Art and markets
LloydCR
Centuries ago artists made their money - their living - from commissions, or
because their work was popular and saleable, or they starved.
These days, the 'art establishment' seems to have secured a system of reward
for 'art lovey's' that allows full exploration of artistic philosophy, but
at the expense of the rest of society.
I believe that this leaves a lot of perfectly credible artists out in the
cold, taking up careers as accountants or brick layers whilst secretly
fostering their real artistic talents in their garden sheds.
Furthermore - and perhaps more worrying - the recent trends of the art
colleges seems to have been towards developing artistic philosophical
expression at the expense of artistic talent with materials. The
consequence of this seems to have become a generation of philosophically
advanced artists who appear to be incapable of adequately expressing
themselves in their chosen medium, and who have left their public - their
'market' - so far behind them that the only means of support left to this
rarefied world is the 'Lottery Grant' or advanced elite gallery.
Not too bad for the 'loveys', but disaster for the rest and, I believe, for
the rest of the art world and the markets that they have left behind.
There is a thirsty market out there, identified by the concrete gnome and
peeing boy fountain in garden centres throughout Europe, that is desperate
for real art. I believe that we can serve this market, put the concrete
crap merchants out of business and begin to educate those thirsty
individuals to demand artistic excellence - thus re-inventing a market for
art that is both philosophically and technically competent.
... what do you say????
Andrew Werby
LloydCR wrote in message <38b87...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
>Hi.
>Centuries ago artists made their money - their living - from commissions,
or
>because their work was popular and saleable, or they starved.
[Has something changed?]
>
>These days, the 'art establishment' seems to have secured a system of
reward
>for 'art lovey's' that allows full exploration of artistic philosophy, but
>at the expense of the rest of society.
[Yeah right- currently about 32cents worth per capita per annum in the US.
There
is very little support for art outside the academy, so we shouldn't wonder
that
academic values have prevailed.]
>
>I believe that this leaves a lot of perfectly credible artists out in the
>cold, taking up careers as accountants or brick layers whilst secretly
>fostering their real artistic talents in their garden sheds.
>
>Furthermore - and perhaps more worrying - the recent trends of the art
>colleges seems to have been towards developing artistic philosophical
>expression at the expense of artistic talent with materials. The
>consequence of this seems to have become a generation of philosophically
>advanced artists who appear to be incapable of adequately expressing
>themselves in their chosen medium, and who have left their public - their
>'market' - so far behind them that the only means of support left to this
>rarefied world is the 'Lottery Grant' or advanced elite gallery.
[In the case of academic artists, they express themselves perfectly well in
their chosen media- the grant proposal, the scholarly article, the review.
Other media languish for lack of general appreciation and financial
support. ]
>
>Not too bad for the 'loveys', but disaster for the rest and, I believe, for
>the rest of the art world and the markets that they have left behind.
[Markets? What markets?]
>
>There is a thirsty market out there, identified by the concrete gnome and
>peeing boy fountain in garden centres throughout Europe, that is desperate
>for real art. I believe that we can serve this market, put the concrete
>crap merchants out of business
[The market you identify is only "thirsty" for more of the same, but perhaps
at a
cheaper price. Try selling some "real art" to one of these garden centers
and see
what they say. The sculptor's fee for the gnomes and Mannequin Pis has been
amortized long ago- you'd be competing with low-wage concrete workers in a
factory setting. The factory owners are hardly trembling in their boots...]
and begin to educate those thirsty
>individuals to demand artistic excellence - thus re-inventing a market for
>art that is both philosophically and technically competent.
>
>... what do you say????
[How do you propose to conduct this educational campaign? And what
"competent" philosophy will you endeavor to inculcate? The garden market,
at the high end, is dominated by reproductions from the antique; as it
always
was. These represent a coherent philosophy which is well-established, and
are often quite well-done, in a technical sense. They are usually priced
fairly
reasonably, since no actual artists are involved. What are you going to
offer as a substitute? How are you going to convince the masses to ditch
their
concrete gnomes (in this country we use plastic flamingos) in favor of
whatever it is? It sounds, from the foregoing, as if you are out of sympathy
with most contemporary movements in art, (I could be wrong- what are you up
to in that garden shed- pickling sharks?) so are we talking about reviving
the
art fashionable in the 'thirties, or what?]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
>
>
>
Jeff
don't really even know what it's about LOL. But why let that stop me,
right ? On art market - I don't know much about it. The "art market"
where I live are local craft and garden shows, that's about it. We have
one art studio in town that few people go to. Is there a market for
art, especially sculpture ? I don't think there is, not much of one.
This isn't the world it was a few hundred years ago, art isn't real high
on people's list of important things these days. Folks think that it
is, but I don't. Utility is the word of the day - the buildings are
ugly, the various devices and contraptions are ugly, the machines are
ugly, pretty much everything is ugly, squarish, bland, and without any
kind of meaning. Okay, the new Apple computer is kinda cute, and the
Motorola StarTac has something going for it, but not much else LOL. The
corridors of the giant anthill have indeed become just that, cement
overpasses and long grids of reflective glass windows. Who could buy a
nice piece of sculpture and blend it into their 250k$us pop-up
house/shrub-scape ? It would stand out like a sore thumb. Besides,
things made of the mind and hand are expensive. Mass production and
wide distribution is the order of the day - thus the glazey eyed phrase
"market for art". Even the phrase itself is cold and impersonal, it
screams "large group of faceless people with money in their pockets
ready to buy my beautiful artwork".
Elijah
river-to-river-to-river-to-river millionaires with huge apartments to
furnish and start making your sculptures on a smaller scale. No matter
what your subject matter or medium is you'll sell if you try. There
are 6 billion people on this planet. this is a better time to be an
artist than ever before because of pluralism, and there's lotsa rich
people. I think cynicism and bitterness have no place in art and
they're self-defeating.
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:50:53 GMT, Jeff <fa...@nospam.anonymous.com>
wrote:
Elijah is me
http://users.cloud9.net/~afkiel
eganb...@my-deja.com
It's called industrial art. They found a market and the market is you.
And you will pay every day til you die. Learn to love it. It is the only
beauty in your world.
Frank Egan
http://ww.eganbronze.com
In article <38BB24F3...@nospam.anonymous.com>,
Jeff <fa...@nospam.anonymous.com> wrote:
> Don't know why I'm responding to this message - I'm not an artist and
> don't really even know what it's about LOL. But why let that stop me,
> right ? On art market - I don't know much about it. The "art market"
> where I live are local craft and garden shows, that's about it. We have
> one art studio in town that few people go to. Is there a market for
> art, especially sculpture ? I don't think there is, not much of one.
> This isn't the world it was a few hundred years ago, art isn't real high
> on people's list of important things these days. Folks think that it
> is, but I don't. Utility is the word of the day - the buildings are
> ugly, the various devices and contraptions are ugly, the machines are
> ugly, pretty much everything is ugly, squarish, bland, and without any
> kind of meaning. Okay, the new Apple computer is kinda cute, and the
> Motorola StarTac has something going for it, but not much else LOL. The
> corridors of the giant anthill have indeed become just that, cement
> overpasses and long grids of reflective glass windows. Who could buy a
> nice piece of sculpture and blend it into their 250k$us pop-up
> house/shrub-scape ? It would stand out like a sore thumb. Besides,
> things made of the mind and hand are expensive. Mass production and
> wide distribution is the order of the day - thus the glazey eyed phrase
> "market for art". Even the phrase itself is cold and impersonal, it
> screams "large group of faceless people with money in their pockets
> ready to buy my beautiful artwork".
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fred Mason
Quite a commentary, I must admit I agree with most of your thoughts.
This posting comes at time when we are preparing for our art shows for the
spring season. Going to the markets to sell our wares. The market for art
is alive and well, imho. However after years of chasing shows, we have now
narrowed our show schedule to two spring shows and one or two fall shows.
These have been chosen after years of doing shows and looking at shows as
sales vehicles. Our criteria has become, as we have gotten older, is the
show relatively easy to do - set up, breakdown, travel and show hours. Does
the show attract quality artists - no country craft marts.
We will be showing jewelry, our primary source of income. At the same time
we are working on a new collection of fountains. Last year we a lucky
enough to sell virtually all we created. This year we have requests for
more. Fortunately, we have not been attracted to proposal writing so we
still work with hands on media. And survive through what we sell. The
majority of our sales are commissioned pieces. I say this to let LloydCR
know that we have found, along with others, that it is possible to create
good designs and sell them.
The Crafts Report observed some 20 years ago that those who take the
greatest risks in both production and design are not full time, but have
other forms of income to support their avocatiion. This other income
affords them luxuries of risk, statement, materials that those working in
the free market do not have.
When not working at the studio my wife and I garden, and I must tell you
that we do buy certain of the concrete garden creations. Some things are
just for fun. And, awhile back we determined that it really was cheaper for
us to buy a $65.00 item than spend $3000.00 to buy all the equiptment to
make that item ourselves. At the same time we have works from other artists
in our yard and home.
Unfortunately, the largest market does not want to spend the money necessary
for original work, no matter what the medium. They also prefer to buy "safe
things' that others own, or on which a shop has stamped its imprimatur.
These folks are not necessarily my clients, so we do not pursue them.
Due to our business, and business connections, we had to good fortune to
attend the AtlantaMart, among others. Seeing the range of goods available
for sale in fields that are usually regarded as "art" is quite an eye
opener.
I'm not sure how all this ties in to this thread, but I feel it does.
Fred
"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
news:cCzu4.5410$so2.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
Andrew Werby
Fred Mason wrote in message ...
>Andrew,
>
>Quite a commentary, I must admit I agree with most of your thoughts.
[You mean there is a place for bitterness and cynicism in art?]
>
>This posting comes at time when we are preparing for our art shows for the
>spring season. Going to the markets to sell our wares. The market for art
>is alive and well, imho. However after years of chasing shows, we have now
>narrowed our show schedule to two spring shows and one or two fall shows.
>
>These have been chosen after years of doing shows and looking at shows as
>sales vehicles. Our criteria has become, as we have gotten older, is the
>show relatively easy to do - set up, breakdown, travel and show hours.
Does
>the show attract quality artists - no country craft marts.
[Yeah- my rule is, one sniff of potpourri and I'm outta there...]
>
>We will be showing jewelry, our primary source of income. At the same time
>we are working on a new collection of fountains. Last year we a lucky
>enough to sell virtually all we created. This year we have requests for
>more.
[So it sounds like you do harbor hopes for the garden market. Are you able
to sell these at wholesale, or are these going directly to your customers?]
Fortunately, we have not been attracted to proposal writing so we
>still work with hands on media. And survive through what we sell. The
>majority of our sales are commissioned pieces. I say this to let LloydCR
>know that we have found, along with others, that it is possible to create
>good designs and sell them.
>
>The Crafts Report observed some 20 years ago that those who take the
>greatest risks in both production and design are not full time, but have
>other forms of income to support their avocatiion. This other income
>affords them luxuries of risk, statement, materials that those working in
>the free market do not have.
>
[While the "free" market does obviously exert a certain pressure on those
wishing to derive a steady source of income from a small manufacturing
venture, it also bestows its greatest rewards on those fortunate few who
take a risk and make a new product that manages to resonate with the
public- like the guy who made that first plastic flamingo.]
>When not working at the studio my wife and I garden, and I must tell you
>that we do buy certain of the concrete garden creations. Some things are
>just for fun. And, awhile back we determined that it really was cheaper
for
>us to buy a $65.00 item than spend $3000.00 to buy all the equiptment to
>make that item ourselves. At the same time we have works from other
artists
>in our yard and home.
>
>Unfortunately, the largest market does not want to spend the money
necessary
>for original work, no matter what the medium. They also prefer to buy
"safe
>things' that others own, or on which a shop has stamped its imprimatur.
>These folks are not necessarily my clients, so we do not pursue them.
[Pursue those millionaires that Elijah mentioned, on the rare occasions they
leave their luxurious apartments...]
>
>Due to our business, and business connections, we had to good fortune to
>attend the AtlantaMart, among others. Seeing the range of goods available
>for sale in fields that are usually regarded as "art" is quite an eye
>opener.
[Tell us more about this- is it a gift show, an art expo, or what?]
>
>I'm not sure how all this ties in to this thread, but I feel it does.
>
>Fred
[Here's an analogy which also ties in rather loosely:
In former times, art was like a cool drink of water, brought to a thirsty
man
in a hot desert land. It was received with gratitude and reverence. In
today's
wired society, it is still a just a cool drink of water, but brought to a
man
trapped under a waterfall, struggling not to drown. Its reception is
accordingly
less enthusiastic.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Jeff
>
> oh feh on all that. Move to Manhattan where it's
> river-to-river-to-river-to-river millionaires with huge apartments to
> furnish and start making your sculptures on a smaller scale. No matter
> what your subject matter or medium is you'll sell if you try. There
> are 6 billion people on this planet. this is a better time to be an
> artist than ever before because of pluralism, and there's lotsa rich
> people. I think cynicism and bitterness have no place in art and
> they're self-defeating.
All I was saying was that when I take a look around the town I live in,
I see tons of public sculpture. One piece of it, to my knowledge, was
created in my lifetime, and personally I think it's ugly and should be
removed LOL. What's pluralism ? :)
Elijah
they're all allowed and they're all being represented by galleries and
they're all being collected, unlike back in the 60s, say, when if you
weren't working in the right style you couldn't get your work shown.
On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 04:55:45 GMT, Jeff <fa...@nospam.anonymous.com>
wrote:
Cathy Morgan
air. Now I know whom to ask for encouragement when (if?) I
start to have doubts about being able to sell my work once I
get some of the new things made.
Elijah wrote in message
<38bf3029...@news.cloud9.net>...
Marilyn Welch
On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Andrew Werby wrote:
>
> LloydCR wrote in message <38b87...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
> >Hi.
> >Centuries ago artists made their money - their living - from commissions,
> or
> >because their work was popular and saleable, or they starved.
>
> [Has something changed?]
You could say things changed around the time of Van Gogh who was an
artist who deliberately chose poverty so he could continue his painting.
He received grants from his brother, and isn't Western culture fortunate
that his brother believed in him, and didn't say "Get a job, you loser!"
And the nebulous term "the academy" has changed to keep up with our
historical context. When I was working
in an art college in the 1990's (today's "academy") the faculty were
considered behind the times by the students. Why not? the faculty were
resting on their laurels from 20 years before. I admit there was not
enough emphasis on drawing, and results shown by the painters at the grad
show were disappointing. Not because the modern day academy scoffed
at the classical skills, but because as a government institution,
this particular academy had to emphasize commercial and industrial
design in order to continue to receive government money. It has to
continually convince the government that the students will walk into
jobs at the end of their 4 years' training in "art."
> >Furthermore - and perhaps more worrying - the recent trends of the art
> >colleges seems to have been towards developing artistic philosophical
> >expression at the expense of artistic talent with materials.
Talent is what the student brings to the college, it is not something
which a college dispenses. And I can't see how developing "artistic
philosophical expression" could diminish artistic talent.
The
> >consequence of this seems to have become a generation of philosophically
> >advanced artists who appear to be incapable of adequately expressing
> >themselves in their chosen medium, and who have left their public - their
> >'market' - so far behind them that the only means of support left to this
> >rarefied world is the 'Lottery Grant' or advanced elite gallery.
>
> [In the case of academic artists, they express themselves perfectly well in
> their chosen media- the grant proposal, the scholarly article, the review.
> Other media languish for lack of general appreciation and financial
> support. ]
> >
> >Not too bad for the 'loveys', but disaster for the rest and, I believe, for
> >the rest of the art world and the markets that they have left behind.
>
> [Markets? What markets?]
> >
> >There is a thirsty market out there, identified by the concrete gnome and
> >peeing boy fountain in garden centres throughout Europe, that is desperate
> >for real art. I believe that we can serve this market, put the concrete
> >crap merchants out of business
That's like a writer trying to get rid of pulp fiction. They don't bother
about that, they just keep refining their own writing.
>
> [The market you identify is only "thirsty" for more of the same, but perhaps
> at a
> cheaper price. Try selling some "real art" to one of these garden centers
> and see
> what they say. The sculptor's fee for the gnomes and Mannequin Pis has been
> amortized long ago- you'd be competing with low-wage concrete workers in a
> factory setting. The factory owners are hardly trembling in their boots...]
>
> and begin to educate those thirsty
> >individuals to demand artistic excellence - thus re-inventing a market for
> >art that is both philosophically and technically competent.
> >
> >... what do you say????
>
Yes there is a flood of reproductions in the market for decorating homes
and gardens. Most people are satisfied with framed posters, and
factory-made sculpture and rarely seek out original art work. You are
talking about popular taste and I can't see it being transformed on
a grand scale. You could only insist to those around you, that buying
an original work of art is much better than a framed poster. (for one
thing, the poster will fade.)
Most of the artists I know are happy to have their work seen, and
lucky if they have it sold. This lack of a guaranteed sale doesn't
stop them, because they would continue to make their art, much the
same way that Vincent Van Gogh did. They don't have a choice, it's
what they do.
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
>
> Fred Mason wrote in message ...
> >Andrew,
> >
> >Quite a commentary, I must admit I agree with most of your thoughts.
>
> [You mean there is a place for bitterness and cynicism in art?]
But of course, otherwise would we appreciate sweetness and naivite?
> >
> >This posting comes at time when we are preparing for our art shows for the
> >spring season. Going to the markets to sell our wares. The market for art
> >is alive and well, imho. However after years of chasing shows, we have now
> >narrowed our show schedule to two spring shows and one or two fall shows.
> >
> >These have been chosen after years of doing shows and looking at shows as
> >sales vehicles. Our criteria has become, as we have gotten older, is the
> >show relatively easy to do - set up, breakdown, travel and show hours.
> Does
> >the show attract quality artists - no country craft marts.
>
> [Yeah- my rule is, one sniff of potpourri and I'm outta there...]
Especially the fake potpourri!
> >> >
> [While the "free" market does obviously exert a certain pressure on those
> wishing to derive a steady source of income from a small manufacturing
> venture, it also bestows its greatest rewards on those fortunate few who
> take a risk and make a new product that manages to resonate with the
> public- like the guy who made that first plastic flamingo.]
Up here, you can phone a company which will plant 50 pink flamingo's
on a friend's lawn, for birthdays etc. When an object becomes scoffed
at for long enough it gains a new kind of favour.
> >When not working at the studio my wife and I garden, and I must tell you
> >that we do buy certain of the concrete garden creations. Some things are
> >just for fun. And, awhile back we determined that it really was cheaper
> for
> >us to buy a $65.00 item than spend $3000.00 to buy all the equiptment to
> >make that item ourselves. At the same time we have works from other
> artists
> >in our yard and home.
> >
> >Unfortunately, the largest market does not want to spend the money
> necessary
> >for original work, no matter what the medium. They also prefer to buy
> "safe
> >things' that others own, or on which a shop has stamped its imprimatur.
> >These folks are not necessarily my clients, so we do not pursue them.
>
> [Pursue those millionaires that Elijah mentioned, on the rare occasions they
> leave their luxurious apartments...]
Yes, Barbra Streisand yachts up here, and makes stops at Salt Spring
Island. She telephones ahead, so the little mall at the harbour will
be evacuated of the riff raff before her arrival. She has heard that
there are many artists living on the island. Rumour has it, she was
particularly interested in sculpture.
> >
>
> [Here's an analogy which also ties in rather loosely:
>
> In former times, art was like a cool drink of water, brought to a thirsty
> man
> in a hot desert land. It was received with gratitude and reverence. In
> today's
> wired society, it is still a just a cool drink of water, but brought to a
> man
> trapped under a waterfall, struggling not to drown. Its reception is
> accordingly
> less enthusiastic.]
Exactly, we live in an image-ridden culture, we are drowning in images.
Not like long ago when a red ochre image on a rock really meant something.
---
Marilyn
Fred Mason
>
> Fred Mason wrote in message ...
> >Andrew,
> >
> >Quite a commentary, I must admit I agree with most of your thoughts.
>
> [You mean there is a place for bitterness and cynicism in art?]
Seems to be part of the human condition and I would be the last to deny
that artists are human and impacted by life twists and turns. Nor, would I
suggest that we live in a dreamscape unaffected by current conditions and
culture.
> >
> >This posting comes at time when we are preparing for our art shows for
the
> >spring season. Going to the markets to sell our wares. The market for
art
> >is alive and well - - - snip - - - is the
> >show relatively easy to do - set up, breakdown, travel and show hours.
> Does the show attract quality artists - no country craft marts.
>
> [Yeah- my rule is, one sniff of potpourri and I'm outta there...]
(Rat on a stick - get 'em while thy're hot!) Yeah, and no bunnies or
alligators on a stick.
> >We will be showing jewelry, our primary source of income. At the same
time
> >we are working on a new collection of fountains. Last year we a lucky
> >enough to sell virtually all we created. This year we have requests for
> >more.
>
> [So it sounds like you do harbor hopes for the garden market. Are you able
> to sell these at wholesale, or are these going directly to your
customers?]
Actually we're doing a bit of both, we usally have a couple of samples
on display in our studio, and in a friends shop. He focuses on jewelry,
gifts and cools stuff for the home. A couple of other shops carry our
fountains also. (It's easier to ship jewelry than fountains.)
The fountain making grew out of our gardening and landscapiong - we wanted a
pond in the yard. We got lucky and won an award which covered the cost of a
nice small sized pond insert - then we started decorating it with
cobblestones and realized we needed a fountain head - the comnmerical
varieties were boring so we started by making one - then more.
Our primary focus for production is table sized fountain with particular
attention to the sounds they make - the fountains are marketed under the
name of WaterSongs©.
People are spending more money on their yards and houses. What we decided
to do was try to tap into those dollars without simply manufacturing
schlock.
> - - - SNIP - - - <
> >The Crafts Report observed some 20 years ago that those who take the
> >greatest risks in both production and design are not full time, but have
> >other forms of income to support their avocatiion. This other income
> >affords them luxuries of risk, statement, materials that those working in
> >the free market do not have.
> >
> [While the "free" market does obviously exert a certain pressure on those
> wishing to derive a steady source of income from a small manufacturing
> venture, it also bestows its greatest rewards on those fortunate few who
> take a risk and make a new product that manages to resonate with the
> public- like the guy who made that first plastic flamingo.]
The satisfaction comes from creation of our own niche, we have not tried to
emulate the pink flamingo. (Wouldn't mind if we stumbled across such an
endearing item though.)
Understanding one's niches and working in one's own voice seems to give the
best payoff in the long term.
When you leave your niche you will find others waiting to step into it and
you may not be able to return. This does not mean you're stuck doing one
thing forever.
> > - - - S N I P - - - < <
> >Unfortunately, the largest market does not want to spend the money
> necessary
> >for original work, no matter what the medium. They also prefer to buy
> "safe
> >things' that others own, or on which a shop has stamped its imprimatur.
> >These folks are not necessarily my clients, so we do not pursue them.
>
> [Pursue those millionaires that Elijah mentioned, on the rare occasions
they
> leave their luxurious apartments...]
Thank god for them, and the fact that some of them have tastes that match
ours!
