Packson Wallop
Mike Stengl
he's still spawning conversation, argument and debate about his work
on into the 21st century?! I wouldn't mind be that crummy of an
artist...Yeah, he couldn't draw. Yeah, his paintings are falling apart
every time they get moved. He still did it. He made a 'splash'. Seems
to be a matter of time and place, a healthy helping of preserverence
and ego (I've got one), and the luck of the draw. If dude didn't do
it, someone else would have. It had to be done, it was the next step.
But now, as artists and wannabes, we have the choice to do anything we
want, on canvas, paper, wood, video; any subject, any style, any color
or combination there of we can do it. Only limitations are our
imaginations, our skills and perhaps our preserverence and fortitude
of ego. It's a pretty good place to be. Better than painting biblical
stories or if your lucky, the King and all his inbred realatives...
unless that's your thing.
Another interesting thread might be: Complete Artistic Freedom, you
got it, how do you deal with it? Not just the horror of the blank
canvas, that's not MY problem, but say, half way though sketching out
or blocking in a painting and the possibilities begin to make one
dizzy. Should I go monochromatic ala Picasso's 'blue period'? (An easy
way out I might add, but does it satisfy? What about proportions, how
far to push things? Like a camera, do I zoom in or pan back? How dark
or brightly lit should I make it? What to obscure, what to emphasize?
Thank Ghod the canvas ends if I go too far in any one direction...
Seagull Manager
"Mike Stengl" <eatn...@humboldt1.com> wrote in message
news:45dd5dd.03060...@posting.google.com...
> Hey. This dead drunk drippy guy has been gone for what, 50 years? And
> he's still spawning conversation, argument and debate about his work
> on into the 21st century?! I wouldn't mind be that crummy of an
> artist...
Yeah, Hitler gets discussed nearly sixty years after his death - wouldn't
mind being that crummy a statesman.Or, on second thought...
> the luck of the draw.
I'd rather earn a decent living doing decent work than rely on the lottery
for my next meal, thanks.
> It had to be done, it was the next step.
Step to where? The problem with the notion of an artistic "avant-garde" is
that unlike military scouts, artists ain't got nowhere they just have to go.
> Better than painting biblical
> stories or if your lucky, the King and all his inbred realatives...
> unless that's your thing.
I guess. Probably would be my thing, if I were born back then. Like most
people, I'd probably have been very religious. As for the King being inbred,
what calumny! Any geneticist will tell you, it is perfectly healthy to marry
your cousin!
> Another interesting thread might be: Complete Artistic Freedom, you
> got it, how do you deal with it? Not just the horror of the blank
> canvas, that's not MY problem, but say, half way though sketching out
> or blocking in a painting and the possibilities begin to make one
> dizzy. Should I go monochromatic ala Picasso's 'blue period'? (An easy
> way out I might add, but does it satisfy? What about proportions, how
> far to push things? Like a camera, do I zoom in or pan back? How dark
> or brightly lit should I make it? What to obscure, what to emphasize?
That's art for ya.
> Thank Ghod the canvas ends if I go too far in any one direction...
Haha.
Linda Hand
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>
>Hey. This dead drunk drippy guy has been gone for what, 50 years?
(snipped the rest)
APPLAUSE and Kudoes to you Mike!
Seagull Manager
"Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bbnc2e$sla$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
Hey. This dead drunk drippy guy has been gone for what, 50 years? And
> > Yeah, Hitler gets discussed nearly sixty years after his death...
> thats a willfully poor analogy.... and I suspect you know this.
There's more to being a good artist than merely being talked about.
> what does it matter whats in the state owned galleries now...
It matters to me as a consumer. I want to be able to visit those galleries
and find the best of current art, not the very worst. There's a lot of good
art out there that I don't get to see, because those institutions ignore or
try to suppress it. It matters, too, because the production of good art is
discouraged, and so is the proper training of artists. It also matters to
anyone who hates government waste. It matters to people who value the
principles of liberalism, and see that the way those galleries are run is a
hangover from the totalitarian ways of Napoleon's time. Finally, I hate
seeing cynical fools prosper. The state should not be giving money to those
YBAs. They don't deserve a penny of it!
