why no more art movements
Matthew Hopps
such as there used to be. I know small circles of like-minded artists
band together here and there a little bit, but there don't seem to be
any major movements nowadays (i.e. Surrealism, Cubism, Dada, Futurism,
Abstract Expressionism etc. etc.) Before someone answers talking about
"Postmodernism as a movement" let me say that this "ism" is obviously to
broad and loosely defined to be a movement like the ones I mentioned
above. So what are your theories? Why has the trend of movements
seemingly come to an end (or a long pause)?
dale houstman
Matthew Hopps <net...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:23926-37...@newsd-623.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
First of all, one must realize that many of these "movements" were really a
group of individuals being given a name (usually meant in derision: Cubists,
Impressionisits, etc.) that defined them although they were really quite
distinct as artists. Surrealism is quite another matter: it is not an art
movement (although it includes art as one of its tools for human
liberation), and it was not named by the press or the masses. Andre Breton
named it himself, using a word in an Apollinaire play.
Much more recently there was Pop art.
But the truth be told even the semblance of these movements appears to arise
from a commnual ease, or the idea of neighborhoods. Surrealism owes as much
to Parisian cafe society as it does to Freud, and the truth of this was
revealed when the Surrealists came to New York during the war, and many of
them felt lost in that amorphous mass. That capitalism works against the
ease of communality and instead trades on competitive status-seeking and the
myth of "rugged individualism" is thus part of the "problem" if there is
one. But art has always been about the individual, whether or no that
individual seeks out the community is another question.
Another element may be the "institutionalization" of art groups in the local
grant-funded Art Scenes, the community writers' orgainzations and the like;
this is where government money trickles in to keep the artist in their
continual fit of procurement. So one may pretend to communality without
actually achieving it, since mosat of these orgainzations actually trade in
friendly competition for limited resources. Thus, capitalism doing what it
does best.
But - to be perfectly honest - I don't find the lack of Isms particularly
chilling, as most art has been and will continue to be produced in relative
isolation.
Surrealism continues as an ongoing project: there are surrealist groups all
over the world. That this is not obvious is perhaps the result of a narrowed
scope on the part of the media; after three knifings, a nursing home fire,
some kissypoo with a local police spokesman, some free advertisement for a
new bowling alley/cathedral/brothel, and a cute tale about a dog nursing a
tadpole: well - there isn't room to discuss much of anything.
DMH
Morpheal
"dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > such as there used to be. I know small circles of like-minded
artists band together here and there a little bit, but there don't seem
to be any major movements nowadays (i.e. Surrealism, Cubism, Dada,
Futurism, Abstract Expressionism etc. etc.) Before someone answers
talking about "Postmodernism as a movement" let me say that this "ism"
is obviously to broad and loosely defined to be a movement like the ones
I mentioned above. So what are your theories? Why has the trend of
movements seemingly come to an end (or a long pause)?
> First of all, one must realize that many of these "movements" were
really a group of individuals being given a name (usually meant in
derision: Cubists, Impressionisits, etc.) that defined them although
they were really quite distinct as artists. Surrealism is quite another
matter: it is not an art movement (although it includes art as one of
its tools for human liberation), and it was not named by the press or
the masses. Andre Breton named it himself, using a word in an
Apollinaire play.
Actually I have already announced a new art movement.
Eventually it will succeed Surrealism, even if I am only to be its
prophet and perhaps before its time.
That is Morphealism. The word derivative from morphology, morphing,
morpheus, etc.
It is the harbringer in art, of what applied science will do in the
future, long after the announcement of leaps of technical evolution
being made within new modes of artistic expression.
That is a sign of a very significant movement, that its essence can
announce the future, even moreso than did Surrealism.
(That has nothing whatever to do with the poetry we have been
discussing. That is a different kind of expression. Morphealism has more
in common with ancient "alchemy" than it has with existentialism.)
regards,
from Morpheal
--
Bob Ezergailis morp...@bserv.com Canada
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Nikolaus Maack
Hopps) wrote:
>Why does it seem that in current times there are no major art movements
>such as there used to be.
Have you heard of Outsider Art, aka Art Brut, aka Folk Art? There is
a movement away from institutionalized, art gallery politics, towards
an appreciation of art from people who simply want to make art. This
movement, in my opinion, is building quite dramatically. It is, in
part, a backlash against art galleries praising what most people
consider abstract dementia.
Three stripes of paint, they say in Canada, is a very important, and
very worthwhole statement. The Voice of Fire is interesting to look
at, but is it particularly significant? It hangs in the National Art
Gallery in Ottawa and people hate it for what it represents --
intellectuals trying to tell us what is "important" art. The Voice of
Fire doesn't look important. It looks like a con. The art gallery
intelligensia have lost their minds. They're no longer in touch with
reality. They seem to be saying that you require an art history
degree to determine what is "significant art".
