No Skill No Art no Jackson Pollock
JPCeja
>itself -- leaving the written word as the only possible outlet for all that
>could not be said in a pure "visual" form. But even at that Jackson Pollock
>was inept. His written statements are clumsy paraphrases of the artsy
>jargon his contemporaries used to explain what exactly it was that
>Pollock was doing. Pollock himself was nearly inarticulate.
Language seems at times such an inadeqaute means to say anything. From a
distance, it can work-- one might say that in those cases, it's the only thing.
The dead can speak to us through words in books and yellowed pages.
But, here now-- being with someone, near someone.. Then the final way to
communicate is through what you do, and for the artist, throught the artist's
work.
But here-- that 'artsy jargon' that you are writing about. Knowing not what you
refer to, at least, not specifically, I can say this: to me, there's nothing
all that complex or difficult to understand about what Pollock was doing. Maybe
it can get complicated when one goes off in a theme and expands on it--such as
the connection to sclupture--but I should think that the general theme, or the
general idea, or the general mindset of the work is not hard to 'get'.
And what about the words that surround a work of art, or a school or art, such
as the New York school: people complain that 'good art' should not need words
or theories to help it stand. Half of me calls it 'pish-posh' and half of me
thinks it's true... I suppose that may be reffered to as one of those on-going
themes that must be resolved.
JPCeja
>was a genius whose talent would have been evident in any artistic period,
>or if he simply got lucky in some cultural lottery for 1947, and got to be
>"America's greatest painter" for as long as it lasted.
>
Although I have to admit I haven't thought about it much or executed any
ponderous reflections on the subject's behalf, I would say that I would
probably lean to the former interpretation: imagine someone with Pollock's
'character' or 'personality' living and painting as an artist in the, oh, I
don't know, late 18th early-to-mid 19th centuries. It would be interesting to
see which paintings would arise then.
Then again, maybe he would have gotten locked up or drawn-and-quartered
(depending on where he lived) had he lived back then. A, shall we say, strong,
point is made that the environment, the 'times', the people and the alcohol,
the cigarettes and the buckets of paint were all set up in a room somewhere,
waiting for Pollock to arrive, in the post-WWII world. Perhaps it was
lottery-style luck that brought him about: not the seed like the soil.
But, does it matter? Does it diminish him? And who does Pollock owe most?
Picasso? Maybe Pollock's artistic debt is owed posthumously. But that's a
different thread.
Then we can say, though not be sure of it, that Pollock did do one thing: 'he
broke the ice,' and the ice was thick in 1947, we're told.
Pablo Secca
Bob C
>
> And what about the words that surround a work of art, or a school or art, such
> as the New York school: people complain that 'good art' should not need words
> or theories to help it stand. Half of me calls it 'pish-posh' and half of me
> thinks it's true... I suppose that may be reffered to as one of those on-going
> themes that must be resolved.
I think people generally are much to quick to use the excuse of "not
needing explanations" to dismiss that which doesn't meet their own
expectations. I've seen many a discussion in this newsgroup which
procedes as follows:
Person 1: This work is ugly, someone please explain what they think is
good about it.
Person 2 explains.
Person 1: Then it must be bad, because good art shouldn't need an
explanation.
Of course, person 2 never claimed that the work needed the explanation
to be appreciated. The work could be by Rembrandt and the argument of
person 1 is just as applicable.
We all may be very open-minded about art in general, but in the details
I think most of us tend to approach it with a limited set of
expectations, based largely on what we have experienced in the past and
what our upbringing has taught us to value. Our evaluation criteria are
based on these expectations. What happens when we approach a work which
attempts to satisfy a completely different set of expectations? We can
immediately evaluate it negatively or we can attempt to understand those
different expectations. If we do the latter, we then are still left to
decide whether the work satisfies those expectations and whether or not
there is any value in doing so. Maybe there is and maybe not. We may
even discover that those different expectations are not so different as
we though, that they may arise out of the same fundamentals on which our
current expectations are based and differ only in the details.
When a work of art blatantly fails to satisfy our evaluative criteria,
then it is usually obvious that the artist is attempting to satisfy a
completely different set of criteria. There is very little value in the
criticism of a critic who does not recognize relevant criteria for the
work in question. Once again, I emphasize that recognizing relevant
criteria does not mean that you have to accept the criteria or the
actual work as worthwhile. But unless you can identify relevant
criteria, your criticisms are meaningless, and the easiest way to learn
how to identify relevant criteria is to listen to the explanations of
those people who see value where you do not. Thus the need for words and
theories in order to help us "get" a work of art.