> art
> will be viewed through a different filter in 100 years time, and thus the
> selection of work is likely to be different from now...
I can't wait a hundred years to see if the Tate Modern will eventually begin
to show art that I find rewarding. I want to see it NOW!
> So you wouldn't agree that the photograph freed painting from
representation
No, I wouldn't. First, representation is not a shackle, it is a choice.
Second, the actual effect of the photograph was (a) to improve painting's
ability to represent visible reality, (b) to provide competion with painting
at the low end of the documentary genres (portraits, picturesque landscapes,
news illustration), and (c) to disseminate painting by reproduction. It was
not until the late 20th century, when it became possible to create very
large prints in vivid colour using durable pigments, that photography could
actually compete with painting head on. Even then, photography shackled the
imagination, relative to painting, until the arrival of such software
painting tools as Photoshop and Painter. (But now that photography actually
means photography-plus-digital-manipulation, it has become a branch of
painting, so painting defeated photography in the end.)
> and thus there was an imperative to see the limits and place of painting
in the modern world?
What limits? What place? The idiots who promote conceptualism obviously
imagine painting has limits, and that its place is in the basement, but they
are wrong. Painting is as limitless as the imagination.
Hadley
Brilliant Mike. Did you get this material from his letters or the
pages of his journal?
Hadley
Mike Stengl
> Brilliant Mike. Did you get this material from his letters or the
> pages of his journal?
>
> Hadley
Just spewing opinion, as per usual.
Oliver Gili
"Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
message news:bbq8nh$9fh$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bbnc2e$sla$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> Hey. This dead drunk drippy guy has been gone for what, 50 years? And
> > > > he's still spawning conversation...
>
> > > Yeah, Hitler gets discussed nearly sixty years after his death...
>
> > thats a willfully poor analogy.... and I suspect you know this.
>
> There's more to being a good artist than merely being talked about.
yes.. but there is more to art criticism than drawing allusions between an
artist one doesn't like and the man who created an utterly evil feudal
regeme that got close to creating an actual hell on earth.
Interestingly enough the Nazis hated 'degenerate' modernism, and lauded
representational kitch as high art..... but thats by the by ;-)
>
> > what does it matter whats in the state owned galleries now...
>
> It matters to me as a consumer. I want to be able to visit those galleries
> and find the best of current art, not the very worst. There's a lot of
good
> art out there that I don't get to see, because those institutions ignore
or
> try to suppress it. It matters, too, because the production of good art is
> discouraged, and so is the proper training of artists. It also matters to
> anyone who hates government waste. It matters to people who value the
> principles of liberalism, and see that the way those galleries are run is
a
> hangover from the totalitarian ways of Napoleon's time. Finally, I hate
> seeing cynical fools prosper. The state should not be giving money to
those
> YBAs. They don't deserve a penny of it!
and how do you propose to change this? by arguing on a newsgroup or by
action
completely missing the point that before photography representational
drawing and painting was the primarly means of showing and 'saving' (and I
mean saving in a computer way) visual reality. Photography removed that
primary roll from painting.
>
> > and thus there was an imperative to see the limits and place of painting
> in the modern world?
>
> What limits? What place? The idiots who promote conceptualism obviously
> imagine painting has limits, and that its place is in the basement, but
they
> are wrong. Painting is as limitless as the imagination.
>
really..... so how do you explain the success of Chris Ofili..... and other
contemporary painters.
Oliver
Seagull Manager
>
> Interestingly enough the Nazis hated 'degenerate' modernism, and lauded
> representational kitch as high art..... but thats by the by ;-)
Yes, it is by-the-by. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that I mentioned
Hitler because the traditional defence of idiots like Jackson Pollock is to
associate those who criticize his like with Hitler.
Modernism is degenerate, in any case, and deliberately so.
> and how do you propose to change this? by arguing on a newsgroup or by
> action
Both.
