Thoughts on Mani DeLi
scottvdv
>>behind irony and cynicism.
>Another artzy fartzy with nothing to say
Actually, it's all I need to say.
1) Your art regurgitates Dali's style, though you completely fall through in
a lack of _skill_(whatever that is) and I think I can safely assume _craft_.
2) Your book regurgitates Dali's book, "Dali on Modern Art," but you fall
through because of a lack of _originality_, something you can't comprehend
when it comes to the ideals of Modernity(don't ask me to explain this term
to you, though I probably need to) and how it relates to your disgruntled
babble.
This is why:
A) Nobody will ever take you seriously.
B) You are a Dali-wannabe in the complete sense of the phrase.
C) You are a cynic(look it up)
D) You are nothing but a sad dramatic irony who _attempts_ to bring logical
argument to a human endevour that has no business whatsoever with your
narrow logic of craft and some vague concept of skill as God.
My suggestion to you:
Go read some more Ayn Rand and leave everyone to their vast ignorance.
You mentioned fundamentalism in one of your other posts, and how these
modern 'artzy fartzys' (no wonder you're a joke in here) reminds you of it,
blindly accepting this trash as art... so on, blah blah, and so forth. What
you fail to see is that you, Mani Delie, are the complete fundamentalist,
even if you don't understand this. You blindly accept these ideas of
_craft_ and _skill_ to be the epitome of _good_ art, define it as you will.
Bourgeois taste or not, I believe the modern art you condemn was not made
for the same reasons as why it is accepted today. It's hype today, and most
people don't know why they enjoy it, or even if they enjoy it, just that
it's worth money, so that makes it good. So they imitate it in art schools,
they imitate it outside because of that. Not because they're revolting, but
because they want to be 'famous' and 'rich' and this modern art seems the
easiest and fastest way, but it never is because its original ideals don't
apply today. Nobody knows what applies today yet, 'the convenient ism' and
that's why today it's post-modernism, tommorrow it will be ismism. You're
fighting a battle you can't win, and while you think you are, you're just
further confirming the blind beliefs, or well-founded beliefs of the very
people you dismiss as poor-crafted and non-skilled. You do precisely the
opposite of what you're trying to accomplish, which is discredit modern art.
scottvdv
...no Mani no headache
scottvdv
of Mani DeLi to reply to this post with their own personal commentary on
him, what they think of his preaching, his narrow-minded logic toward art,
and his belligerent attitude towards the people here.
scottvdv
...no Mani no nausia
Chris
Out of curiosity, why? If he upsets you, just use a filter on your
newsreader; there's no need to call up a posse. Personally I find some
of his comments quite entertaining, even though I disagree with them.
Chris
------
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
http://www.gammarat.com
Marilyn Welch
Mani stands his ground. It's the repetition of the cliches that bother me.
Now I've read somewhere that each of us has only one basic idea which
we express in various ways, throughout our life, over and over..
I've thought about that idea and it has possibilties. Mani's problem is that he
expresses his one basic idea with the same words over & over.
The rest of us have a more varied approach. Now Scott, what is your
one basic idea:
if you were to distill all your thoughts and come up with
a basic idea, what would it be?
Marilyn
lake
intelligent, and well-worth refuting. Personally, I find his passion
inspiring, his sincerity challenging.
- 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!
Alison A Raimes
<sc...@pain.net> writes
>My suggestion to you:
>Go read some more Ayn Rand and leave everyone to their vast ignorance.
There are definitely some similarities between the two aren't there ?
Both model themselves on cult status - objective sterile, repetitive
bores, the two of them. One difference though: I wouldn't offer Ayn Rand
a blow job <grin>
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Alison A Raimes
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes
>I've said it before - I welcome mdeli's comments. I think they are
>intelligent, and well-worth refuting. Personally, I find his passion
>inspiring, his sincerity challenging.
>
>- Lake
That's pretty funny. Next to you and Marilyn, I would say Mani is the
next most insincere person in this list. He makes judgement without
first seeing work and will never admit he might have made an unfounded
judgement.... but like you and Marilyn. Of course, it may be that he is
so bored and so unhappy that the only thing he has in his life is to
flame anyone who doesn't fit into his narrow minded world. Oh, but that
would also sound like you and Marilyn wouldn't it ? Well at least he has
the guts to show others his own work before mouthing off his prejudices.
There is the difference.
I guess you think you are being PC to praise Deli's sincerity and
intelligence. It certainly wasn't motivated by genuine sincerity from
yourself or that would be a contradiction of almost every response by
you to him.... in whatever name you choose to post under. BTW, I find
your posts as dumb as Wanker Webber's. Strange huh ? Funny how people
disappear here and are so often replaced by others who sound just like
them. Something to do with needing to keep the balance I guess, eh ?
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
scottvdv
mdeli wrote in message <3912376a...@news.psi.ca>...
