out. Nice work but
> Erte' is much more interesting to me, his styling just makes me go, "hey,
> thats cool," Manship has that same sort of impact but different. Erte' is
> very sensual where Manship is bold. Chirparus leaves me flat, I don't get
> that art deco feel like I do with Erte'.
Probably because chiparas' style has more in common with art nouveau,
which is what I prefer. That sort of statuary is still considered very
much iconographic of art deco, though it shows more in the bases than
the figures. Plus they were more decorative Object D'art than fine
sculpture.
I was only vaguely aware of manship before now myself. Not really being
familier with it, I'm probably as ambivulant about his work as you are
about Chiparus. It's just stylized enough to catch my eye, but not
enough to hold it overlong.
Hey, at least "Acteon" would be on topic. :)
I'll have to aquaint myself better with Erte' too. I know the style in
passing, but he's not something one sees very often.
--
The Saprophyte, country rambler.
--
The Saprophyte
Kathmandu wrote:
>
> "The Saprophyte" <NormD...@nolocale.com> wrote in message
> news:3C802F3A...@nolocale.com...
> >
> >
> > Kathmandu wrote:
> > >
> > > "The Saprophyte" <NormD...@nolocale.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3C7F155E...@nolocale.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Kathmandu wrote:
> kath...@cableone.com
> >
> > Except that bosch's painting have a definite symbolism to them the
> > meaning of which has been lost. At the time, they were meant to be read
> > as plainly as a book, like the so-called "sermons in stone" of
> > contemporary medieval cathedrals, or the "language of the flowers"
> > employed by the victorians and. (Kind of a primitive version of the
> > hanky code)
>
> Just because it has a hidden meaning makes it even more a work of a
> surrealist just as many surrealists use symbols and such in our modern
> times.
>
That's the point. At the time they were made, the meaning wasn't hidden.
His paintings were openly interpretable. To the renaissance mind, hell
paintings were a good example of what they could look forward to if they
didn't toe the line. Often they were literal interpretations of biblical
passages. An even better example of the same principle would be certain
non-judeochristian religious art. As far as the creators are concerned,
what they've portrayed was/is perfectly real, regardless of how the
subject matter looks to us. (stylistic extremes not withstanding)
I'd say most early anthro creators (with notable exceptions) weren't
overly concerned with psychological exploration. They were mostly just
trying to tell stories and make the occasional point, furries being just
a tool of expedience. Things may have shifted more towards your POV in
modern times, but I'd say that still holds true to some extent.
I'm not saying there isn't a lot of surrealism in furry, but there is
a lot that can be taken at face value. Like the "people with animal
heads" example, some furries are furry for a reason, (if only 'cuz
they're purdy) others aren't.
Take our hypothetical vixen again. Do you look at a pic of her and go
"mmmm vixen" or do you look and go "mmmm subconscious manifestation of
the libido"? ('course now you start to get into weird territory about
visual cues and hardwired instinctual responses)
Or take a certain story involving a lionine alien and a lutrine genetic
chimera getting it on underwater aboard a giant starfaring water tanker.
Is it wholly strange and dreamlike, or can it be read as a straight-
forward narrative of plausible, if unlikely, speculative events?
I would think if you can look at something and say "okay, this makes
total sense", it's not very surreal, even if that sense is only conveyed
by a specific context. (i.e. overt symbolism)
Oh, and I wouldn't call tribal influenced art tribal anymore than I
would call asian influenced art asian. Not unless it was taken directly
from an original design. Okay, I might, but it wouldn't be entirely fair
to either.
>I think we are splitting hairs here really.
That would depend on how you define "split" and "hair". ;)
(snip)
> > Like I said, surreal but not necessarily surrealist. Intent should count
> > for something besides a single adjetive. Espesially since if modern
> > psychology is to be believed, Frued, and thus the surrealists, got it
> > entirely wrong. Not to mention that it can put a lot of stuff in a
> > _whole_ new light. Like Amara's work, Nip and Tuck, most of yerf... ;)
> >
>
> In my experience I have come to the conclusion that Frued was neither
> entirely right nor entirely wrong.
In hindsight, that would seem to be more the case.
