Picasso - Art or Crap??
TobusRex
Whats your opinion of Picasso? I think his work, well, SUCKS!!! His "art"
looks like stuff that my niece was bringing back from first and second grade
art classes years ago. I believe "modern art" is an attempt by wannabe
intellectuals to pretend to appreciate art, when in reality they probably
appreciate fine art as much as a gorilla appreciates a Rolls Royce. Picasso
certainly was of no mind to tell them different...and I bet he laughed
inwardly his whole life that people were willing to shell out major bucks
for any paint he happened to dribble on the canvas. Hehe..and the bad thing
is...compared to Pollack... Picasso WAS a genius!
I'm not saying Picasso wasn't a nice guy...I hear he was very popular,
especially with the ladies. And I have seen some of his earlier work with
pencils and charcoal (he had above average artistic ability in the classical
sense). I saw a nice sculpture he made of a jester...not masterpiece
material mind you, but it would clearly steal the show at a lawn ornament
shop.
After viewing the garbage that has been accepted as "art" I've decided to
call upon my long defunct artistic talent ,not tapped since that "nasty"
picture of my sixth grade math teacher got me into trouble, to become a
wealthy artist! Let me know if I'm imagining things....Maybe I'm a
barbarian and I don't appreciate beautiful art....whats your opine of
Picasso?
Jeffrey Meyer
--
Jeffrey Meyer
De gustibus non est disputandum
"TobusRex" <Wilso...@edu.net> wrote in message
news:kGaB6.443$yh.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
rian
I got a fatal error 6 times in a row. Must say something about the post?
<g>
TobusRex <Wilso...@edu.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
kGaB6.443$yh.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
billv
> I will not reward this with an answer, in trying to approve this message
> I got a fatal error 6 times in a row. Must say something about the post?
> <g>
The moderators are the unsung heros.
> TobusRex <Wilso...@edu.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > After viewing the garbage that has been accepted as
> > "art" I've decided to call upon my long defunct artistic
> > talent ,not tapped since that "nasty" picture of my sixth
> > grade math teacher got me into trouble, to become
> > a wealthy artist!
Imitation is the finest form of flattery. Go for it.
> > Let me know if I'm imagining things....Maybe I'm a
> > barbarian and I don't appreciate beautiful art.
Your autohypnotic suggestion has spilled over and taken root
wherever your words have traveled.
Sisu
timeless, in the sense of creating "beautiful" works, it was in his
willingness and ability to explode artistic and social convention. In
comparison to what came before, he was the first to break so extremely
with the "rules" of art. His doing so, perhaps unfortunately, paved the
way for the modern "art" that is accepted today. I think the majority
of successful modern artists are merely very good marketers, very few
have actual artistic talent in the sense of drawing skill, compositional
acuity, things like that. It's interesting, because I think the current
argument in art is really about what is "beautiful:" the actual piece of
work? or the host of other things that the work >points< to? or the way
in which it points to them? etc.
Sisu
rian
As soon as photography could do real life reproduceing a lot better,
artists were free to pursue other avenues. Picasso first started to
distort his perfect painting, then he made them angular.
He experimented, looked what was pleasing to the eye.
That is it that art should be.
As I am in the Dutch index of proffessional pictural atists(painters,
sculptors and the like) I know a bit about it.
Personally I do not like Picasso much. I like Pollock, Warhol, Kandinsky
etc a lot better.
I specially like pictures and sculptings best when are very minimal and
still show a world within.
I paint constructivistic, and yes sometimes with ruler and math. Ever
saw my variation on y= ax^2 + b?
Or my picture of the rule that says every electron escapes only from a
metal is it receives a full quant of light of a certain frequency?
(I was a child prodigy, but my character dictates that when people laud
me for what I do, I stop doing it, so I am in hiding)
Sisu <nom...@our.house> schreef in berichtnieuws
3AD5C6DA...@our.house...
rian
and the like are very pleasing to my eyes. My students think so too,
adults less. Most of them do not see the rule.
I like opart too. I like drawings that make me dizzy. I like Escher.
rian <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> schreef in berichtnieuws
987095368.5815....@news.demon.nl...
Dave
>I will not reward this with an answer, in trying to approve this message
>I got a fatal error 6 times in a row. Must say something about the post?
><g>
The guy is an obvious troll and having the luxury to do so I killfiled
him some time ago- when he is replied to I see his churlish and
unoriginal attempts to stir things up.
Really, trollubus, can't you at least come up with a new angle on
anti-"modern" art criticism?
That was a far as I could stand to read that rubbish.
-dave
mark lages
had it been presented in a manner more intelligent (well, more clever at
least) than just dropping another hook and bait into the lake.
....Mark
TobusRex
"Sisu" <nom...@our.house> wrote in message
news:3AD5C6DA...@our.house...