> >
> >Due to our business, and business connections, we had to good fortune to
> >attend the AtlantaMart, among others. Seeing the range of goods
available
> >for sale in fields that are usually regarded as "art" is quite an eye
> >opener.
>
> [Tell us more about this- is it a gift show, an art expo, or what?]
The AltantaMart is a major merchandise mart, covering clothes, jewelry,
gifts, furnishing and accessories both for home and garden. The range of
work offered is from cheap imports to high end manufacturers and one of a
kind items. There are four buildings, the tallest having 18 floors. The
gift mart is 14 stories. There are both permanent and tempory vendors.
Temporaries, where you usually find the smaller designers are on designated
floors throughout the mart. This is where you usually find the more
distinctive and "riskier" items. In the temporties is where individual
artists or craftspeople normally show their wares.
Showing at the AtlantaMart means you are prepared to sell you work at
wholesale, retail purchasers are not permitted on the floor. There are no
retail days. Buyers must qualify for attendance.
From your thoughts bewlow are you suggesting theres too much media exposure
. . .
Fred
>
> [Here's an analogy which also ties in rather loosely:
>
> In former times, art was like a cool drink of water, brought to a thirsty
> man
> in a hot desert land. It was received with gratitude and reverence. In
> today's
> wired society, it is still a just a cool drink of water, but brought to a
> man
> trapped under a waterfall, struggling not to drown. Its reception is
> accordingly
> less enthusiastic.]
>
> Andrew Werby
> http://unitedartworks.com
>
>
>
> >"Andrew Werby" <and...@computersculpture.com> wrote in message
> >news:cCzu4.5410$so2.1...@news1.frmt1.sfba.home.com...
> >>
> >> LloydCR wrote in message <38b87...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
> >> >Hi.
> >> >Centuries ago artists made their money - their living - from
> commissions,
> >> or
> >> >because their work was popular and saleable, or they starved. ...
> >> - - - S N I P - - - <<<
LloydCR
I'm not talking about reviving any pre-event. certainly in Europe (I
believe) there exists a reasonable faction in society who long for something
'original'.
Their only supply at the moment is from the rarefied world of 'accepted'
artists (that is accepted by theri peers by the art establishment).
At the other end of the scale there are many - a whole generation of -
up-and-coming artists with no market untill they break into the elite.
Certainly, the concrete gnome and flamingo market will survive - but I was
working as a Garden Centre manager 16 years ago, watching that market take
off and wondering why on earth our customers were buying into it. The
answer was that there was nothing else unless they were prepared to take a
trip up to Sotheby's for the annual 'garden antiquities sale' (or whatever
it's called). Furthermore, in this country, the garden market was
opening out to a whole new lower echelon of purchaser. They just had no
idea of what they could expect.
I believe that many things are now changing, especially in the eyes of the
potential purchaser. People are looking out for the 'different'. Many
of them don't know what that is. Original is exciting. Unfortunately
it costs a lot. It needn't.
Hence, my challenge to the art world to start to address what has become a
gaping hole in their market.
I am a landscape architect and have found it very difficult to fulfill that
market. I am also the chairman of our local residents' association. I know
some very talented artists in our area who plug on with their hobbies, but
without a market. We are trying to develop a community centre where we
can have arts-related clubs and other community activities. It would be
so much better if we could be directing the new initiates towards a living
which payed them for their art.
More importantly, because these people would be supplying a market with
original art work they would also begin to lift the expectations of that
market as the purchasers began to understand that philosophy behind the
work. So, in time the whole process should become self-sustaining.
I have no idea what markets are like in the States, but since we seem to
inherit half our future from over there I would expect this to have been the
case for longer.
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>
>LloydCR wrote in message <38b87...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
>>Hi.
>>Centuries ago artists made their money - their living - from commissions,
>or
>>because their work was popular and saleable, or they starved.
>
LloydCR
Jeff wrote in message <38BB24F3...@nospam.anonymous.com>...
LloydCR
Elijah wrote in message <38bb5d0...@news.cloud9.net>...
>oh feh on all that. Move to Manhattan where it's
>river-to-river-to-river-to-river millionaires with huge apartments to
>furnish and start making your sculptures on a smaller scale. No matter
>what your subject matter or medium is you'll sell if you try. There
>are 6 billion people on this planet. this is a better time to be an
>artist than ever before because of pluralism, and there's lotsa rich
>people. I think cynicism and bitterness have no place in art and
>they're self-defeating.
>
>On Tue, 29 Feb 2000 01:50:53 GMT, Jeff <fa...@nospam.anonymous.com>
>wrote:
>
LloydCR
Even so, I bet that you still have to be 'in' with the right people to get
yourself exhibited.
Elijah wrote in message <38bf3029...@news.cloud9.net>...
>pluralism is like there's tons of different art forms around and
>they're all allowed and they're all being represented by galleries and
>they're all being collected, unlike back in the 60s, say, when if you
>weren't working in the right style you couldn't get your work shown.
>
>On Thu, 02 Mar 2000 04:55:45 GMT, Jeff <fa...@nospam.anonymous.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Elijah wrote:
>>>
>>> oh feh on all that. Move to Manhattan where it's
>>> river-to-river-to-river-to-river millionaires with huge apartments to
>>> furnish and start making your sculptures on a smaller scale. No matter
>>> what your subject matter or medium is you'll sell if you try. There
>>> are 6 billion people on this planet. this is a better time to be an
>>> artist than ever before because of pluralism, and there's lotsa rich
>>> people. I think cynicism and bitterness have no place in art and
>>> they're self-defeating.
>>
>>All I was saying was that when I take a look around the town I live in,
>>I see tons of public sculpture. One piece of it, to my knowledge, was
>>created in my lifetime, and personally I think it's ugly and should be
>>removed LOL. What's pluralism ? :)
>
>
LloydCR
man is under a falling pile of sand and is still desperate for that vital
drink from the fountain...
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>
LloydCR
the 'other life'. This must be an important source of more meaningful
inspiration for work. I fully understand your point about relative costs,
but still feel that (especially in the UK and Europe) many up-and-coming
artist would benefit from the encouragement of a market for their
innovations - however little return it gave initially. The point is that,
unless they find an outlet before they bite the dust they will probably end
up by earing their living from anything other than their primary degree (or
other qualification). This is both a waste of their lives and a waste of
the education system. If we could come up with the intermediary market for
these people at an affordable cost to the 'market' then surely both student
and market would benefit...
Fred Mason wrote in message ...
LloydCR
popular taste is transformed on a grand scale every day by the fashion
markets and by the advertising industry. People have become inured to the
'reality' that a classy, well designed garden (for example) includes a
concrete reproduction of some classical masterpeice. I have seen some
wonderful ceramic art in Holland - but can I find it again or get hold of
something similar? And yet, I have several talented friends who left
their art careers behind (apart from odd weekends in the garden shed) when
they left college because there was absolutely no place for them to go.
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
>
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Andrew Werby wrote:
>
>>
>> LloydCR wrote in message <38b87...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
>> >Hi.
>> >Centuries ago artists made their money - their living - from
commissions,
>> or
>> >because their work was popular and saleable, or they starved.
>>
>> [Has something changed?]
>
>
>You could say things changed around the time of Van Gogh who was an
>artist who deliberately chose poverty so he could continue his painting.
>He received grants from his brother, and isn't Western culture fortunate
>that his brother believed in him, and didn't say "Get a job, you loser!"
>
>And the nebulous term "the academy" has changed to keep up with our
>historical context. When I was working
>in an art college in the 1990's (today's "academy") the faculty were
>considered behind the times by the students. Why not? the faculty were
>resting on their laurels from 20 years before. I admit there was not
>enough emphasis on drawing, and results shown by the painters at the grad
>show were disappointing. Not because the modern day academy scoffed
>at the classical skills, but because as a government institution,
>this particular academy had to emphasize commercial and industrial
>design in order to continue to receive government money. It has to
>continually convince the government that the students will walk into
>jobs at the end of their 4 years' training in "art."
>
>> >Furthermore - and perhaps more worrying - the recent trends of the art
>> >colleges seems to have been towards developing artistic philosophical
>> >expression at the expense of artistic talent with materials.
>
>Talent is what the student brings to the college, it is not something
>which a college dispenses. And I can't see how developing "artistic
>philosophical expression" could diminish artistic talent.
>
>That's like a writer trying to get rid of pulp fiction. They don't bother
>about that, they just keep refining their own writing.
>
>>
>> [The market you identify is only "thirsty" for more of the same, but
perhaps
>> at a
>> cheaper price. Try selling some "real art" to one of these garden centers
>> and see
>> what they say. The sculptor's fee for the gnomes and Mannequin Pis has
been
>> amortized long ago- you'd be competing with low-wage concrete workers in
a
>> factory setting. The factory owners are hardly trembling in their
boots...]
>>
>> and begin to educate those thirsty
>> >individuals to demand artistic excellence - thus re-inventing a market
for
>> >art that is both philosophically and technically competent.
>> >
>> >... what do you say????
>>
>
Fred Mason
Barbara and I attended a performance of our local symphony, featuring some
solists, and dancers. Our attendance was primarily to see one of our
clients dance. It turned out to be his professional debut.
What struck me, again, as I watched and listened, is that nothing really
replaces the real thing. For the past approximate 1/2 century I have been
able to listen to virtually whatwever music I desired when wanted. Through
video, I have been able to watch great performances, yet without acutally
being there something is always missing.
How many of these young performers will reach the "majors" is something that
I have not way of prediciting. But, their contribution to the regional and
the lives they touch is wonderful.
Lloyd mentioned the need for a mid-market. This is probably a good entry
point, but unless one is really into production work, it is very hard to
make a living that way.
Fred
"LloydCR" <Llo...@classicfm.net> wrote in message
news:38c06...@news2.vip.uk.com...
Cathy Morgan
LloydCR wrote in message <38c07...@news2.vip.uk.com>...
>I have several talented friends who left
>their art careers behind (apart from odd weekends in the
garden shed) when
>they left college because there was absolutely no place for
them to go.
I think you have to make your own "place to go." I think it
was Marguerite Wilenhain (ceramic artist) who said that
every morning she had to reinvent a world in which she could
make art. That's what we all have to do. At least, I do.
Cathy Morgan
copyright notice next to WaterSongs. I believe what you
need on all your materials is a TM (for "trademark") symbol.
And if you can prove you sell your fountains in interstate
commerce - advertising, selling, and shipping them across
state lines - then you can register your trademark and keep
any other fountain makers from calling theirs WaterSongs.
As far as I know, you can copyright each specific design
(the artistic rather than the functional aspect of it) but
not a title and certainly not a product line.
Hope this helps.
Fred Mason wrote in message ...
Cathy Morgan
Fred Mason wrote in message ...
probably a good entry
>point, but unless one is really into production work, it is
very hard to
>make a living that way.
Is there really no mid-market where Loyd lives? There's an
enormous one here in the US. The range of galleries and
art/craft shows is huge.
As for making a living, another thing Marguerite Wildenhain
said that made an impression on me - is that between having
a fur coat and starving, there's really quite a bit of room.
Elijah
private.
On Fri, 3 Mar 2000 08:41:47 -0500, "Cathy Morgan" <cjmo...@hemc.net>
wrote:
>Elijah, your messages are like a delicious flow of spring
>air. Now I know whom to ask for encouragement when (if?) I
>start to have doubts about being able to sell my work once I
>get some of the new things made.
>
>Elijah wrote in message
><38bf3029...@news.cloud9.net>...
>>pluralism is like there's tons of different art forms
>around and
>>they're all allowed and they're all being represented by
>galleries and
>>they're all being collected, unlike back in the 60s, say,
>when if you
>>weren't working in the right style you couldn't get your
>work shown.
Elijah
alternative spaces and group shows and it really just takes a little
effort to get shown. I can't think of any sculptors I know who've
complained that they can't get their work shown (though some have
complained that the public doesn't understand their work). Even people
who sculpt ugly squat muscular male nudes and exhibit them in plaster
get their work shown.
On Sat, 4 Mar 2000 01:55:01 -0000, "LloydCR" <Llo...@classicfm.net>
wrote:
>As I say, I believe that things are significantly different in America.
>Even so, I bet that you still have to be 'in' with the right people to get
>yourself exhibited.
>
LloydCR
work is never shown or even considered either because of their own lack of
confidence, or because they have not met the 'right' people. I do know of
several excellent sculptors who have missed out on even the opportunity to
bid because they wern't 'in' with the right people.
Much more to the point is that - as a potential purchaser of the 'right' art
for various jobs - those of us who are seeking excellent art can find it
only in the very rarified echelons of 'the system'. And these are not
representative of the talent out there...
Elijah wrote in message <38c35af...@news.cloud9.net>...
LloydCR
(in Europe) is that there is no 'mid market' for the purchaser and those who
are between the 'fur coat' and the 'starving' designation are not living on
their art...
Cathy Morgan wrote in message ...
>
>Fred Mason wrote in message ...
>>>Lloyd mentioned the need for a mid-market. This is
>probably a good entry
>>point, but unless one is really into production work, it is
>very hard to
>>make a living that way.
>
>
LloydCR
people without other, more pressing, commitments) who feel that they should
do something else if they can't make their living out of their art. this
doesn't invalidate them in any way. BUT, it does preclude a huge
chunk of the potential art world of some intensly exciting and thought
provoking work because all our real thinkers end up balancing accounts or
humping bricks.
Cathy Morgan wrote in message
<0Aaw4.72103$Cn1.1...@news5.giganews.com>...
eganb...@my-deja.com
Europe they name the streets after artists, and in America they name
them after politicians.
Frank Egan
http://www.eganbronze.com
In article <38c59...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
"LloydCR" <Llo...@classicfm.net> wrote:
> I love that 'fur coat & starving' analogy.... The problem that I see here
> (in Europe) is that there is no 'mid market' for the purchaser and those who
> are between the 'fur coat' and the 'starving' designation are not living on
> their art...
>
> Cathy Morgan wrote in message ...
> >
> >Fred Mason wrote in message ...
> >>>Lloyd mentioned the need for a mid-market. This is
> >probably a good entry
> >>point, but unless one is really into production work, it is
> >very hard to
> >>make a living that way.
> >
> >
> >Is there really no mid-market where Loyd lives? There's an
> >enormous one here in the US. The range of galleries and
> >art/craft shows is huge.
> >
> >As for making a living, another thing Marguerite Wildenhain
> >said that made an impression on me - is that between having
> >a fur coat and starving, there's really quite a bit of room.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Marilyn Welch
In Quebec, Canada, they named streets after saints.
Then English politicians, now being changed to
French guys.
In the United States making art is not seriously
considered to be WORK by most of the population,
whereas in Europe it is considered a profession.
Eastern Canada is more european in that sense,
but in the west where I live, the utilitarian work ethic
prevails, and making art is considered to be play
by most people.
Play on...
Marilyn
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
On Wed, 8 Mar 2000 eganb...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Lloyd, You are probably right. However, it is a mind-set thing. In
> Europe they name the streets after artists, and in America they name
> them after politicians.
>
> Frank Egan
> http://www.eganbronze.com
>
> In article <38c59...@news1.vip.uk.com>,
> "LloydCR" <Llo...@classicfm.net> wrote:
> > I love that 'fur coat & starving' analogy.... The problem that I see here
> > (in Europe) is that there is no 'mid market' for the purchaser and those who
> > are between the 'fur coat' and the 'starving' designation are not living on
> > their art...
> >
> > Cathy Morgan wrote in message ...
> > >
> > >Fred Mason wrote in message ...
> > >>>Lloyd mentioned the need for a mid-market. This is
> > >probably a good entry
> > >>point, but unless one is really into production work, it is
> > >very hard to
> > >>make a living that way.
> > >
> > >
sculpt...@my-deja.com
discussion but I have to say this;
I was classically trained in a 5 year
apprenticeship. I mastered the material and
technical crafts involved. I was paid to learn. I
have worked for twentyone years, my entire adult
life, as a professional sculptor- it is all I have
ever done to support myself and my family.
The essense of my training was that the only
difference between fine art and bric-a-brac is
price point. That art is a business like any other
and "market" is the pressure of what people want.
I have been very successful and can tell you that
as an artist, success is a tyranny. As you market
your work you will eventually make something that
people want, and you will respond by making more
of what people want. That will make you
financially comfortable but your lifestyle will
expand to fit that income and soon you will find
that the pressure to make what people want is
reinforced by the bills you have to pay.
There was never a "better" time for artists. Do
you think Michaelangelo WANTED to paint and sculpt
solely religious subjects or that Rembrandt WANTED
to paint all those homely folks? That was the only
paying work going. Back then, what made an artist
great was how beautifully they could satisfy
someone else's desire.
Today, artist's whine continually about not being
appreciated while most of the apprentices I have
had have failed on their own because they want art
to be a self indulgent ego stroke. Artists want to
be taken "seriously" and compare themselves to the
folks written up in ArtForum.
Well, the "elite" art crowd is a small part of the
bizness and the very area in which ability counts
least. I wouldn't even include it in the "art
market" per se, because PEOPLE don't buys that
stuff. I'd say its part of the Haute Couture
Market.
In my experience, it all comes down to Art being a
form of communication. If no one is buying your
art, it is either because they don't like your
message, or because you haven't done your job and
made your message clear.
Or, it could just be that your work is overpriced.
In article <38c06...@news2.vip.uk.com>,
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Marilyn Welch
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Well i'm something of a latecomer to this
> discussion but I have to say this;
> I was classically trained in a 5 year
> apprenticeship. I mastered the material and
> technical crafts involved. I was paid to learn. I
> have worked for twentyone years, my entire adult
> life, as a professional sculptor- it is all I have
> ever done to support myself and my family.
> The essense of my training was that the only
> difference between fine art and bric-a-brac is
> price point. That art is a business like any other
> and "market" is the pressure of what people want.
> I have been very successful and can tell you that
> as an artist, success is a tyranny. As you market
> your work you will eventually make something that
> people want, and you will respond by making more
> of what people want.
You bring an important point of view to the discussion,
having made your living from your art. However, there
are artists today, who make installation art as an example,
which is a valid art form for our time. Their work most often cannot
be sold, and the most they expect is an exhibition fee.
To my mind, it is a mistake to think that our own way
of making art, selling art, looking at art, judging art
is the only way.
If there were not some artists who took time out to experiment
with different art forms, a stasis would develop, a staleness.
As it is, there are some new and exciting things being done.
What I hear being whined about it a lot is that
anyone who is not doing Renaissance-type art work,
has no skill & has no talent.
This is being very exclusive, and very myopic.
Marilyn
dmor...@my-deja.com
Interesting thread!
I currently work for one of those "concrete crap merchants," making
garden figure sculpture prototypes in a classical style which are then
reproduced throughout North America. I earn a bare living at it, and
hope to expand into other commission work, like the toy and model
industry.
I do not pretend that my work is clever, or thematically profound--the
best i can do is create a work that at least surpasses the technical
quality of what is currently available out there(which isnt too
difficult) with some unique attributes--and then hope that people wont
find the piece too risque, "busy etc."
The moldmaker at the company seems to be good enough to preserve the
integrity of the detail in each piece, so that is encouraging(as is the
money--better than I used to get--which was zip).
I can relate to sculptingman's apparent pride in his acquired
skill--learning to sculpt realistic figures and faces took a few years
for me--without the benefit of a teacher(in the time I applied to art
school traditional sculpting techniques were not taught or encouraged).
Even painters that I talked to who went to the one major city school
found that often other students would say: "why paint realistically when
you can just take a picture?"
I havent encountered too many Renaissance style sculptors who whine that
anyone who doesnt do that type of art has no skill and no talent. Its
hard enough to find those type of sculptors to talk to period!
I dont have much interest now in displaying in galleries--I find that
contemporary realistic figure work is pretty scarce in them(at least in
the pacific Northwest).
Anyway--here are a couple of links that show sculptors who seem to be
earning a decent living wage(and some attention) doing somewhat
different styles of sculpture:
and http://www.kennedysculpture.com/
ciao
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Marilyn Welch <mwe...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Well i'm something of a latecomer to this
> > discussion but I have to say this;
> > I was classically trained in a 5 year
> > apprenticeship. I mastered the material and
> > technical crafts involved. I was paid to learn. I
> > have worked for twentyone years, my entire adult
> > life, as a professional sculptor- it is all I have
> > ever done to support myself and my family.
> > The essense of my training was that the only
> > difference between fine art and bric-a-brac is
> > price point. That art is a business like any other
> > and "market" is the pressure of what people want.
> > I have been very successful and can tell you that
> > as an artist, success is a tyranny. As you market
> > your work you will eventually make something that
> > people want, and you will respond by making more
> > of what people want.
>
> having made your living from your art. However, there
> are artists today, who make installation art as an example,
> which is a valid art form for our time. Their work most often cannot
> be sold, and the most they expect is an exhibition fee.
> To my mind, it is a mistake to think that our own way
> of making art, selling art, looking at art, judging art
> is the only way.
>
> If there were not some artists who took time out to experiment
> with different art forms, a stasis would develop, a staleness.
> As it is, there are some new and exciting things being done.
> What I hear being whined about it a lot is that
> anyone who is not doing Renaissance-type art work,
> has no skill & has no talent.
> This is being very exclusive, and very myopic.
> Marilyn
>
Far from being myopic- I celebrate and accept all cutting edge and
experimental art, I definitely consider those artists members of my
club, however, my experience is that they seldom return the favor. My
rant rather focused on the "market" aspect that began this thread. We
can argue all day about what consititutes art, but the term "market" has
a concrete meaning. A market is a place where you make money selling
things that you have that other people want to own.
If, as an artist, you want to explore performance or installation art
then you had better understand the lack of market and either be rich, a
tenured professor, or have a joe job to keep you in vittles. Or stumble
into the right circles.
Art can be ugly and mean and tell us depressing things about being
human- and while I will be the first to stand up and say that this is an
important, even essential purpose of art, I will also say that most
people don't want to own something ugly and mean and depressing. Hence,
no market.
When I say that the avant guard is more like Haute Coture, I am saying
that "making it" in this area of artistic endeavor is more about Image
than sales. Designers like Versace don't put on a runway show expecting
to sell what they display on the catwalk.
It seems to me that garnering respect, much less fame and fortune, in
the academic art world is a lottery-like gamble in which the artists end
up pandering to the prejudices of the elite critique.
It isn't about creativity, its about FASHION, and like fashion, it is
not really creativity nor virtuoisity that is rewarded as much as
"newness". The "Shock of The New" has become same ol same ol.
I guess that is the core of what I am getting at. I don't see a lot of
virtuosity in the academic art world anymore.
Now if what you want is to be able to make your living as an artist- if
you love it so much that it is all you want to do with every day of your
life, then you should pursue virtuosity in your chosen media. And be
prepared to bend your talent and skill to solving the problem of what
other people think they want, because that is where the money is. Oh,
not the huge huge money, but a decent living.
Unlike in the elite art world, the marketplace nearly always rewards
talent and virtuosity.
As far as judging art, I don't make the mistake of thinking that
everything is valid just because someone says its art. Beethoven wrote
some duds, and Monet painted a few himself. God knows how many of their
works were trashed because they went over like a lead balloon.