> before photography representational
> drawing and painting was the primarly means of showing and 'saving' (and I
> mean saving in a computer way) visual reality.
Not true. Realism in painting did not appear until the 19th century, around
the same time as photography. Before that, painting was mostly about making
the imagination visible. Or when was the last time you saw hairy guys with
goats legs drinking wine from horns, or fat boys with tiny doves' wings
hovering about like bumble-bees, or swans seducing women, or crowds of
people sitting on clouds as if they were sofas?
> Photography removed that
> primary roll from painting.
Photography did not remove that role from painting, and it was not in any
case the primary role of painting.
> really..... so how do you explain the success of Chris Ofili..... and
other
> contemporary painters.
Chris Ofili's "paintings" are more pictorial than many, but they are really
cartoons that, in large part, mock the very idea of painting.
Oliver Gili
>
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bc4d8b$8ho$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Interestingly enough the Nazis hated 'degenerate' modernism, and lauded
> > representational kitch as high art..... but thats by the by ;-)
>
> Yes, it is by-the-by. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that I mentioned
> Hitler because the traditional defence of idiots like Jackson Pollock is
to
> associate those who criticize his like with Hitler.
>
> Modernism is degenerate, in any case, and deliberately so.
>
but dull paintings about the glorious volk.... in case you've not noticed we
live in fairly degenerate times....
> > and how do you propose to change this? by arguing on a newsgroup or by
> > action
>
> Both.
I hope your paintings are better than your arguements...
>
> > before photography representational
> > drawing and painting was the primarly means of showing and 'saving' (and
I
> > mean saving in a computer way) visual reality.
>
> Not true. Realism in painting did not appear until the 19th century,
around
> the same time as photography. Before that, painting was mostly about
making
> the imagination visible. Or when was the last time you saw hairy guys with
> goats legs drinking wine from horns, or fat boys with tiny doves' wings
> hovering about like bumble-bees, or swans seducing women, or crowds of
> people sitting on clouds as if they were sofas?
>
So I just hallucinated all those portaits of Kings, Religious leaders,
laughing Cavilliers...and people going around their daily business in, say,
16th centuary Delft.... when walking around galleries and museums.... oh
well explains alot......
and I'd say I've seen quite a few hairy guys with goats legs drinking wine
from horns etc when the Gay Pride festival parades through town.
> > Photography removed that
> > primary roll from painting.
>
> Photography did not remove that role from painting, and it was not in any
> case the primary role of painting.
Ahha! so all these portaits of dignataries were done because they were
really interesting fantastical subjects akin to fairies congregating on
pinheads.... not because some rich person wanted a personal record of how
they looked.... I see
>
>
> > really..... so how do you explain the success of Chris Ofili..... and
> other
> > contemporary painters.
>
> Chris Ofili's "paintings" are more pictorial than many, but they are
really
> cartoons that, in large part, mock the very idea of painting.
>
why? couldn't one say that they draw upon african traditions of image making
rather than the pre-modernist westen cannon......
Oliver
Erik A. Mattila
> Not true. Realism in painting did not appear until the 19th century, around
> the same time as photography. Before that, painting was mostly about making
> the imagination visible. Or when was the last time you saw hairy guys with
> goats legs drinking wine from horns, or fat boys with tiny doves' wings
> hovering about like bumble-bees, or swans seducing women, or crowds of
> people sitting on clouds as if they were sofas?
Holy cow! I'm going to start a collection of S&M Absurdities. This one
takes the cake. I just searched 100 Van Eyck ptngs for goat legs, and
didn't find any. Then I went to Ancient Rome, but couldn't get past the
unswept floor:
http://harpy.uccs.edu/roman/unswept.jpg
Erik
Anastasia
> "Seagull Manager" <seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk> wrote in
> message news:bc5l2u$k5r$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >
> > "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:bc4d8b$8ho$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > >
> > > Interestingly enough the Nazis hated 'degenerate' modernism, and lauded
> > > representational kitch as high art..... but thats by the by ;-)
> >
> > Yes, it is by-the-by. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that I mentioned
> > Hitler because the traditional defence of idiots like Jackson Pollock is
> to
> > associate those who criticize his like with Hitler.