> I think you have to look at Picasso in context -- his genius was not
> timeless, in the sense of creating "beautiful" works, it was in his
> willingness and ability to explode artistic and social convention. In
> comparison to what came before, he was the first to break so extremely
> with the "rules" of art. His doing so, perhaps unfortunately, paved the
> way for the modern "art" that is accepted today.
In other words....he got famous for being different, not better? Sadly,
different oftentimes means "worse".
I think the majority
> of successful modern artists are merely very good marketers, very few
> have actual artistic talent in the sense of drawing skill, compositional
> acuity, things like that.
Agreed. As I stated in my above message the modern art section had
"paintings" that looked like pictures my 8 year old niece drew a couple
years ago. Actually it was worse than the pictures my niece drew...at least
with her art you have a vague idea of what it was she was drawing.
> It's interesting, because I think the current
> argument in art is really about what is "beautiful:" the actual piece of
> work? or the host of other things that the work >points< to? or the way
> in which it points to them? etc.
So are you saying that modern art's "beauty" lies in the fact that it makes
real art look better in comparison, thereby making us appreciate real art
more? :)
TobusRex
look at though.
"rian" <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:987098003.7267....@news.demon.nl...
sam ende
to
> look at though.
well maybe then we ought to explore what art is and is not..
does art have to be pretty or pleasing to the senses ?
sammi
Sisu
TobusRex wrote:
>
> > It's interesting, because I think the current
> > argument in art is really about what is "beautiful:" the actual piece of
> > work? or the host of other things that the work >points< to? or the way
> > in which it points to them? etc.
>
> So are you saying that modern art's "beauty" lies in the fact that it makes
> real art look better in comparison, thereby making us appreciate real art
> more? :)
No, I mean that most current works do not take themselves (their
physical form) as their subject -- if that makes any sense... let's see,
how to say it... for instance, a work like Donald Judd's metal box
scupltures -- in and of themselves they have a sort of beauty, but they
inspire the suspicion that they have some meaning beyond simply being
(arguably) beautiful things. I've sat thru enough art history classes
to have heard that classical works had >some< meaning beyond their mere
form, but I'm not convinced that this was the intent of the artist (I
think it's something that has been added by interpretation in later
ages). The classical rule seemed to be "if it isn't beautiful, it isn't
art," and there were well-accepted guidelines for what "beautiful" was
-- it had to be a characteristic of the art object itself, it had to be
a beautiful form or a beautiful image, well composed, well executed,
etc. I think most current work is in the business of challenging that;
that is, the intent of the object is not >first< to exist as a beautiful
thing for the enjoyment of the viewer, the work often rather points to
some other ephemeral thing (like a political situation, a social
injustice, etc.) as it's primary subject, and whether it is beautiful or
not in the process doesn't seem to matter any more. This brings up the
question "of what value is beauty, in and of itself?" If these current
works are performing the required artistic task (which is another
argument entirely -- what is the function of art in our culture?),
without being beautiful, do they deserve the name "art?" And if they do
in fact perform the artistic task successfully, isn't that a kind of
beauty? A beauty of function, or something like that? A very
appropriate musing subject, for our technological age.
billv
> The classical rule seemed to be "if it isn't beautiful, it isn't
> art," and there were well-accepted guidelines for what "beautiful" was
> -- it had to be a characteristic of the art object itself, it had to be
> a beautiful form or a beautiful image, well composed, well executed,
> etc.
To the mentality of the period(s) you're discussing the value of items
was intrinsic. For example, gold had value for its rareness and beauty,
and coined it was artfully executed as well. Replaced by paper, it had
to carry with it (till the relatively recent ugly money issued by the USA)
artful beauty as well.
Every expensive item had to be decorated to lend something to the
image of the object which would make it an item of beauty, thereby
impute another sort of value, despite its real value being purely
functional.
I think automobiles continue to fall into this category while things
like stationary steam machinery and locomotives (through the 1930's)
were designed around an external shell depicting modernistic images
of tremendous speed and power.
I recall that Studebaker, who made a very good automobile, stylized
their automobiles to reflect the age of rocketry. It was a financial
failure. It was a bit much. Studebaker disappeared as a market force.
Meanwhile "grandpaw" was buying Oldsmobile automobiles which
managed to give rise to the image of the rocket age by using minor
decorative flourishes (hood ornament, symbols and logos) while mounting
those atop a recognizable General Motors platform similar in overall
appearance to their mainstay, the Chevrolet. To this they added verbiage
in their names for their cars, the "Rocket 88" and the "Rocket 98" sort
of rolled off the tongue adding to the intrinsic pleasure of owning one.
To me, art is all around us. Art doesn't have to be a separate free-standing
item like a painting or sculpture crying out "here I am--I am art!"
There's always someone nearby who maintains that rapp is an artform.
Next to that, almost everything qualifies. I think I'll go take some
landscape photos of the municipal dump.
sam ende
lovely post. thankyou.
sammi
"Sisu" <nom...@io.com> wrote in message news:3AD70B5E...@io.com...
rian
or intriguing.
or bewildering.
sam ende <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> schreef in berichtnieuws
9b6qgv$9...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
rian
and soft, like terra cotta velvet) and concrte blocks. It is the way
they are assembled. Of course all beauty is in the eye......