The other aspect of this Outsider movement is a desperate attempt to
find something genuine in the world. People are terrified of the
artificiality, the shifting dreamscape we live in. There is nothing
to hold on to. People want something REAL, genuine, simple.
Folk art -- a farmer, who carves animals, and paints them -- is a
simple thing. But it is very real. He does it because he has to,
because he wants to. He is unpretentious about what he does. His art
is simple. Clear cut.
Outsider art -- a painter who paints because the paint sings as it
slips off the brush, who is unschooled, untutored, who is compelled to
do what the paint tells her to do-- is real. She is unpretentious,
hopefully. It's hard to stay real as the money for your work gets
better.
The success of the film "The Blair Witch Project" is another example
of this growing movement. The film is "genuine" in the sense that it
attempts to avoid the artificial. It tries to be "honest". It
portrays horror in a "real" sense, not in some sort of artificial
world of intense lighting, huge special effects, and contrived
emotion.
Watch out for this "Genuine Art", this leaning towards purity,
honesty, and the intensely personal. I believe this is going to get
much, much bigger.
Nik
---
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
Outsider art for outsiders.
Brandon J. Freels
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack wrote
> Have you heard of Outsider Art, aka Art Brut, aka Folk Art?
Actaully, Nik, the term Art Brut (Outsider Art) has been around for a long
time, and it is not a movement but a label for those who are 'outside' the
reach of cultural and social influence (aka young children, the insane, some
old fucked-up guy living in the mountains). Most 'outsider' artists don't
even consider their art to be art. So, not only are these artists
self-taught, but they are also blind to the idea that what they are creating
is really art.
Folk art is much different since it is influenced by local cultures and
customs.
Another type related to this is the autodidactic, or the naive artists, who
has some, but little knowledge of art. They are self-taught, but with some
social influence. See Henri Rousseau.
Nikolaus Maack
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Actaully, Nik, the term Art Brut (Outsider Art) has been around for a long
>time, and it is not a movement but a label for those who are 'outside' the
>reach of cultural and social influence (aka young children, the insane, some
>old fucked-up guy living in the mountains).
This is changing. It's gaining momentum. It's becoming a movement.
This is my point.
>Most 'outsider' artists don't
>even consider their art to be art. So, not only are these artists
>self-taught, but they are also blind to the idea that what they are creating
>is really art.
I disagree. More recently, folk artists and outsider artists are
being approached by galleries, and being asked to put on shows.
They're discovering that their work has meaning and value.
Many of them KNEW that their work had value, at least for them, but
might not have called it "art". Humility is a nice aspect of this
movement.
>Another type related to this is the autodidactic, or the naive artists, who
>has some, but little knowledge of art. They are self-taught, but with some
>social influence. See Henri Rousseau.
See my web page.
Lutegirl
>such as there used to be.
Ism's seem to be a past tense reference to catalog a movement.
There is the ism of here and now of art that is instantanious thanks to the
web, perhaps we should call the new art
instantism,reactism,impulsism,webism...ect...
I'm intsantly posting this message to the past.
dale houstman
Morpheal <morp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7svkso$sbc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <7svg88$bgb$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "dale houstman" <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > such as there used to be. I know small circles of like-minded
> artists band together here and there a little bit, but there don't seem
> to be any major movements nowadays (i.e. Surrealism, Cubism, Dada,
> Futurism, Abstract Expressionism etc. etc.) Before someone answers
> talking about "Postmodernism as a movement" let me say that this "ism"
> is obviously to broad and loosely defined to be a movement like the ones
> I mentioned above. So what are your theories? Why has the trend of
> movements seemingly come to an end (or a long pause)?
>
> > First of all, one must realize that many of these "movements" were
> really a group of individuals being given a name (usually meant in
> derision: Cubists, Impressionisits, etc.) that defined them although
> they were really quite distinct as artists. Surrealism is quite another
> matter: it is not an art movement (although it includes art as one of
> its tools for human liberation), and it was not named by the press or
> the masses. Andre Breton named it himself, using a word in an
> Apollinaire play.
>
> Actually I have already announced a new art movement.
> Eventually it will succeed Surrealism, even if I am only to be its
> prophet and perhaps before its time.
>
> That is Morphealism. The word derivative from morphology, morphing,
> morpheus, etc.
Oh I thought you were going to say Dullism, or maybe
Beside-the-Pointillism...