- Bob C.
Nikolaus Maack
>Just because you have eyes to
>see doesn't mean you know about art.
The irony is that the opposite is also true. Just because you know
about art doesn't mean you have eyes that see.
Nik
---
Postcard-sized portraits -- $20.
You find the face, I pick the paint. See:
The Nik Maack Art Gallery
http://www.chat.carleton.ca/~mrtribe
JPCeja
>needing explanations" to dismiss that which doesn't meet their own
>expectations. I've seen many a discussion in this newsgroup which
>
>Person 1: This work is ugly, someone please explain what they think is
>good about it.
>Person 2 explains.
>Person 1: Then it must be bad, because good art shouldn't need an
>explanation.
>
>Of course, person 2 never claimed that the work needed the explanation
>to be appreciated. The work could be by Rembrandt and the argument of
>person 1 is just as applicable.
Well, try this one:
A: I think this painting is horrible.
B: Why?
A: It's just orange and blue.
B: That's Ellsworth Kelley.
A: I don't care who it is. Excuse me, guard, which way to the Impressionists?
Guard: Through that door--
B: Wait, wait. Let me explain to you what Ellsworth Kelley is about...
A: What?
B: (He explains)
A: Good art shouldn't need an explanation.
Now, Bob, you brought up Rembrant. Perhaps there is some painting art that we
(we
meaning, 'the Western world' and possibly beyond) are more receptive to (due to
whatever reason: culturally, even physiologically, etc.).
Art that looks like life is popular, and one might say that it's popular
because it's
compatible for empirical analysis much more readily than art which changes or
revises
reality (such as Cubism) or invents its own reality (such as de Kooning). Thus
maybe we
can venture to put up a statement for examination and argument: that all art
requires a
certain foundation on the part of the viewer (I believe the word is 'schema,'
as in,
'aesthetic schema'). This would follow logic; it would explain why realistic
representations in art make people feel that there is no explanation needed.
For instance,
looking upon a Rembrant self-portrait, an average Joe is approached by a
curator, who
explains that is more than a simple mastery of light and paint, more than a
realistic
portrait, but also a character study, and when Rembrant painted it, all his
loved ones were
dead, and he was bankrupt, and his dog was sick, etc. The average Joe would
probably
not be offended... The curator's remarks are explanations and schema, but
they're really
only extending from what average Joe already knows, since average Joe lives in
reality.
Such comments are merely expanding on what average Joe already knows about
real-life,
and Rembrant looks a lot like real life.
And now, back to Ellsworth Kelley. There is average Joe again, or maybe even a
Testadura (ha ha), and there is the curator, explaining to a disbelieving
Testadura that
Kelley seeks to find certain energies in the most reductive of forms and
colors, and that
that is why the size of the paintings is so important, etc...
Testadura says 'Pish-posh!' (a term that I am finding is very useful in
aesthetic discussion)
and goes on to criticize that this art is 'all talk.'
It may be my 'inner postmodern' (we may all have one, like Sigourney Weaver)
that
thinks that no one can tell Testadura that he's wrong, that he's just not
looking for the
right criteria. Here: you said that we must recognize criteria. Then, once
that, we must
re-evaluate. We then may our call: do we think that the criteria is valid? If
we don't, then
perhaps it only makes sense to listen to the explanations and talking and
writing of those
who do. Perhaps this is where taste fits into the puzzle. That's my question,
anyway.
But here's another glob: some might argue that if a 'genre' or 'style' of
painting ( those two
terms taken here as meaning a group which follows a set of criteria) is truly
valid as 'good
art', then any 'unschematicized' viewer will (or should be able to) pull from
the works, by
himself, the criteria, the merits of the criteria (and thus the 'validity' of
such) and how
much each individual work of that school fills each criteria. (A painting, we
may say, that
really fills or fills very well the criteria of a particular school is 'good'
only in direct
proportion to how valid the set of criteria are.) Thus, he will find his own
way, maybe not
after one viewing, but at least after long study, organization of thoughts and
emotions,
reflection, autostudy of his philosophies, tastes-- with this he should find
his way. After
all, it can be asked, who makes the set of criteria in the first place: the
artists, the critics
the public or the scholars? Probably not the scholars: not usually, anyway:
they’re usually
too late. Without argument: it varies.