In retrospect, the past always seems to be full of greatness, because
all that comes down to us is that which survived. But their present was
just as full of one hit wonders and major flops as is our own.
I have experienced conceptual art that revolutionized my world view and
shifted my paradigms. I have been brought to tears by the sweet shape of
humanity captured in a wax maquette. But I have also seen public art
that the public demanded be torn down.
Avant Guarde is only cutting edge if the rest of the blade follows. I
have heard so many art critics say that the public has no taste for art
or can't understand it, But it is they, the critics, who often can't
tell the difference between great work and jumbled crap. Between
inspiration and an inside joke.
My favorite story about modern art is the story of the Vietnam veteran's
memorial. When the design was selected- people all over the country were
outraged- it was called the "Black Gash of Shame" and ultimately a
veteran's group raised a bunch of money and pressured congress to
install a traditional bronze sculpture of soldiers, then they added
nurses. But the original design was conceptual, it had to be
experienced to be understood, and once built, people forgot about the
bronzes. It was so moving they actually built a portable version to
tour around the country. The people knew great conceptual art when they
SAW it.
The Vietnam memorial is the most loved work of public art this century
because the artist succeeded in communicating something profound
Cathy Morgan
site is beautiful. I'm only referring to the website design
here, as opposed to the sculptures.
dmor...@my-deja.com wrote >Anyway--here are a couple of
links that show sculptors who seem to be
>earning a decent living wage(and some attention) doing
somewhat
>different styles of sculpture:
>
>
>
>http://www.jamesmuir.com/
>
>and http://www.kennedysculpture.com/
>
>
>ciao
>
>
Marilyn Welch
> Marilyn
> Far from being myopic- I celebrate and accept all cutting edge and
> experimental art, I definitely consider those artists members of my
> club, however, my experience is that they seldom return the favor. My
> rant rather focused on the "market" aspect that began this thread. We
> can argue all day about what consititutes art, but the term "market" has
> a concrete meaning. A market is a place where you make money selling
> things that you have that other people want to own.
I didn't mean that you were being myopic, but was referring to the
point of view which I encountered so often on RAF, and encounter in my
real life. It is majority point of view, a skepticism about anything
that is not illustration-based art.
> If, as an artist, you want to explore performance or installation art
> then you had better understand the lack of market and either be rich, a
> tenured professor, or have a joe job to keep you in vittles. Or stumble
> into the right circles.
I have recommended the joe job to many artists. It was the way I did it,
and it's not for everyone. If an artist wants to experiment, they need
another marketable skill to subsidize the art work.
> Art can be ugly and mean and tell us depressing things about being
> human- and while I will be the first to stand up and say that this is an
> important, even essential purpose of art, I will also say that most
> people don't want to own something ugly and mean and depressing. Hence,
> no market.
Yes, I have made a lino cut of a Nazi soldier shooting a woman holding
a child, in the back based on a photograph from "Hilter's Willing
Executioners" (copywrite if any, has expired). I can't imagine selling
it, and there are only a few people, that I would show it to. I
HAD to make it, and it has become a symbol to me for universal abuse
of power over the innocent and the unarmed.
> When I say that the avant guard is more like Haute Coture, I am saying
> that "making it" in this area of artistic endeavor is more about Image
> than sales. Designers like Versace don't put on a runway show expecting
> to sell what they display on the catwalk.
Clothes for the Academy Awards Ceremony, or for the very rich?
I've also wondered why we need men to tell us what to wear.
That's another topic.
> It seems to me that garnering respect, much less fame and fortune, in
> the academic art world is a lottery-like gamble in which the artists end
> up pandering to the prejudices of the elite critique.
> It isn't about creativity, its about FASHION, and like fashion, it is
> not really creativity nor virtuoisity that is rewarded as much as
> "newness". The "Shock of The New" has become same ol same ol.
> I guess that is the core of what I am getting at. I don't see a lot of
> virtuosity in the academic art world anymore.
"The academic art world" is too general a term. The academy of the 19th
century was nothing like the art schools of today. Do you mean the young
art students coming out of art schools in your country?
In art schools here, the lack of emphasis on basic art skills like drawing
and the lack of virtuostic drive do give loop holes for lazy people, but
that shouldn't give us the excuse for the complete dismissal of anything
NEW.
I think that it takes a lot more effort to judge contemporary art
today. Some of it is crap. Representational art is easy to judge,
either you get a likeness or you don't, but looking at contemporary art
takes some background. Even some of the really good stuff can give
me a headache but I respect certain curators and critics and try to
keep an open mind about it. I say, okay, explain this to me
and I say it without hostility and without self-blame either.
Virtuosity for its own sake can be FASHION too.
> Now if what you want is to be able to make your living as an artist- if
> you love it so much that it is all you want to do with every day of your
> life, then you should pursue virtuosity in your chosen media. And be
> prepared to bend your talent and skill to solving the problem of what
> other people think they want, because that is where the money is. Oh,
> not the huge huge money, but a decent living.
> Unlike in the elite art world, the marketplace nearly always rewards
> talent and virtuosity.
You are speaking as a man in a country (US?) in economic boom times.
For me, I have two markets
1. people I know who mostlhy don't have a lot of money
2. people I don't know who have a lot of extra money to buy paintings.
(I had a collector in Toronto who bought paintings without seeing them
because she loved my work, and trusted me. I think her walls are full
now.)
So I do two kinds of work.
But I get less and less satisfaction from putting my heart and soul
into something for some anonymous rich person. So my more serious
work, I want to keep for my family now.
> As far as judging art, I don't make the mistake of thinking that
> everything is valid just because someone says its art. Beethoven wrote
> some duds, and Monet painted a few himself. God knows how many of their
> works were trashed because they went over like a lead balloon.
> In retrospect, the past always seems to be full of greatness, because
> all that comes down to us is that which survived. But their present was
> just as full of one hit wonders and major flops as is our own.
We can't compare our times with the 19th century. Now we have a phenom
known as instant FAME. You can become a best-selling writer if you
are under 30 and good looking and at ease before a tv camera.
The writing itself could be crap.
> I have experienced conceptual art that revolutionized my world view and
> shifted my paradigms. I have been brought to tears by the sweet shape of
> humanity captured in a wax maquette. But I have also seen public art
> that the public demanded be torn down.
Are you thinking of Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc?" The public was an ass.
> Avant Guarde is only cutting edge if the rest of the blade follows. I
> have heard so many art critics say that the public has no taste for art
> or can't understand it, But it is they, the critics, who often can't
> tell the difference between great work and jumbled crap. Between
> inspiration and an inside joke.
>
> My favorite story about modern art is the story of the Vietnam veteran's
> memorial. When the design was selected- people all over the country were
> outraged- it was called the "Black Gash of Shame" and ultimately a
> veteran's group raised a bunch of money and pressured congress to
> install a traditional bronze sculpture of soldiers, then they added
> nurses. But the original design was conceptual, it had to be
> experienced to be understood, and once built, people forgot about the
> bronzes. It was so moving they actually built a portable version to
> tour around the country. The people knew great conceptual art when they
> SAW it.
> The Vietnam memorial is the most loved work of public art this century
> because the artist succeeded in communicating something profound
>
Yes that is a wonderful story and the sculptor was a woman!
I wonder if the public's acceptance was because of the names.
The carving of the names made it an interactive piece of sculpture,
the geographical context also had an effect.
Do you wonder what you would have thought when you first saw
the maquette for the Vietnam memorial? or just the drawing?
So we come back to being true to ourselves, in creating the work
and in accepting the work of other artists. There are no formulas
for the work or the marketing.
Enjoyed the conversation.
Marilyn
>
>
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> I didn't mean that you were being myopic, but was referring to the
> point of view which I encountered so often on RAF, and encounter in my
> real life. It is majority point of view, a skepticism about anything
> that is not illustration-based art.
>
it,
> and it's not for everyone. If an artist wants to experiment, they need
> another marketable skill to subsidize the art work.
My point is that if you have mastered the skills involved in art, that
makes being an artist a marketable skill. As to the issue of
illustration based art- in the world of private commission and
commercial design there is a definite backlash against the art schools
turning out degreed "artists" who couldn't draw a straight line with a T
square.
I would argue that in a school setting, for the first 3 years
representational art should rule because the problem with abstraction is
that it is almost impossible to tell if what you are looking at is
exactly what the artist intended, or merely a hapazard and uncontrolled
"best attempt"; Art school should be about developing a foundation of
competency. That way, when you do something wild and inovative, your
instructor can know that what you are expressing is precisely what you
intended to express.
I also believe that working commercially as an artist you are asked to
work in areas that you would never have tried on your own, and that this
stretches and broadens you as an artist. If you don't do realistic
figure because that is not your interest, how long is it before your
lack of skill at figure becomes a large part of WHY you have no
interest. If you had the skill to do it you would also have the freedom
to move in that direction when it suited your vision.
> > When I say that the avant guard is more like Haute Coture, I am
saying
> > that "making it" in this area of artistic endeavor is more about
Image
> > than sales. Designers like Versace don't put on a runway show
expecting
> > to sell what they display on the catwalk.
>
> Clothes for the Academy Awards Ceremony, or for the very rich?
> I've also wondered why we need men to tell us what to wear.
> That's another topic.
The catwalk clothes fit almost no one and Hollywood celebs won't wear
something that has been seen already in the fashion press. The fashion
shows garner notoriety and they do drum up some celebrity business- but
then, most Academy Awarders seldom pay for the dresses they wear. That
too is a form of advertising. Their real money is made selling
commercial lines to the masses. Just as most financially well off
artists make more on prints and cards than on paintings.
And about the men dressing women- the thing I note is that the fashion
biz seems to be run by men who are gay. Women are letting their clothing
choice be decided by people who don't even like women. No wonder so many
models look like skinny little boys.
> "The academic art world" is too general a term. The academy of the
19th
> century was nothing like the art schools of today. Do you mean the
young
> art students coming out of art schools in your country?
> In art schools here, the lack of emphasis on basic art skills like
drawing
> and the lack of virtuostic drive do give loop holes for lazy people,
but
> that shouldn't give us the excuse for the complete dismissal of
anything
> NEW.
> I think that it takes a lot more effort to judge contemporary art
> today. Some of it is crap. Representational art is easy to judge,
> either you get a likeness or you don't, but looking at contemporary
art
> takes some background. Even some of the really good stuff can give
> me a headache but I respect certain curators and critics and try to
> keep an open mind about it. I say, okay, explain this to me
> and I say it without hostility and without self-blame either.
New is fine, but I tend to go by Sturgeon's law. 90% of everything is
crap. ( and that includes 90% of everything I think and say )
Art for art's sake is a quaint notion, but, like "unconditional love"
or "communism", its just doesn't happen. Otherwise artists would feel
fine about chucking their creations in the attic or burying them at sea.
But no, they want to be shown and seen and appreciated.
What we get is art for artist's sake. Artists all have something to say,
but what if what they want to say is uninteresting? offensive? banal?
or, more commonly, just a narcissistic tantrum?
The contemporary bohemian artist crowd tends to the elitist and
exclusionary. Their work often an inside joke between themselves and
their collective "hipper than thou" ego- They don't WANT to be
"understood" Their purpose is to prove that the're cooler and more
complex than everyone else at the coffeehouse.
Its the emperor's new clothes. Not one of them wants to be the one to
say they don't get it.
Like the men who run the fashion industry, we are allowing the "meaning"
of art to be interpreted by a bunch of insecure poseurs who's very
agenda is the obfuscation of the experience of art.
I say the job of the artist is to communicate their vision.
I am a smart, well read member of the human race- and an artist; if you
have to explain your art to ME, then you have failed to do your job.
Unless of course, what you're after is the sweet joy of condescension.
But is that art?
>
> You are speaking as a man in a country (US?) in economic boom times.
> For me, I have two markets
> 1. people I know who mostlhy don't have a lot of money
> 2. people I don't know who have a lot of extra money to buy paintings.
I have been successful inspite of some very bad economic times (1978 to
83 for example) mostly because I approach art from this point of view:
Who can use what I can do? I then seek work from them. I work almost
exclusively by commission.
If you are a flatwork artist, you have so many markets from which to
mine money. In today's world you can self publish with nothing more than
a Macintosh. You can sell a painting 20 times over- card rights,
magazine rights, t-shirt rights. I have several friends who are down
right well off because they turn their paintings and other creations
into a line of greeting cards they produce and distribute themselves.
hell, design a logo for someone, paint a mural, illustrate a children's
book, DESIGN WEB PAGES! The world is hungry for graphic imagery, feed
it. If you are an artist- do what Rodin and Velasquez did- help the
non-creative to realize their visions. Once the bills are paid- then do
something that feeds your soul.
>
> We can't compare our times with the 19th century. Now we have a phenom
> known as instant FAME. You can become a best-selling writer if you
> are under 30 and good looking and at ease before a tv camera.
> The writing itself could be crap.
That is the lottery you're talking about. The Fashion Industry. Look to
the marketplace where ability counts more than countenance.
>
> Are you thinking of Richard Serra's "Tilted Arc?" The public was an
ass.
No. here in San Diego we had an artist win a commission to put a bunch
of bars up. Like a cage. they installed it blocking a view of the ocean
in an area where bars imply danger and paranoia.
But I have to say that the public is never an ass. Public art is
supposed to be PUBLIC. The artist designing for a public artwork HAS to
communicate with this public. Elitist art snobs got no business telling
the public what to respond to and how. I think new and avant guard stuff
should be installed, because the public often can not conceptualize the
experience of the finished work from a model or drawing, but, the
selection commitee had better understand the public they are serving and
be prepared to yank a piece that is not embraced.
Look at Chicago. They have a giant Picasso that is loved and several
Calders that are adored, and one Miro that is vandalized weekly. Now
Miro may be famous and important, but I have seen the piece and its butt
ugly and offensive to many women.
>
> Yes that is a wonderful story and the sculptor was a woman!
> I wonder if the public's acceptance was because of the names.
> The carving of the names made it an interactive piece of sculpture,
> the geographical context also had an effect.
> Do you wonder what you would have thought when you first saw
> the maquette for the Vietnam memorial? or just the drawing?
She was an ASIAN woman- which also caused quite an uproar among the
vets.
I saw the drawings before it was built but also the artist's explanation
of the concept.
The idea was the near mirror like reflectivity of black granite. Seeing
ourselves superimposed on this infinite looking wall of names. The
tactile feel of being able to touch the engraved letters, of being able
to stand, alive, and see through these names to our own image in the
black color of mourning.
It was brilliant beyond words, and perhaps the first war memorial in
history to really succeed in its objective of making us feel the loss.
> So we come back to being true to ourselves, in creating the work
> and in accepting the work of other artists. There are no formulas
> for the work or the m
Lauri Levanto
>
> Well i'm something of a latecomer to this
> discussion but I have to say this;
Wellcome, and thanks for your lucid sociology of art.
<...>
> Well, the "elite" art crowd is a small part of the
> bizness and the very area in which ability counts
> least. I wouldn't even include it in the "art
> market" per se, because PEOPLE don't buys that
> stuff. I'd say its part of the Haute Couture
> Market.
> In my experience, it all comes down to Art being a
> form of communication. If no one is buying your
> art, it is either because they don't like your
> message, or because you haven't done your job and
> made your message clear.
> Or, it could just be that your work is overpriced.
That is a very sobering thought.
I am one of those sissies, who did not dare
to turn professional, until I cover my back with pension.
Therefore I have not much thought about sculpture markets.
Your analog to Haute Couture is good. So what kind of blue jeans we
should make?
Public works:
Your point that public works should be made TO THE PUBLIC
deserves a small side note. As you mentioned, the vets did not
like the Vietnam memorial in the beginning.
The Sibelius monument in Helsinki
http://expedia.msn.com/wg/Europe/Finland/P13183.asp
was the first abstract
public piece in the town and heavily opposed. Now it is one of
the most beloved landmarks.
The lesson to learn is of course that the public does not know what is
good for them.
The lesson not to learn is let the elite decide.
garden variety:
After reformation the church was no longer a lucrative market. Therefore
the dutch masters developed a method of painting reasonably sized pieces
on canvas
that could be marketed to middle class.
In sculpture markets there must be a gap between unique art and mass
production.
To make small series of signed works. To pursue your metaphor, not to
make atelier work, nor to sell through post-order catalogs.
Is it possible to develop a network of butique, where the sortiment
is locally one-of-a-kind. Affordable to many but not cheap.
Indoor pieces:
The same applies here. Mass market is for posters and porcellain cats,
while few put their money in pieces of art. Again the middle class
wants something personal they can afford.
Like you said, one must have a message,
and tell it well.
<...>
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
Andrew Werby
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote in message <8a8o69$qsk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Well i'm something of a latecomer to this
>discussion but I have to say this;
>I was classically trained in a 5 year
>apprenticeship. I mastered the material and
>technical crafts involved. I was paid to learn.
[Could you tell us some more about this? Was it in the United States?
Most art students in the US pay to learn, learn very little for their money,
then must find some other sort of jobs to support their art habits.
Aside from internships at art foundries, which stress production skills
but not sculpting itself, I haven't heard of many professional
apprenticeship programs in the field.]
>have worked for twentyone years, my entire adult
>life, as a professional sculptor- it is all I have
>ever done to support myself and my family.
>The essense of my training was that the only
>difference between fine art and bric-a-brac is
>price point. That art is a business like any other
>and "market" is the pressure of what people want.
[I can't agree with you here. If art was indeed a business like
any other, people who couldn't make any money at it would quit
and stop competing with the rest. But instead, they seem
content to pay for the chance of exhibiting their work in numerous
competitions, and persist in producing product that nobody
apparently wants to buy. How do you account for this irrational
behavior?]
>I have been very successful and can tell you that
>as an artist, success is a tyranny. As you market
>your work you will eventually make something that
>people want, and you will respond by making more
>of what people want. That will make you
>financially comfortable but your lifestyle will
>expand to fit that income and soon you will find
>that the pressure to make what people want is
>reinforced by the bills you have to pay.
[It sounds like you are feeling constricted by the relative success
you enjoy. Do you still manage to produce work that stretches your
abilities and makes you feel excited? Has art settled down to
being just a job for you? Do you feel it's good for you and your art to
expend your skills and energies in satisfying the market, or would
you rather make money some other way, and do art for fun?]
>There was never a "better" time for artists. Do
>you think Michaelangelo WANTED to paint and sculpt
>solely religious subjects or that Rembrandt WANTED
>to paint all those homely folks? That was the only
>paying work going. Back then, what made an artist
>great was how beautifully they could satisfy
>someone else's desire.
[And now?]
>Today, artist's whine continually about not being
>appreciated while most of the apprentices I have
>had have failed on their own because they want art
>to be a self indulgent ego stroke. Artists want to
>be taken "seriously" and compare themselves to the
>folks written up in ArtForum.
[I 'd compare it to the religious fervor of the Middle Ages- many
became monks or nuns aspiring to sainthood, although few went the distance.]
>Well, the "elite" art crowd is a small part of the
>bizness and the very area in which ability counts
>least. I wouldn't even include it in the "art
>market" per se, because PEOPLE don't buys that
>stuff. I'd say its part of the Haute Couture
>Market.
[It's similar, but less grounded in reality. The couturiers, after all,
make good money at what they do, even if the runway shows are
something of a loss leader. But more people buy clothes than buy art.]
>In my experience, it all comes down to Art being a
>form of communication. If no one is buying your
>art, it is either because they don't like your
>message, or because you haven't done your job and
>made your message clear.
>Or, it could just be that your work is overpriced.
[So in your opinion, the best art is, by definition, the art that sells
the best? This has the advantage of measurability, but I'm not sure
everybody will agree. Was Bougareau, for example, really that
much better than his contemporary, Van Gogh?]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
WoN ereH
said
>Avant Guarde is only cutting edge if the rest of the blade follows.
as well as a lot of other interesting insights. Please continue. It is a rare
treat.
Regards,
Debra
www.sculptureartist.com
Marilyn Welch
WoN ereH wrote:
> >sculptingman
>
> said
> >Avant Guarde is only cutting edge if the rest of the blade follows.
>
> as well as a lot of other interesting insights. Please continue. It is a rare
> treat.
>
And of course, we all know that artists are a bunch of followers.
M.
eri...@my-deja.com
okay my take is a bit different,..
i work in many media,but my work is not made for sale,.hence i give a
lot of it away,(usally to the person who spends the most time looking at
it), but my livelyhood isn't depentant on my art, i made that choice
thirty years ago,..art is politics, is business if you so wish it, yes
it's true you dont make the art so much as it makes you, you want to
sell? well create something you know they want, piccaso did it, warhol
did it, hell pollack did it, as did the great masters you mentioned,..if
your art is too precious to comprimise or controll, then go get a job
and support your art,......stop the whineing play by the
rules(whatever they are for what you desire) and get on with it,...
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote in message
> >I was classically trained in a 5 year
> >apprenticeship. I mastered the material and
> >technical crafts involved. I was paid to learn.
>
> [Could you tell us some more about this? Was it in the United States?
> Most art students in the US pay to learn, learn very little for their
money,
> then must find some other sort of jobs to support their art habits.
> Aside from internships at art foundries, which stress production
skills
> but not sculpting itself, I haven't heard of many professional
> apprenticeship programs in the field.]
I was apprenticed at a commericial statuary run by Italian imigrants
whose families had been in the statuary biz for generations. I was hired
at minimum wage as a mold maker's apprentice. After proving myself in
that position I was allowed to assist the sculptor more and more,
ultimately taking his position when he retired back to Tuscany. I fully
recognized then and now the rare oppotunity this afforded me. In my five
years there I learned all the skills neccesary to supporting myself as a
sculptor. This is why I have tried to offer other aspiring artists a
similar opportunity to apprentice with me, however, I find most are too
flaky and immature, or too full of themselves, to stick with it and
learn the craft involved.
> >b That art is a business like any other
> >and "market" is the pressure of what people want.
>
> [I can't agree with you here. If art was indeed a business like
> any other, people who couldn't make any money at it would quit
> and stop competing with the rest. But instead, they seem
> content to pay for the chance of exhibiting their work in numerous
> competitions, and persist in producing product that nobody
> apparently wants to buy. How do you account for this irrational
> behavior?]
>
Unfortunately, talented people are taught that art is some ethereal,
mystical calling and that they should have to suffer for their creative
freedom. They persist despite losses because they expect to lose, and
because they are getting something other than money out of doing art.
That's fine with me. I do this because I love the doing of it even if
I'm not always crazy about the job at hand.
Besides, artists are not that diffrent. There are plenty of other
businesses where amatures try relentlessly to make it despite losses.
The bankruptcy courts are chock full of folks going thru their third or
fifth biznis disaster.
> >I have been very successful and can tell you that
> >as an artist, success is a tyranny. As you market
> >your work you will eventually make something that
> >people want, and you will respond by making more
> >of what people want. That will make you
> >financially comfortable but your lifestyle will
> >expand to fit that income and soon you will find
> >that the pressure to make what people want is
> >reinforced by the bills you have to pay.
>
> [It sounds like you are feeling constricted by the relative success
> you enjoy. Do you still manage to produce work that stretches your
> abilities and makes you feel excited? Has art settled down to
> being just a job for you? Do you feel it's good for you and your art
to
> expend your skills and energies in satisfying the market, or would
> you rather make money some other way, and do art for fun?]