Dale
dale houstman
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:6hJI3.64490$FG4.2...@news1.teleport.com...
> Who cares about art?
This neat old lady at the hospice...
Brandon J. Freels
> This is changing. It's gaining momentum. It's becoming a movement.
> This is my point.
I believe what you are suggesting is impossible due to the definition of Art
Brut. Any art movement influenced by Art Brut will only be a movement
*influenced* by Art Brut, but can never be Art Brut. There is too much
culture involved with movements, and too much exterior motivations. What's
next, an Art Brut manifesto?
One of the beauties of Art Brut is that it is outside of the cultural
trashcan of galleries, critics and dealers, all of whom are full of shit.
Any movement to turn Art Brut into a capitalist enterprise will only swallow
itself.
"Art Brut means 'Raw Art'. Raw because it is 'uncooked' or 'unadulterated'
by culture. Raw because it is creation in its most direct and uninhibited
form. Not only were the works unique and original but their creators were
seen to exist outside established culture and society. The purest of Art
Brut creators would not consider themselves artists, nor would they even
feel that they were producing art at all."
[from http://www.rawvision.com/whatisoa.html ]
Kristina
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:37f30747....@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
>
> a movement away from institutionalized, art gallery politics, towards
> an appreciation of art from people who simply want to make art. This
> movement, in my opinion, is building quite dramatically. It is, in
> part, a backlash against art galleries praising what most people
> consider abstract dementia.
>
> Three stripes of paint, they say in Canada, is a very important, and
> very worthwhole statement. The Voice of Fire is interesting to look
> at, but is it particularly significant? It hangs in the National Art
> Gallery in Ottawa and people hate it for what it represents --
> intellectuals trying to tell us what is "important" art. The Voice of
> Fire doesn't look important. It looks like a con. The art gallery
> intelligensia have lost their minds. They're no longer in touch with
> reality. They seem to be saying that you require an art history
> degree to determine what is "significant art".
You know art is just like everything else creative in life. It is not there
to ANSWER questions specifically nor is it there to be necessarily
understood from the word get-go. We read, we write, we produce visuals
things to look at...but can we expect everything to provide the answers, and
just becuase we don't get anything from it as an individual does that mean
the "Three Stripes" warrants no merit, isn't art? One of the things I find
personally exciting about art is that the individual in encouraged to use
their own mind and imagination with it. Everyone sees something different,
and we all have preferences, however, because something looks like a "con"
as you stated, does that mean it is. To summarise, art is about expansion
of our lives.
>
> The other aspect of this Outsider movement is a desperate attempt to
> find something genuine in the world. People are terrified of the
> artificiality, the shifting dreamscape we live in. There is nothing
> to hold on to. People want something REAL, genuine, simple.
>
> Folk art -- a farmer, who carves animals, and paints them -- is a
> simple thing. But it is very real. He does it because he has to,
> because he wants to. He is unpretentious about what he does. His art
> is simple. Clear cut.
Does being unpretentious mean it is better art, or more real? I don't
understand what you are saying here Nik.
>
> Outsider art -- a painter who paints because the paint sings as it
> slips off the brush, who is unschooled, untutored, who is compelled to
> do what the paint tells her to do-- is real. She is unpretentious,
> hopefully. It's hard to stay real as the money for your work gets
> better.
Mmmm, I thought you said everything was art....LOL. Now I see you are
saying that if one is filled with humility and not pretentious, then it is
truly art. I don't get this unconcious and pretentious significance you put
into being an artist. It sounds like you believe that one must seprate from
themselves and exist in a vacuum and de-void of themselves to be any good.
I am unpretentious and I am also fully concious, and I work on a very
unconcious level as well with my work. I can be humble, and express
humility, I can be a total wanker, charming, sweet, asshole, etc....Being un
educated in art and unpretentious doesn't necessarily make good art, and
vice versa. I know people who have studied years and years, but they lack
that real passion and insight, that real imagination and challenging mind
space to be REAL inovators in the art area. They are noithing more than
craftspeople.
>
> The success of the film "The Blair Witch Project" is another example
> of this growing movement. The film is "genuine" in the sense that it
> attempts to avoid the artificial. It tries to be "honest". It
> portrays horror in a "real" sense, not in some sort of artificial
> world of intense lighting, huge special effects, and contrived
> emotion.
You really like your 'honest' unpretentious' and 'peasant' aspects and
approaches to art don't you. Well, that's a persoanl view that comes
through in your writing, I just think it is somewhat limiting in the way you
recognise what is and isn't art. I think some of the greatest and
extravagant and pretentious people make wonderful artists....I don't
understand why character traits are such a big thing for you. This whole
idea of "real" and "honest" is debatable. I'm being diplomatic here, as I
can be a bit full on, so although I don't share your ideas and ideals on
art, I do respect your personal opinion, just challenging it really.