> >
> > Modernism is degenerate, in any case, and deliberately so.
Seagull is bitter because I suspect he works as a writer for Hollywood
and therefore detests the Art Elite.
> Well I'd rather look at Otto Dix's paintings than any amount of well crafted
> but dull paintings about the glorious volk....
Ah. So you like the second generation German Expressionists. I think
Dix is a great draftsman; however his art seems to be a replica of
Munch's.
> in case you've not noticed we
> live in fairly degenerate times....
IMO, we are living in a great period of *transition*. There is a
current movement *away* from modernist concepts of art. However, I
doubt the popular media will ever take note as they're still living in
the 1950s.
> > > and how do you propose to change this? by arguing on a newsgroup or by
> > > action
> >
> > Both.
>
> I hope your paintings are better than your arguements...
> >
> > > before photography representational
> > > drawing and painting was the primarly means of showing and 'saving' (and
> I
> > > mean saving in a computer way) visual reality.
> >
> > Not true. Realism in painting did not appear until the 19th century,
> around
> > the same time as photography.
Seagull must live inside his telly. In actuality, the invention of
photography influenced painting to *move away* from realism and
representational painting. Photography had taken away the burden of
painting subjects as they were realistically portrayed, and allowed
artists of the time to experiment more with abstract representations.
Before that, painting was mostly about
> making
> > the imagination visible. Or when was the last time you saw hairy guys with
> > goats legs drinking wine from horns, or fat boys with tiny doves' wings
> > hovering about like bumble-bees, or swans seducing women, or crowds of
> > people sitting on clouds as if they were sofas?
This was several hundred years before photography. I think you're
talking about a specific era in which romanticism and religious
subjects were portrayed in a mythical fashion. However, the subjects
were still representational and the details of these fat boys with
tiny dove wings were realistic.
> So I just hallucinated all those portaits of Kings, Religious leaders,
> laughing Cavilliers...and people going around their daily business in, say,
> 16th centuary Delft.... when walking around galleries and museums.... oh
> well explains alot......
>
> and I'd say I've seen quite a few hairy guys with goats legs drinking wine
> from horns etc when the Gay Pride festival parades through town.
>
> > > Photography removed that
> > > primary roll from painting.
> >
> > Photography did not remove that role from painting, and it was not in any
> > case the primary role of painting.
>
> Ahha! so all these portaits of dignataries were done because they were
> really interesting fantastical subjects akin to fairies congregating on
> pinheads.... not because some rich person wanted a personal record of how
> they looked.... I see
>
> >
> >
> > > really..... so how do you explain the success of Chris Ofili..... and
> other
> > > contemporary painters.
> >
> > Chris Ofili's "paintings" are more pictorial than many, but they are
> really
> > cartoons that, in large part, mock the very idea of painting.
> >
> why? couldn't one say that they draw upon african traditions of image making
> rather than the pre-modernist westen cannon......
>
> Oliver
Caricature is different from drug-induced abstract traditions.
Regards,
Hadley
Seagull Manager
>
> Well I'd rather look at Otto Dix's paintings
Gerald Scarfe is better.
> in case you've not noticed we live in fairly degenerate times....
That's no excuse. We've always lived in degenerate times (those were the
days, eh?).
> So I just hallucinated all those portaits of Kings, Religious leaders,
> laughing Cavilliers...and people going around their daily business in,
say,
> 16th centuary Delft.... when walking around galleries and museums.... oh
> well explains alot......
The portraits are highly staged and often flatteringly inaccurate, too. And
Dutch realism is only a small part of art, and I did say "primarily". Even
Dutch realism is often not as realistic as at first it seems. Think of those
flower paintings containing masses of flowers all in bloom, which in real
life bloom at different times...Without going into the many-limbed and
blue-skinned gods of India, or other equally weird fancies of China, there's
enough in Western painting to make plain that painting is not first and
foremost about documenting visible reality.