Good question. Sometimes I'm sick of doing what pays, but then, I
couldn't earn nearly this much doing anything else. Self employment has
spoiled me for any regular job. From time to time I force myself to take
the time and do some art for the soul, and that recharges me. Overall, I
have to say that for me, it is the creative act that I enjoy, and it
seldom matters what purpose I put it to.
When I was 21 I decided to stop waiting to be "discovered" and to think
practically. Like Columbus, I would try to achive my goal by going west
to get east, the long way around. I started by doing anything that
needed doing by a sculptor. I have designed display items that look like
paint pouring from a can, umbrella stands that look like enormous cowboy
boots, and plastic strollers that look like dolphins.
By being in the art biz every day I gained, gradually, a reputation for
excellence and profesionalism, which garnered more opportunities.
Eventually I was approached by a company wanting to make metal sculpture
for a high end market- something I was willing to attach my name to.
They have promoted and advertised my name nationwide in Southwest Art
and the Robb Report. I am trying to achieve what we all want, creative
freedom, by EARNING aclaim and clientele.
>
Back then, what made an artist
> >great was how beautifully they could satisfy
> >someone else's desire.
>
> [And now?]
Now they want to be self absorbed brats who won't be told what to do.
>
> >In my experience, it all comes down to Art being a
> >form of communication. If no one is buying your
> >art, it is either because they don't like your
> >message, or because you haven't done your job and
> >made your message clear.
> >Or, it could just be that your work is overpriced.
>
> [So in your opinion, the best art is, by definition, the art that
sells
> the best? This has the advantage of measurability, but I'm not sure
> everybody will agree. Was Bougareau, for example, really that
> much better than his contemporary, Van Gogh?]
When was the last time someone paid $43 million for a Bougareau? I would
say that Bougareau was more in step with his time and his culture than
was Van Gogh- ( even today, some of his images outsell Van Gogh by a
long shot in the greeting card and t-shirt media) And he was more
approachable, sane, and involved in promoting his own work- whereas Van
Gogh left that to his brother. Van Gogh was self destructive and this
contributed to his failure to sell.
If you want to be off the rim and dysfunctional, be prepared to starve,
but we were discussing Art Markets, and that implies you want to sell
something. If your goal is to make a living with your art, while your
still alive, then yes, sales are equivalent to recognition and success.
People vote for the art they want with dollars. That is not to say that
people have good taste or intellect. People, after all, voted for the
Love Boat and the A team and the WWF. But some of them also voted for
Frasier and Northern Exposure, so all hope is not lost.
Find the people who share your aesthetic, and communicate something to
them that
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Marilyn Welch <mwe...@islandxnet.com> wrote:
>
> And of course, we all know that artists are a bunch of followers.
>
> M.
>
Marilyn!
Of Course we are followers. How many artist's work has been influenced
by Picasso, Moore, and Pollack?
How much have the Cutting Edge artists influenced and shaped design,
architecture, wallpaper, magazine ads?
When I go to the museum I can always tell the artists in the crowd.
While most folks stand 8 or 10 feet away gazing seriously at the
paintings, the artists are always standing with their noses 2 inches
from the canvas, squinting and asking themselves,"how did he DO that?"
One Idea follows from another, building upon previous work.
To my mind, the worst thing about the avant guarde is how derivative it
all is. How truely innovative is a culture where innovation is strained
for because you can only be treated as serious by doing something new?
(I know, says the avant guarde artist, I'll throw a crucifix into a jar
of my own urine! Nobody's ever seen THAT before!)
Most of what is considered cutting edge art these days has nothing to do
with art and everything to do with one-upsmanship.
Ch
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Christopher
Marilyn Welch
"Van Gogh was self destructive and this
contributed to his failure to sell."
Or
Van Gogh's failure to sell and the ensuing poverty
and humiliation ultimately destroyed him.
You seem to be describing craft, the virtuosity of
honing a skill almost to the point of perfection
by repetiion. This is an admirable occupation.
Making something that has never been made before
is much more exciting, a great risk,and a constant
discovery. It is a cause for jumping out
of bed in the morning to look over what you did
the day before or staying up half the night because
you are on to something.
Egyptian art has been cited as an example of artists sticking
to a tradition but can you imagine how stifling it must have
been for people with rich imaginations? 500 years of painting
people in profile, we are talking stasis. Change is a law
of the universe, and sticking to traditions too strictly
is holding on to the past.
Your term "People" is a grand generalization. There are a multitude
of levels of taste in North American society for example.
When I first saw the acronym 'WWF' I thought then that it meant
World Wildlife Fund. Most people love Disneyland, but you won't
catch many naturalists there.
(It is interesting that you would cite Bougereau who was
a darling of the conservative French academy when you
also voice a distrust of the academy.)
We live in a pluralist age and I say
vive la difference!
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38CD6FA0...@islandxnet.com>,
> Marilyn Welch <mwe...@islandxnet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > And of course, we all know that artists are a bunch of followers.
> >
> > M.
> >
> Marilyn!
>
> Of Course we are followers. How many artist's work has been influenced
> by Picasso, Moore, and Pollack?
> How much have the Cutting Edge artists influenced and shaped design,
> architecture, wallpaper, magazine ads?
Yes, but, but, but, there's a difference between being influenced by
something
and outright copying.
>
>
> When I go to the museum I can always tell the artists in the crowd.
> While most folks stand 8 or 10 feet away gazing seriously at the
> paintings, the artists are always standing with their noses 2 inches
> from the canvas, squinting and asking themselves,"how did he DO that?"
The artists are scrutinizing the work for the technique, not to copy the
idea of
the thing.
>
>
> One Idea follows from another, building upon previous work.
> To my mind, the worst thing about the avant guarde is how derivative it
> all is. How truely innovative is a culture where innovation is strained
> for because you can only be treated as serious by doing something new?
To break new ground does not make it necessary to cut off all
pastinfluences. We are of our historical, greographical and political
context.
> (I know, says the avant guarde artist, I'll throw a crucifix into a jar
> of my own urine! Nobody's ever seen THAT before!)
> Most of what is considered cutting edge art these days has nothing to do
> with art and everything to do with one-upsmanship.
> Ch
As far as "The Piss Christ"the use of bodily fluids from humans and animals
is
not new to artists. Elephant dung has been used to make pigment and to make
paper for hundreds of years in Africa. It is a natural resource. Earth
pigments
are made from dirt (gardener's call it soil). I saw the piss Christ and it
was
one beautiful piece of work. Most of the people who dismiss it have never
seen it. Yes, the artist was being provocative with the title because he may
have wanted
or needed to call attention to the work because of all the stuff that is out
there.
Avant guard artists are very concerned with materials, as we move out of the
materialist age and into an age of diminishing resources. Soon there will be
no more Manganese Blue, for example.
It takes a lot more discrimination to view art work today. But there is a
lot of
hope for you, if you loved the Vietnam Memorial a truly postmodern piece of
art, you don't have a closed mind. You seem to be angry with artists
who you perceive to be getting away with something. I say who cares? If
people
want to buy Disney posters instead of my original work, I say good for them
because I know the poster will fade in a couple of years. If some artists
think they
can fool the public by producing crap, by-passing the paying of their dues,
like leaning basic skills, and maybe some art history, if they can get away
with it,
so what?
It seems to me what you would like to see is some kind of certificate like a
medical degree for artists. I think that kind of certification is evolving.
People buying art are very concerned with the artist's background, degrees,
who they
studied with, not only if they show their work, but where they show their
work.
I'm influenced by the landscape artist Wolf Kahn, who was influenced by
Hans Hoffman, and the New York School - 2nd generation. I'm also influenced
by Paul Klee. Who were your influences? anyone after Rodin? (I jest!)
Marilyn
Battersby
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1000317115241.24352B-100000@vtn1...
> (It is interesting that you would cite Bougereau who was
> a darling of the conservative French academy when you
> also voice a distrust of the academy.)
I may be missing something Marilyn, but I do believe that it was Andrew
asking about Bougareau/Van Gogh.
--
T. M. Battersby, stuccoist.
http://www.battersbyornamental.com
tbatt...@satx.rr.com
Battersby
news:8au0qt$uuj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I was apprenticed at a commericial statuary run by Italian imigrants
> whose families had been in the statuary biz for generations. I was hired
Do you have a website or images posted somewhere showing any of your work.
Sounds interesting.
> sculptor. This is why I have tried to offer other aspiring artists a
> similar opportunity to apprentice with me, however, I find most are too
> flaky and immature, or too full of themselves, to stick with it and
> learn the craft involved.
Apprentices' are indeed hard to come by. flaky/immature/full of themselves.
What does the new millennium have in store.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Van Gogh could have got a joe job. What he wanted was aclaim and
notoriety, and in his own time. If that was his goal- he failed to
achieve it. If he just wanted to paint what moved him, that he did
admirably, and the world eventually came around, alas too late.
As regards the new and daring, the thrill of doing something no one has
ever done before...
When Pollack painted his first scribble painting, it was so exciting and
different that he did nothing else for the remainder of his life. Same
thing, over and over and over. Henri Moore, Calder, Rothko, all hit a
winning formula and stuck with it. Even Picasso eventually settled down
into a grim parody of himself.
And new! what is new? What did picasso invent that was not already
millenia old in the caves of Lascaux? In the tribal masks of Timbuktu?
In the rocks of Australia?
All art is derivative because it comes from the common venacular of our
human experience. I have never seen any work of art in which I could not
see the influence of some other, previous human expression.
It is so easy to experiment and try different things when no one wants
what you do, but once your work is recognized, the expectations of "your
public" will be the yolk on your neck. A plush velvet yolk with a
vacation home on the Riviera, the hardest kind to shrug off. As with
anything, it can be observed that success is often the end of
innovation. That is why I called success a tyranny.
As far as craft- again, I am not suggesting what "ART" is or isn't. I
am merely discussing the juxtaposition of the word ART and the word
MARKET.
When you elect to "market" your "art" you are choosing to be judged.
You want something from the "market", something more than just kind
words.
You want money.
Them what has money want something, too.
If you want to succeed in the market, you had better understand that you
have to give them what they want in order to get what you want.
It is just that simple- and all the grand aspirations are just so much
hot air.
My complaint with art school today is that degreed "artists" emerge
woefully unprepared for what will be required from them professionally.
While I believe that craft is crucial to effective artistic expression,
it is NOT the be-all of art. It is, however, indispensible if you want
to earn a living regardless of what the public thinks about your "art".
With a little talent and adequate craft, any artist can earn a living in
the commercial sector and do their serious work on weekends.
> (It is interesting that you would cite Bougereau who was
> a darling of the conservative French academy when you
> also voice a distrust of the academy.)
First, I did not cite Bougereau, I was responding to another's fellow
who brought him up. Secondly, I have no problem with the Beaux Arts
Academy of the 1800s. It is what passes today for art education that is
dismal.
>
> We live in a pluralist age and I say
> vive la difference!
Marilyn, since you seem determined to drag me into a discussion of art
as the grand concept, I will tell you a story that embodies my beliefs
about ART.
When my sons were young, I sometimes came and gave the 2nd or 3rd or
4rth graders a little presentation on art. I would bring in some
examples of my work and some clay and rubber molds and along with all
that I would bring a spoon and a salt shaker.
So I would begin by asking the class what art was. Of course they would
point to my sculpture and say that was art, but then I would hold up the
spoon and loudly say "Is this art?"
And they would all yell, "NOOOOO!"
To which I would say "NOOO?!?"
Now they would yell"YEEEEEES!"
And I would say, "YEES?!?"
By now about half would yell no and the other half yes. And I would show
them the decoration of the glass salt shaker, the star pattern of the
holes and how the top looked like a little dome from a mosque. I would
say to them, "by the time you leave here you will all have NEW EYES. You
will look around you and realize that nearly everything you see and
touch that was made by people looks the way it does because someone,
somewhere DECIDED that it would look like that. And that, right there,
that act of decision, IS art."
Of all the animals on the earth, only mankind makes art.
The world itself is not beautiful. Mountains and forests and lakes are
utterly devoid of beauty. The world has no intention one way or the
other.
Like the old Chinese poem:
The wild geese fly across the long sky above.
Their image is reflected in the cool water below.
The geese do not mean to cast their image upon the water.
The water does not mean to hold the image of the geese.
But to us it is all beautiful because it is we who choose to see the
world that way. That beauty is not out there, it is within us, it is
our response. It is what we bring to the experience of the world.
Aesthetics is how we make sense of our senses.
You want to know our earliest ancestors? It was the ones that painted
the caves, carved horses into their tools. They were the first people
with whom we have anything meaningful in common.
I will also tell you that I think the art itself is fairly useless and
meaningless. It is the experience of it that matters. It is not so much
what I create, but, rather, the fact that I do. The act of aesthectic
decision. That is ART to me.
One of my best friends, abstract artist Mike Conlen, whose work is a
joy, carved into the concrete step to his studio the words, "Art is all
around you!"
Inspired by his example, when I built my studio, I took a popsicle stick
and carved into the fresh concrete, "life is a performance artwork; make
yours beautiful".
I remember the concrete finish guy was amazed that I could make all
those letters, by hand, with a stick, fit perfectly into the curving
expanse of the step, and that they were all the same size. "Well," I
told him, "that's just my craft. Look at how beautifully you made the
curve." And then I had him write His name in the foundation he had just
poured.
Christop
sculpt...@my-deja.com
where.
Try a search of the name Christopher Pardell.
Look for sites that pertain to a company called Legends or Starlite
Originals. I think the company's website is still being built.
If you post your e-mail address I can send you pics directl
Marilyn Welch
Not that I agree with all that you say but I do like
the way that you expressed it. I have only one reservation,
in that I didn't think I was "dragging" you into a
discussion, I thought it was a conversation.
Also one addition, I'm not entirely sure that animals
don't have a sense of beauty because I have seen
documentaries where chimpansees watch the sunset,
where bower birds decorate their bowers (one species loves blue
things) and there are places in Madagascar where birds of
paradise put on a display at first light just for themselves.
au revoir,
Marilyn
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
Battersby
news:8avdvi$tud$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> The commercial work I do can be found on the web, but I'm Not sure
> where.
> Try a search of the name Christopher Pardell.
Beautiful work. I would guess that your work sells very well.
> Look for sites that pertain to a company called Legends or Starlite
> Originals. I think the company's website is still being built.
> If you post your e-mail address I can send you pics directl
My e-mail address is below. I would be interested in seeing some of your
"non-commercial" work. Send me a few pix, if you want.
Thanks,
Battersby.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
discussion topic; I was merely observing an insistance on your part to
widen the scope and importance of the conversation beyond the idea of
obtaining sales of artwork, which was my, somewhat narrow, focus.
Sometimes I need to be forcibly yanked off the one track I'm running
down.
Although animals may have some appreciation of their surroundings it is
purely anthropomorphic to even imagine what they may or may not be
feeling. They could just as easily be staring at the sunset with
transfixed dread as with aesthetic approval.
Regardless, however, they are not moved to express whatever aesthetic
sense they may have, and, to me, that indicates that they do not feel
what we do.
I believe that all of human development springs from this early
evolution of artistic response to the world. For example, all social
animals have some limited variety of language which is effective enough
for their purposes of conveying emotional state. Their languag has not
grown because they have no need to communicate anything more.
I feel that humanity's unique linguistic skill came out of a deep need
to communicate something more profound and complex.
Something aesthetic.
I think the aquisition of a sense of beauty was the key evolutionary
step that has driven the elaboration of our language.
The notion that cavemen carved naked ladies as some kind of religious
"goddess" cult is silly. Men carve naked ladies because they find them
beautiful, and because they can. - any religious connotations came after
the fact. That is, I feel the artistic expression preceded the belief
system.
In this sense, virtually all human belief systems, from the afterlife to
the atomic theory, are little more than a search for a compositional
balance in our experience of reality.
The concept of duality, yin and yang, good and evil, positive and
negative, is all aesthetics. We see balance and symetry, harmony and
meaning in everything. We crave it. It is how we invent understanding
from what we
sculpt...@my-deja.com
just couldn't let it slide by without rebuttal.
> > How much have the Cutting Edge artists influenced and shaped design,
> > architecture, wallpaper, magazine ads?
>
> Yes, but, but, but, there's a difference between being influenced by
> something
> and outright copying.
true- but, there is plenty of avant guard work that influences virtually
no one. To have influence ON WHAT FOLLOWS makes one cutting edge, and
what follows is the rest of the blade, no matter how original they may
think they are.
> > When I go to the museum I can always tell the artists in the crowd.
> > While most folks stand 8 or 10 feet away gazing seriously at the
> > paintings, the artists are always standing with their noses 2 inches
> > from the canvas, squinting and asking themselves,"how did he DO
that?"
> The artists are scrutinizing the work for the technique, not to copy
the
> idea of
> the thing.
So you say, but how can you know? When you see something that affects
you, it AFFECTS you. You are suggesting that Picasso did't copy the idea
of tribal art? Of course he did. Look at the date that Lascaux was
discovered and then look at his work. This doesn't mean that what he
created wasn't great, it was, but his contribution was the expression
and not the idea.
> To break new ground does not make it necessary to cut off all
> pastinfluences. We are of our historical, greographical and political
> context.
Precisely my point.
> As far as "The Piss Christ"the use of bodily fluids from humans and
animals
> is
> not new to artists. Elephant dung has been used to make pigment and to
make
> paper for hundreds of years in Africa. It is a natural resource. Earth
> pigments
> are made from dirt (gardener's call it soil). I saw the piss Christ
and it
> was
> one beautiful piece of work. Most of the people who dismiss it have
never
> seen it. Yes, the artist was being provocative with the title because
he may
> have wanted
> or needed to call attention to the work because of all the stuff that
is out
> there.
> Avant guard artists are very concerned with materials, as we move out
of the
Oh Marilyn... I can not believe you were taken in by Serra's joke. It
had nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with outrage. It is
horribly bad art, not because of the material, but because the easiest
thing in the world to accomplish is to upset a Christian. And I promise
you that that was his sole intent no matter how much smoke he blows up
the art world's collective ass. ( his next work!)
Same goes for the elephant dung madonna- please.. you don't see the
theft of idea here?
The trouble with the 'Schlock Of The New' is that it has been done to
death- the statement's been made and Serra's spin on it is neither new
nor thought provoking. Crucifix in piss? so what? Mastubating in the
gallery? Ho Hum. We've seen it all before and, frankly, what these
'artists' have to say is simply not interesting. They are ridiculing the
fine art establishment and the establishment is eating it up. You can't
even admire their execution because that stinks worse than the
excrement.
Fine guys; I got it, I know the punchline, now tell me something
interesting.
As far as I can tell the only concern the avant guard has for materials
is the knowledge that the only way to come up with something that will
be considered 'new enough' is to desperately search for something that
hasn't been used by someone else. Like they're looking for domain names.
> It takes a lot more discrimination to view art work today. But there
is a
> lot of
> hope for you, if you loved the Vietnam Memorial a truly postmodern
piece of
> art, you don't have a closed mind.
The Key word there is 'discrimination', Marilyn. I don't see you using
any. You seem perfectly willing to accept as serious anything and
everything. While that may be the politically correct stance among the
art elite, it hardly qualifies as 'a lot more discrimination'.
To discriminate is to separate the excellent from the banal.
The fact that someone has become famous for an important masterpiece
does not mean that everything that they do or have done is important or
even any good. That poeople will pay huge money for a "bad Monet" is an
indictment of the "brand name" mentality in the art world.
A person with discrimination judges a wine with his palate and not by
the label.
I am open minded. I will give anything a chance; I want to be moved, to
find it wonderful. I am sophisticated enough to appreciate nuance and
politic, irony and metaphore, but I am also capable of recognizing when
I am being played, or when something simply sucks.
Remember Kostabi? He was putting his name on other people's bad
paintings and the cognoscenti were selling them like internet stocks.
The most lucid critique of his work produced in the art circles was that
he was giving "bad art a bad name". !!??! The idea that bad art is
considered by these types to be a valid genre, instead of just artistic
failure, is indicadive of how far through the looking glass they have
gone.
Just as we look back a hundred years with disdain on the estblishment
that failed to recognize Van Gogh, a hundred years from now the fact
that Serra was taken seriously will make us seem to be a bunch of rubes.
In college, the most important class I took, the one that had the most
influence on my art and my life, was Philosophy of Aesthetics. Believe
it or not, this is not a required course for a degree in art! It wasn't
even recommended. I had to go to the philsophy department for it.
I find this as outrageous as lawmakers who don't understand the first
ammendment.
> You seem to be angry with artists
> who you perceive to be getting away with something. I say who cares?
Anger is not my response to it. Laughter is. You have to realize that I
don't take much of anything very seriously- particularly not myself. Oh,
I have beliefs and thoughts and all and I am willing to discuss just
about anything. But really, its just what I think, and who the hell am
I? Just one more pearl in Indra's net.
> It seems to me what you would like to see is some kind of certificate
like a
>
> medical degree for artists. I think that kind of certification is
evolving.
> People buying art are very concerned with the artist's background,
degrees,
> who they
> studied with, not only if they show their work, but where they show
their
> work.
I don't care a whit for degrees or certificates; I could care less what
clubs they belong to or what cliques they run with. I judge their work
on its own merit, piece by piece, preferably without all that knowledge
to sway me.
My chief concern with art education is the suffering it creates. people
with a passion for making art come out of school unable to earn a living
in their chosen field. This I do take seriously. The schooling ain't
cheap.
I dropped out of art school after 2 years to take an apprenticeship that
lasted 5. I was advised to drop out by a great English teacher who told
me that if I wanted to be a writer or a sculptor, I should get out there
in the world and start doing it, learning it the hard way because, in
those field, no one cares about your schooling- either you wrote a good
story or you did't.
Years later, I had an apprentice with an art degree (most of my
apprentices have had art degrees) who told me, "Chris, the world will
soon be divided into two kinds of people, those with degrees and those
without."
To which I replied, "You're absolutely right, and those with degrees
will be working for those without."
My point being that, in real life, and particularly in art, ability
means more than matriculation.
> I'm influenced by the landscape artist Wolf Kahn, who was influenced
by
> Hans Hoffman, and the New York School - 2nd generation. I'm also
influenced
>
> by Paul Klee. Who were your influences? anyone after Rodin? (I jest!)
>
> Marilyn
>
My influences? Certainly NOT Rodin. Pre-Rodin I am more taken with
French, McCartan, Mucha, St. Gaudens, Spinnazi, Bernini, Giambologna.
Post-Rodin I like Duchamp, Calder, Picasso, Brancusi; not to mention
many more absta
Andrew Werby
To: sculpt...@my-deja.com <sculpt...@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Markets galore
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2000 11:44 AM
-----Original Message-----
From: sculpt...@my-deja.com <sculpt...@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.sculpture
Date: Sunday, March 19, 2000 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Markets galore
>No offense meant, Marilyn, and I certainly don't mind expanding the
>discussion topic; I was merely observing an insistance on your part to
>widen the scope and importance of the conversation beyond the idea of
>obtaining sales of artwork, which was my, somewhat narrow, focus.