The same with the surrealists, plus the
> veiwing of a piece of art is completely subjective to the viewer,
> independant of the artists intent.
Than if a headhunter might find a typical norman rockwell painting
surreal, it must be so. Obvious intent can mean the world. A graphical
model of, say, spatial geometry and physical properties under unusual
conditions may be ostensibly surreal, but foremost to it's nature, it
serves a purpose as an important piece of research data.
Not that it can't be both, but the one should take precedence over the
other or it loses it's intended meaning, and becomes just another weird
picture.
>I look at a picture by Amara and I can
> see elements of the surrealist, just as I can with most Scifi and Fantasy.
I can't particularly vouch for Amara, but I think some people would be
more than a little upset to have it said their characters signified
something other than what they intended them to. I already tend to look
at the world through spooge covered glasses. It's not wise to encourage
me. ;)
I
> am using the more recent view of surrealism and not hung up on the early
> 20th century definition though.
>
Every definition I've seen (including yours) states that surrealism is
concerned with the subconscious, I.E. the non-rational mind, and a lot
of furry is anything but irrational.
All fantastic art derives from the imagination, but not every enchanted
castle or interstellar warship is a phallic symbol, despite what the
(pseudo) intellectuals would have us believe.
(snip)
> > > The "get rich quick"
> > > > idea doesn't seem to jibe with Van Gogh's sales record, either.
> 'Sides,
> > > > he had an excuse for painting so fast, he was nuts. :)
> > >
> > > Very few impressionists artists ever "got rich" since their art was not
> > > accepted well by bourgoise of their day. The value and importance of
> their
> > > art wasn't realized until most of them were dead. The art dealers are
> the
> > > ones who "got rich" and it is much the same today.
> > >
> >
> > Which kind of goes against the implication of an attempt at usurping the
> > art market by the impressionists themselves.
>
> The fact many of them couldn't make rent was more a modivator than getting
> rich. If it takes you a day to paint a picture as opposed to a month and the
> rent is due, what do you think you would paint?
>
Now who's splitting hairs? ;)
Depends on what some suck...er, Discerning patron was willing to pay. :)
Seriously, a livelihood is a hell of a thing to risk on an experimental
style. In those straits, expedience is preferable, but you're going to
want to go with what actually _sells_. The furry market's a good model
of this. You can draw all the quick and dirty art you want, but if it
isn't, shall we say, dirty enough for anyone...
Van Gogh's brother owned a gallery, for crying out loud. The only
reason Vincent was _able_ to keep painting is because his brother
supported him out of his own pocket. (that was just in Smithsonian, BTW)
Maybe they weren't all like that, but what I've seen implies that by and
large, they were anything but self-sufficient.
> > >
> > > Could be, Erte' anyway, don't know Chiperus. His "Two Vamps" is
> inspiring as
> > > is the "Stranded" sculpture. "The Slave" done as a furry would be
> awesome.
> > > :) Paul Howard Manship, now there was a sculptor...
> > >
> >
> >
> > It'd help if I spelled it right. Chiparus, with an "a". Czech,
_Romanean_, not czech. *grrr*
> > cryselephantine (Ivory trimmed) Bronzes. lots of Exotic dancing girls in
> > stylized costumes. Lot of artists did those, but he was one of the best,
> > And the only other name I can pull out of hat quick.
>
> I hadn't ever seen his work, thanks for pointing them out. Nice work but
> Erte' is much more interesting to me, his styling just makes me go, "hey,
> thats cool," Manship has that same sort of impact but different. Erte' is
> very sensual where Manship is bold. Chirparus leaves me flat, I don't get
> that art deco feel like I do with Erte'.
Probably because chiparas' style has more in common with art nouveau,
which is what I prefer. That sort of statuary is still considered very
much iconographic of art deco, though it shows more in the bases than
the figures. Plus they were more decorative Object D'art than fine
sculpture.
I was only vaguely aware of manship before now myself. Not really being
familiar with it, I'm probably as ambivalent about his work as you are
about Chiparus. It's just stylized enough to catch my eye, but not
enough to hold it overlong.
Hey, at least "Acteon" would be on topic. :)
I'll have to acquaint myself better with Erte' too. I know the style in