Kristina.
>
> Watch out for this "Genuine Art", this leaning towards purity,
> honesty, and the intensely personal. I believe this is going to get
> much, much bigger.
> Nik
Matthew Hopps
because I still feel as if my question has not been addressed directly
(mabye I did not express it well enough). First of all, one gentleman
wants to discuss Art Brut, another Morphism or something. I have no
doubt that some movements still exist. I even said as much in my
original question. But there is a trend towards less movements and
regardless of what's on the horizon, for right now the trend is also
that these movements have minimal impact on the masses unlike the giant
mega-movements of the past. Someone also said "who cares about art"
another ended his/her reply by saying the death of movements "doesn't
chill me that much." Listen, I m not saying that I am upset because
there are no movements. Im not lamenting here. I simply want to know
why? Like a curious sociologist might want to know the factors for this
or that phenomenon. Please don't misinterpret me. I'm not complaining
about the responses mentioned above. Of course, this is an open forum
and I certainly have no right to dictate how people choose to shape the
discussion. No, the responses so far have been very interesting, but no
one seems to have adressed the mechanism in our western culture that is
producing less movements. But wait! One person did! Sorry I don't have
your name in front of me friend, but you said that alot has to do with
capitalsim. I undertsood your explaination completely, but wasn't France
a capitalist country during the Surrealist's time? More response from
everyone please!
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>One of the things I find
>personally exciting about art is that the individual in encouraged to use
>their own mind and imagination with it.
Me too. What I don't like seeing, however, is that one person holds
the brush and makes the art, and the other person looks at the art and
has their mind expanded. I personally feel it would be a saner world
if everyone were encouraged to express their artistic side. It keeps
me sane, and I think it would keep others sane.
Be it painting, writing, dancing, yodelling, whatever -- people should
be encouraged to create art.
Unfortunately, the overall trend in the art world is that overeducated
being with degrees are the ones who should be taken seriously, and not
Ted the farmer who likes to carve his own wacky vision of the local
wildlife. It pleases me to no end that this is changing -- that Ted
is getting some recognition. That the concept of art is being dragged
away from people with university degrees.
And don't assume that I'm saying this out of some hatred for higher
education. I have two BAs myself -- one in psychology, one in
creative writing.
>Does being unpretentious mean it is better art, or more real? I don't
>understand what you are saying here Nik.
It's an artform that should be promoted, because it encourages
artistic expression from everyone. I personally enjoy it more than I
would The Voice of Fire, for example, because of its "honesty".
That's a personal preference, however, and I certainly wouldn't run
around the world with a shotgun, forcing people to adapt to my
personal tastes. Nor, for that matter, am I arguing in this post that
you should believe what I believe.
>Mmmm, I thought you said everything was art....LOL. Now I see you are
>saying that if one is filled with humility and not pretentious, then it is
>truly art.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that I prefer art
that comes from this kind of source.
>It sounds like you believe that one must seprate from
>themselves and exist in a vacuum and de-void of themselves to be any good.
Quite the opposite. Be aware of your environment, be aware of
yourself. I get the impression from some of the extremely abstract
works I see in galleries that the artists in question only hang out
with other artists in a strange cult-like environment where they only
understand each other's work.
The best critics of art, in my experience, are children. The ten year
old boy in my household will tell me as honestly as possible if my art
is crap. I love him for that. Every artist should have a group of
prepubescent critics to keep them honest.
>They are noithing more than
>craftspeople.
What's wrong with that? For that matter, have you ever noticed the
beauty in a well constructed television commercial, and thought of the
"artist" who was behind it?
>You really like your 'honest' unpretentious' and 'peasant' aspects and
>approaches to art don't you. Well, that's a persoanl view that comes
>through in your writing, I just think it is somewhat limiting in the way you
>recognise what is and isn't art.
*sigh*
I told you, in my mind, everything is art. I mean that QUITE
seriously. However, the art I personally prefer is the kind that is
as honest and unpretentious as possible. That doesn't mean the art
can't be GRAND or COMPLICATED or even EDUCATED.
The art I love -- be it fine art or music or WHATEVER -- walks the
line between humour, and taking yourself seriously. If you slip into
pure slapstick, it doesn't please me. If you take yourself too
seriously, the art comes across as stiff and emotionless.
My stance.
C'est tout.