>Sometimes I need to be forcibly yanked off the one track I'm running
>down.
[I think it was Marilyn who brought up Van Gogh- I threw in Bougareau for
comparison and contrast. It must feel good to have an aesthetic sense in
harmony with ones time- but I wouldn't know...]
>
>Although animals may have some appreciation of their surroundings it is
>purely anthropomorphic to even imagine what they may or may not be
>feeling. They could just as easily be staring at the sunset with
>transfixed dread as with aesthetic approval.
[I think it's purely antrocentric to deny feelings to other animals which
one
experiences oneself. Abstract thought, perhaps, is the exclusive province
of mankind, but the emotions are far older than our species, and the sense
of beauty, as Marilyn points out, is demonstrably shared by others.]
>Regardless, however, they are not moved to express whatever aesthetic
>sense they may have, and, to me, that indicates that they do not feel
>what we do.
[Many humans appreciate art without needing to make any themselves. Maybe
animals, appreciating the beauty of nature, feel it would be presumptuous to
try
to compete.]
>I believe that all of human development springs from this early
>evolution of artistic response to the world. For example, all social
>animals have some limited variety of language which is effective enough
>for their purposes of conveying emotional state. Their languag has not
>grown because they have no need to communicate anything more.
[We have made enough progress in deciphering animal language to know that
many things are conveyed besides emotional states. Bees have perfected
directional codes, and other animals use "language" to send warnings, call
their
young, issue threats, entice mates, etc. Nobody has really figured out what
is
meant by the songs of the whales, but they are highly complex, and unique to
each individual.]
>
>I feel that humanity's unique linguistic skill came out of a deep need
>to communicate something more profound and complex.
>Something aesthetic.
>I think the aquisition of a sense of beauty was the key evolutionary
>step that has driven the elaboration of our language.
[You'd think that, in that case, we'd be better at expressing what we liked
or disliked
about a piece of art.]
>The notion that cavemen carved naked ladies as some kind of religious
>"goddess" cult is silly. Men carve naked ladies because they find them
>beautiful, and because they can. - any religious connotations came after
>the fact. That is, I feel the artistic expression preceded the belief
>system.
>In this sense, virtually all human belief systems, from the afterlife to
>the atomic theory, are little more than a search for a compositional
>balance in our experience of reality.
>The concept of duality, yin and yang, good and evil, positive and
>negative, is all aesthetics. We see balance and symetry, harmony and
>meaning in everything. We crave it. It is how we invent understanding
>from what we
[An interesting theory, although what you call a search for "compositional
balance"
others understand as a yearning to find a cause and effect relationship
between
human actions and natural phenomena. We definitely seek to discern some sort
of pattern in seemingly random events, which urge originally gave rise to
religion,
and latterly to science, although artists are known to get involved with
this as well.]
Andrew Werby
WoN ereH
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> >Although animals may have some appreciation of their surroundings it
is
> >purely anthropomorphic to even imagine what they may or may not be
> >feeling. They could just as easily be staring at the sunset with
> >transfixed dread as with aesthetic approval.
>
> [I think it's purely antrocentric to deny feelings to other animals
which
> one
> experiences oneself. Abstract thought, perhaps, is the exclusive
province
> of mankind, but the emotions are far older than our species, and the
sense
> of beauty, as Marilyn points out, is demonstrably shared by others.]
I would never deny the emotional content of animal's expression. I don't
doubt that they have some emotional response to the sunset.It may even
be appreciative, but does the sunset make them think? Does the
cloudscape remind them of an antelope? Do they 'symbolize' their
experience of life as we do? Art is nothing but abstraction. If animals
don't do it, if as you suggest, its exclusively human, then animals
don't have aesthetics.
To an animal- a cigar is always a cigar.
There is no verifiable evidence that animals have a sense of beauty,
only that they express preference and emotion. Bioligists have been able
to explain virtually all animal behaivior in terms of gene survival.
Building an intricate nest is not art if your intincts make you do it
and drive the design.
Peacocks have tails because it gets them laid and men are attracted to
women's figures because it is in their genetic interest. But what animal
has ever drawn a picture or carved an effigy of their mate?
Bower birds may secretly dance for the joy of it, but do they innovate
or ad lib? Are there bleachers set up for the audience?
>
> [Many humans appreciate art without needing to make any themselves.
Maybe
> animals, appreciating the beauty of nature, feel it would be
presumptuous to
> try
> to compete.]
Animals feel presumption? They told you this? You are projecting. This
statement is a good working definition of the term anthropomorphic.
If art is, as I have suggested in another post, the act of aesthetic
descision, then all people do it to a certain degree. Everyone decorates
their own lives. Some of us have just made a nusiance of ourselves about
wanting to decorate other peoples lives, too. We call ourselves artists.
> [We have made enough progress in deciphering animal language to know
that
> many things are conveyed besides emotional states. Bees have perfected
> directional codes, and other animals use "language" to send warnings,
call
> their
> young, issue threats, entice mates, etc. Nobody has really figured out
what
> is
> meant by the songs of the whales, but they are highly complex, and
unique to
> each individual.]
Everything you list above is no more than an emotional message. These
communications all serve only the purpose of survival and reproduction.
Social animals have some communications that serve a bonding purpose-
but this too enhances survival.
You may have me with the whales, though. God only knows what they may be
thinking.
> >I feel that humanity's unique linguistic skill came out of a deep
need
> >to communicate something more profound and complex.
> >Something aesthetic.
> >I think the aquisition of a sense of beauty was the key evolutionary
> >step that has driven the elaboration of our language.
>
> [You'd think that, in that case, we'd be better at expressing what we
liked
> or disliked
> about a piece of art.]
What do you mean? Were better at it than any other living thing!
>
> [An interesting theory, although what you call a search for
"compositional
> balance"
> others understand as a yearning to find a cause and effect
relationship
> between
> human actions and natural phenomena. We definitely seek to discern
some sort
> of pattern in seemingly random events, which urge originally gave rise
to
> religion,
> and latterly to science, although artists are known to get involved
with
> this as well.]
>
> Andrew Werby
>
I agree with you about this. However. I think the evolution of a need to
explain, to find cause, only developed to that level in response to the
sense of wonder.
All animals with a cerebral cortex have some ability to model future
events based upon past experience. This is the genesis of cause and
effect thinking. "I'm not going to do THAT 'cause doing that killed
Bob."
Chimpanzees make tools- this means they understand cause and effect.
Lions cooperate to effect a kill. They get it, too.
The question is, what happened in our evolution to cause such an
explosion of development so far above and beyond all other creatures?
And so fast.
Most scientists say complex SYMBOLIC language did it. I say that
symbolic thought is the sense of aesthetics, expressing the thought is
art.
Christopher
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Lauri Levanto
>
> > I was apprenticed at a commericial statuary run by Italian imigrants
> > whose families had been in the statuary biz for generations. I was hired
>
> Sounds interesting.
>
> > similar opportunity to apprentice with me, however, I find most are too
> > flaky and immature, or too full of themselves, to stick with it and
> > learn the craft involved.
>
> What does the new millennium have in store.
I'm 64. Studied sculpting about 6-7 years. Would like an apprentce post
starting autumn 2001, when financied by retirement plan. Especially
interested
to learn
- mold making
- working on natural stone
- lauri
Lauri Levanto
Romantic small old villages. One of them, Valleauris concentrates
on ceramics. Another, St Paul to paintings. (Neither has
see and sand, so another attraction is necessary.)
What I saw was dozens of 'galleries' selling rubbish to tourists,
and few museums in between selling posters to snobs.
That was a lively art market. Give them what they want, as sculptingman
said.
back to museums. Most of their budgets comes from the museum stores.
In Antibes' Picasso museum I paid 30 fr for entrance and spent
350 fr in the bookshop. I could compare a museum visit to a concert.
Real pieces, like live music has its merits. But most of music
is consumed by listening CD's. Likewise art in posters.
There is another part of the music world: to play for
yourself or friends. That is by no means fine arts, more often crap.
Those posterlike pseudomodern paintings
in these small galleries make someone happy.
Just like singing in the bathroom. is it wrong?
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
--
the fact that I abuse my office email address
does not imply that my emplouer agrees with
or is aware of opinions expressed here.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
forming many communities.
Not all communities have the taste of tourists. Yes- clap trap is a
lively art market- but then, so is the world of fine art commission.
I routinely sell pieces from $3,000 to $8,000.
Gallery Fine Art is simply a market with a higher price range, serving a
more demanding clientele.
All the high falutin critiques aside, its just like any other market.
Figure out a way to say something that will be meaningful to the
clientele you wish to attract, and you will succeed.
Christopher
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmdsaadmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmddek mmmmmmmmmm
kdfllkj lkd sadlk iwiew
anothersc...@my-deja.com
obvious: that we can not know what an animal thinks when it sees a
sunset--or a cigar, or when it sings, no matter what biologists or
other scientists may claim. Other animals may ad lib--or they may not.
It reminds me of the Biosphere 2 project--where scientists thought they
could replicate the earth's ecosystem in miniature. It was widely
publicized--until it started to fail.
Strange that an articifial human brain or body is seen as being way too
complicated to create--but the rest of the world isnt.
PS
This art market discussion has been very good.
Enlightening posts.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
I am not looking for any apprentices at this time, can't say about a
year and a half from now. I suggest you visit sculptor.org where many
artists offer apprentice positions from all over the U.S.
Christopher
lksfhfh;kdjfdkjfh;jfh;kjfkjfksfjfghksjfglksfgdkhsaj
kfjd;ksjfh;ksjkfhlkdsjfhlksajdfdlksjfhflkdsajfhlkaj
Battersby
From: Lauri Levanto <lauri....@nokia.com>
> I'm 64. Studied sculpting about 6-7 years. Would like an apprentce post
> starting autumn 2001, when financied by retirement plan. Especially
> interested
> to learn
> - mold making
> - working on natural stone
> - lauri
I'm taking applications NOW. Call me when you get to SATx. I'll keep you
busy with plenty of moldmaking. No stone work.
Through the years, the best I've had working with me have been 40-60 and up.
Problem is, they die. Three in the last year. Two of them this year. I know
my name is on the list also, and probably not all that far from the top.
Lauri Levanto
>
> As Marilyn has pointed out- there are lots of people in the world,
> forming many communities.
> Not all communities have the taste of tourists. Yes- clap trap is a
> lively art market- but then, so is the world of fine art commission.
At present I make - not sell - pieces on commission. It simply is the
kind of challence
I like. The current piece under work is a garden gnome. As the future
owner
is not going to pay for it, I have free hands within the
commission:Garden Gnome.
To make more than a garden gnome!
> I routinely sell pieces from $3,000 to $8,000.
> Gallery Fine Art is simply a market with a higher price range, serving a
> more demanding clientele.
> All the high falutin critiques aside, its just like any other market.
> Figure out a way to say something that will be meaningful to the
> clientele you wish to attract, and you will succeed.
> Christopher
> mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmdsaadmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmddek mmmmmmmmmm
> kdfllkj lkd sadlk iwiew
>
I fully agree. It is the gallery market I have in mind, when I think
art markets. Although I'm not yet approaching it.
I just wanted to tell an experience, my reaction to the situation
where both sides of the street were filled with 'galleries' after
'galleries'.
(I had the quotes last time, too.) There must be a business in it.
Tens of sales people make their living -some artists, too-.
It was easy to see how professionally the sales appeal was achieved.
Nice - even interesting - empty works.
Then I went to a museum, filled with pieces that were
made for museums. It was a strong positive experience.
Much like a concert as I said. At the end of museum round
I then ruined my travel budget in the bookshop
- buying books in French :-) that I can't even read -
That was the ironic concept "selling posters to snobs".
Yes, I found one gallery without quotes. I also fell in love
with a little bronze. So sad to be a dropout of that more
demanding clientele.
- lauri
sculpt...@my-deja.com
and Lucca. The Uffizi and Pitti, Academia and Castle Sforza- great
museums all. Chock full of important works.
On the way back we had a two day lay over in London and visited the
Victoria and Albert museum.
It was the greatest museum I have ever visited. It had halls and floors
full of all kinds of design work, from toasters to haute couture. It had
one of the finest sculpture collections I have ever seen. One of
Bernini's greatest busts is there- you can touch it.
But my most memorable and emotionally affecting experiences in any
museum, of all time, was the V & A's collection of wax and clay
maquettes. Tiny little preliminary and final sketches for some of the
greatest marble works in history, some fragmentary, some intact, from as
long ago as Cellini and Michealangelo. Their fingerprints still visible,
their process caught in mid-realiztion.
For me- this was heaven to see.
Christopher
mmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmm
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmm mm
Marilyn Welch
> [I think it was Marilyn who brought up Van Gogh- I threw in Bougareau for
> comparison and contrast. It must feel good to have an aesthetic sense in
> harmony with ones time- but I wouldn't know...]
Have you tried to discuss the art of living contemporary artists
who are well-known, on rec.arts.fine or here? Oh yes,
some have tried but there is a neat paradox going on here.
We are using the latest contemporary technology to discuss conservative
(for the most part)/traditional art rarely touching on the 20th century
much less the 21st century.
G-d forbid anyone gets away from oil on canvas,
watercolour on paper, or figurative/representational sculpture.
Exhibit a painting without a frame? oh my gawd! On raf, they have almost
come to contemporary art with making fun of Andy Warhol who was
making fun of everyone.
On animals:
I read somewhere, that the greatest periods of evil in human
history arise when humans forget that they are animals.
with respect,
Marilyn
> >
> >Although animals may have some appreciation of their surroundings it is
> >purely anthropomorphic to even imagine what they may or may not be
> >feeling. They could just as easily be staring at the sunset with
> >transfixed dread as with aesthetic approval.
>
> [I think it's purely antrocentric to deny feelings to other animals which
> one
> experiences oneself. Abstract thought, perhaps, is the exclusive province
> of mankind, but the emotions are far older than our species, and the sense
> of beauty, as Marilyn points out, is demonstrably shared by others.]
>
> >Regardless, however, they are not moved to express whatever aesthetic
> >sense they may have, and, to me, that indicates that they do not feel
> >what we do.
>
> [Many humans appreciate art without needing to make any themselves. Maybe
> animals, appreciating the beauty of nature, feel it would be presumptuous to
> try
> to compete.]
>
> >I believe that all of human development springs from this early
> >evolution of artistic response to the world. For example, all social
> >animals have some limited variety of language which is effective enough
> >for their purposes of conveying emotional state. Their languag has not
> >grown because they have no need to communicate anything more.
>
> [We have made enough progress in deciphering animal language to know that
> many things are conveyed besides emotional states. Bees have perfected
> directional codes, and other animals use "language" to send warnings, call
> their
> young, issue threats, entice mates, etc. Nobody has really figured out what
> is
> meant by the songs of the whales, but they are highly complex, and unique to
> each individual.]
>
> >
> >I feel that humanity's unique linguistic skill came out of a deep need
> >to communicate something more profound and complex.
> >Something aesthetic.
> >I think the aquisition of a sense of beauty was the key evolutionary
> >step that has driven the elaboration of our language.
>
> [You'd think that, in that case, we'd be better at expressing what we liked
> or disliked
> about a piece of art.]
>
>
> >The notion that cavemen carved naked ladies as some kind of religious
> >"goddess" cult is silly. Men carve naked ladies because they find them
> >beautiful, and because they can. - any religious connotations came after
> >the fact. That is, I feel the artistic expression preceded the belief
> >system.
> >In this sense, virtually all human belief systems, from the afterlife to
> >the atomic theory, are little more than a search for a compositional
> >balance in our experience of reality.
> >The concept of duality, yin and yang, good and evil, positive and
> >negative, is all aesthetics. We see balance and symetry, harmony and
> >meaning in everything. We crave it. It is how we invent understanding
> >from what we
Marilyn Welch
Thanks for the tour.
No, not wrong.
There is an interview in the New York times (www.nyt.com) magazine,
with Hans Haacke about his work in "The Sensation"
show in Brooklyn, NY, USA,
which you might find interesting.
He talks about museums as entertainment.
The crowds
going to museums are not really interested in art. In Vancouver
recently, I thought that the parents were bringing their kids to
the shows to get out of the rain. An annual family pass is cheap here.
HH also talks about the necessity of being in the system in order
to be part of the dialogue. He fielded the questions quite well,
I thought.
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
I've been away visiting the mainland. Pretty hard after
my son's fast cable connection, multi gig hard drive etc.
To tell the truth I can't remember who assembled the Piss Chirst
but it wasn't Richard Serra the sculptor.
>
> true- but, there is plenty of avant guard work that influences virtually
> no one. To have influence ON WHAT FOLLOWS makes one cutting edge, and
> what follows is the rest of the blade, no matter how original they may
> think they are.
I'm told the expression 'avant-guard' is passe, 'cutting edge' is in.
To be cutting edge one has to do something which has not been done
before. An artist approaches this "going out on a limb" with everything
she has, risking it all. Somethings work, and some do not. To continue
to repeat successful formula, an artist is not experimenting, but is
something of a craftsman.
>
>
> So you say, but how can you know? When you see something that affects
> you, it AFFECTS you. You are suggesting that Picasso did't copy the idea
> of tribal art? Of course he did. Look at the date that Lascaux was
> discovered and then look at his work. This doesn't mean that what he
> created wasn't great, it was, but his contribution was the expression
> and not the idea.
Lascaux cave painting was not tribal, it was pre-historic. Picasso
copied African masks, even accepted stolen masks for a while. He
could draw faces, figures without a model, it became a bore to him,
he had to go on. Anyway Picasso has left the room, how about
today's great painter, Gerhard Richter?
>
> > To break new ground does not make it necessary to cut off all
> > pastinfluences. We are of our historical, greographical and political
> > context.
>
> Precisely my point.
>
>
>
> Oh Marilyn... I can not believe you were taken in by Serra's joke.
Again, I'm not sure of the artist's name here. It was not a joke.
Have you seen the work? It was a beautiful piece of work, I saw
that before I came close and read the label. What?
Upset a Christian? He himself is Christian I believe. Christianity
has a lot to answer for. Did you ever think that maybe that was what
he was saying? Have you read the stats on the Jews slaughtered
during the holocaust in Christian countries? Have you read about
the Spanish Inquisition? What about native peoples wiped out
by the diseases brought to them by Christian missionaries?
I don't want to get into a religious debate, I want to state
that Christianity does not need my protection.
It
> had nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with outrage. It is
> horribly bad art, not because of the material, but because the easiest
> thing in the world to accomplish is to upset a Christian. And I promise
> you that that was his sole intent no matter how much smoke he blows up
> the art world's collective ass. ( his next work!)
> Same goes for the elephant dung madonna- please.. you don't see the
> theft of idea here?
Elephant dung is an artist's medium in Africa. The artist was African.
> The trouble with the 'Schlock Of The New' is that it has been done to
> death- the statement's been made and Serra's spin on it is neither new
> nor thought provoking. Crucifix in piss? so what? Mastubating in the
> gallery? Ho Hum. We've seen it all before and, frankly, what these
> 'artists' have to say is simply not interesting. They are ridiculing the
> fine art establishment and the establishment is eating it up. You can't
> even admire their execution because that stinks worse than the
> excrement.
Guess you haven't seen DuChamp's urinal. An artist actually used the
one displayed in NYC, no he did not urinate in the gallery, he
brought in a test tube of his urine.
> Fine guys; I got it, I know the punchline, now tell me something
> interesting.
>
> As far as I can tell the only concern the avant guard has for materials
> is the knowledge that the only way to come up with something that will
> be considered 'new enough' is to desperately search for something that
> hasn't been used by someone else. Like they're looking for domain names.
No, the 'cutting edge' artists are using garbage, refuse, found objects,
reclaimed wood. this brings them in tune with their times. We are
choking on the our own refuse. You don't like the "Shock of the New"
but you like brand new materials?
>
> The Key word there is 'discrimination', Marilyn. I don't see you using
> any. You seem perfectly willing to accept as serious anything and
> everything.
Only a couple of works have been discussed here. I don't accept
anything, I don't accept assembly-line art paintings sold in
malls or hotel suites, or horrible copies of M's David.
While that may be the politically correct stance among the
> art elite, it hardly qualifies as 'a lot more discrimination'.
> To discriminate is to separate the excellent from the banal.
> The fact that someone has become famous for an important masterpiece
> does not mean that everything that they do or have done is important or
> even any good. That poeople will pay huge money for a "bad Monet" is an
> indictment of the "brand name" mentality in the art world.
> A person with discrimination judges a wine with his palate and not by
> the label.
No, but a drawing by Picasso on a dinner napkin, will bring in
a lot of money. A bad Monet? I believe he destroyed them before he
died.
> I am open minded. I will give anything a chance; I want to be moved, to
> find it wonderful. I am sophisticated enough to appreciate nuance and
> politic, irony and metaphore, but I am also capable of recognizing when
> I am being played, or when something simply sucks.
>
Been to a contemporary public museum lately?
Try www.coagula.com they have an art journal and the editor
wrote a book "Most Art Sucks" which was reviewed by David
Bowie. Bowie admits he, himself is not a great painter but he does
have an "eye" and collects art, and supports artists.
Bowie is part owner of Modern Painting, a Brit art magazine.
> Remember Kostabi? He was putting his name on other people's bad
> paintings and the cognoscenti were selling them like internet stocks.
> The most lucid critique of his work produced in the art circles was that
> he was giving "bad art a bad name". !!??! The idea that bad art is
> considered by these types to be a valid genre, instead of just artistic
> failure, is indicadive of how far through the looking glass they have
> gone.
Just remember sculptingman, you said
Piss Christ was bad art, based on
media reports, without actually seeing the work in person.
Something like the judges who censor books they have not read.
> Just as we look back a hundred years with disdain on the estblishment
> that failed to recognize Van Gogh, a hundred years from now the fact
> that Serra was taken seriously will make us seem to be a bunch of rubes.
>
au contraire, mon ami.
I might add that today, there are so many art establishments,
so many layers, we can hardly compare it to anything
one hundred years ago.
> In college, the most important class I took, the one that had the most
> influence on my art and my life, was Philosophy of Aesthetics. Believe
> it or not, this is not a required course for a degree in art! It wasn't
> even recommended. I had to go to the philsophy department for it.
> I find this as outrageous as lawmakers who don't understand the first
> ammendment.
>
> > You seem to be angry with artists
> > who you perceive to be getting away with something. I say who cares?
>
> Anger is not my response to it. Laughter is. You have to realize that I
> don't take much of anything very seriously- particularly not myself. Oh,
> I have beliefs and thoughts and all and I am willing to discuss just
> about anything. But really, its just what I think, and who the hell am
> I? Just one more pearl in Indra's net.
>
You are a voice, and every voice counts.
There's an interview in NY Times Magazine with Hans Haacke
(www.nyt.com)
who showed in The Sensation Show in Brooklyn. He says he
wants to stay in the system so he can be part of the dialogue.
You see what I mean about "the establishment"
Today the establishment is more cutting edge than the viewing
public, as evidenced by The Sensation show. Haacke claims
that more people are not going to museums, showing more
interest in art, the majority of the public view art as
entertainment.