A third chunk of thought says that there should not be these ‘little’ sets of
criteria, these
little groups, produced by these little neotribes (I suppose), but, rather: you
guessed it,
one big set of values: how much emotion it raises in you, how much thought, how
much
influence and so on... Then these smaller sets, or, as it were, subsets, would
be destroyed
or removed and replaced and rethought-of as focusing on individual criteria of
the One
Big Set (in detail, I suppose). And the Big Set would have to be a hell of a
set, as it would
need to blanket the whole Met (extending downtown to 53rd street) with
Christo-like
fabric. You know where that may lead.
These are then, roughly, more or less three different Prevailing opinions.
What is my opinion? I don’t know. Half-and-half, I suppose. At times it seems
ridiculously implausible to declare a set of criteria ‘invalid’ or to even
declare a set of
criteria superior to another, and at other times, it seems... perfectly fine.
Pablo Secca
JPCeja
Johannes Kiessling
- it was mentioned that he was inarticulate (verbally). Well, so was
Rodin, for that matter....
- being an art teacher: it is comparatively easy to teach all kinds of
styles. However... if I ever try to make students do something along the
line of Pollock, in spite of hard work, they get nowhere near the goal.
So... if it's "up to nothing much" this is at least surprising.
Like youn students think "oh, easy-peasy, anyone can do it" but: NO WAY.
It might just be that Pollock was pretty articulate in painting.
Regards,
Yo
--
Johannes Kiessling
Using !Messenger/!Acornet on a RiscPC2 StrongArm/RiscOS 4.02
Computer-art at: http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/clamp/gallery/galry.html
Pupil's work at: http://www.hgoe.kuen.bw.schule.de/art/index.htm
Nikolaus Maack
>"there are none so blind as those who will not see?"
>see as in
>-understand-
>-interpret-
>see as in "see what I see"
>or between the Devil and the deep blue see?
None of those. The "see" I was refering to comes after bee and just
before dee.
Bob C
>
... clipped (a lot of stuff that makes complete sense to me)....
>
> Perhaps this is where taste fits into the puzzle. That's my question,
> anyway.
When it comes to talking about taste, I usually find it easier to switch
to my own experiences with music, which I think is similar enough to art
that the same principles apply. Up through college age my only exposure
to jazz was a little bit of commercial dixieland and whatever jazz and
blues elements I was hearing in rock music. Slowly, over time, my tastes
developed away from the types of jazz which have had the most commercial
success. Now, some of my favorite CDs and albums contain music which
many of my friends consider unlistenable. I was once absorbed in a
beautiful passage by Jack Walrath when a friend asked me if the band was
tuning their instruments. It seems almost inconceivable to me that
someone could listen to my favorite music and not hear just how
beautiful it is, yet I can remember that 15 years ago I would have found
the very same music just as unlistenable as they do now. No one ever had
to explain it to me, but, somehow, I did "learn" how to listen to it.
I once read an attempt at a very analytical attempt to define art which,
if I remember correctly, concluded that art was "non-functional
stylistic dynamism". May sound like pish-posh, but it actually makes
sense, especially when applied to music. The "non-functional" part
should be clear, although perhaps non-utilitarian would have been
accurate. The "stylistic" part meant that it falls within certain
identifiable patterns, what I would call expectations. The "dynamism"
part means that it contains some variation from those patterns, and that
is really the source of the value of the work. Which means that in order
to see the value, we have to see how it deviates from the pattern, which
means that we have to be able to recognize the pattern in the first
place. Some things, like appreciating Rembrandt, seem almost innate.
Others, like listening to Sun Ra and Sonny Sharrock, seem to only come
after a long period developing connoisseurship before recognizing the
patterns comes naturally. I think this a very important component of
what we call taste.
> A third chunk of thought says that there should not be these ‘little’ sets of criteria,
> these little groups, produced by these little neotribes (I suppose), but, rather: you
> guessed it, one big set of values: how much emotion it raises in you, how much thought, > how much influence and so on...