> and I'd say I've seen quite a few hairy guys with goats legs drinking wine
> from horns etc when the Gay Pride festival parades through town.
Those are examples of life imitating art, not the reverse.
> > Photography did not remove that role from painting, and it was not in
any
> > case the primary role of painting.
>
> Ahha! so all these portaits of dignataries were done because they were
> really interesting fantastical subjects akin to fairies congregating on
> pinheads.... not because some rich person wanted a personal record of how
> they looked.... I see
They didn't want a mere "personal record of how they looked", they wanted a
monument to themselves, a celebration of what they are. So, they would
often be placed in an imaginary landscape with symbolic overtones, for
instance, and there would be other invented details.
> > Chris Ofili's "paintings" are more pictorial than many, but they are
> really
> > cartoons that, in large part, mock the very idea of painting.
> >
> why? couldn't one say that they draw upon african traditions of image
making
> rather than the pre-modernist westen cannon......
One could, if one chose to ignore the fact that he is from Manchester,
England, and studied art in England. If Ofili's paintings draw on "african
traditions of image making", then, from looking at them, I would suggest two
sources: certain kinds of advertising illustration (modern), and the Oshogbo
school. But the Oshogbo school got its characteristic look due to influence
from German Expressionism, so the whole thing turns full circle.
Reminds me of the episode when critics commented on Dhruva Mistry's use of
bright colours in his sculpture, saying that it must be due to Indian
influence. Mistry replied by reminding them that Indian sculpture is not
usually brightly coloured, and added that it was in fact a response to
arriving in England that made him adopt bright colours.
Oh, the joys (and perils) of exoticism!
Seagull Manager
"Anastasia" <Anas...@ivebeenframed.com> wrote in message
news:fdaf1b0d.03061...@posting.google.com...
> IMO, we are living in a great period of *transition*.
Human beings have hardly ever *not* been in transition since history began
(and slightly before, I dare say). There's something called the Apocalyptic
Delusion, which leads people of every era to think that theirs is the most
special, the one experiencing or about to experience the most upheaval, and
so on.
> There is a current movement *away* from modernist concepts of art.
That's true.
> However, I doubt the popular media will ever take note as they're still
living in the 1950s.
I'm waiting for the Tate to catch on.
> Seagull must live inside his telly. In actuality, the invention of
> photography influenced painting to *move away* from realism and
> representational painting.
The invention of photography lent great impetus to the Realistic urge, in
all its guises. Most painters in the 19th century used photography as a tool
to make their paintings look more realistic.
I'll give you this little quote from the Oxford History of Western Art for
you to mull on:
"The great French photographers of the 1850s had trained together in Paris
during the late 1940s, particularly in the studio of the painter Paul
Delaroche..."
So, this Delaroche guy was a founding father of photography, and a painter
at the same time (incidentally an enormously successful and influential one,
though the Oxford History doesn't mention that fact). Did he paint
abstracts? No. He painted superrealistic imaginative reconstructions of
historical events.
> Photography had taken away the burden of
> painting subjects as they were realistically portrayed, and allowed
> artists of the time to experiment more with abstract representations.
No, that excuse was invented after the fact, as a partial post-hoc
justification of the styles of early (pre-cubist) modernism.
>
> Before that, painting was mostly about
> > making
> > > the imagination visible. Or when was the last time you saw hairy guys
with
> > > goats legs drinking wine from horns, or fat boys with tiny doves'
wings
> > > hovering about like bumble-bees, or swans seducing women, or crowds of
> > > people sitting on clouds as if they were sofas?
>
> This was several hundred years before photography. I think you're
> talking about a specific era in which romanticism and religious
> subjects were portrayed in a mythical fashion.
That is almost the entire history of art. In ancient Egypt, Gods were given
animal heads. In Babylon, bulls were given wings. In classical
Greece...well, we've done classical Greece. In Byzantine saints flew among
choirs of angels. During the Rennaissance...ah, I think we've done the
Rennaisance, too. In the French Baroque, unfeasibly perfect frolics were
enjoyed in unfeasibly perfect parks. The Italians, the Dutch, and later the
English, took to inventing ideal landscapes, often investing them with
symbolic significance.