The world would be dull if we all had the same tastes.
But people who think modern art is childrens work and cannot see the
beauty in it, just lack imagination.
Sisu <nom...@io.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
3AD70B5E...@io.com...
rian
Malaysia. Lots of rubble, sunken rowboat. raw, but beautiful.
billv <bi...@xnet.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
9b7664$j...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
billv
Taking note of "io.com" I'm glad to see Steve Jackson Games
is alive and well.
For those unaware, Steve Jackson Games was almost destroyed by
an overzealous Chicago based assistant federal prosecutor and Secret
Service agents who seized all of the company's computers and records
because of a suspicion that one employee (Loyd Dean Blankenship)
might be involved in disseminating hacker information.
There was never anything conncting Steve Jackson Games to any
illegal activity. It was a federal witchunt.
Steve Jackson Games was in no way related to any such activities
and eventually got their equipment (and I presume records) back.
In the meantime, as a game publisher, they almost went bankrupt
and had to lay off employees.
As a result of this and other similar conduct, the prosecutor was
eventually squeezed out into private law practice.
dennis curtis
COURSE I can admire and draw like Raphael, now that he lived. I've heard
this sort of thing all my life. Easy pickin's.
Modern art is here. It is for you to decide to allow it's tenets into
your life. Better than black ceramic cats. Or art to match the
furniture.
Actually, Picasso was NOT a nice guy. He was often banned from other
artist's exhibitions since he was notorously known as a taker of ideas.
Other artists feared him. He was voracious.
Picasso was a genius whose accomplishments were overwhelmed and
forgotten
by the sheer bulk of his output. He invented a novel method of casting.
He invented a method of color printing using a single block! He revived
entire towns simply by moving there and starting industries.
regards--dennis
dennis curtis
best Art Academy at 13 years old. I have seen his renderings of his
daughter Paloma. Done in colored chalk, they are as good as any old
master. His copies of Lucas the Elder are amazing.
Lacking good drawing skills, one can still be a good designer,
EG-Octavio Paz, Nikki St-Palli, or Dubuffet.
--dennis
dennis curtis
their day. Modern art had it's birth after the end of the first world
war.
Some of the founders were degreed in philosophy, banking, law, and
mathematics. Tristan Tzara, Matisse,Kokoshka,Mondrian, Kandinsky, Kurt
Schwitters, and truckloads of others started out as something else.
The early art movements were just that, movements that helped shape the
now world as we know it. Designers used their ideas. Philosophers used
their ideas. Politcs used their ideas. Art has ALWAYS had a hand in
shaping culture,whether in the forefront or the background. --dennis
dennis curtis
"looking". Art permits us to view new viewpoints. Art is a flying kiss
my
buttress on the tower of culture. --dennis
TobusRex
"rian" <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:987175473.8920....@news.demon.nl...
TobusRex
way...as I previously stated I saw some of Picasso's early charcoal/pencil
renderings and I clearly admitted he had artistic ability, in fact I believe
I praised his skill. I'm not saying he didn't HAVE talent...I'm saying he
didn't USE his talent. He instead opted for easy money by painting crap.
ALSO..I think it's impossible to be a topnotch architect without true
artistic ability. True, it takes no artistic ability to build a sturdy
building...but to build a BEAUTIFUL sturdy building takes artistic ability.
"dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AD7D5C9...@gte.net...
TobusRex
cannot be recognized as such by it's own merits then it is not "art". I'm
not an enemy of "mod art" for no reason. I like classic/neo-classicism in
art..BUT I can recognize the skill/talent required for works that I don't
particularly like....especially impressionism, which I am not particularly
fond of. Degas (hope I spelled it right) was amazingly skilled....a
brilliant master in painting, sketching and sculpture.....but it's not to my
taste. YET...I can appreciate his genius all the same and willingly admit he
WAS a genius. THAT is art.....a random glueing of elephant shit to a
posterboard I would NEVER call art. YET that random glueing of elephant shit
is considered "art" by some people's definitions. I have to wonder..would
they consider me shitting on their lawns "art" as well? I realize I started
this whole argument with the name of "Picasso"..but doesn't this thread seem
to have degenerated to a broad discussion of Modern Art/Abstract art?
It's not real hard to cultivate a sense of taste and to realize
which is really art and which is crap, after all I'm merely a country boy
with a love of beauty (which is why I can tolerate the
impressionists....they did paint quite beautiful works), and I'm AMAZED that
people in this NG would defend a BULLSHIT "art" such as abstract art. What I
find amazing is that people would defend something as ridiculous as "modern
art" when they probably demonstrated a higher understanding of art while in
the second grade.
"dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AD7D76A...@gte.net...