Yes, I think there are many different levels of criteria. The very broad
ones which apply to all works, the very specific ones which apply to an
attempt to meet the demands of a very specific style, and everything in
between. If an artist's work requires an anatomically correct rendering
to work (and assuming that we have explained *why* we believe this is
necessary), then it is useful to demonstrate where that work deviates
from optical accuracy, even though such a demonstration may have little
meaning, or a completely different meaning, when evaluating a figure by
Picasso or Cezanne. Problem is that it can be very difficult to create
meaningful and objective criticisms and evaluations from the broad,
general criteria, and you will also see a lot of disagreement on just
how universal any particular set of criteria may be (I instinctively
tend to believe that the more inclusive the criteria is, the more
universal it must be).
>
> What is my opinion? I don’t know. Half-and-half, I suppose. At times it seems
> ridiculously implausible to declare a set of criteria ‘invalid’ or to even
> declare a set of
> criteria superior to another, and at other times, it seems... perfectly fine.
>
I basically agree, although it is not a question of whether criteria are
valid, but whether they are relevant, which are two different things.
You no doubt already understand the difference and would probably agree,
but I'm going to expand on this anyway. Consider:
"I hate green paintings; paintings with too much green in them are bad.
This painting has too much green in it, therefore it is bad."
This a perfectly "valid" criticism and a perfectly valid criteria for
anyone who hates green paintings. It is also, I think you'll agree,
completely irrelevant to the artist and anyone else who likes the
painting and obviously isn't bothered by the fact that it has too much
green. Furthermore, it doesn't even provide much value to a person who
also hates green paintings but can easily see for themselves that this
painting has a lot of green. It would be useful to someone who hates
green paintings and has to decide whether to make an effort to go see
this particular painting, but in that case I think the statement is
functioning as a "review" and not "art criticism" as I would normally
consider it. Naturally, in real life, things are never this clear cut
(except occasionally in news groups!).
In any case, regarding one criteria superior to another requires you to
have a criteria for evaluating the criteria, which then naturally
requires generating a criteria for evaluating the criteria which
evaluate the critiera. And so on. But, in spite of the uncertainties, I
think I understand my own second-level criteria well enough to be able
to make evaluations of the first-level criteria which are reasonable to
me, even if not to anyone else!
- Bob C.
mark webber
Hi Bob,
I like this:
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Bob C wrote:
(snip)
> I once read an attempt at a very analytical attempt to define art which,
> if I remember correctly, concluded that art was "non-functional
> stylistic dynamism". May sound like pish-posh, but it actually makes
> sense, especially when applied to music. The "non-functional" part
> should be clear, although perhaps non-utilitarian would have been
> accurate. The "stylistic" part meant that it falls within certain
> identifiable patterns, what I would call expectations. The "dynamism"
> part means that it contains some variation from those patterns, and that
> is really the source of the value of the work. Which means that in order
> to see the value, we have to see how it deviates from the pattern, which
> means that we have to be able to recognize the pattern in the first
> place. Some things, like appreciating Rembrandt, seem almost innate.
> Others, like listening to Sun Ra and Sonny Sharrock, seem to only come
> after a long period developing connoisseurship before recognizing the
> patterns comes naturally. I think this a very important component of
> what we call taste.
Nicely put. After all, if taste is an expression of preference, how can we
prefer that with which we are unfamiliar?
The only caveat I have returns to my oft-beaten drum of sensibility, and
as jazz is also important to me, I'll continue with your analogy:
The biggest difference between trumpeters Miles Davis and Lee Morgan is
one of sensibility - Miles is beautifully taciturn, looking for what to
leave out, what not to say; while Morgan is incredibly effervescent,
filling lines with runs of gravity-defying clarity and invention.
I love both. But the issue of taste, for me, is more one of genre. My
taste is for Jazz and I can hardly sit through Opera.
> Yes, I think there are many different levels of criteria. The very broad
> ones which apply to all works, the very specific ones which apply to an
> attempt to meet the demands of a very specific style, and everything in
> between. If an artist's work requires an anatomically correct rendering
> to work (and assuming that we have explained *why* we believe this is
> necessary), then it is useful to demonstrate where that work deviates
> from optical accuracy, even though such a demonstration may have little
> meaning, or a completely different meaning, when evaluating a figure by
> Picasso or Cezanne. Problem is that it can be very difficult to create
> meaningful and objective criticisms and evaluations from the broad,
> general criteria, and you will also see a lot of disagreement on just
> how universal any particular set of criteria may be (I instinctively
> tend to believe that the more inclusive the criteria is, the more
> universal it must be).