If you thought all those old paintings were simple photo-substitutes, you
clearly weren't looking closely enough.
> However, the subjects
> were still representational and the details of these fat boys with
> tiny dove wings were realistic.
Yes, of course. The point is to make the *imagined* look *real*, in turn, in
order to make it *vividly present*.
> Caricature is different from drug-induced abstract traditions.
What drug-induced abstract traditions?
Seagull Manager
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@oco.net> wrote in message
news:3EE67C8...@oco.net...
> Seagull Manager wrote:
>
> I just searched 100 Van Eyck ptngs for goat legs, and
> didn't find any.
I should have excepted Dutch Realism. Outside the Low Countries, realism
played no major role until the 19th century. Even in the Low Countries, it
was only one of the things that was going on.
Erik A. Mattila
But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
matter. What about Olmec realism?
Erik
>
>
Wynne Ean-Hand
>But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
>matter. What about Olmec realism?
>
>Erik
What about ASSYRIAN Realism? I have had the
great good fortune to visit places like
Persepolis (Iran) and was simply amazed by
the detailing in the relief sculptures that
have endured centuries of sandblasting, if
not more severe weathering. Right down to
the depiction of cuticles on finger and
toenails! Now THAT is realism, when it can
be accomplished by carving in stone with
the crude tools (by our terms) available
to the sculptor of that era.
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>> I should have excepted Dutch Realism. Outside the Low Countries, realism
>> played no major role until the 19th century. Even in the Low Countries, it
>> was only one of the things that was going on.
>
>But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
>matter. What about Olmec realism?
>
>Erik
>
Realism in art is a matter of degree.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Seagull Manager
"Wynne Ean-Hand" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ee8...@news.zianet.com...
> In article <3EE7E46C...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>
>
> >But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
> >matter. What about Olmec realism?
> >
> >Erik
>
> What about ASSYRIAN Realism?
Seems like some people are confusing two different things: there's depicting
the details in a "realistic" (or naturalistic) way, in order to make the
whole scene (which is in fact highly idealized, or even completly imaginary)
more convincing, and there's trying to depict the whole *scene* in as
realistic a way as possible, which is what we find in 19th century French
realism.
For instance, take a Dutch still life, the food kind: do you think that the
kind of scene usually depicted is representative of a typical, or even
fairly special Dutch dinner? No, obviously not. The *details* are realistic,
but the scene as a whole is a product of the artist's invention. This
happens in Roman and Assyrian art, too. Despite realistic-looking detail,
everything is actually idealized - not in same elegant terms as apply in
Hellenistic art, but in more straightforwardly macho terms.
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:24:44 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>I should have excepted Dutch Realism. Outside the Low Countries, realism
>>>played no major role until the 19th century. Even in the Low Countries, it
>>>was only one of the things that was going on.
>>
>>But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
>>matter. What about Olmec realism?
>>
>>Erik
>>
>
> Realism in art is a matter of degree.
"Realism" +period+ is a matter of degree. Read some Berkely. Or
contemplate Korzybski's "structural differential."
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> "Wynne Ean-Hand" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
> news:3ee8...@news.zianet.com...
>
>>In article <3EE7E46C...@oco.net>, emat...@oco.net says...
>>
>>
>>
>>>But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
>>>matter. What about Olmec realism?
>>>
>>>Erik
>>
>>What about ASSYRIAN Realism?
>
>
> Seems like some people are confusing two different things: there's depicting
> the details in a "realistic" (or naturalistic) way, in order to make the
> whole scene (which is in fact highly idealized, or even completly imaginary)
> more convincing, and there's trying to depict the whole *scene* in as
> realistic a way as possible, which is what we find in 19th century French
> realism.
But you're doing nothing more that revising the definition "realism" to
support your silly statement. That's not a real argument...it's a
"spin." But I do notice that you do this habitually. Additionally, you
are abusing the language: "Realism" (note the capital "R") is a name
given to a 19th Century group of painters. But you write "realism" and
then try to convince others that the name of a group of painters is the
same as the meaning of a term in the English language. Would you argue
that "Pop goes the Weasel" has someting to do with Warhol? That Raphael
was a proto Pre-Raphaelite?
