Re: Ruminations on Whistler's Mother Rooney Disses Modern Art on 60 Minutes
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Electric Nachos wrote:
> just....@gmail.com wrote in message
> <1104729206.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> >Good for him, ive seen some of this shite. When I was in Dallas the
> >Dallas Museum of Art had this giant rope at an angle from the
ceiling
> >to floor, just a giant rope. Am i supposed to feel as though im
> >ignorant because i do not find some deep meaning in a giant rope?
>
> Take care to acknowledge that many have the same reaction to
portraits
> and/or still life subjects. Surely you can admit that the fascination
over
> Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is beyond comprehension??
Not at all. It remains a fascinating painting.
>
> >shouldnt art be
> >something that people in general can relate to?
>
> This is a question to be answered through the artwork that YOU
produce.
> >shouldnt people be able
> >to walk by it and stop and feel something stir within from their
past?
>
> Again, this is a question to be answered through the artwork that YOU
> produce.
>
> >what of a giant rope or metal slab is there to relate to?
>
> More than likely, nothing more than there is to relate to "Whistler's
> Mother" (esp. for BLACK FOLKS!!!!)
>
> Not to imply any racial undertones or anything but really!! What the
fuck is
> a black woman (such as myself) supposed to trip off a white woman in
a
> rocking chair for?!
I don't think it is a matter of race. In
fact, in my view "Whistler's Mother" is
a rather boring, much overvalued work of
art. Though Whister was an artist of
immense talent, I much prefer other works
by him, such as "Old Battersea Bridge."
[By the way, do any of our English readers
know if the Old Battersea Bridge is still
in use?]
Further, I totally agree that many artists
contemporary with Whistler were doing far
more interesting things when he painted the
popular picture of his mother. Of course,
there is much in 19th century realism I
do care for. After the great Romantic/Realist
Hudson River School, I think the most captivating
realistic work was done by U. S. artists
generally considered illustrators -- though
they were often also fine art painters -- such
as Frederick Remington. I'll take "Wolf in
the Moonlight" or "Evening on a Canadian
Lake" over "Whistler's Mother" any day --
unless I am in need of a soporific. (Though
the latter two paintings did come a couple
of generations later than "Whistler's Mother.")
>
> I'm going to repeat that I am NOT implying racial undertones -
You may not be "implying them," but you
are certainly interjecting them. By
way of contrast, I would argue that
Donald Rollar Wilson's great portrait
of (I may have the title wrong, because
I don't have the picture in front of me)
-- is it "Betty" -- the intriguing figure
sitting in a chair singing at a pickle
which is floating by in the air -- is
a far more challenging picture than
"Whistler's Mother," but this really
has nothing at all to do with the human/
animal race of the respective human
figures in the two pictures. Wilson's
wonderful portrait of Betty has the
humor, the mystery, and the general
fascination with humanity which
Whistler's famous work lacks. for
all its sentimentality, or, perhaps
I should say, BECAUSE of its
sentimentality, which you don't
find in Wilson's charming portrait
of Betty.
for my
> subject matter is interracial, my marriage is interracial, my kids
are
> interracial, and probably those damn dogs of mine are interracial
too!
Well, it seems to me you are thinking in
a very shallow way when you talk about
"a white woman in a rocking chair." That
sounds like something one would expect
to hear in a puerile, cheesy sitcom. Get
over it and grow. Take off those racial
horse-blinkers you are wearing.
>
> But uh,... since you asked the question of "relating" to something -
as you
> can see, there ain't a damn thing about that old woman that I can
"relate"
> to. And it's supposedly "good art."
Of course "Whistler's Mother" is good art.
But I repeat that I will agree it has been
over-valued, apparently for sentimental
reasons relating to the age when it was
painted, and I maintain that other Whistler
paintings are far more interesting.
>
> >unless your a
> >pretentious philosopher. bullocks ... a friend told me of a visit
to a
> >museum in france were they laid bricks in a row, lol hysterical,
this
> >is art? so fucking rediculous, im no expert but bricks? metal
slabs?
> >im rambling now.
In Usenet, that's nothing to apologize
for. We all ramble a bit now and then.
>
> So am I. My apologies. I'm hungry.
You need to laarn more about art. You
come off as shallow and sophomoric.
[By the way, as to the original article,
while I agree with Rooney somewhat, I
fail to see how his opinions should
have much import in an art group. He
is no art expert, and basically does
little more than echo the opinion of
the Average Joe about modern art --
though the fact remains that the Average
Joe is often right about a lot of things.
Frankly I too am weary of some of the
detestable rubbish which is pawned off as
art these days. Yet, I have to wonder
how Rooney would view the work of authentic
artists such as Flack and Cottingham...
Basically he's just a non-art person
calling a junk heap a junk heap, yet
only someone with no appreciation of
art would write such an article without
saying who he thinks is doing real art
these days...One has to assume he has
never troubled himself to find out.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2005 21:25:11 -0800, palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
> >[By the way, as to the original article,
> >while I agree with Rooney somewhat, I
> >fail to see how his opinions should
> >have much import in an art group. He
> >is no art expert, and basically does
> >little more than echo the opinion of
> >the Average Joe about modern art --
>
> Does one have to be an expert to dis what one doesn't like?
No, but my point was that Rooney
didn't really say anything that
Archie Bunker, were he still around,
would not have said just as -- or
perhaps more -- "eloquently."
While I basically agreed with
Rooney in many respects, I did not
feel he had said anything new or
original. After all -- he is getting
paid a ton of money to say things, so
he should try to do more than publicly
chew his cud. It's unseemly.