Brandon J. Freels
> Unfortunately, the overall trend in the art world is that overeducated
The art world itself is a pile of shit. Galleries should be burned for
giving art an economic value. Critics are the lowest of individuals. Dealers
are salesmen with dirty underwear. Ted the farmer will create art regardless
of the horrid world you suggest putting him in. He makes art for himself. He
needs no galleries, or cash compensation for his art. He has been receiving
recognition all along, by those existing outside of the art world --- those
strangers who accidentally pass by, or his neighbors and relatives watching
him chase a dream [*sigh*]. Nik, the concept of art is not being dragged
away from the people with 'university degrees', but unfortunately Ted the
farmer is being dragged 'closer' to them. They are the 'art world' as it
exists in the form of galleries, museums, critics, etc. Let us not see the
day when the 'university degrees' plant their flag of imperialism into the
crop of Art Brut, for this action would disassemble raw art entirely. The
'university degrees' will make Ted the farmer egotistical, stupid, and numb.
Nikolaus Maack
<fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>The art world itself is a pile of shit. Galleries should be burned for
>giving art an economic value. Critics are the lowest of individuals. Dealers
>are salesmen with dirty underwear.
And yet, if I want to make a go at selling my art, I have to enter
this world. Which is depressing. The way to avoid this world is to
create art and have some other job on the side, and not care too much
about selling paintings. Which is what I'm doing. Sort of.
>Nik, the concept of art is not being dragged
>away from the people with 'university degrees', but unfortunately Ted the
>farmer is being dragged 'closer' to them. They are the 'art world' as it
>exists in the form of galleries, museums, critics, etc. Let us not see the
>day when the 'university degrees' plant their flag of imperialism into the
>crop of Art Brut, for this action would disassemble raw art entirely. The
>'university degrees' will make Ted the farmer egotistical, stupid, and numb.
I have to admit that this is one of my fears. If art in general moves
towards being more "honest", this will only result in a trend of
feigned honesty. It'll be another fashion and then it will pass. To
a certain extent, poor Ted the farmer will have his soul torn out,
painted black, and nailed to a canvas. And once the art world is done
with this trend, they'll move on to something else.
For example, keep your eye on the world of cinema. The success of
"The Blair Witch Project" is almost certain to spawn a trend of
copycat "realist" cinema projects. Each one will be more soulless
than the last.
So instead of focussing on art trends, I'll do the only thing I,
personally, can do -- try to keep myself honest, humble, and outside
the affairs of the art world. Buy my paintings, you bourgeois yuppie
scum, but please don't ask me to talk the talk of art gallery weasels.
Brandon J. Freels
> So, is there anywhere to see "Art Brut" art?
There are individuals who seek out Art Brut and collect it. Jean Debuffet
(sp?) started this in the 40s or 50s. He coined the term "Art Brut" (with
Andre Breton at his side).
>I for one am curious, do they have a website?
There are plenty of websites on Art Brut ('outsider art'). I listed some
links not long ago, but have since lost the addresses. Some books on the
subject can also be found. I can't name any. There is no Art Brut manifesto
since they are not a collective group, nor do they even think of themselves
as Art Brut artists. They produce art for reasons exterior to the art world.
Art Brut is simply a term for artists that are uncontaminated by social
influences, including that of the art world. They usually have no
understanding of art. Some Art Brut ('raw art' as in 'uncooked by culture')
is made by children, some by the insane.
Brandon J. Freels
Michel Thevoz, Curator of the Collection de l'Art Brut in Lausanne has
written the following:
"Art Brut", or "outsider art", consists of works produced by people who for
various reasons have not been culturally indocrinated or socially
conditioned. They are all kinds of dwellers on the fringes ofsociety.
Working outside fine art "system" (schools, galleries, museums and so on),
these people have produced, from the depths of their own personalities and
for themselves and no one else, works of outstanding originality in concept,
subject and techniques. They are works which owe nothing to tradition or
fashion.
A firm distinction should be made between "art brut" and what is known as
"naif art". The naif or primitive painters remain within the mainstream of
painting proper, even if they fail ingenuously to practise its style.
However, they accept its subjects, technique (generally oils) and even its
values, because they hope for public, if not official recognition. "Art
brut" artists, on the other hand, make up their own techniques, often with
new means and materials and they create their works for their own use, as a
kind of private theatre. They choose subjects which are often enigmatic and
they do not care about the good opinion of others, even keeping their work
secret.
Nikolaus Maack
>EVERYTHING is art.
Kristina said:
>Your views seem too narrow for me.
Woo boy.
Kristina
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:RB5J3.1679$k57....@news1.teleport.com...
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
> > Unfortunately, the overall trend in the art world is that overeducated
> > being with degrees are the ones who should be taken seriously . . .