> For instance, take a Dutch still life, the food kind: do you think that the
> kind of scene usually depicted is representative of a typical, or even
> fairly special Dutch dinner? No, obviously not. The *details* are realistic,
> but the scene as a whole is a product of the artist's invention. This
> happens in Roman and Assyrian art, too. Despite realistic-looking detail,
> everything is actually idealized - not in same elegant terms as apply in
> Hellenistic art, but in more straightforwardly macho terms.
No, you are wrong. You can actually +see+ the difference between an
idealized image and a life image. That's why archaeologists know that
many Olmec artists used a model from life, while many Maya Artists used
previous artwork as a model.
Erik
>
>
Mani Deli
<emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 19:24:44 -0700, "Erik A. Mattila"
>> <emat...@oco.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>I should have excepted Dutch Realism. Outside the Low Countries, realism
>>>>played no major role until the 19th century. Even in the Low Countries, it
>>>>was only one of the things that was going on.
>>>
>>>But what about the Roman realism? Or the Greek realism, for that
>>>matter. What about Olmec realism?
>>>
>>>Erik
>>>
>>
>> Realism in art is a matter of degree.
>
>"Realism" +period+ is a matter of degree.
Fine! So why didn't you say it in the first place?
> Read some Berkely. Or
>contemplate Korzybski's "structural differential."
>
Look it up in the dictionary.!
Erik A. Mattila
Mani Deli wrote:
>>>Realism in art is a matter of degree.
>>
>>"Realism" +period+ is a matter of degree.
>
>
> Fine! So why didn't you say it in the first place?
But I never didn't not say it.
>> Read some Berkely. Or
>>contemplate Korzybski's "structural differential."
> Look it up in the dictionary.!
Why? I already know what it means.
>
>
> ...no skillet no hash!
>
> Want to grovel miserably in the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the
modern art hating establishment?
Oliver Gili
>
> "Oliver Gili" <Redo...@ogili.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:bc5q6p$en3$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> > Well I'd rather look at Otto Dix's paintings
>
> Gerald Scarfe is better.
>
>
> > in case you've not noticed we live in fairly degenerate times....
>
> That's no excuse. We've always lived in degenerate times (those were the
> days, eh?).
>
> > So I just hallucinated all those portaits of Kings, Religious leaders,
> > laughing Cavilliers...and people going around their daily business in,
> say,
> > 16th centuary Delft.... when walking around galleries and museums.... oh
> > well explains alot......
>
> The portraits are highly staged and often flatteringly inaccurate, too.
How is this different from various very artificial and staged P.R.
photographs of say politicians, media and music stars....
>And
> Dutch realism is only a small part of art, and I did say "primarily". Even
> Dutch realism is often not as realistic as at first it seems. Think of
those
> flower paintings containing masses of flowers all in bloom, which in real
> life bloom at different times...Without going into the many-limbed and
> blue-skinned gods of India, or other equally weird fancies of China,
there's
> enough in Western painting to make plain that painting is not first and
> foremost about documenting visible reality.
couldn't you say that these depictions of religious supernatural figures...
since at the time they were believed to be real... fit quite easily into the
depiction of reality
z
>
> > > Photography did not remove that role from painting, and it was not in
> any
> > > case the primary role of painting.
> >
> > Ahha! so all these portaits of dignataries were done because they were
> > really interesting fantastical subjects akin to fairies congregating on
> > pinheads.... not because some rich person wanted a personal record of
how
> > they looked.... I see
>
> They didn't want a mere "personal record of how they looked", they wanted
a
> monument to themselves, a celebration of what they are. So, they would
> often be placed in an imaginary landscape with symbolic overtones, for
> instance, and there would be other invented details.
See modern P.R. photography...
Wynne Ean-Hand
>That's why archaeologists know that
>many Olmec artists used a model from life, while many Maya Artists used
>previous artwork as a model.