This raise an question I've asked before. How would you, or anyone else
here, define the criteria for a Donald Judd, for example?
(I actually see a similarity between the criteria of "how anatomicly
correct a figure is rendered" with what I see as minimalist criteria but
I'm more interested in seeing the view of others on this.
best,
Mark
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> This raise an question I've asked before. How would you, or anyone else
> here, define the criteria for a Donald Judd, for example?
Hi ya Mark,
(Congradulations on your show!)
Judd himself wrote rather extensively upon his aesthetic criteria...that
could be a start.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
mark webber
Hi ya -N.,
I wasn't sure if that was really you who signed the guest book at my show
- there was the possibility that one of my students who followed our
dialogs was being clever - but thanks very much for coming!
> > This raises a question I've asked before. How would you, or anyone
else
> > here, define the criteria for a Donald Judd, for example?
>
>
> Hi ya Mark,
> (Congradulations on your show!)
> Judd himself wrote rather extensively upon his aesthetic criteria...that
> could be a start.
Of course, and a very valid one - although you know well about my
infantile resistance to manifestos written by artists.
And I thank you for bringing up this point, but my question is how Erik,
or anyone else here, might evaluate the relative success or failure of his
various pieces.
good to see you here!
Mark
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> Hi ya -N.,
>
> I wasn't sure if that was really you who signed the guest book at my show
> - there was the possibility that one of my students who followed our
> dialogs was being clever - but thanks very much for coming!
The invite came while I was out of town.
> Of course, and a very valid one - although you know well about my
> infantile resistance to manifestos written by artists.
Wasn't aware of that...I believe Judd was a philosphy student though, so
it might give him a good handle to get at what he was gettin' at. He is
reputed to have been quite the essayist and major spokesman for his work
and for minimalism, (and for artworld politics) so it just might be worth
your while to give it a peek.
> And I thank you for bringing up this point, but my question is how Erik,
> or anyone else here, might evaluate the relative success or failure of his
> various pieces.
Well you know, that whole concept of a work (sculptural) relating to and
activating the entire space of the room is I believe Judd's brainchild,
amongst other things. That doesn't answer your question though, does it? I
recognize that in play as I expereince his works on the whole. You know,
he wrote extensively about fabrication, placement, and installation of his
works and excerted fastidious control over these matters. It is likely his
wishes will be less respected now after his death and that he will be
unavailible for consultation. I dig his surfaces and colors often...that
motor city candy apple paint, the look and feel of industry reductive yet
often with the seduction of a good custom car paint job. It is fun to
compare his later mature works to his earlier works...the early stuff is
more handmade, tries to look more like trad "sculpture" the surfaces of
the later stuff is at the opposite end of the pole.
I've enjoyed at times those boxes he mounted on the wall vertiucally in
series, i suppose mostly at the older Paula Cooper space, although it is
also easy to tire of those quickly..the different materials, variety of
woods, metals, plexi...and the variation of the angles, spacing etc. of
his works. A lot of the work for me was in the choices of the intervals he
employed...proportion, rhythm, variation, compositional elements,
crispness of industry and how it could charge the space around the work as
well or reactivate the space in some way...whether floor and ceiling into
a bridges unit, or the full cube of a room, move time around, the time of
viewing and perceiving. Definately work that needs to be entered in its
own frame of mind and speed...if one is looking for the human touch one
will be disappointed rather quickly.
> good to see you here!
Right-on.
Cheers,
mark webber
> A former discussion says it best
>
> , mark webber wrote:
> Webber wrote
>
> >However, I still think there is a more important element to P.'s work than
> >the controversy, and it is, in fact, tied to the issue of quality. Seeing
> >Pollock as a painter who "just dripped paint" is akin to seeing Tintoretto
> >as a painter who "just rendered figures" - a rather limiting point of
> >view, which completely misses the dynamic, powerfully rhythmic compositions
> >both artists left behind.
>
> One could say Tintoretto among other things, did just "render
> figures." He did it with skill, ideas and superior technique. If his
> work turned out to be by another artist it would not diminish its
> aesthetic value.