Look at the newspapers, where do they list Fine Art?
Under Leisure or Entertainment.
"It ain't work, it's money for nothing" to the media moguls.
>
> My point being that, in real life, and particularly in art, ability
> means more than matriculation.
>
> > I'm influenced by the landscape artist Wolf Kahn, who was influenced
> by
> > Hans Hoffman, and the New York School - 2nd generation. I'm also
> influenced
> >
> > by Paul Klee. Who were your influences? anyone after Rodin? (I jest!)
> >
> >
> My influences? Certainly NOT Rodin. Pre-Rodin I am more taken with
> French, McCartan, Mucha, St. Gaudens, Spinnazi, Bernini, Giambologna.
> Post-Rodin I like Duchamp, Calder, Picasso, Brancusi; not to mention
> many more absta
>
Duchamp?
Well, what's the big deal with using urine then?
It's okay to use a urinal but not urine?
People are so complex, so mult-layered, you gotta love them.
Anymore 20th/21st century? any women?
---
Marilyn
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> G-d forbid anyone gets away from oil on canvas,
> watercolour on paper, or figurative/representational sculpture.
I love a lot of the wild and different stuff that I see going on in
conteporary art or whatever this morning's PC term for it is. ( I wish
they would stop changing the name of art that's made in the present)
Only trouble is- I hardly get to see any of it. I am too busy working,
and too disillusioned by how much crap gets into museums these days to
spend a lot of time I can't afford sifting through it for the occasional
gem.
I think most of us refer to older work because that is what we all have
a common experience of thru our educations- in today's art world, there
is so much being exhibited that it is hard to dredge up a random sample
of folks who are all familiar with the same stuff.
I also have to say that alot of what gets attention these days from the
art press is unintersting. Its hippness for the sake of excluding
others.
As I've stated before- we are allowing the idea of what is considered
art to be defined by people whose agenda is the obfuscation of the
experience of art.
When you strive to exclude people from your circle- don't be surprised
when they stop caring what you're up to.
> Exhibit a painting without a frame? oh my gawd! On raf, they have
almost
> come to contemporary art with making fun of Andy Warhol who was
> making fun of everyone.
Interestingly- Warhol left a lot of his money to a traditional arts
academy- he commented that he felt he had been cheated by the university
fine arts system out of a decent art education.
I find that most of what I see being touted today in Art Forum is
repetitious and boring. Ohhhhh, look, it doesn't have a frame! Just like
that one and that one and that one.... Ohhh an installtion of lightbulbs
on the floor! that reminds me of the dolls heads on the floor and the
chocolate bunnies on the floor and the arrangement of human feces on the
floor and ......
The galleries and museums are overflowing with art that is either
derivative or meaninglessly "new".
Cutting Edge? As Lao Tsu said- oversharpen the blade and it soon dulls.
> On animals:
> I read somewhere, that the greatest periods of evil in human
> history arise when humans forget that they are animals.
Welllllll. Animals are more than cute Nature documentary mothers and
cubs- picturesque males locking antlers over breeding rites. Male Lions
routinely kill all the cubs in a pride just on the off chance that some
might not be their's. Dolphins gang up on and beat to death other
dolphins for just looking at the female they just finished raping.
Animals are often brutal and cruel and me first about everything.
Altuism does not exist in the animal world.
If you ask me, it is our animal nature, our herd mentality that causes
the suffering in the world. That and our sense of expectation.
Civilisation and art are the accomplishments that least link us to our
animal origins, they are what sets us apart. Art is what makes us
different, altruistic. Art is true empathy.
Christopher
safsaf.
dsg sg sgsag sagarwity eyuse. hsh sh tyity .es
rsag asg dhsdj h
sculpt...@my-deja.com
At least once a year I make a point of going to the San Francisco Museum
of Modern Art. Great building. Always some great stuff on display-
As I stood admiring a recent exhibition of photographs taken by
astronauts on the moon I heard a docent giving a tour to a group.
Virtually every thing she told them was inaccurate or untrue.
How can people develop an appreciation based on bullshit.
The best art programs I have ever seen were the "Sister Wendy" series.
These should be required viewing in all schools.
As far as the singing in the shower- I do art for myself, I do artifacts
for the market.
Christopher
saf
ghawr thysdh shds. sh sdh ds.sdfh yer tir th.dsh sh
sagbs dhdfgh/. hsdt
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> I'm told the expression 'avant-guard' is passe, 'cutting edge' is in.
> To be cutting edge one has to do something which has not been done
> before. An artist approaches this "going out on a limb" with
everything
Nope. To be cutting edge is to lead the motion of the knife- to open new
territory, yes, but, again, if the blade don't follow you, your not the
cutting edge of it.
> Lascaux cave painting was not tribal, it was pre-historic.
Prehistoric peoples WERE tribal, Marilyn. Tribal is not a genre, its a
societal heirarchy.
> Again, I'm not sure of the artist's name here. It was not a joke.
> Have you seen the work?
Yes, I saw it. It was yellow. With a crucifix. Ho hum.
>What? Upset a Christian? He himself is Christian I believe.Christianity
> has a lot to answer for. Did you ever think that maybe that was what
> he was saying? Have you read the stats on the Jews slaughtered
> during the holocaust in Christian countries? Have you read about
> the Spanish Inquisition? What about native peoples wiped out
> by the diseases brought to them by Christian missionaries?
> I don't want to get into a religious debate, I want to state
> that Christianity does not need my protection.
I was not defending christianity, (far from it!) I was merely observing
that the entire world has been beating the christians up for the past 20
years over all the very things you mention. So what if that's what he's
saying? Its not 'new'. I've heard it all before in far more eloquent
expression.
Taken in the context of his other work, I doubt this was his comment.
His work is more about the strangely compelling nature of the shockingly
ugly or offensive. But even then, so what? Such statements are not
original nor cutting edge, His execution is neither adept nor creative.
A photgraph of some strangely tattooed fellow with odd piercings taking
a dump is certainly something you don't see every day, but if you're the
tattooed guy its certainly is something HE sees every day.
What Serra's doing is taking advantage of the "everything is as good and
valid as everything else" mentality of modern art. I'm sure he chuckles
to himself that the art world HAS to look at his stuff seriously. He's
making fun of the fact that they have to take being made fun of
seriously. But, one more time, so what? dozens of artists are doing the
same, AND- more importantly,
what has become of art when all its about is what its about?
Its an inside joke, an infinite loop, chasing its own tail with no
relevance to human experience.
Don't get me wrong, Marilyn, when it comes to cutting edge work I 'get
it', butting getting it doesn't automatically mean I value it. Some is
good, but more often, its bad.
> Elephant dung is an artist's medium in Africa. The artist was African.
Yes, but elephant dung was used for lack of anything else by a primitive
tribal people who had little choice in media- the artist here was
educated and had access to other media- he had a choice and chose Dung-
even then, if it was a statement about primitive materials and his
African ancestry he could have done a self portrait and everyone would
have just been intrigued by his choice of media- but, again he chose the
subject, and he chose it understanding the reaction he'd get.
You discover the artist's intent by examinig their response to the
choices they were presented with. This is how you can tell if its a work
of art, or a publicity stunt.
His intent was to offend- perhaps to create a dialog about censorship?
Its possible- Perhaps because he wanted to get a rise out of folks? also
possible. But most probably, like most of humanity, he wanted attention,
and money, and fame, and pissing off the jesus crowd in America is a
cheap and easy way of getting attention, Marilyn.
For me,its not offensive- I could care less about christian outrage, and
I hate censorship- but the result of artist's endeavoring to offend
people, for whatever reason, has destroyed the NEA and is threatening
PBS.
That is why I don't like it anymore than I would like a performance
artist going around yelling 'nigger' at black people as some kind of
commentary on prejudice.
If, as artists, you want to comment on something incendiary- show a
little more sophistication, a little nuance. Stop doing what's easiest.
> Guess you haven't seen DuChamp's urinal. An artist actually used the
> one displayed in NYC, no he did not urinate in the gallery, he
> brought in a test tube of his urine.
Sure I saw it, thought it was funny. Seeing art all around you. He did
Warhol long before Warhol.
> No, the 'cutting edge' artists are using garbage, refuse, found
objects,
> reclaimed wood. this brings them in tune with their times. We are
> choking on the our own refuse. You don't like the "Shock of the New"
> but you like brand new materials?
I like the new- just not the institutionalizing of new- the idea that if
it isn't 'new' it isn't anything.
And like the elephant dung, no found material is new to art. You want
to use something new, use precipitated photosensitive colloidal polymer.
> Only a couple of works have been discussed here. I don't accept
> anything, I don't accept assembly-line art paintings sold in
> malls or hotel suites, or horrible copies of M's David.
Funny, I was never all that impressed with David, and yes I saw the
original in Florence. The Pieta was terrific, but the rest of his M's
women look like guys in coconut brassiers.
And about the velvet Elvi - I accept them, they're art. I just think
they suck. I guess that's my fundamental counterpoint- Art CAN suck.
Doesn't mean its not art.
> Been to a contemporary public museum lately?
Go to the SFMOMA once or twice a year- my favorite.
> Just remember sculptingman, you said
> Piss Christ was bad art, based on
> media reports, without actually seeing the work in person.
> Something like the judges who censor books they have not read.
Have seen it in person- but even then, there is a big difference between
not having read a book and not having seen an artwork in person. If you
haven't read a book you have no idea what it says or how its worded,
however, you can pretty much understand a visual artwork from a
photogrph of it.
Remember, Sister Wendy had never even been outside of England when they
took her on her grand tour, she only had photos, and yet I have never
seen a more cogent commentator on art than she.
> au contraire, mon ami.
> I might add that today, there are so many art establishments,
> so many layers, we can hardly compare it to anything
> one hundred years ago.
Of course we can, if we can compare piss in a jar to David, we can
compare anything to anything.
> > and who the hell am
> > I? Just one more pearl in Indra's net.
> >
>
> You are a voice, and every voice counts.
-precisely 1 six-billionth's worth.
> You see what I mean about "the establishment"
> Today the establishment is more cutting edge than the viewing
> public, as evidenced by The Sensation show. Haacke claims
> that more people are not going to museums, showing more
> interest in art, the majority of the public view art as
> entertainment
If artists would stop lording it over folks with the "I'm so cutting
edge no one understands me" act maybe the people would go. Either that,
or recognize that the over-educated are a different culture, be happy
with a small audience of goateed Starbucks dwellers and stop wishing the
commoners would appreciate you more.
> Duchamp?
> Well, what's the big deal with using urine then?
> It's okay to use a urinal but not urine?
> People are so complex, so mult-layered, you gotta love them.
They're a hoot alright!
>
> Anymore 20th/21st century? any women?
>
I tend to prefer the women artists who aren't mad at me for having a
penis.
Christopher
P.S. A joke- When they apprehended the madman who had vandalized the
Pieta with a hammer they asked, "Why!? WHY? Why would you deface a great
treasure like the Pieta?!"
To which the madman replied "Pieta!? PIETA??? I thought it said
'PINATA'!"
sadfdsag . dfh dh dfsh. dfsh dfhs dh . dh dfh h. dsh dhsdfhdsh. hddsh.
tsdhg dfsghds ghdfh dh
Marilyn Welch
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > I'm told the expression 'avant-guard' is passe, 'cutting edge' is in.
> > To be cutting edge one has to do something which has not been done
> > before. An artist approaches this "going out on a limb" with
> everything
>
> Nope. To be cutting edge is to lead the motion of the knife- to open new
> territory, yes, but, again, if the blade don't follow you, your not the
> cutting edge of it.
>
>
Okay.
> > Lascaux cave painting was not tribal, it was pre-historic.
>
> Prehistoric peoples WERE tribal, Marilyn. Tribal is not a genre, its a
> societal heirarchy.
>
You know they were tribal? not solitary, or family? The ice man andLucy were
loners. It's all a mystery.
> > Again, I'm not sure of the artist's name here. It was not a joke.
> > Have you seen the work?
>
> Yes, I saw it. It was yellow. With a crucifix. Ho hum.
>
Short interest span?
> > I don't want to get into a religious debate, I want to state
> > that Christianity does not need my protection.
>
> I was not defending christianity, (far from it!) I was merely observing
> that the entire world has been beating the christians up for the past 20
> years over all the very things you mention. So what if that's what he's
> saying? Its not 'new'. I've heard it all before in far more eloquent
> expression.
> Taken in the context of his other work, I doubt this was his comment.
> His work is more about the strangely compelling nature of the shockingly
> ugly or offensive. But even then, so what? Such statements are not
> original nor cutting edge, His execution is neither adept nor creative.
> A photgraph of some strangely tattooed fellow with odd piercings taking
> a dump is certainly something you don't see every day, but if you're the
> tattooed guy its certainly is something HE sees every day.
> What Serra's doing is taking advantage of the "everything is as good and
> valid as everything else" mentality of modern art. I'm sure he chuckles
> to himself that the art world HAS to look at his stuff seriously. He's
> making fun of the fact that they have to take being made fun of
> seriously. But, one more time, so what? dozens of artists are doing the
> same, AND- more importantly,
> what has become of art when all its about is what its about?
> Its an inside joke, an infinite loop, chasing its own tail with no
> relevance to human experience.
In some postmodern art, the medium is the message, the form is all.
> Don't get me wrong, Marilyn, when it comes to cutting edge work I 'get
> it', butting getting it doesn't automatically mean I value it. Some is
> good, but more often, its bad.
>
> > Elephant dung is an artist's medium in Africa. The artist was African.
>
> Yes, but elephant dung was used for lack of anything else by a primitive
> tribal people who had little choice in media- the artist here was
> educated and had access to other media- he had a choice and chose Dung-
> even then, if it was a statement about primitive materials and his
> African ancestry he could have done a self portrait and everyone would
> have just been intrigued by his choice of media- but, again he chose the
> subject, and he chose it understanding the reaction he'd get.
> You discover the artist's intent by examinig their response to the
> choices they were presented with. This is how you can tell if its a work
> of art, or a publicity stunt.
Elephant dung is still used, it is a resource in Africa. The museum andthe
show promoters may have played it up for the controversy.
Guilliani wanted the press, and the Brooklyn Museum needed
the publicity. It was all scripted. I'm surprised that you bought
into the script by being outraged. I'm assuming outrage,
you were probably laughing.
> His intent was to offend- perhaps to create a dialog about censorship?
> Its possible- Perhaps because he wanted to get a rise out of folks? also
> possible. But most probably, like most of humanity, he wanted attention,
> and money, and fame, and pissing off the jesus crowd in America is a
> cheap and easy way of getting attention, Marilyn.
> For me,its not offensive- I could care less about christian outrage, and
> I hate censorship- but the result of artist's endeavoring to offend
> people, for whatever reason, has destroyed the NEA and is threatening
> PBS.
It was an international show, NEA and PBS don't mean much outside ofUSA.
You are funny!
> And about the velvet Elvi - I accept them, they're art. I just think
> they suck. I guess that's my fundamental counterpoint- Art CAN suck.
> Doesn't mean its not art.
>
> > Been to a contemporary public museum lately?
>
> Go to the SFMOMA once or twice a year- my favorite.
>
> > Just remember sculptingman, you said
> > Piss Christ was bad art, based on
> > media reports, without actually seeing the work in person.
> > Something like the judges who censor books they have not read.
>
> Have seen it in person- but even then, there is a big difference between
> not having read a book and not having seen an artwork in person. If you
> haven't read a book you have no idea what it says or how its worded,
> however, you can pretty much understand a visual artwork from a
> photogrph of it.
> Remember, Sister Wendy had never even been outside of England when they
> took her on her grand tour, she only had photos, and yet I have never
> seen a more cogent commentator on art than she.
>
>
Sister Wendy rules even if she insists on wearing a 16th century habit.
> > au contraire, mon ami.
> > I might add that today, there are so many art establishments,
> > so many layers, we can hardly compare it to anything
> > one hundred years ago.
>
> Of course we can, if we can compare piss in a jar to David, we can
> compare anything to anything.
>
> > > and who the hell am
> > > I? Just one more pearl in Indra's net.
> > >
> >
> > You are a voice, and every voice counts.
>
> -precisely 1 six-billionth's worth.
>
> > You see what I mean about "the establishment"
> > Today the establishment is more cutting edge than the viewing
> > public, as evidenced by The Sensation show. Haacke claims
> > that more people are not going to museums, showing more
> > interest in art, the majority of the public view art as
> > entertainment
>
> If artists would stop lording it over folks with the "I'm so cutting
> edge no one understands me" act maybe the people would go. Either that,
> or recognize that the over-educated are a different culture, be happy
> with a small audience of goateed Starbucks dwellers and stop wishing the
> commoners would appreciate you more.
>
There will always be groups of elite. Admit it, dude, most people
loveDisneyland, and prefer the mall to the museum.
Starbucks is owned by Philip Morris, and I wouldn't support a multi-national
corporation. (I'm lying).
> > Duchamp?
> > Well, what's the big deal with using urine then?
> > It's okay to use a urinal but not urine?
> > People are so complex, so mult-layered, you gotta love them.
>
> They're a hoot alright!
> >
> > Anymore 20th/21st century? any women?
> >
> I tend to prefer the women artists who aren't mad at me for having a
> penis.
Gasp! what would Sister Wendy think?
I don't like strident political or feminist art, like my instructor used to
say
"gotta message, go to the post office." But we can't get away from ourselves
into pure objectivity, can we?
Name some living women sculptors.
Have you seen the work of Jessica Stockholder?
Anyway, I agree with you that "most art sucks" today, maybe it was always
like that. That is why I say that it is difficult to discriminate. So I work
at it,
There is a sculpture in the Vancouver Art Gallery right now, made of
large wooden blocks which can be joined. The kids come in and they
make the sculpture. Then someone comes along and kicks it down,
and more kids come in and make more sculpture.
The whole thing is on videotape, and later the
tape will be shown as a 'work of art.' Are you ready for this ?
> P.S. A joke- When they apprehended the madman who had vandalized the
> Pieta with a hammer they asked, "Why!? WHY? Why would you deface a great
> treasure like the Pieta?!"
> To which the madman replied "Pieta!? PIETA??? I thought it said
> 'PINATA'!"
Hey, good one Christopher!---
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
--
Marilyn
anothersc...@my-deja.com
:
>
> > On animals:
> > I read somewhere, that the greatest periods of evil in human
> > history arise when humans forget that they are animals.
**I prefer the Twain quote: Humans are the only animals that blush--or
need to.
>
> Welllllll. Animals are more than cute Nature documentary mothers and
> cubs- picturesque males locking antlers over breeding rites. Male
Lions
> routinely kill all the cubs in a pride just on the off chance that
some
> might not be their's. Dolphins gang up on and beat to death other
> dolphins for just looking at the female they just finished raping.
***Not to make light of this--but they do all have smiles on their
faces so some misunderstanding should be expected!
> Animals are often brutal and cruel and me first about everything.
> Altuism does not exist in the animal world.
**This is no longer considered true. Ducks have been known to feign
injury in order to lure a predator away from the flock(or is it
gaggle?). Thus risking their own lives to save the rest. Then there are
the stories about children "adopted" by gazelles, or wolves-I will
assume that at least some of these stories are not the figments of
either Kipling's or Burroughs' imaginations. Furthermore, instances
where dogs have seemingly adopted pigs(outside of the movie Babe), or
cats in shelters nursing the orphaned litter of another cat..Then there
is the case of Koko the gorilla and her kitten...and if one considers
that humans are part of the animal world....
> If you ask me, it is our animal nature, our herd mentality that causes
> the suffering in the world. That and our sense of expectation.
> Civilisation and art are the accomplishments that least link us to our
> animal origins, they are what sets us apart. Art is what makes us
> different, altruistic. Art is true empathy.
>
**If I may offer my opinion here on this fascinating topic--and I am a
sculptor who only does two kinds of figure work---very realistic
humans..and monsters(--usually with a human face)! I say that art can be
used for good or evil. In fact, I suspect that it is from the
artistic/creative mind of humans that some of the most despicable and
appalling actions have been nurtured. Hitler was a frustrated artist,
Charles Manson had musical aspirations, Jeffery Dahmer was working on a
skull shrine in his apartment. Are they insane, or just creative to
some extreme? Perhaos a good question to ask Demian Hirst with his
severed steer's head art pieces..
Other animals--despite their own capacity for violence(their social
relations are certainly alot more complicated than I or any nature film
could claim them to be) have not been known to demonstrate the cruelty
(and pleasure in being cruel) that humans have been known to demonstrate
again and again. Yes, humans can be very altruistic and empathetic--but
it seems to be balanced by all these negative qualities. Larger
brain=more imagination + more creative thought(for good and bad?).
Maybe...maybe not.
Anyway...
Sculptingman--you have really contributed "pizzaz" to this newsgroup(and
your work really kicks ass too!). Your posts on art and the business of
marketing skills have been thoughtful, funny and inspiring.
Final thought--I read somewhere that Socrates' father was a sculptor and
he himself was trained as one--and that he had said something like:
"everything that I learned about philosophy I learned from sculpture."
Sculptors(and sculptresses) rule.
:)
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> > Yes, I saw it. It was yellow. With a crucifix. Ho hum.
> >
>
> Short interest span?
Four minutes thirtyfive seconds.
> In some postmodern art, the medium is the message, the form is all.
>
Marshal Macluan lives!
> Elephant dung is still used, it is a resource in Africa. The museum
andthe
> show promoters may have played it up for the controversy.
> Guilliani wanted the press, and the Brooklyn Museum needed
> the publicity. It was all scripted. I'm surprised that you bought
> into the script by being outraged. I'm assuming outrage,
> you were probably laughing.
Laughed myself silly.
So contrived, but that's why I don't buy into it.
> It was an international show, NEA and PBS don't mean much outside
>ofUSA.
I wasn't referring to any particular show, even tho an international
show in New York is still subject to Puritan Prureient Apoplexy. I am
speaking of the general trend in 'cutting edge' to become more "cutting
cheese" . To strive so transparently for outrage and upset.
No artist is an island- we all live in the society of others and while
you're free to swing your foot, that freedom ends just short of my ass.
If you go yelling Fire in a theater- you are, and should be, responsible
for the consequences. Artists acting in a self indulgent grab for
noteriety and controversy are hurting the cause of intelligent,
meaningful art. Contributing to an increasing ennui toward art on the
part of the public.
How far will we allow it to go. Can an artist vandalize the mona lisa as
an artistic statement and be taken seriously? Randomly smear feces on
people in public as an expression of political rage? At some point
someone has to stand up and say, hey! the emperor's naked, and its not
Good Naked.
So much of today's cutting edge art is artless.
I'm looking for a little nuance.
> Sister Wendy rules even if she insists on wearing a 16th century
habit.
My girlfriend cut outand hung in my studio a big picture of Wens with a
big word balloon over head saying "Cwistophew, youw awt is Bwilliant!"
On my figure sculptures, I always try to make the pubic hair "fluffy"
just the way the Sister likes them.
> There will always be groups of elite. Admit it, dude, most people
> loveDisneyland, and prefer the mall to the museum.
True, but never forget the words of the Deteriorata, " a walk through
the ocean of most souls would scarcely get your feet wet."