TobusRex
and calling it the "shit of the day" and posting it on the internet...and
have actually posted the pictures along with a description of what I ate the
day before...fortunately I had no hits before I took those pics off...BUT.
.......is that art?? If you consider "modern art" to be art..then surely my
stool is a masterpiece. Frankly I'll be AMAZED if this makes it past the
censors in this NG.
"sam ende" <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9b6qgv$9...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
TobusRex
"dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AD7D3F6...@gte.net...
Jeffrey Meyer
Isn't art, all art, a manifestation of emotion, be it joy, anger,
melancholia, quiet introspection, love, hate, which can exist in a form that
involves any or all of the senses?
--
Jeffrey Meyer
De gustibus non est disputandum
"sam ende" <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9b6qgv$9...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
>
sam ende
"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
> but you already do that with your words.
<BG>, lovely :)
sammi
Edward Kitto
Art for Art's sake
Money, for God's sake!
-10CC
Penny55113
Right. Picasso was the worlds best draftsman by the age of ten.
best
penny
>they FIRST are good drawers.
>I like Pollock
I adore Kandinsky, Warhol is ok ( I knew him), I really dislike Pollack.
>(I was a child prodigy, but my character dictates that when people
laud
>me for what I do, I stop doing it, so I am in hiding)
Been there done that. There ought to be a God of mercy for child prodigies and
former child prodigies.
best
penny
>As I am in the Dutch index of proffessional pictural atists(painters,
>sculptors and the like
Hurray for Rian--my friend.
Penny55113
A very talented artist ( cubism alone says that --though I prefer his
colleague B.)
A man who abused and battered women over and over again.
A jerk
best
penny
dennis curtis
your admittance of Picasso being a worthy draftsman. Thats a given.
I am answering your teaser about Picasso being a genius, which you
did not at all address. How about now?--dennis
dennis curtis
it than you ever will. Perhaps your niece can copy it?
dennis
Tracy Yucikas
>
> Whats your opinion of Picasso? I think his work, well, SUCKS!!! His "art"
> looks like stuff that my niece was bringing back from first and second
grade
> art classes years ago. I believe "modern art" is an attempt by wannabe
> intellectuals to pretend to appreciate art, when in reality they probably
> appreciate fine art as much as a gorilla appreciates a Rolls Royce.
Picasso
>
istic talent ,not tapped since that "nasty"
> picture of my sixth grade math teacher got me into trouble, to become a
> wealthy artist! Let me know if I'm imagining things....Maybe I'm a
> barbarian and I don't appreciate beautiful art....whats your opine of
> Picasso?
>
it ain't as easy as it looks from the outside. I've heard
it said that a person of great ability makes "it" look easy.
There's more to art than its creation; there is also the
feat of "selling" it ... or finding a wealthy benefactor.
but that's also true in science and technology (who is
both a tecjnologist AND a venture capitalist? ... and
writing of grant-proposals and geeeeze, NObody
lives in an ivory tower ... there is always the need for
eating)
my opine on Picasso ? "successful" <details left for actuaries>
tracy
(his art ? ... "ok", but not what I'd buy to put in my living room)
>
>
billv
> (his art ? ... "ok", but not what I'd buy to put in my living room)
In my living room the contrast might be attractive in its own right.
Tracy Yucikas
> or intriguing.
> or bewildering.
>
or captures your attention ...
rian
billv <bi...@xnet.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
9bcnhr$t...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Tracy Yucikas
which might be a testament to how much he influenced art,
but I'd have to buy an insurance policy
"rian" <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:987374605.5359....@news.demon.nl...
dennis curtis
enough money left over to build it around the paintings, as it should
be,instead of the other way round.
My living room, My furniture, my dishware, my garage even, would be
built around and predicated on the ART! Get it straight people! The
art comes first, then the architecture, then the design, then the
little things. Art is a main endeavor.
regards--dennis
PSmith9626
i love a man who has his head on straight.
best
penny
TobusRex
but I think you may be giving more credit than is due to modern art.
I'm an old timer though...I believe art should be beautiful...and if
not beautiful it should be touching in another way. Modern/Abstract art
doesn't do that for me. All I can do when confronted with modern art is
laugh and guffaw what a moron any person is who buys it. Frankly, and I'm
sure some folks will find it offensive and feel compelled to attack me, but
I think modern art is something saps buy to "prove they have taste in art".
True, IQ and taste aren't irrevocably cojoined...but I have a hard time
thinking high IQ people would swallow this tripe, although some apparently
buy into it. I think it's a very sad statement of lack of taste.
TobusRex
look at the underside of a spoiled piece of roast beef you'll see a rainbow
of colors. The trick is....in art you shouldn't HAVE to struggle to see the
beauty.
"rian" <ri...@infocom.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:987175474.8920....@news.demon.nl...
> But there is beauty in metal boxes, rusty iron plates (they look so nice
> and soft, like terra cotta velvet) and concrte blocks. It is the way
> they are assembled. Of course all beauty is in the eye......