>
>Erik
I think one could say the same of Assyrian
sculptors. Those images of kings are much
too life-like to be far off the mark. And
even later, the Egyptians had a knack for
capturing a likeness in spite of the formulaic
and un-natural depictions of a person's stance.
Then, of course, there were the 'Fiance' tomb
paintings (encaustic on board)...
Seagull Manager
>
> > The portraits are highly staged and often flatteringly inaccurate, too.
>
> How is this different from various very artificial and staged P.R.
> photographs of say politicians, media and music stars....
(a) by being MORE artificial, and MORE elaborately staged photos usually
have been (indeed, than it has usually feasible to do with photography -
unless you count photos manipulated with software, which are better
described as digital paintings than photographs, anyway).
(b) by being the original source of photographer's ideas about how to
distort visual reality in order to depict the imaginary.
> couldn't you say that these depictions of religious supernatural
figures...
> since at the time they were believed to be real... fit quite easily into
the
> depiction of reality
No, of course not. Regardless of whether I believe unicorns, faeries,
angels, gods, or whatever to be real or not, the fact remains that I have
never seen them. Therefore, I can only conjure their appearances up from the
imagination.
> > monument to themselves, a celebration of what they are. So, they would
> > often be placed in an imaginary landscape with symbolic overtones, for
> > instance, and there would be other invented details.
> See modern P.R. photography...
Photography has rarely functioned as an adequate substitute for paintings in
monumentalizing contexts - in part, because high-quality colour,
manipulation techniques, and the means to make very large prints have not
been with us long.
Historically, photography only replaced drawn or painted portraiture at the
cheaper end of the market (and even there, not completely), and people still
commission painted portraits today at every level of the market. So it is
simply *fact* that photography did not eliminate the need for paint.
Photography was invented in the 1830s, but did not make it into art
galleries in a big way until the 1970s. It was only able to creep into art
galleries only after good new representational painting became so scarce
that there was no other way to satisfy the popular demand for images. Things
happened this way because photography did not make painting redundant, but
modernism destroyed the traditions of painting, creating inroads for
photography.
Seagull Manager
> But you're doing nothing more that revising the definition "realism" to
> support your silly statement. That's not a real argument...it's a
> "spin."
Nonsense, there's not a single, formal definition of "realism" in art
history or art theory. There are lots of meanings that have been customarily
attached to the word, and I feel it was clear from the context what meaning
I was giving the word, given that I was responding to Oliver Gili, who wrote
thus:
"...completely missing the point that before photography representational
drawing and painting was the primarly means of showing and 'saving' (and I
mean saving in a computer way) visual reality. Photography removed that
primary roll from painting."
Prior to the emergence of the Realists in the 19th century, I don't think
there was EVER a project in painting to document visible reality in the kind
of straightforward fashion suggested by Gili. Even stuff that looks
superficially realistic either idealises, or distorts, or composes, or
invents, or enhances, or suppresses various aspects of the image, and
typically puts the whole to a purpose quite other than mere documentation
(for instance, allegory).
Obviously, in study drawings, and depictions of isolated objects (not
incorporated into a picture), such purely documentary image-making does
occur. However, from the standpoint of the artist, such is typically just
preparatory work for something with ambitions that go beyond plain
documentation.
If there's spin going on, then it is you pretending to misunderstand my use
of "realism".
> But I do notice that you do this habitually.
Oh, do I?
> Additionally, you
> are abusing the language: "Realism" (note the capital "R") is a name
> given to a 19th Century group of painters.
Really? There never has been a group of painters, from the 19th century, or
any other, that was named "Realism". The group you apparently want to refer
to are known as "Realists". If you're going to accuse me of abusing
language, you should try to get the language right yourself.
> No, you are wrong. You can actually +see+ the difference between an
> idealized image and a life image. That's why archaeologists know that
> many Olmec artists used a model from life, while many Maya Artists used
> previous artwork as a model.
Working from the model doesn't make you a realist - certainly not in most
usual senses of that term in art theory.