> > I tend to prefer the women artists who aren't mad at me for having a
> > penis.
>
> Gasp! what would Sister Wendy think?
"I didn't touch it!"
> Anyway, I agree with you that "most art sucks" today, maybe it was
always
> like that. That is why I say that it is difficult to discriminate. So
I work
> at it,
Sturgeon's law- 90% of everything is crap. 100 years ago it was the
same, but the crap disappears and only the good stuff lives on.
> There is a sculpture in the Vancouver Art Gallery right now, made of
> large wooden blocks which can be joined. The kids come in and they
> make the sculpture. Then someone comes along and kicks it down,
> and more kids come in and make more sculpture.
> The whole thing is on videotape, and later the
> tape will be shown as a 'work of art.' Are you ready for this ?
Absolutely- one of my favorite conceptual art pieces I saw in San Fran
in the early seventies. It was a big, completely sealed lucite box
separated into an upper and lower chamber by a sprung trap door. In the
top was 30,000 marbles. controlling the trap door was a clockwork motor
that had a single knoblike wheel sticking out of one side. The wheel
turned one full revolution in a day, If it did, the trap was sprung and
30,000 marbles would drop into the lower chamber. However, if you turned
the wheel back to zero, just once every 24 hours, then the mechanism
would drop only one marble into the bottom and you'ld have another 24
hours grace. That's all you has to do- just once every day, turn that
wheel back.
The piece was called, "Attention Must Be Paid"
I always imagined this piece being purchased and sitting in someone's
home for the past twenty years with 30,000 marbles sitting in the bottom
chamber because they got too busy just one day long ago.
Christopher
sfsa.ratdrsgt drsdfsgzsdtb b ersthiy wtbw. etbgjdsgvs. ewtbdfjd dthbr
dsgse jssa h
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> **I prefer the Twain quote: Humans are the only animals that blush--or
> need to.
YES!
> > Animals are often brutal and cruel and me first about everything.
> > Altuism does not exist in the animal world.
>
> **This is no longer considered true. Ducks have been known to feign
> injury in order to lure a predator away from the flock(or is it
> gaggle?). Thus risking their own lives to save the rest. Then there
are
> the stories about children "adopted" by gazelles, or wolves-I will
> assume that at least some of these stories are not the figments of
> either Kipling's or Burroughs' imaginations. Furthermore, instances
> where dogs have seemingly adopted pigs(outside of the movie Babe), or
> cats in shelters nursing the orphaned litter of another cat..Then
there
> is the case of Koko the gorilla and her kitten...and if one considers
> that humans are part of the animal world....
All stories of altruism in the animal world have gene survival
explanations. Ducks only fiegn injury to divert a predator when they are
NOT injured, they think they can get away with it, and only when they
have offspring.
While the mothering instict drives some to "adopt" babies of other
species- this is to make the mother feel better, not the baby. And all
domesticated animals have been contaminated by a human created
environment of no survival stress. They do not behave this way in the
wild.
> **If I may offer my opinion here on this fascinating topic--and I am a
> sculptor who only does two kinds of figure work---very realistic
> humans..and monsters(--usually with a human face)! I say that art can
be
> used for good or evil. In fact, I suspect that it is from the
> artistic/creative mind of humans that some of the most despicable and
> appalling actions have been nurtured. Hitler was a frustrated artist,
> Charles Manson had musical aspirations, Jeffery Dahmer was working on
a
> skull shrine in his apartment. Are they insane, or just creative to
> some extreme? Perhaos a good question to ask Demian Hirst with his
> severed steer's head art pieces..
> Other animals--despite their own capacity for violence(their social
> relations are certainly alot more complicated than I or any nature
film
> could claim them to be) have not been known to demonstrate the cruelty
> (and pleasure in being cruel) that humans have been known to
demonstrate
> again and again. Yes, humans can be very altruistic and
empathetic--but
> it seems to be balanced by all these negative qualities. Larger
> brain=more imagination + more creative thought(for good and bad?).
> Maybe...maybe not.
Dahmer was simply being human- decorating his environment because of his
human drive for aesthetic expression. this is no more telling than his
use of toilet paper- you know, all serial murderers use it.
Besides - wolves have been known to kill dozens of domestic cattle at a
throw, ther's something about the way they don't run that just makes
them go nuts.
And I saw a documentary that showed a lion that HATED hyenas- didn't
kill them for defense or food- just killed every one he could get.
There are animal correlaries of all bad human traits, but none for art.
That is why I use it to define our species.
> Final thought--I read somewhere that Socrates' father was a sculptor
and
> he himself was trained as one--and that he had said something like:
> "everything that I learned about philosophy I learned from sculpture."
>
> Sculptors(and sculptresses) rule.
> :)
I agree, you know, If I were the head of Greece- I'd probly switch to a
different shampoo.
Christopher
sadfdsa.dsag
dsag.dsg
g .g
.vghtdftkjkyfty.sfsafsa.dsafsadgsa.fashdrsg.
esafwat ewaftewa ag a. tewagwag gerwa ewafg
sculpt...@my-deja.com
sculpt...@my-deja.com
how our sense of it is what makes us human..... or something to that
effect. But I suppose you mean in the personal sense.
So much of our discussion has focused on the cutting edge and so much of
that is ugliness. Nearly all of art's past is all about beauty and the
world is so full of 'pretty' pictures that it seems the only way you can
get attention these days is to go to the opposite extreme. Its not about
beauty or aesthetics or communication or shared human experience. It is
centered on the self centered grasping for fame and celebrity by
whatever means. That is why I classify such work as fashion rather than
art.
As to beauty- I feel like the guy in the film American Beauty who says,
"sometimes there is so much beauty in the world that I don't think I can
stand it."
My own work revolves around capturing the essence of the perfect line of
the throat, the slight curve in a forearm or eyelid, the subtlest of
nuances that reflect our thoughts in the expression of our faces and
bodies. All those things that make people so achingly beautiful to gaze
at.
Not so much about the shape or form, but using the form to evoke that
moment when you see someone glance at you and you know just what they're
feeling.
But that's just the smallest part. Life itself is so beautiful it hurts.
That's the core of it. The experience of beauty is like an ache, a
longing. There is something bittersweet about it, perhaps rooted in our
awareness of mortality. Maybe that is why we treasure these sensations
so. Deep down we know its only ours so very briefly.
I used to do an exercise with my apprentices to focus their attention on
this issue. I would spill 75 cents in pennies on the table and say to
them, "each penny is a year of your life, and that's all the money
you're likely to get." Then I would ask them how old they were and take
away that number of pennies. "you've already spent this much, look how
little you have left."
It shocks them to see how few there are and to realize how quickly a
year goes by.
I really do believe that life is a performance artwork. Children should
be taught this, taught to live their lives as examples of a life well
lived, as statements about love and honor, compassion and excellence.
Marilyn, I will tell you a story about one of the most beautiful moments
in my life. A moment crafted so that I occasionally get to subject an
apprentice to the same experience. I will give this experience to you
vicariously.
I apprenticed with a group of old Italian immigrants. Men whose families
had been in the statuary trade for generations. One of them had a
grandfather who had worked plaster of paris, in Paris, on the Statue of
Liberty project. Another had spent world war two as a prisoner in
Berlin, carving granite memorials to German war heros.
These men had come to America to find a better life and had. Their
children had all gone to college or married professionals and lived
lives having nothing to do with art, with plaster.
In a way these men were the last of their line, generations of knowledge
and experience would die with them.
When I came along, my only gift was an ability to appreciate what they
had to offer, and they, in turn, treated me like the son who would carry
on the family business, who would understand and remember their lives.
One day I was given a project to do, and instructions on how to go about
it. This was always a challenge cause they spoke english only
intermittently. "fai questa stampa!," they would say. Make this mold.
Well, being young and fancying myself smart I came up with my own, 'much
better' way of doing it.
Of course it was a disaster. A folly of youth to disregard the advice of
those who KNOW.
Of course they laughed. All day they laughed and told each other jokes
about me in Italian.
I was embarrassed and more than a little put out. I started to act like
a surly teenager who thinks he's being picked on more than he deserves.
My footsteps fell heavily and I snapped and growled.
Finally, Aldo came over and said to me something in his thick accent
that changed me forever. He calmly said, "twenty-five years. Twenty-five
years I have waited for my turn to laugh. Don't take that away from me."
I smiled at him, and later, alone, I wept.
Christopher
fgsafg dsafgsafg dsafsaf fgsaf fgfgs. dsafsaf sgsg dsgdsa dsfes. safs
anothersc...@my-deja.com
> While the mothering instict drives some to "adopt" babies of other
> species- this is to make the mother feel better, not the baby.
** But altruism in humans can also be said to be chiefly motivated by
self interest(some philosophers argue this--I believe Ayn Rand was a big
supporter of this view, if one could call her a philospher). You do
something to help others but it makes you feel good to do it. Self
interest. Awareness that you are helping others may be a secondary
consideration in humans--especially if altruism has a genetic basis.
And all
> domesticated animals have been contaminated by a human created
> environment of no survival stress. They do not behave this way in the
> wild.
> > And I saw a documentary that showed a lion that HATED hyenas- didn't
> kill them for defense or food- just killed every one he could get.
**If lions can be said to experience the emotion of hatred(assuming that
the killing of hyenas is not for some general defensive purposes), then
certainly the emotion of love would also be possible.
>
> There are animal correlaries of all bad human traits, but none for
art.
> That is why I use it to define our species.
**Understandable--and a good choice. I dont dispute the human monopoly
on the sophistication in artistic practice/expression, although i would
contend that other animals *may* engage in some behaviour that serves a
similar purpose(perhaps in dreaming..or while they lounge on the African
plains)..especially if they are believed to be capable of tool making,
altruism, conceptual thought.emotions..etc. It just cant be known for
certain..(I might have mentioned this before--but I recall a documentary
that showed a bird singing..the viewer was invited to speculate-it
could be singing to guard its territory, to warn away other birds. OR it
could be singing for pleasure with no darwinian motive... Its all what
you, the human spectator assumes based on what you see.
Furthermore--I do think that there are humans who may have little or no
interest in art(sculpture, painting, dance, movies, literature)I am
pretty sure I have even met a few!...that is why i wouldnt be so quick
to assume that it is the one defining characteristic of being human.
Some say it is the ability to deceive like no other that makes humans
different, others may contend it is an awareness of one's mortality, the
ability to create like no other, or the ability to destroy like no
other. I personally think sadism is a good contender---other species can
be cruel, some may even enjoy it but are they aware that they are
causing harm and taking pleasure from that like humans do? Twain had
another quote suggesting the very same thing(although even in this area
it may not be unique to humans). It could be pride/arrogance, or even
the quality of self loathing. :)
Other species in the wild have been observed to chew on plants that
produce a narcotic like effect--but unlike humans they seem to know when
to say no.
Anyway--the debate continues.
On the topic of art and its civilizing effects--I was reminded of
another great quote--from the Third Man.
"In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
bloodshed, murder but they produced
Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland
they had democracy, peace and brotherly love for 500 years, and what
did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
anothersc...@my-deja.com
ability to create like no other, or the ability to destroy like no
other. I personally think sadism is a good contender---other species can
be cruel, some may even enjoy it but are they aware that they are
causing harm and taking pleasure from that like humans do? Twain had
another quote suggesting the very same thing(although even in this area
it may not be unique to humans).
**Actually, on second thought, and putting aside the "maybes" for a
moment....I would say yes, art is something which hasnt been observed in
any recognizable form in other species. It can be the one defining
characteristic in humans... However, sadism, and the ability to take
pleasure from the suffering of others(while knowing that they are
suffering) is another quality which has been observed in humans, but
hasnt been observed in any recognizeable form in other species.
And I suspect they may be linked to each other in some way..For some
reason--I just thought of Brueghel's the Triumph of Death.
:)
Marilyn Welch
"American Beauty"
"There's beauty in every moment of my stupid life."
Thanks for giving us a few beautiful moments.
Marilyn
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
Marilyn Welch
Why are we so bent on self-destruction? Maybe
it is to satisfy the imperative of the animals.
Marilyn
anothersc...@my-deja.com wrote:
sculpt...@my-deja.com
The problem in identifying emotions in animals is that they can not
discuss with us what they are feeling. We only have their observable
behavior to go on.
I have watched my cat take his own sweet time killing a mouse. Playing
with it, chewing it just enough to make it scream. Now I know he's been
in some major fights in his life- he knows what it feels like to be
attacked and chewed on- yet that experience did not make him more
merciful to the mice. Wild cats have been observed to do the same.
One of my friends was a zookeeper. He once had to watch helplessly as a
friend of his was tortured to death by an elephant, who had stuck his
friend on a spike in the enclosure and then would gently lean against
him till he screamed in pain, then let up. Only to do it again. The
elephant seemed facinated with the pain he had the power to evoke. It
took the elephant fifteen minutes to kill the guy- all the other keepers
beating and tugging and shoving couldn't distract that elephant from his
purpose. someone had left the rifle at the other end of the park.
I think animals show the same facination with death and pain that we do.
I have been racking my brains ever since this topic came up and I have
yet to think of a single behavior in humans that is totally absent in
animals, save the making of art.
Complex symbolic language MAY be unique to people, but we can't really
know what whales are or aren't saying. I tend to think, however, that if
any other animal was capable of symbolic language then they would be
making art, too.
Perhaps artistic expression is the hallmark of symbolic language- art
is, itself, after all a symbolic means of communication.
Marilyn may be right about self destructive behavior- I can't think of
any examples of that in animals, but that may be because I can't think
of what it might LOOK like in animals. What would a self destructive
zebra DO that would be recognizable as such?
I guess this marks the end of THE THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE! dum. da.
dum.
Christopher-
dfsgdfs dfhds hhi sadf. ersgydsg rth nfb j hj
dsgdsb bdfgh j df.y b h fh fh gehys. rhyvdfh
dsgcgb t j j
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> ** But altruism in humans can also be said to be chiefly motivated by
> self interest(some philosophers argue this--I believe Ayn Rand was a
big
> supporter of this view, if one could call her a philospher). You do
> something to help others but it makes you feel good to do it. Self
> interest. Awareness that you are helping others may be a secondary
> consideration in humans--especially if altruism has a genetic basis.
Actually, feeling good about oneself has no genetic advantage- The most
common argument about human altruism having gene survival value is that
in a social system altruism garners respect and support from the
community and can enhance the social standing of the "hero", and that
results in breeding and status benefits.
The weak link in this arguement is that childless people without
siblings sometimes sacrifice their lives for a genetic stranger. There
is no percentage in this behavior, not even feeling good about oneself-
since the're dead as a result.
I think a lot of altruism is self serving, but not all. Belief systems
can have a tremendous effect on modifying our genetically driven
behavior. Sometimes we do good because we believe it is the right way to
live, and die.
> **If lions can be said to experience the emotion of hatred(assuming
that
> the killing of hyenas is not for some general defensive purposes),
then
> certainly the emotion of love would also be possible.
Yes, I definitely think animals love. In fact, I think they share the
full gamut of human emotion, that's where we got it from. But we have
something more than they. Aesthetics.
> > That is why I use [the making of art] to define our species.
>
> **Understandable--and a good choice. I dont dispute the human monopoly
> on the sophistication in artistic practice/expression, although i
would
> contend that other animals *may* engage in some behaviour that serves
a
> similar purpose(perhaps in dreaming..or while they lounge on the
African
> plains)..especially if they are believed to be capable of tool making,
> altruism, conceptual thought.emotions..etc. It just cant be known for
> certain..(I might have mentioned this before--but I recall a
documentary
> that showed a bird singing..the viewer was invited to speculate-it
> could be singing to guard its territory, to warn away other birds. OR
it
> could be singing for pleasure with no darwinian motive... Its all what
> you, the human spectator assumes based on what you see.
Animals definitely feel pleasure. I would argue, tho, that the bird is
acting tropicly- he sings because he HAS to, and his song is the same as
every other member of his species. More important than whether animals
enjoy their lives- which I think they do-is that that has nothing to do
with art. Does the color and shape of a particular bush remind them of
the loss of innocense? If it did, then they would have developed the
means to express that to their circle of friends.
> Furthermore--I do think that there are humans who may have little or
no
> interest in art(sculpture, painting, dance, movies, literature)I am
> pretty sure I have even met a few!...that is why i wouldnt be so quick
> to assume that it is the one defining characteristic of being human.
I disagree. Everyone makes aesthetic choices without exception. Even
the decision not to have decoration is an aesthetic decision. I think
what your keying on here is that not everyone is interested in 'other
people's' aesthetic expression.
> Some say it is the ability to deceive like no other that makes humans
> different, others may contend it is an awareness of one's mortality,
Anyone who has ever had a dog knows that they lie- they're just
astonishingly bad at it. And I think the awareness of mortality is a
corollary of symbolic thought- which ties that back into art.
> ability to create like no other, or the ability to destroy like no
> other. I personally think sadism is a good contender---other species
can
> be cruel, some may even enjoy it but are they aware that they are
> causing harm and taking pleasure from that like humans do? Twain had
> another quote suggesting the very same thing(although even in this
area
See my other post to the second thread that somehow got created- What's
up with that?
> to say no.
> Anyway--the debate continues.
>
> On the topic of art and its civilizing effects--I was reminded of
> another great quote--from the Third Man.
>
> "In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror,
> bloodshed, murder but they produced
> Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland
> they had democracy, peace and brotherly love for 500 years, and what
> did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
>
THAT is a great
Lauri Levanto
for the story.
Skipping over the discussion of the social side effects of the
Sensations show. Only thing i have to add there is that it was
Saatchi collection. Saatchi's are in publicity business, in
advertizing. That was the spear point of the show.
I have been wondering the opposition of medern and traditional in
visual arts. Of course the modernist pay lip service to
Grand Old Masters - without them there would be no Grand New Masters.
In music and litterature people (professionals) are more wide open.
Several jazz musucians and some pop musicians like keith Jarret
play baroque music as well. The Apocalyptica plays heavy metal
with four violincellos and classical training.
The art of bricklaying has d3eclined the last thousand years.
Why can't we really respect the ancient skills?
One of those rare human traits is our ability to preserve
inventions and skills over generations.
- lauri
sculpt...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Actually, I did.... about it being the way in which we see the world and
> how our sense of it is what makes us human..... or something to that
> effect. But I suppose you mean in the personal sense.
<...>
> As to beauty- I feel like the guy in the film American Beauty who says,
> "sometimes there is so much beauty in the world that I don't think I can
> stand it."
> My own work revolves around capturing the essence of the perfect line of
> the throat, the slight curve in a forearm or eyelid, the subtlest of
> nuances that reflect our thoughts in the expression of our faces and
> bodies. All those things that make people so achingly beautiful to gaze
> at.
> Not so much about the shape or form, but using the form to evoke that
> moment when you see someone glance at you and you know just what they're
> feeling.
>
<...>
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Like I said before, one of the most vexing things about cutting edge
artists is that I include them in my club, yet they exclude me from
their's.
I create both traditional and abstract work, I like to marry conceptual
art with traditional execution- (just because it looks like something
doesn't mean it doesn't have a more profound message)
I have always treasured the experience and knowledge of my elders. I
have seen it as my obligation to pass on to any who want it the crafts I
have mastered. I do not intend to allow 8 generations worth of skill and
experience to die with me.
But, in this digital virtual world- it is hard to find anyone
intelligent who is willing to get their hands dirty for a living.
Christopher
gdsg/dsafsadfgsadfg agt poi rty k lh wpoi oihf dsafga.
hdfglifhs dksjf osaidg ofj
lf fj lsa sfghy[of
anothersc...@my-deja.com
> The problem in identifying emotions in animals is that they can not
> discuss with us what they are feeling. We only have their observable
> behavior to go on.
First a couple of loose ends:
Jeffrey Dahmer---I mentioned him because he had sketched a design for
his
skull shrine--he had lighting arrangements planned and everything. This
is
why i looked at it as if he considered himself an artist--he was
planning to
decorate his livingroom! i do recall reading somewhere that serial
killers are
often artistic--left brain/right brain--emotions vs logic or something
like that.
Just something to think about... I actually find the notion a bit
offensive--certainly some scientists are capable of sadistic
curiosity--which
has been observed in serial killers as well--but they dont wanto
highlight that
fact in their theories!
Animals and altruism/self sacrifice: I do think that there have been
many
cases of parental animals defending their young to the death(whether
that
was their intention or not). Even with ducks..the interesting point is
that the
duck is putting itself in danger--or greater danger than the rest of the
flock.
The fact that it was luring a predator to chase it as opposed to the
others
indicates that it is doing something that may very well interfere with
its own
self preservation. The fascinating mystery is--why that duck would play
decoy and not the others? How would genetics answer this? I think nature
is
more complicated and mysterious than subjective scientific theories
would
suggest.
BTW--A better example of altruism not related to mothering instincts in
other animals would be cases of dogs rescuing humans from burning
buildings, dolphins helping swimmers etc. A genetic anomaly? Maybe. But
whatever the case, its interesting..
> I have watched my cat take his own sweet time killing a mouse. Playing
> with it, chewing it just enough to make it scream. Now I know he's
been>
in some major fights in his life- he knows what it feels like to be
> attacked and chewed on- yet that experience did not make him more
> merciful to the mice. Wild cats have been observed to do the same.
cruelty(depending on how we interpret the behaviour) exists in the non
human world. Rather I mean the uniquely human trait to take pleasure
from
the suffering of others. To initiate harm solely on the basis that one
is causing
harm--with neither food, defense or any other defendable motivation.
This
phenomenon has only been observed in humans.
Domestic cats, like the farm animals who care for offspring from other
species-have been affected by a human created environment. Since they
are
fed, they have the extra energy and time to engage in such sport. I will
assume that wild cats do not have as much time to engage in such
activities,
since they have to worry about things like other predators(incidentally,
I
believe hyenas are competitors with lions--so I would assume the lion's
attack on them mentioned in an earlier post would be more or less
"defensive"--in terms of territory as opposed to killing for the sake of
killing
like humans). Nevertheless, the fact that they play with their food does
not
mean the cat understands that he is causing pain to the mouse(does the
cat
regard it as a sentient being capable of pain like itself--or as food?
Cats will
chase a ball of string--do they regard the string as a life form capable
of
pain? Doubtful, based on observation), and more importantly-- deriving
pleasure from the fact that he KNOWS the mouse is suffering. This is
the
key. Humans certainly do. And unless wild cats have a habit of killing
animals and leaving them to rot(excluding hunting practice), humans are
the
only species (I believe)to have have demonstrated that they can and do
kill
for less practical reasons than defense and food. I seriously doubt a
lion
would take down a bison just for fun---since it can be hard work--and
dangerous.
I dont think this type of violence or cruelty has not yet been observed
in
cats-or any other predator species(maybe chimpanzees). We cannot know
what a lion thinks--but we can observe---do lions gather around to watch
another lion killing a bison--without ever attempting to join in to eat
it?
Yet humans have designed buildings--like the Roman Arena--a grand
architectural structure(see?, I am finally back to art)--with its main
purpose
being to allow humans to gather and watch other animals and humans
suffer
and die(where interestingly enough, lions and other predatory animals
had to
be provoked into aggression since they were usually too afraid to do
anything but cower in the corner of an alien environment).