> The world would be dull if we all had the same tastes.
> But people who think modern art is childrens work and cannot see the
> beauty in it, just lack imagination.
>
> Sisu <nom...@io.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
> 3AD70B5E...@io.com...
> >
> >
> > TobusRex wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's interesting, because I think the current
> > > > argument in art is really about what is "beautiful:" the actual
> piece of
> > > > work? or the host of other things that the work >points< to? or
> the way
> > > > in which it points to them? etc.
> > >
> > > So are you saying that modern art's "beauty" lies in the fact that
> it makes
> > > real art look better in comparison, thereby making us appreciate
> real art
> > > more? :)
> >
> > No, I mean that most current works do not take themselves (their
> > physical form) as their subject -- if that makes any sense... let's
> see,
> > how to say it... for instance, a work like Donald Judd's metal box
> > scupltures -- in and of themselves they have a sort of beauty, but
> they
> > inspire the suspicion that they have some meaning beyond simply being
> > (arguably) beautiful things. I've sat thru enough art history classes
> > to have heard that classical works had >some< meaning beyond their
> mere
> > form, but I'm not convinced that this was the intent of the artist (I
> > think it's something that has been added by interpretation in later
> > ages). The classical rule seemed to be "if it isn't beautiful, it
> isn't
> > art," and there were well-accepted guidelines for what "beautiful" was
> > -- it had to be a characteristic of the art object itself, it had to
> be
> > a beautiful form or a beautiful image, well composed, well executed,
> > etc. I think most current work is in the business of challenging
> that;
> > that is, the intent of the object is not >first< to exist as a
> beautiful
> > thing for the enjoyment of the viewer, the work often rather points to
> > some other ephemeral thing (like a political situation, a social
> > injustice, etc.) as it's primary subject, and whether it is beautiful
> or
> > not in the process doesn't seem to matter any more. This brings up
> the
> > question "of what value is beauty, in and of itself?" If these
> current
> > works are performing the required artistic task (which is another
> > argument entirely -- what is the function of art in our culture?),
> > without being beautiful, do they deserve the name "art?" And if they
> do
> > in fact perform the artistic task successfully, isn't that a kind of
> > beauty? A beauty of function, or something like that? A very
> > appropriate musing subject, for our technological age.
> >
>
dennis curtis
begin.....
Much of any art is forgotten. it is left to critics to revive or
reduce
art as the tastes of generations influence the day. It was an obscure
Frence critic who revived Vermeer, after 300 years. Now his work is
priceless. Or the critic who spent his life championing Pollack. Or the
critic who spent his life championing Mondrian. My favorite is
P.T.Swillens,
an art histiorian from Yale, who spent 30 years trying to figure out
Vermeer
and admittedly failed.
Art no more equals artificial than does Mathematics equal matriarchy.
Is your niece famous? After all, she can do as well as Picasso, no?
In my humble opinion, art is a basic instinct, a thrust of humanity,
a goal, a dream spent pursuit, a key passion. Some of these
manifestations
fail totally, while others elevate mankind to a place never before
visited.
You may dismiss certain movements or tides, but Art will nevertheless
enfold you and sweep you along, with or without your understanding. You
have no choice in the matter.
regards--dennis
rian
TobusRex <Wilso...@edu.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
svUB6.7512$Pj2.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>I think it's a very sad statement of lack of taste.
>
>
Dave
>Get it straight people! The
>art comes first, then the architecture, then the design, then the
>little things. Art is a main endeavor.
> regards--dennis
Frank Lloyd Wright understood this.
"Architects may come and architects may go and
never change your point of view. . .
When I run dry,
I stop awhile and think of you. . .
So long, Frank Lloyd Wright, all of the nights we harmonized 'til
dawn. . .
I never laughed so long, so long. . .
so long, so long. . . . "
-P.Simon
~87)
dave
rian
for he is Dutch of course.
And what is to figure out. The guy painted what he saw. A photographer
when there were ni cameras. Not even worth to look at the exhibition.
And certainly not for the price and the lanes. Besides, tomorrow I go to
Amsterdam, if I want to I can go with my museumcard for free see all
those masters at the Rijksmuseum.
I prefer the Stedelijk with the modern art (not the van Gogh mind you, I
do not like impressionism)
Just a good craftsman.
dennis curtis <curt...@gte.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
3AD957D6...@gte.net...
Catharine Cramer
> Just a good craftsman.
As someone who cannot paint what she sees, people who can paint
photographically strike me as miracle makers.
I had an art teacher teach me how to construct a cubist painting once, and
that really demystified Picasso for me.
I like a lot of abstract art, sometimes for nothing else than I like the
way the colors look together. It may not be an informed way to look at it,
but it's my way.
Give me a good craftsman any day. I think before one attempts art one
should have the craft (or techniques, or whatever) under one's belt. My
tragedy is that I am very good at the crafty-type things but I can't draw a
straight line to save my life.