>
> giving art an economic value. Critics are the lowest of individuals.
Dealers
regardless
> of the horrid world you suggest putting him in. He makes art for himself.
He
> needs no galleries, or cash compensation for his art. He has been
receiving
> recognition all along, by those existing outside of the art world ---
those
> strangers who accidentally pass by, or his neighbors and relatives
watching
> away from the people with 'university degrees', but unfortunately Ted the
> farmer is being dragged 'closer' to them. They are the 'art world' as it
> exists in the form of galleries, museums, critics, etc. Let us not see the
> day when the 'university degrees' plant their flag of imperialism into the
> crop of Art Brut, for this action would disassemble raw art entirely. The
> 'university degrees' will make Ted the farmer egotistical, stupid, and
numb.
So, is there anywhere to see "Art Brut" art? Even though they don't want
to be seen as "Artists"...I for one am curious, do they have a website? Or
do they just wait for ted the farmer to come along and look at their
work...in other words, are their any books, fanzines, where can one check
out what they produce? Is there a manifesto, etc?
It sounds interesting, but it is useless to me if I can't see what is so
fascinating about it, and therefore I can't comment on something I haven't
checked out for myself. Where did you see it, hear of it?
Kristina.
>
>
Kristina
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 07:35:18 +1000, "Kristina" <bu...@start.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >One of the things I find
> >personally exciting about art is that the individual in encouraged to use
> >their own mind and imagination with it.
>
> Me too. What I don't like seeing, however, is that one person holds
> the brush and makes the art, and the other person looks at the art and
> has their mind expanded. I personally feel it would be a saner world
> if everyone were encouraged to express their artistic side. It keeps
> me sane, and I think it would keep others sane.
Well I don't see that people are "discouraged" to draw, paint, write, take
up some form of art. It's like anything else, not everyone 'wants' to or
has a particular "NEED" ( more specifically ). It keeps ypu sane because
it makes up a very big part of who you are. Football/rugby keeps my
neighbour sane, as does sitting around drinking beer and talking about
barbeques, it doesn't keep me sane, that to me is a waste of time. It isn't
the same for everyone Nik, what you are talking about it a more idealistic
way where everyone takes part in art...kind of a communist/socialist view
from where I'm sitting. : ) LOL. (I'm joking and I'm also serious here).
I don't mean to sound horrible, but like I said, not everyone has the same
needs....
>
> Be it painting, writing, dancing, yodelling, whatever -- people should
> be encouraged to create art.
>
> Unfortunately, the overall trend in the art world is that overeducated
> being with degrees are the ones who should be taken seriously, and not
> Ted the farmer who likes to carve his own wacky vision of the local
> wildlife. It pleases me to no end that this is changing -- that Ted
> is getting some recognition. That the concept of art is being dragged
> away from people with university degrees.
That's because ted the farmer doesn't take him self seriously. He doesn't
necessarily aspire to be an 'artist' or feel that it is a "way of life". I
think there are big differences between artists and people who take part in
a little drawing. Firstly, as far as what you're saying about university
degrees goes, I don't agree. A universtiy degree will not necessarily make
you an artist, and nor is it really what is relevant at the end of the day.
I've seen artists from both sides of the fence...the degree is not the
point.........the "mind" is the point. How and by whom is Ted getting
recognition by the way?, this I find interesting....
Now this really rubbed me up the wrong way. Do you know abstract painters
and people that "create" art?, do you have any appreciation of art, or is
this all about your dislike of the art world as such (of which you are a
part of i might add, and I did see your website) Why is abstract art any
less honest than Ted the farmer. You left yourself wide open to this
comment and question.
>
> The best critics of art, in my experience, are children. The ten year
> old boy in my household will tell me as honestly as possible if my art
> is crap. I love him for that. Every artist should have a group of
> prepubescent critics to keep them honest.
I don't agree that the best critics in the world are children. Well maybe
you should hang out with honest adults, assuming you can hadle being
criticised by a mature person and questioned, not just told whether or not
your picture os crap or not. Well Nik, please know I'm not waging war here
or a personal attack, these are my views on the matter. I do respect your
feelings and am in no way being personal, I just don't agree with so much of
what you say.
>
> >They are noithing more than
> >craftspeople.
>
> What's wrong with that? For that matter, have you ever noticed the
> beauty in a well constructed television commercial, and thought of the
> "artist" who was behind it?
Well yes, I have, however, we are talking about art, not the beauty of a
television commercial and who put the concept together or filmed it, or the
lighting, or the idea.....etc.