It is very difficult for me to play "what if" games about old masters,
Mani. I don't really have an interest in "what if" someone else made
Tintoretto's paintings. What does interest me, though, is that you can
admire his "skill", which is not focused on realistic depiction as much as
it is on pictorial dynamics, and not see the same thing in Pollock.
The question becomes not whether you see Pollock but whether you see
Tintoretto.
>
> Webber without really knowing it, is really intrigued by the technical
> aspects of Tintoretto; of which he understands little.
I'm not sure you can really support this statement. The very off-handed
way in which Tintoretto sketches in figures does really impress me - but
what impresses me most is his ability to hold my attention with formal
play. It is the unity in his work that blows me away. You can tell me that
I shouldn't like that aspect of his work if you like, but I can't imagine
why you would - unless it was something you haven't experienced yourself.
>
> Pollock "just dripped paint."
I think he did more than "just" drip paint. I think he did it, sometimes,
with really remarkable rhythm and unity - just as Tintoretto did. And I
didn't really see how well Tintoretto composed until I saw what Pollock
was doing.
Webber
mark webber
> > I wasn't sure if that was really you who signed the guest book at my show
> > - there was the possibility that one of my students who followed our
> > dialogs was being clever - but thanks very much for coming!
>
> The invite came while I was out of town.
I'm just glad it got to you. Thanks again for coming. By the way, without
asking directly what you thought of the work (you are welcome to comment
if you like, but I'm thinking of a post of Mani's that I just replied to,
where I think I snipped his criticism of the pictorial space in my work)
did you find the paintings flat, that is, without space?
>
> > Of course, and a very valid one - although you know well about my
> > infantile resistance to manifestos written by artists.
>
> Wasn't aware of that...I believe Judd was a philosphy student though, so
> it might give him a good handle to get at what he was gettin' at. He is
> reputed to have been quite the essayist and major spokesman for his work
> and for minimalism, (and for artworld politics) so it just might be worth
> your while to give it a peek.
Yes, I have, and I agree. I haven't read them since I was student more
than two decades ago, but they definitely do provide an excellent text
from which to illustrate. And at that time, when I was first looking at
his stuff, I found it very intriguing and exciting. It was a new way of
thinking about presence and experience. But just as some people find
Rembrandt no longer engaging, his work doesn't stimulate me anymore.
Just a matter of taste, I guess. We all choose, to some degree or other,
what we want to like.
>
> > And I thank you for bringing up this point, but my question is how Erik,
> > or anyone else here, might evaluate the relative success or failure of his
> > various pieces.
>
> Well you know, that whole concept of a work (sculptural) relating to and
> activating the entire space of the room is I believe Judd's brainchild,
> amongst other things. That doesn't answer your question though, does it?
Not really, but I still respect the thinking involved.
(snip some of what is enjoyable about his work)
> I've enjoyed at times those boxes he mounted on the wall vertiucally in
> series, i suppose mostly at the older Paula Cooper space, although it is
> also easy to tire of those quickly..the different materials, variety of
> woods, metals, plexi...and the variation of the angles, spacing etc. of
> his works. A lot of the work for me was in the choices of the intervals he
> employed...proportion, rhythm, variation, compositional elements,
> crispness of industry and how it could charge the space around the work as
> well or reactivate the space in some way...whether floor and ceiling into
> a bridges unit, or the full cube of a room, move time around, the time of
> viewing and perceiving. Definately work that needs to be entered in its
> own frame of mind and speed...if one is looking for the human touch one
> will be disappointed rather quickly.
I know what you mean, yes, but those aspects like proportion, rhythm, etc.
- they just happen to work even better, for me, in sculpture like Rueben
Nakian's David Smith's or even DiSuvero's. They are, I think, less
conceptual aspects - more visual ones. I'm not sure you agree with that,
and that is ok.
best,
Mark
lake
beautifully the relation between illusory space and procedure. No
painter prior to Pollack was able to demonstrate so clearly the
importance of this relation to modern painting.
Zen calligraphy has long been involved with this same relation, but
Pollack has translated Zen insights into brutally modern materials,
thereby expanding the scope of an ancient and profound research.