--
Aloha,
Catharine
Emotions exist to provide alibis for inexcusable behavior.
-- Sunny the Parakeet, "Frisco Pigeon Mambo"
CRxx
rian heeft geschreven in bericht
<987435320.29349....@news.demon.nl>...
>Utter nonsense. vermeer was always a household word in the Netehrlands,
>for he is Dutch of course.
>And what is to figure out. The guy painted what he saw. A photographer
>when there were ni cameras. Not even worth to look at the exhibition.
I would urge you to take a closer look. Like all painters from those days,
his paintings are dripping with symbolism. To get all the symbols from a
single painting, one may actually spend some serious time.
Christine!
PS My favourite old dutch master is Frans Hals. Of course he is from Haarlem
;-)
CRxx
TobusRex heeft geschreven in bericht ...
>impressionists....they did paint quite beautiful works), and I'm AMAZED
that
>people in this NG would defend a BULLSHIT "art" such as abstract art. What
I
>find amazing is that people would defend something as ridiculous as "modern
>art" when they probably demonstrated a higher understanding of art while in
>the second grade.
I do agree up to a point. Lots of people claim to understand modern art, but
in reality nobody really does.
In Holland we have an excentric artist called Anton Heyboer. His paintings
were sold for amounts of money he thought ridiculous. So he painted another
1000 paintings and sold them for 2.5 dutch guilders door to door.
I would call that act art.
Christine!
mark lages
rather than using such a pointlessly broad brush? Pick one that is highly
thought of by the art world and see what others here have to say about it.
That might be more interesting than simply referring to all modern art as
being crap.
Who knows -- someone here might even change your mind! 8^)
....Mark
sam ende
the mona lisa.
sammi
"mark lages" <m.l...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:L2KC6.23883$IJ1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Catharine Cramer
> ok, i know it's not adressed to me, but i can't see what's so great about
> the mona lisa.
I love the landscape in the background.
Tracy Yucikas
> Had I a single work of Picasso, I could buy a damn house and have
> enough money left over to build it around the paintings, as it should
> be,instead of the other way round.
> My living room, My furniture, my dishware, my garage even, would be
> built around and predicated on the ART! Get it straight people! The
> art comes first, then the architecture, then the design, then the
hmmm, now when an artist creates a piece, what happenes to the artist's
studio?
maybe to the mind of the artist, the piece contains itself .. and generates
a force
to surround itself as you envision.
"IT'S ALIVE !!!!"
... and spawning geneticaly-related look-alikes in art's sublime time-stream
mumbling and shrieking down the riverbeds of the pre-conscious dawn ....
rian
Catharine Cramer <cat...@spamcop.net> schreef in berichtnieuws
20010416195817.988$d...@newsreader.com...
Jeffrey Meyer
--
Jeffrey Meyer
De gustibus non est disputandum
"sam ende" <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9bfsb5$a...@chicago.us.mensa.org...
Jim DeClercq
X-Newsreader: NEWSie Version 0.96 (Atari)
On 15 Apr 2001 03:12:24 , dennis curtis wrote:
> So I used the English spelling-- OK, Draftsman. I am not arguing about
>your admittance of Picasso being a worthy draftsman. Thats a given.
> I am answering your teaser about Picasso being a genius, which you
>did not at all address. How about now?--dennis
>
>TobusRex wrote:
>>
>> Strange..when you mention "draughtsman" I think of checkers players. By the
>> way...as I previously stated I saw some of Picasso's early charcoal/pencil
>> renderings and I clearly admitted he had artistic ability, in fact I believe
>> I praised his skill. I'm not saying he didn't HAVE talent...I'm saying he
>> didn't USE his talent. He instead opted for easy money by painting crap.
>> ALSO..I think it's impossible to be a topnotch architect without true
>> artistic ability. True, it takes no artistic ability to build a sturdy
>> building...but to build a BEAUTIFUL sturdy building takes artistic ability.
In the Toledo Museam of Art, Toledo Ohio, there is a vase. It has been
said that there is a hip-waist ratio on a female torso that is most
pleasing to men. Whatever that is, that vase has upper and lower diameters
in that ratio, and is decorated with illustrations of that part of a
female torso.
That vase was made by Picasso, and I think it is art. This debate
reminds me of the blind men inspecting an elephant.
There is also, there, a chair by Bugatti, who everyone knows only
designed car bodies.