>
> >You really like your 'honest' unpretentious' and 'peasant' aspects and
> >approaches to art don't you. Well, that's a persoanl view that comes
> >through in your writing, I just think it is somewhat limiting in the way
you
> >recognise what is and isn't art.
>
> *sigh*
>
> I told you, in my mind, everything is art. I mean that QUITE
> seriously. However, the art I personally prefer is the kind that is
> as honest and unpretentious as possible. That doesn't mean the art
> can't be GRAND or COMPLICATED or even EDUCATED.
Well not everything is ART.....that's my idea on it. : )
Okay you like the "unpretentious" work of Ted the Farmer....I understand
that.
>
> The art I love -- be it fine art or music or WHATEVER -- walks the
> line between humour, and taking yourself seriously. If you slip into
> pure slapstick, it doesn't please me. If you take yourself too
> seriously, the art comes across as stiff and emotionless.
Well all art can do that, it doesn't have to exist in a vacuum to evoke
these responses and move, and challenge our perceptions. Basically what we
have been debating over here is your personal preference for craft and Ted
the Farmer in his little shed doing drawings, not touched by the art world
in any way. That's fine, I appreciate you expressing your ideas and likes,
but it doesn't cut it for me. Your views seem too narrow for me.
>
> My stance.
Thanks alot Nik.
Kristina.
>
> C'est tout.
Kristina
> On Fri, 1 Oct 1999 09:50:17 -0700, "Brandon J. Freels"
> <fre...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
> >The art world itself is a pile of shit. Galleries should be burned for
> >giving art an economic value. Critics are the lowest of individuals.
Dealers
> >are salesmen with dirty underwear.
>
> this world. Which is depressing. The way to avoid this world is to
> create art and have some other job on the side, and not care too much
> about selling paintings. Which is what I'm doing. Sort of.
>
> >away from the people with 'university degrees', but unfortunately Ted the
> >farmer is being dragged 'closer' to them. They are the 'art world' as it
> >exists in the form of galleries, museums, critics, etc. Let us not see
the
> >day when the 'university degrees' plant their flag of imperialism into
the
> >crop of Art Brut, for this action would disassemble raw art entirely. The
> >'university degrees' will make Ted the farmer egotistical, stupid, and
numb.
>
> towards being more "honest", this will only result in a trend of
> feigned honesty. It'll be another fashion and then it will pass. To
> a certain extent, poor Ted the farmer will have his soul torn out,
> painted black, and nailed to a canvas. And once the art world is done
> with this trend, they'll move on to something else.
>
> For example, keep your eye on the world of cinema. The success of
> "The Blair Witch Project" is almost certain to spawn a trend of
> copycat "realist" cinema projects. Each one will be more soulless
> than the last.
>
> So instead of focussing on art trends, I'll do the only thing I,
> personally, can do -- try to keep myself honest, humble, and outside
> the affairs of the art world. Buy my paintings, you bourgeois yuppie
> scum, but please don't ask me to talk the talk of art gallery weasels.
What is this contempt you have for art galleries? What do you think you
have on your website then? I'm sure you called it a "gallery". I'm not
going to even go into what I think about your work, but really I can't
believe you are an artist as you say, you have such an immature and
under-developed way of seeing and processing information. "buy my paintings
you bourgeois yuppie scum, but please don't ask me to talk the talk of art
gallery weasels?" what part of your body did that thought come out of?
Nik, Nik, Nik, and I was worried about offending you personally.....
kristina.
Kristina
some reason, I thought everyone was refering to something "new" as in
happening and brought about in the current time. Thank you for the
information.....
Kristina.
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:9seJ3.2346$k57.1...@news1.teleport.com...
> Kristina wrote
> > So, is there anywhere to see "Art Brut" art?
>
> There are individuals who seek out Art Brut and collect it. Jean Debuffet
> (sp?) started this in the 40s or 50s. He coined the term "Art Brut" (with
> Andre Breton at his side).
>
> >I for one am curious, do they have a website?
>
Kristina
Kristina.
Brandon J. Freels <fre...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:CEeJ3.2359$k57.1...@news1.teleport.com...
Kristina
interested in wasting my time with comments that are supposedly there to
amuse me? I don't think so, unfortunately I don't find you funny Nik.
Kristina.
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:37f5464f...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> I said:
> >EVERYTHING is art.
>
> Kristina said:
> >Your views seem too narrow for me.
>
> Woo boy.
Nikolaus Maack
wrote:
>I don't think we have anything else to talk about, you seem to be more
>interested in wasting my time with comments that are supposedly there to
>amuse me? I don't think so, unfortunately I don't find you funny Nik.