Few painters since Pollack have been able to forget or ignore his work.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Walter Idema
years I realized my techniques were still consuming far more time than other
fine artists I had met. What's more, my figures tended to seem "stiff" no
matter how realistic. Finally, I have taken some classes and began reading
again. I have begun to recognize names that I had not been familiar with
because I overlooked their work as being "too flat." I have also learned
how to "loosen up" and draw faster and more freely which gives my figures
more "life." I began to study Cezanne for an assignment and appreciated his
theories. But when I would examaine his paintings, I could find no examples
that I felt demonstrated what he spoke of. So I set up a still life and
very quickly applied what I had picked up from studying this man. The work
flowed quite natural, easy and fast. When I had finished the 16x20 within
only 3 to 4 hours, I realized this painting was far more realistic and 3
dimensional than anything I had seen by Cezanne. Did I take it a step
further as he would have been pleased to hear? It could be possible. I did
add glazing techniques and perhaps my years of observation to detail
combined with this approach to achieve something that I would desire hanging
on my own wall. But I must take into account that I have also recently
studied Delacroix and may have also been applying what I had learned there.
Regardless, I have learned there is much more to art than what meets the eye
on the surface of a painting. Indeed, it has benefitted me richly to have
done a little studying into the background of an artist, (life, ideas,
environment, techniques), rather than just at the product. The drawback
again, of course, is finding books by good journalists with accurate
information and the skill to organize and do it justice.
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:384882e5...@news.psi.ca...
> Cezanne and Malevich?
> Why the two major isms of this century's Modern Academic Art are,
> no-skill-realism and practically-nothing-abstraction. All the others
> are a fusion of these.
>
> Cézanne will bask in the intellectual sun, as long as people continue
> to judge artwork through the Modern Art Theologian's filter of
> artificially evangelized art history. Until this changes, some people
> will continue to judge artwork by what they are told to imagine,
> rather than what they really see in front of them. However, I am sure
> that some day a rebel critic who is deemed important will want to step
> outside of the mold and beckon people as I have to take a close look
> and compare. He will probably suggest in many more words than I have,
> that people simply ask themselves, is this artwork deemed a
> masterpiece, really any better than very under-average?
>
> Cézanne was indeed a progressive, the chosen founding father of one of
> the two major directions of Modern Academic Art, namely
> NO-SKILL-REALISM. Before Cézanne's critical rise to fame all his work
> would have simply been laughed at. But in the time since Cézanne had
> been proclaimed a modern master, really good drawing, new ideas, good
> composition and technical excellence has slowly slipped away from much
> of anything that hangs in the modern sections of museums.
>
> Ten years after Cézanne's passing the second founding father of
> Modern Academic Art, Kasimer Malevich appeared on the scene. He was
> almost the sole inventor of no holds barred,
> PRACTICALLY-NOTHING-ABSTRACTION.
>
> Those who judge the merit of artwork primarily in terms of
> who-had-the-idea-first, have certainly not given Malevich much credit.
> It seems Malevich embarrasses Modern Art Theologians because proper
> credit here would really change the whole perception of accepted
> modern abstract art mythology. Even Greenberg, our Fuehrer of Modern
> Academic Art, pooh-poohed Malevich in favor of that unoriginal
> latecomer ascetic, Mondrian.
>
> Malevich's "White on White," and the hundreds of works he produced,
> foreshadowed the whole of practically-nothing-abstraction by a
> generation. Like Cézanne his work changed the reception such work
> would have receive for the rest of his century. Malevich was also a
> pioneer of modern Artspeak, an aspect of his inventiveness still
> mostly forgotten.
>
> Indeed the works of these masters isn't particularly better or worse
> than what followed, but in all probability it is among the first of
> its kind and all later Modern Academic Art can be seen as a blended
> mixture of the work of these two Moderns. Thus any complete critique
> for or against Modern Academic art must be founded on a critique of
> these two pioneers.
>
> After a close look at a work of either of these artists try closing
> your eyes for a moment and ask yourself; "if I hadn't constantly been
> told that this artist produced nothing but masterpieces and what I
> just saw bore another signature would I really bother to give it a
> second look?" In fact you might just surprise yourself by asking the
> same question about most any modern masterpiece.
>
> My points here may give the false impression that this century has
> produced little more than politically correct Modern Art. However, as
> much fine artwork has been produced throughout this century as any
> other. Its just that you will rarely find it among what our conformist
> curators allow into the Modern sections of our museums.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/