--
/"\ Jim DeClercq...@mindspring.com--Sylvania, Ohio, USA
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! |
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature|
/ \ and postings | to help me spread! |
sam ende
it seems he painted it over in some places, changed things and it's a little
mismatched ?-there are shadows where there should be none.
sammi
"Catharine Cramer" <cat...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:20010416195817.988$d...@newsreader.com...
sam ende
"Jeffrey Meyer" <mer...@icon.co.za> wrote in message
> Two things - the enigmatic smile,
sniff. must be me then. i think she just looks smug.
and the mystery surrounding her identity.
should be irrelevant in a piece of art.
sammi
rian
Jim DeClercq <jim...@mindspring.com> schreef in berichtnieuws
9bgbt1$t6j$2...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
Michael Cargal
<9bgbt1$t6j$2...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>:
>It has been
>said that there is a hip-waist ratio on a female torso that is most
>pleasing to men. W
1 to .85
--
Michael Cargal
mhca...@home.com
Tracy Yucikas
>
> and the mystery surrounding her identity.
> should be irrelevant in a piece of art.
haven't a lot of knowledgeable folkl said that M Lisa
was just Leonardo himself painted as woman?
(and his assistants
are usually given credit for painting
the background)
tracy
Jeffrey Meyer
--
Jeffrey Meyer
De gustibus non est disputandum
"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-A91276...@news.newsguy.com...
> In article <DVTB6.7486$Pj2.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> "TobusRex" <Wilso...@edu.net> wrote:
>
> > I've toyed with the idea of taking a daily picture of my "stool
specimens"
> > and calling it the "shit of the day" and posting it on the internet
>
> but you already do that with your words.
>
> --
> We're not human beings having a spiritua experience.
> We're spiritual beings having a human experience.
>
sam ende
"Tracy Yucikas" <tyuc...@cts.com> wrote in message
> haven't a lot of knowledgeable folkl said that M Lisa
> was just Leonardo himself painted as woman?
i don't know. i think art should be a stand-alone expression and if it needs
opinions from lots of knowledgable folks, then, somehow it's failed. i do
think it really is irrelevant who the subject was, and also it's irrelevant
who the artist was.
takr hursts' formaldyhyde (sp?) cows. i think that's art. it is a
stand-alone expression. it has impact, i doubt there are many people who
have looked at it without forming an opinion.
sammi
Tracy Yucikas
"sam ende" <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
> i don't know. i think art should be a stand-alone expression and if it
needs
> opinions from lots of knowledgable folks, then, somehow it's failed. i do
> think it really is irrelevant who the subject was, and also it's
irrelevant
> who the artist was.
>
fair statement, but doesn't really good art make people want to
know more about it ... and how it was created and who did it ..
and what was going on in the artist's life at te time?/
and this desire to "know more" doesn't really detract from the art
(so it seems to me) .. and people being what they are, they WILL
learn. Maybe it requires a certain "sturdiness" of art to survive
the immmersion into the thought-stream of humanity's participatory
urges ... but the existence of opinion and commentary about
art isn't the same as "needs opinions "
tracy
sam ende
>
> "sam ende" <s...@sende.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
>
> >
> > i don't know. i think art should be a stand-alone expression and if it
> needs
> > opinions from lots of knowledgable folks, then, somehow it's failed. i
do
> > think it really is irrelevant who the subject was, and also it's
> irrelevant
> > who the artist was.
> >
> fair statement, but doesn't really good art make people want to
> know more about it ... and how it was created and who did it ..
> and what was going on in the artist's life at te time?/
probably, but for me it's more what the actual arwork induces in me. the
mona lisa doesn't do much for me but the formaldyhyde cow did, in that it
made me think, among other things (lots of thoughts) that how hypocritical
society is to be outraged at a displayed dead cow. they were outraged at
allsorts of things; that it isn't art, that it was inhuman eh blah blah, and
i thought, yes it is art, for it depicts exactly what we do to animals, but
the majority don't want to know about it. and then there's the question of
if art should be political or not and i don't see a) why not and b) that we
can't always seperate the two and c) that art with political statements
doesn't always demish the art--example picassos spanish war thing which for
the life of me i can't remember what it's called.
> and this desire to "know more" doesn't really detract from the art
> (so it seems to me) .. and people being what they are, they WILL
> learn.
that though has really not much to do with the piece itself--though then
again, nothing is without context really.
Maybe it requires a certain "sturdiness" of art to survive
> the immmersion into the thought-stream of humanity's participatory
> urges ... but the existence of opinion and commentary about
> art isn't the same as "needs opinions "
i have totally forgotten now why i used 'needs opinions', but i'm sure there
was a good reason <G>
sammi
dennis curtis
a few things that has been said to me, I do very mch appreciate the
compliment.
Best--dennis
PSmith9626 wrote:
>
> dear dennis,
> i love a man who has his head on straight.
> best
> penny
>
> >Get it straight people! The
> >art comes first, then the architecture, then the design, then the
dennis curtis
however, I would NEVER attack anyone for their Likes or dislikes of
modern art or any other like or dislike. What I WOULD prefer to do is
to discover what it is that is disliked about my field and attempt to
exchange views about it. Same with any field, no?
There is a good deal of thinking and emotion that has gone into the
formation of so called modern art. Much of it was simple rebellion.