>
> >though the fact remains that the Average
> >Joe is often right about a lot of things.
> >Frankly I too am weary of some of the
> >detestable rubbish which is pawned off as
> >art these days.
>
> Are you an expert?
That depends on what you mean. While
I don't claim to have any scholarly
credentials in art, I have at least
spent considerable time in a number
of great museums and have read many
books on art. So, while that does
not make me an expert, it has given
me a respect for art which requires
that if I want to publicly attack some
trends in art, I should show my sincere
art appreciation by coming up with
the names of a couple of trend-bucking
artists who are worthy of positive
mention in the same article.
>
>
> > Yet, I have to wonder
> >how Rooney would view the work of authentic
> >artists such as Flack and Cottingham...
> >Basically he's just a non-art person
>calling a junk heap a junk heap but what
> >only someone with no appreciation of
> >art would write such an article without
> >saying who he thinks is doing real art
> >these days..
>
> Because he simply addressed what he didn't like.
>
> >.One has to assume he has
> >never troubled himself to find out.
> >
> How do you know?
Because if Rooney had a genuine feeling
for art he would be inspired to praise a
few artists who are not part of the trend
he deplores. Frankly, I doubt if Rooney
has heard of either Cottingham or Flack,
and I am not sure he would appreciate
their work any more than the work of
those he is grumbling about.
I strongly suspect Rooney for the sort
of "art critic" who thinks real artists
should be doing pictures like the chap
who painted the poker-playing doggies...
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
Looney
he plays for Satan.
--
Looney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rant of the Loon
http://looneytoohey.blogspot.com/
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
electric Nachos wrote:
> palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
> <1104904776....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>
> >There is
> >nothing at all wrong with attacking
> >an over-blown art icon like "Whistler's
> >Mother," -- but you are doing so for
> >the wrong reasons.
>
> You must have balls as big as the largest tomato in Texas to TELL ME
that
> **I** don't like something for the **wrong** reasons!! LMAO
>
> Damn, you and Keith would make purrrrrrfect bedfellows!
>
> >I think you
> >would learn more about art if you
> >you went back and studied "Whistler's
> >Mother" again and asked yourself --
> >"Leaving race out, what is it that
> >I don't like about this painting?"
>
> I'm not into OLD WOMEN SITTING IN ROCKING CHAIRS & STARING IN TO
SPACE WHILE
> WAITING TO DIE. The bitch is depressed, overly-dressed, and probably
boring
> as hell to talk to. She looks about as flavorful as the bland-assed
bisquits
> she baked. So overall, I'd say she's rather skank.
>
> Any more dumb questions???
Now let's step back for a minute here and see
if we can't let common sense prevail. Frankly,
I think it was a mistake to interject race into
this discussion in the first place. That sort of
thing is far more indicative of a person's personal
hang-ups than anything else.
As far as Whistler's famous portait of his
mother, the ironic thing is that it is one of
the artist's least interesting pictures, though
by far his best known. I have already mentioned
his "Old Battersea Bridge," which is well worth
your taking a look at for both your enjoyment
and your edification. A couple of other Whistlers
(of the many very worthy of careful study) are
"The Lagoon, Venice," a nocturne of 1789-80,
and a daylight "A Venetian Canal," 1879-80 also.
Frankly, a person would likely have to be a
veritable clod not to thrill to those works.
As far as teaching art effectively, yes, I will
agree that a good way to turn most students
off regarding Whistler would be to show them
ONLY "Whistler's Mother," rather than some of
the artist's awe-inspiring land- and city-scapes.
Turning for a moment to Realism with a
capital "R", I am not in general a big fan.
The Hudson River School artists awe and
inspire me, but they are generally considered
Romanticists rather than Realists. Even
so, something that intrigues me involves
the point where the romantic and real
seem to meet, as in Winslow Homer's "Gulf
Stream," which is arguably both a work
of great realism and yet one which contains
many powerful elements of romanticism.
Anyway, we should all remember that the
best of Usenet is about minds not about
races as we continue to explore and
discuss many fascinating topics
relating to the fine arts.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
gekko
i read misc.writing, where i found "Looney"
<ant...@thetooheyshatespam.com> saying:
> Rooney's a damn powerful footballer even though he's still a kid.
> Too bad he plays for Satan.
If you were gay, and he were gay, and you two moved to Boston, then
you could get married, and then you'd be Looney Rooney innit.
--
gekko
Religion hinges upon faith, politics hinges upon who can tell the
most convincing lies or maybe just shout the loudest, but science
hinges upon whether its conclusions resemble what actually happens. -
Ian Stewart (1945-)
Steve Pritchard
news:2s_Cd.7570$yV1....@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Rooney's a damn powerful footballer even though he's still a kid. Too bad
> he plays for Satan.
Sometimes plays. Sometimes ambles around.
Though, to be fair, those around him aren't exactly pulling up trees this
season (damn them!)
Looney
"Steve Pritchard" <Steve_P...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:343d8kF...@individual.net...
They're a monster bunch who forgot to suit up. Underachievers of the Year.
In stark contrast to Everton, ironically :-)
Steve Pritchard
>> season (damn them!)
>
> They're a monster bunch who forgot to suit up. Underachievers of the
> Year.
>
> In stark contrast to Everton, ironically :-)
Yes, thanks for reminding me. Now, why not give me a paper cut and pour
lemon juice in it?
Looney
Heh, if I wanted to do that, I would remind you that Arsenal still has a
shot at the Premiership :-)
Now it could be worse. You could be N'castle fan... or Leeds Utd. fan, like
our dear Zen...
Careful, I think he's still sensitive about that one :-)