A similar example would be cockfighting--where humans exploit the
natural
tendency of two roosters to fight to the death--BUT then add an extra
element to it--by crafting razor sharp spurs so they inflict even more
damage
to each other. Alot of craft goes into designing those spurs I reckon.
The same way guns, knives, iron maidens--have all been decorated with an
artistic flair.
For much of human history the tendency has been to project mostly
negative
qualities and behaviour onto the non human world--many insults are
derived
from comparisons(often erroneous comparisons) to the behaviour of other
species. The perfect example: the word humane means to be kind and
benevolent. One can certainly make a very strong argument that humans
have exhibited benevolent and compassionate behaviour(altrusim etc) that
exceeds that of any other species. HOWEVER the opposite word:
inhumane, means to be cruel, wicked and barbaric. Yet humans are far,
far,
far more barbaric and destructive than any other species known to
exist---yet we are told, through language, art etc--that it is more
reasonable to
link
that negative to the non human subject. Is this human arrogance,
stupidity, or what?
>
> One of my friends was a zookeeper. He once had to watch helplessly as
a
> friend of his was tortured to death by an elephant, who had stuck his
> friend on a spike in the enclosure and then would gently lean against
> him till he screamed in pain, then let up. Only to do it again. The
> elephant seemed facinated with the pain he had the power to evoke. It
> took the elephant fifteen minutes to kill the guy- all the other
keepers
> beating and tugging and shoving couldn't distract that elephant from
his
> purpose.
elephant
training is one of the most dangerous professions). But again this is
the
domestication/captivity problem. If they are abused or confined I
certainly
could understand why they would be antagonistic! This can be provoked
behaviour. The same goes for Orca whales(who are, unlike elephants,
carnivorous) who have also been known to attack or injure trainers with
what looks like intent. One thing that can be said for certain about
wild
animals--they demand respect. If you dont respect them they will let you
know--and I think they are to be admired for that. Certainly an elephant
is
more capable of getting its point across than a groundhog!
Animals might be fascinated or curious about killing or death..some
studies
have been conducted to explore this, like killing a rabbit's offspring
in front
of the parent to see how she reacts, or passing the head of a monkey on
a
platter for other monkeys to handle. This may not tell us anything about
the
question at hand--but it certainly reinforces my belief that humans can
be
obsessed with death and killing(and I am convinced from this that
scientists
share as much in common with serial killers as artists are alleged to!)
One final point on this--I dont think all humans are fascinated by
death..or
take pleasure from the suffering of others(some humans apparently--from
what i regret learning through the internet, get sexually aroused
watching a
woman in high heels trample small animals to death--a turn on I
definitely do
not share)--its just that this is one behaviour that has been
clearly--without
doubt, observed in humans. That this characteristic exists in non humans
is
speculation. Maybe it does, but then maybe individual birds of the same
species have slightly different songs--or they embellish their nests in
ever so
slightly different ways, or the other species which may be lounging near
by
also enjoy the noise they produce. This is currently in the realm of
speculation.
Anyway--I just meant it as something interesting to think about--and i
saw it
related in some way to the awareness or aesthetics that was being
discussed.
> Marilyn may be right about self destructive behavior- I can't think of
> any examples of that in animals, but that may be because I can't think
> of what it might LOOK like in animals. What would a self destructive
> zebra DO that would be recognizable as such?
about
humour(or is that part of art aesthetics?)?
>
> I guess this marks the end of THE THREAD THAT WOULDN'T DIE!
dum. da.
> dum.
>
thread started
with a discussion of concrete garden sculpture!!! I never guessed it
would go
this far--or sink this low.
:\
peewe...@my-deja.com
Lets take art or aesthetics--whatever it is that fosters compassion, an
appreciation of beauty, life, civilizing influences---I hate typing
aesthetics--lets call it "creative awareness." whatever it is that
impels humans to be compassionate and creative--or to enjoy such things.
I would argue this is a human quality--not found in other creatures.
But I would say the flip side of this coin--would be "destructive
awareness." Which would encompass all that talk about being cruel and
destructive---not only understanding that others suffer but acting more
destructive because of it. Building Roman arenas, bullfights.. and
whatever...
I would argue this negative side would also be a human quality--not
found in other creatures...
i see it as balanced....humans are compassionate but they are also the
opposite....other lifeforms arent compassionate but they arent
maliciously discompassionate(or whatever the opposite extreme would be)
either...
It would seem to level out...
Balance.
Equality.
Complete and utter wisdom.
Ohmmmmm....
unless humans destroys themselves then i guess my theory is all wrong.
ooouch
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> i do recall reading somewhere that serial
> killers are
> often artistic--left brain/right brain--emotions vs logic or something
> like that.
> Just something to think about... I actually find the notion a bit
> offensive--certainly some scientists are capable of sadistic
> curiosity--which
> has been observed in serial killers as well--but they dont wanto
> highlight that
> fact in their theories!
I think that what it comes down to is this- what can you let a prisoner
do for recreation? Certainly not chemistry.
Every person in America had play-doh and crayolas at one point, had art
time in kindergarten. Frank Sinatra painted bilious clowns just as badly
as John Wayne Gacy. Look at Anthony Quinn. Tony Bennet. Lots of actors
and dirctors and scientists and lawyers paint as a hobby- but who does
particle physics as a hobby?
If, as I propose, all humanity shares an Aesthetic drive, then wou would
expect just about everyone to fancy themselves artistic in one way or
another. What is odd is the people who DON'T express some kind of
artistic impulse.
I don't think criminals are any more likely to paint or sculpt than
actors and singers are.
> Animals and altruism/self sacrifice: I do think that there have been
> many
> cases of parental animals defending their young to the death(whether
> that
> was their intention or not). Even with ducks..the interesting point is
> that the
> duck is putting itself in danger--or greater danger than the rest of
the
> flock.
> The fact that it was luring a predator to chase it as opposed to the
> others
> indicates that it is doing something that may very well interfere with
> its own
> self preservation.
The theory of gene survival goes beyond self preservation. In practice,
the parent sacrifices its life for its offspring because its GENEs are
what have to survive. It has been observed that, in situations where it
is likely that their projeny may not survive despite their sacrifice,
the animal chooses to NOT sacrifice themselves. If the parent is young
and strong and more likely to survive to breed again than their
offspring, they abandon the offsping.
Gene survival is driven by the fact that any trait that doesn't result
in the passing on of the gene for that trait will not survive through
generations. Some Birds have evolved elaborate and expensive tail
plumage that makes them worse fliers and more likely to die of disease
and predation, however- the females have a trait that causes them to
choose the male with the biggest tail, so, the males got have the tail
to get some tail, even if it isn't good for him, even if it shortens his
life, so what- it ensures a mate and the gene lives on.
Dogs save their masters 'cause, without their masters, they don't eat.
Dogs don't know about adoption programs, they know only the survival of
the pack. Without the pack- a dog alone can not survive.
> ***Hmmm...Sadism--cruelty...I dont mean this. Certainly violence--
> cruelty(depending on how we interpret the behaviour) exists in the non
> human world. Rather I mean the uniquely human trait to take pleasure
> from
> the suffering of others. To initiate harm solely on the basis that one
> is causing
> harm--with neither food, defense or any other defendable motivation.
> This
> phenomenon has only been observed in humans.
The elephant I mentioned wasn't going to eat the zookeeper. Neither was
the zookeeper threatening the elephant- he ws cleaning up after him.
My cat kills mice even when he's just finished a huge bowl of catfood.
Leaving the carcass to rot. Sometimes even letting them go mortally
wounded.
Anyone who has spent time around horses knows that some horses are
sadistically mean. Once they realize they CAN hurt you, and how, they
bide their time and do it right.
Nevertheless, the fact that they play with their food does
> not
> mean the cat understands that he is causing pain to the mouse(does the
> cat
> regard it as a sentient being capable of pain like itself--or as food?
> Cats will
> chase a ball of string--do they regard the string as a life form
capable
> of
> pain? Doubtful, based on observation), and more importantly-- deriving
> pleasure from the fact that he KNOWS the mouse is suffering. This is
> the
> key.
Look, animals come with different personalities, just like people. You
say we are sadistic; well I"M not sadistic. My woman's not sadistic, in
fact, I don't know a single soul who's sadistic. The truth is SOME of us
can act sadisticly. And animals are the same- Not all animals will kill
without purpose- but some of them do. In any species, its an aberrant
behavior.
All emotional states come in dualistic pairs. anything capable of liking
something is also capable of DISliking something. Anything able to love,
must know hate.
Animals know the fear of being hunted- and must therefore understand the
fear they engender in others when they do the hunting. Predators often
use 'terror tactics' to confuse their prey.
> humans are the
> only species (I believe)to have have demonstrated that they can and do
> kill
> for less practical reasons than defense and food. I seriously doubt a
> lion
> would take down a bison just for fun---since it can be hard work--and
> dangerous.
You can not say this- IF a lion had the intelligence to create a
civilization, IF a lion had a safe calm career that afforded him ample
leisure, wouldn't he still be a Lion? Wouldn't he still have a drive
left over from his predatory past that might drive him to hunt for the
pleasur of satisfying that drive? You can not claim that humans do not
have the same drive to hunt.
Perhaps the predatory nature of criminals is the expression of this
drive, frustrated and denied by civil society. Is it any wonder that
when less intellectual types find themselves in a condition of want-
that they go out and hunt for what they want?
Other than the mental pathologies created by our complex symbolic
brains, how is this any different from animals?
> I dont think this type of violence or cruelty has not yet been
observed
> in
> cats-or any other predator species(maybe chimpanzees). We cannot know
> what a lion thinks--but we can observe---do lions gather around to
watch
> another lion killing a bison--without ever attempting to join in to
eat
> it?
Yes, when they are full.
Again- you have no idea what any other species might do in OUR
situation. If we seem more barbaric, it is only because we have the
power to be more barbaric. If any other species had that power, they
would do the same.
It is a common human response to cast a different light on one group
than another. You often hear the Native American portayed as living "in
harmony' with 'nature', and other such poppycock.
I have done hundreds of Native subjects over the years requiring years
of research. I have letters from the grandchildren of Sitting Bull and
Quanah Parker expressing their pleasure and approval of my portrayal of
their ancestors.
I can tell you- the Anasazi disappeared because they destroyed their
environment by cutting down all the trees and denuding the hills of
food. The Bison were in decline from the moment the Indians got the
horse, and every other larger mammal in North and South America had been
exterminated by the Native peoples.
The Native Americans did as much damage to nature as their technology
allowed. And if THEY had had the technology instead of us, they would
have been just as eager to go over to Europe and kick our asses.
You must not mistake a lack of knowledge for the absence of a behavior.
Dolphins were widely thought to have no vices until improvements in
tacking and underwater observation showed that they engage in murder,
rape, homosexuality, vengence, cliques and betrayal. Jane Goodall found
out the same about chimps.
Civilization does not exist because of these traits, rather, it exists
despite them. We have something the other animals don't.
Animals are both as cruel and as loving as their personal struggle for
survival allows. Just like us. The only difference- ART.
Christopher
dfsgerg ghgh kyuktyur swffj p o th ewgtevshdr hdfth. ershvser efg
ergt csg dfh
WoN ereH
>survival allows. Just like us. The only difference- ART.
>
That may be all well and good, but so what? I'm an artist, love to create,
don't get me wrong, but just because humans make art doesn't relieve the fact
that we are also destroying the planet faster than we are repairing it, our
science may well destroy us before we evolve enough to control it. Art is akin
to masturbation we all know. So are the ego strokes it gives us when others
like it. Artists should get off their holier than though attitude and try to
CREATE a better world. I won't hold my breath though....
Debra
john...@my-deja.com
anothersculptingman
Actually the first definition of sadism is to derive sexual pleasure
from the
suffering of others.
The second definition of sadism is to derive (general)pleasure from the
suffering of others.
Cruelty is defined as inflicting pain or suffering/2)often
unnecessary/3)without
feeling or pity. It can also mean to derive pleasure from such
suffering. In the
first sense of the word cruelty--animals and nature itself can be said
to be
cruel BUT the other definitions if applied to animals are based on human
interpretation and assumption.
Sadism def.2 requires that one know that another can feel pain. A cat
can be tricked into believing that a sock puppet is another animal. It
might hiss at the puppet in response. Therefore, it is unlikely that a
cat would know that a mouse feels pain, and then take pleasure from
this.
Animals can be aggressive, violent and ferocious. Words like cruel and
sadistic are generally tainted by anthropomorphism(and
anthropocentrism).
Furthermore sadism can also refer to mental as well as physical cruelty.
Taking pleasure in tormenting others verbally, or being a spectator to
such cruelty. Strictly human territory--and related to art and
aesthetics. Slander, jokes, propaganda---they require the complex
communication capability that only humans are known to possess. A
cartoon, violent movie or story can invite a viewer to take pleasure in
the misfortune of others, for example.
They can also reinforce violent behaviour(the current debate about tv
violence etc).
john...@my-deja.com
Someone else may have beat me to it--but I cant seem to access all the
thread posts...
The most fundamental characteristic in humans that would seem to be
unique to them is the awareness of one's own death.
It is a complete mystery with whales--but from observations of
chimpanzees we know that they can be fooled by their own reflection. So
they are not as self aware as we are. They know pain--and to avoid
danger--but they dont understand why they must avoid danger--The
avoidance of harm can be explained by instinct/innate knowledge(like an
elephant automatically being able to swim without ever being in the
water to practice). It is a considerable leap between knowing
pain/killing/death and understanding them as concepts. And then to know
and understand them in other beings(let alone different species).
If chimpanzees understood the concept of death they would probably be
performing burial rituals or contemplating religious matters.
Therefore it is virtually impossible that a cat or elephant would
possess an awareness that a chimpanzee(97% genetically compatible with
us) doesnt. No understanding of the nature of pain and death in
themselves, therefore no understanding of them in others, no matter how
many times they were in a fight. Animals can be affectionate or angry,
jealous, even resentful, deceptive...obviously violent and
aggressive--which is completely different from sadism. A cat or elephant
can be very hostile--but sadism requires a human-like awareness.
Although animals are capable of creative thinking--they are more or less
controlled by instincts. Humans would also seem to be born with
instinctual knowledge(an infant can swim, for example), but,
interestingly enough, they appear to lose most of it after a certain
age.
Nuff said.
sculpt...@my-deja.com
> Actually the first definition of sadism is to derive sexual pleasure
> from the
> suffering of others.
>
> The second definition of sadism is to derive (general)pleasure from
the
> suffering of others.
Animals have sexual drives- like us, they also commit rape, often
brutalizing their victims, like us. Lions mounting lionesses are
aggressive and bite their mates on the neck, undoubtedly inflicting
pain. There is violence and suffering and even murder associated with
sex throughout the animal world. It has been postulated that these
traits in humans are holdovers from this reptilian-brain legacy- and
that all our "beliefs" and theories, and "psychology" are no more than
inventive rationaliztions for behaviors that have to intellectual cause.
> Cruelty is defined as inflicting pain or suffering/2)often
> unnecessary/3)without
> feeling or pity. It can also mean to derive pleasure from such
> suffering. In the
> first sense of the word cruelty--animals and nature itself can be said
> to be
> cruel BUT the other definitions if applied to animals are based on
human
> interpretation and assumption.
All definitions applied to anything are based on human interpretation
and assumption. Only humans define.
> Sadism def.2 requires that one know that another can feel pain. A cat
> can be tricked into believing that a sock puppet is another animal. It
> might hiss at the puppet in response. Therefore, it is unlikely that a
> cat would know that a mouse feels pain, and then take pleasure from
> this.
You're conclusion does not follow from your premise. The fact that a cat
might mistake a puppet for a real threat does not imply the cat's
inability to infer the pain a mouse might experience. Rather the
opposite.
If the cat displays a fear response to the puppet- what it it fearing?
Obviously, the cat is fearing that the puppet will inflict pain on the
cat. Ergo- the cat understands that other creatures he 'percives' have
the potential to inflict pain.
Yet, cats do not fear all creatures they percive. At some size
significantly smaller than themselves, the cat sees another creature as
vulnerable to the cat. This response implies that the cat understands
the relation of size to the threat of pain. The cat knows the mouse
would percive the cat with the same fear the cat feels for the dog.
The cat knows he can suffer pain from a larger animal- it is ridiculous
to think he doesn't understand that he can do the same to an animal
smaller still. His very survival hinges on this understanding.
While herbivores may live in ignorence of empathy- predatory animals can
not. Animals that kill for a living must have some comprehension of the
prey animal's fear, otherwise they would be bewildered at their attempts
to defend themselves.
Just like people- a few of whom are sadistic- predatory animal species
have a few members who are sadistic. All predatory species have
occasionally been observed toying with their prey, leaving prey
greivously wounded, and killing prey they do not eat. Not all
individuals do this, only some. This suggests the occurance in
individual animals of a socio-genetic pathology of behavior similar to
that which occurs in individual humans.
> Furthermore sadism can also refer to mental as well as physical
> cruelty.
> Taking pleasure in tormenting others verbally, or being a spectator to
> such cruelty. Strictly human territory--and related to art and
> aesthetics.
You are making an assumption. Animals do commit acts of cruelty- we can
not know how they 'feel' about being cruel. When an animal toys with its
prey it may well feel satifaction at the victims screams. The fact that
they commit cruel acts without any survival related justification
implies that there is some kind of positive reinforcement to the
behavior- i.e. pleasure.
This does not make cruelty "related to art and aesthetics' because
cruelty occurs in creatures that do not evince art or aesthetics.
Rather- my premise is that complex symbolic language was made possible
by the aethetic sense- that the two are intertwined in a co-evolutionary
interdependence.
What this results in is that humanity can "find" aesthetics in
EVERYTHING. We can appreciate the 'quality' of the 3 stooges, or a
cutting bit of sarcasm, or even the finer points of torture precisely
because the ONLY WAY WE HAVE of interpreting our experience of the world
is aesthetically. We can not help it- viewed through a red filter- the
world is nothing but shades of red-
Viewed through our aesthetic filter, we cannot help but classify the
world in terms of beauty and ugliness. We see patterns and structures in
reality that do not exist outside of our perception of them.
Given this- we will tend to "see" aesthetics in all human behavior.
To avoid this trap- look for similar behavior in animals that do not
express aesthetics. If the animals do it, then the behavior is NOT the
product of aesthetics.
Social behavior is not the product of aesthetics, but religion is.
Toolmaking is not, but making tools beautiful is.
In this sense- everything that is uniquely human, is some form of art.
Christopher
dsjfhbi oherta kghjsa t godi lrghl jg dsges. ghfxj dfgd
szfdsuloihd sdf sdg gj rseg. asghsegz asgter hd
rsgdg. esgskjhfhajg khkfmgdahjgjksg.
dfsknf,sng,dfngdggs
sculpt...@my-deja.com
Debra-
I agree- that is why I think we should teach our children that life is a
performance artwork.
However- I am speaking here of art as going beyond what you and I do- it
goes to how every one of us think and percive the world around us.
If, as I say, we are all aesthetically driven, then that explains why we
had to invent a "nature" worship. It is the only way to get most of us
to DO something about the environment. I see it as the way in which we
try to take responsibility for the power we wield over the natural
world.
But hey, give us a break- we've only had the ability to detroy the world
for about one human lifetime. If you ask me we're cathing on pretty
quick.
Incidentally- John Dryer posted a reply to this thread that got
miss-posted under the subject "Lou Reed Midis?"- check it out- I posted
a reply to his post there as well.
Christopher
dfsgdsfg dshsh
dshdsghdfsg dfshdfjfghk fghk kghjdfgjdfgh. gh h dsh dfj dfgj fj
dsgdsh ghjdfgjf fj thj rjrtut. thsty shfdjfj hshdsh
dfsghdfghh fghfg hgdf fgg thdfghdfgydfthjdfgh.
dfgdsh dfghjdfh dfhddoyksf hjuyk rt turtyj grt t t
Marilyn Welch
and touching their faces, then looking at the mirror. The trainer put
a dot on their heads, and they noticed the dot. They defintely knew
that it was a mirror image. Baboons, on the other hand looked behind
the flat mirror image for the rest of the body, they were fooled by
the mirror image. So I would accept your arguement only by
replacing, the chimps with baboons.
Hey what is this anyway, rec.animals.wildlife? I jest.
Marilyn
john...@my-deja.com wrote:
sculpt...@my-deja.com
they don't, but where does it come from? How do we KNOW that animals
have no foreknowledge of death?
Interestingly, in Paleoanthropology, the only way of determining if a
species of hominid understood mortality is the presence of art in the
grave. Painting of the body- funeral goods, decorations, placed
ritualisticlly are the only evidence of an awareness of mortality that
survives.
We only surmise that animals are unaware of mortality because they do
not produce art!
I don't think you can define man by what he thinks, it has to be by what
he DOES because that is the only basis we have for comparison with
others. Thoughts and awarenesses themselves are not observable and leave
no fossil evidence.
Awareness becomes action, and it is the action that belies awareness.
The understanding of mortality is derived from symbolic thought which is
the compliment of an aesthetic perception of reality.
Art came first. Art leaves a mark. Art is the only evidence of symbolic
thought. ergo- Art is the definition of human.
Besides- children under the age of 5 have no conception of mortality
(but they do create art) Are you suggesting that childrenaren't human?
Christopher
P.S.- do you realize the weird posting thing that's happening? On my
system your post is in response to some country music question. what's
up with that?
dhsajfsa dlksajflsa h hgtoutyscewrj liotydfiywaurj o8toywaflhwj. dksf
ksajfghsajfg lidsfhli isufy ewaufy0a posaf. lskfgh
safghsa ;kjhf;arjfg isfh ; oiuf p g
kjgh;irug
WoN ereH
>I agree- that is why I think we should teach our children that life is a
>performance artwork.
Yea, that's why I'm basically a misfit -- 'creatively' painted door and fence
in conservative neighborhood (planning a large 'strange' sculpture for front
yard as well). I don't necessarily mind, just wish more artists were *real*
artists instead of just fashionably artistic.
>However- I am speaking here of art as going beyond what you and I do- it
>goes to how every one of us think and percive the world around us.
>If, as I say, we are all aesthetically driven, then that explains why we
>had to invent a "nature" worship. It is the only way to get most of us
>to DO something about the environment.
Humans enjoy *making messy* at least as much as creating anew. So then what?
Yes, take the best of being human and strive to do better, the man might have
thought as he walked out of the 7-11 with a 6 pack of Dr. Pepper and 2 boxes of
donuts (recent sighting).
>But hey, give us a break- we've only had the ability to detroy the world
>for about one human lifetime. If you ask me we're catching on pretty
>quick.
I've always thought, hey, considering we've only just recently walked out of
the forest on two legs we're doing pretty well. Alas, the majority still
believe supernatural beings/gods will protect humanity from itself.
Please check out the recent article by Bill Joy (co-founder of Sun
Microsystems) in Wired magazine and tell me if you still think we're catching
on pretty quick at www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html
I'd appreciate your intelligent take on this so I can feel okay about getting
back to art work...
PS- Couldn't find that posting re: Lou Reed Midis
Debra