Kristina, darling, you're very irritating, and that's why I limited my
post to a short jibe.
Fascinan
>if everyone were encouraged to express their artistic side. It keeps
>me sane, and I think it would keep others sane.
I've not experienced a more satisfying thing than writing and playing songs
I've created. It really is good medicine.
>
>Be it painting, writing, dancing, yodelling, whatever -- people should
>be encouraged to create art.
>
>Unfortunately, the overall trend in the art world is that overeducated
>being with degrees are the ones who should be taken seriously, and not
>Ted the farmer who likes to carve his own wacky vision of the local
>wildlife. It pleases me to no end that this is changing -- that Ted
>is getting some recognition. That the concept of art is being dragged
>away from people with university degrees.
>
This seems to be the case in many instances (in all types of fields). A higher
degree is a piece of paper. Ted the farmer's art is a very genuine "dialogue"
of sorts with his environment -- this can be a very beautiful and fresh
creation. The realm of academia offers prevailing paradigms, and the
saturation of oneself with the details of such. The advanced degree requires a
lot of hard work, effort, energy, but, in my opinion, can be potentially
damaging to the subjective vision. Certainly, being in the environment of
peers who share the same interests can open one up to new ideas, perceptions,
etc.
But, one is required to "steep" into the latest, and supposedly greatest
paradigms. Though an individual approach might be encouraged, indubitably, the
subconscious will be directly and indirectly bombarded by what is taught by the
professor (who incidentally has a phD) and other "leaders" in the field.
elag
fart
cart
dart 2
wart-tart
part
heart
hearth
earth @
art-mart
"Brandon J. Freels" wrote:
>
> Who cares about art?
elag
Lutegirl wrote:
>
> >Why does it seem that in current times there are no major art movements
> >such as there used to be.
>
Kristina
Kristina.
Nikolaus Maack <ac...@freenet.carleton.ca> wrote in message
news:37f5d9c8...@news.ncf.carleton.ca...
> On Sat, 2 Oct 1999 17:19:05 +1000, "Kristina" <bu...@start.com.au>
> wrote:
>
> >I don't think we have anything else to talk about, you seem to be more
> >interested in wasting my time with comments that are supposedly there to
> >amuse me? I don't think so, unfortunately I don't find you funny Nik.
>
> Kristina, darling, you're very irritating, and that's why I limited my
> post to a short jibe.
>
dale houstman
Kristina <bu...@start.com.au> wrote in message
news:7t0ka4$os8$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
>
> Does being unpretentious mean it is better art, or more real? I don't
> understand what you are saying here Nik.
Congratulations! It usually takes new people months to figure out that Nik
knows little about art, and nothing about surrealism. I really should send
you an award.
DMH
dale houstman
elag <el...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:37F5D416...@concentric.net...
> ismism is the only contemporary ism.
>
I'm partial to Beside-the-Pointillism...
DMH
Kristina
but then there's nothing quite like...a bottle of warmed up chocolate.
Thanks Dale.
Kristina. : )
dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7t89vb$iqj$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
Kristina
Kristina.
dale houstman <dm...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:7t902d$m7g$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net...
Nikolaus Maack
<dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>Congratulations! It usually takes new people months to figure out that Nik
>knows little about art, and nothing about surrealism. I really should send
>you an award.
I know more about surrealism than you do. Let's have a surrealism
fish fight. Let's argue until one of us dies. That's how movements
get started -- bowel movements. The walls of the intestines beat on
each other, pushing the fecal matter until it squirts out the anus.
And suddenly, Andre Breton is born.
Nik
PS.
I'm rereading the Tao Teh Ching, again. I think it shows.
dale houstman
> You dirty bastard!
I think I can echo that...
>
> Nikolaus Maack wrote
Brandon J. Freels
Nikolaus Maack
<dm...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Me:
I'm rereading the Tao Teh Ching, again.
Brandon:
>> You dirty bastard!
Dale:
>I think I can echo that...
There's a quote in this particular translation about the futility of
argument. The overall feel of it is that the person who needs to
argue, to convince others of the validity of his beliefs, doesn't
actually believe in his own beliefs, but is in a state of confusion.
Look at the entirety of usenet, and consider the profundity of this
statement. We argue in order that we can convince ourselves that our
beliefs are true.
Recently I'd almost given up on the written word, as it struck me as
somehow infantile. People use words to beat each other up. So I
turned to painting. I've always painted, but I've felt like painting
more than writing lately.
But I forgot something important -- you can paint using words. And
doing so is much more fun than attacking with words. What's
unfortunate is that when you paint with words, people still assume
it's an argument.
Shit to consider, anyhow.
Nik