Much of it was counter insurgency against politics and the
war-mongering
mentality cultured from the 1800's leading to the disastrous first world
war. That was when they fisrt started saying, "if they want a war, let
THEM fight it." Meaning the drivers of our lives, the politicians, who
always seem to come out ahead.
Art then was created in order to confuse, it was MEANT to confuse, to
confound to make people scratch their heads and look again. They wanted
their personal lives back.
Some of the art critics got it wrong in their enthusiasm.
Even now, much of art is Rebublican in it's shyness, it's conservatism,
it's standardisation.
Art has a way of being dangerous. a way of affecting people to higher
emotions or even feeling them at all where politics would prefer apathy!
One makes a very serious mistake in underestimating art and it's power
to direct human emotion and corral and direct attributes.
So you have seen some excreble art. So What? It did not make you blind,
only less willing to see more, no? It will not go away.
Some art makes you think, some art makes you meditative, which is a
way of not thinking. Let's face it, some art is pretty godamn BAD! This
too makes you think. There are bad movies, bad science, bad everything,
and....?
BTW, I am NOT a VERY intelligent person, just an intelligent person,
but thanks anyway. I do want as many people as possible to see the
overall
current of art's desire. Bring a bathing suit.--regards--dennis
TobusRex wrote:
>
> I enjoyed your response. You are a very intelligent and thoughtful person
> but I think you may be giving more credit than is due to modern art.
>
> I'm an old timer though...I believe art should be beautiful...and if
> not beautiful it should be touching in another way. Modern/Abstract art
> doesn't do that for me. All I can do when confronted with modern art is
> laugh and guffaw what a moron any person is who buys it. Frankly, and I'm
> sure some folks will find it offensive and feel compelled to attack me, but
> I think modern art is something saps buy to "prove they have taste in art".
> True, IQ and taste aren't irrevocably cojoined...but I have a hard time
> thinking high IQ people would swallow this tripe, although some apparently
> buy into it. I think it's a very sad statement of lack of taste.
Tom Spillman
art scene. When art was no longer necessary to show how things looked
because of the invention of the various forms of photography, the art scene
began looking around to find a niche. Photography began making an impact
around 1865 which was about the time the French impressionists began
working. They were, of course, followed by the Fauves (the "wild beasts"),
the cubists, the surrealists, the Dada movement, the abstract
expressionists, "Op" art, the magic realists, etc., etc. I'm sure I left
out a movement or two but this gives the idea. There were two seminal shows
that affected the current art scene, the Salon de Refuseés in Paris and the
Armory show in New York. They established the idea of the artist as rebel
or iconoclast.
I have enjoyed working in both painting and photography. I studied painting
at the Art Students League in New York in the 60's when the New York School
of painting was fashionable. I was not nor will I ever be a "good" painter,
but I enjoy it. However, art criticism is fascinating to me. I won a prize
at a local art show while we were living in New York (nothing big, it was
just a regional club show). However, it was juried and judged by an art
critic for one of the New York City papers. We had a special showing for
the exhibitors the night before the show opened. It was fascinating
standing in front of <my> painting listening to the critic expound on what
the artist had in mind and what the artist's intents were. Absolutely
fascinating!
FWIW, I have only one rule about art: if <you> like it, buy it! I might
enjoy a Franz Kline (one of the few abstract expressionists I like), while
you may like Andy Warhol's Campbell soup can or silk screened Marilyn's. Or
Elvis on black velvet... IMNSHO, art is in the eye of the beholder. For
me, art that is intended to irritate, make a political statement, or be
obtuse, will probably never be in my home. I have no intent to buy a vacuum
cleaner on a pedestal, regardless of the number of critics that praise it.
YMMV and de gustibus...
Tom
"dennis curtis" <curt...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3AE90643...@gte.net...
dennis curtis
obscura was invented and evidence exists that he used this camera to
paint with. There are no "underpaintings" in a Vermeer. IOW, there is
only paint, no drawing, no prep work save for the usual canvas prep, no
outline, no layouts,no lines, no charcoal. I refer you to P.T.A.
Swillins. Vermeer was not a household world outside of the Netherlands
for the time I mentioned. Easy to assert he is not a household word even
now in the U.S.
After all, this is America, land of the free and nearly literate. -dc
TobusRex
"Tom Spillman" <tspi...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7AfG6.36821$RF1.3...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I think that there is a lot of the "emperor's new clothes" in the current
> art scene. When art was no longer necessary to show how things looked
> because of the invention of the various forms of photography, the art
scene
> began looking around to find a niche. "
I find that very interesting. I was at a museum in Pasadena recently (Norton
Simon) and there was a very large exhibit of nothing but paintings of
tulips. In the days before photography, as you stated, artists were hired to
paint likenesses of products. The customer would then have a reference as to
the product he/she wanted and what it looked like (well in advance of
delivery). The tulips were of course masterfully rendered and looked like,
well, photos. I was surprised to learn that all the paintings in that part
of the gallery were from a salesbook that was toted around by tulip
salesmen!!