>On 3 May 2000 11:09:03 -0500, "scottvdv" <sc...@pain.net> wrote:
>
>
> I know
>you were a supporter of Hitlers degerate art theories but you have
>proved yourself to be a Nazi yourself.
>
>
>>I would like the people of this newsgroup who are familiar with the
attitude
>>of Mani DeLi to reply to this post with their own personal commentary on
>>him, what they think of his preaching, his narrow-minded logic toward art,
>>and his belligerent attitude towards the people here.
>
>Written by someone who wrote the following:
>
>> I know you were a supporter of Hitlers degerate art theories but you have
proved yourself to be a Nazi yourself.
>>
>>scottvdv
>>
>>...no Mani no nausia
>>
>I suspect too much bullshito has given you another gas attack.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
scottvdv
Association for Generating Mass Stupidity.
mdeli wrote in message <391233c4...@news.psi.ca>...
>On Wed, 03 May 2000 11:25:24 -0700, Marilyn Welch
><wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
>>Non-posse opinion:
>>Mani stands his ground.
>
>SO do most here.
>
>> It's the repetition of the cliches that bother me.
>
>I repeat many opinions because there are always new people here. I try
>to write my messages to the point and when someone writs something
>relevant to that point I tend to repeat my old message. They are new
>to new readers here. I have started many threads that have a long
>follow up here. That in itself shows the interest in my opinions.
>
>
>>Now I've read somewhere that each of us has only one basic idea which
>>we express in various ways, throughout our life, over and over..
>>I've thought about that idea and it has possibilities. Mani's problem is
that he
>>expresses his one basic idea with the same words over & over.
>
>You are repeating yourself.
>
>>The rest of us have a more varied approach.
>
>You of course never repeat your opinions. Sure!
>
>>Now Scott, what is your
>>one basic idea:
>
>He never had an original idea in his life.
>
>>if you were to distill all your thoughts and come up with
>>a basic idea, what would it be?
>>
>>Marilyn
>
>Mani DaLi
>...no Dali no DeLi
>
>Tired of my ranting? Check out some porn !
> http://www.persiankitty.com
Alison A Raimes
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes
>Your paranoid delusions are at work again. Calm down. Take your medication.
>Mark is out of the country. Mark is not masquerading as Lake.
>Lake is Lake.
Who said he was ? Its pretty obvious who Lake is even to the dumbest
veterans here.
>Alison is in flames once again.
Better than being a wet blanket like you, eh Marilyn ?
Alison A Raimes
What's up, Marilyn ? Knitting class not started its new semester ?
In article <3910A878...@victoria.tc.ca>, Marilyn Welch
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> writes
>You know nothing about me.
>
>Why you keep referring to me, is really curious.
>I never give you a thought. Arrogance and disrespect of
>people overwhelms anything which might be construed as a contribution.
>
>As far as treating people WITHOUT due respect, and WITH
>name calling and vulgarity, you are Mani's counterpart.
>If everyone here,
>who you have insulted gave you 5 bucks, you'd be rich.
>
>You have never learned that you can disagree with people without
>getting vicious.
>
>This is my last response to you and your future posts are blocked so
>don't think your flaming eloquence will bother me.
>Get over it.
>
>Marilyn
>
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Poor Alison's hemorrhoids are acting up again. The only things she
>ever really blows is her fuse. I guess she's having another bad
>period.
hahahaha, that's intelligent and sincere !
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>Non-posse opinion:
>Mani stands his ground.
SO do most here.
> It's the repetition of the cliches that bother me.
I repeat many opinions because there are always new people here. I try
to write my messages to the point and when someone writs something
relevant to that point I tend to repeat my old message. They are new
to new readers here. I have started many threads that have a long
follow up here. That in itself shows the interest in my opinions.
>Now I've read somewhere that each of us has only one basic idea which
>we express in various ways, throughout our life, over and over..
>I've thought about that idea and it has possibilities. Mani's problem is that he
>expresses his one basic idea with the same words over & over.
You are repeating yourself.
>The rest of us have a more varied approach.
You of course never repeat your opinions. Sure!
>Now Scott, what is your
>one basic idea:
He never had an original idea in his life.
>if you were to distill all your thoughts and come up with
>a basic idea, what would it be?
>
>Marilyn
Mani DeLi
mdeli
I know
you were a supporter of Hitlers degerate art theories but you have
proved yourself to be a Nazi yourself.
>I would like the people of this newsgroup who are familiar with the attitude
>of Mani DeLi to reply to this post with their own personal commentary on
>him, what they think of his preaching, his narrow-minded logic toward art,
>and his belligerent attitude towards the people here.
Written by someone who wrote the following:
> I know you were a supporter of Hitlers degerate art theories but you have proved yourself to be a Nazi yourself.
>
>scottvdv
>
>...no Mani no nausia
>
I suspect too much bullshito has given you another gas attack.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
ever really blows is her fuse. I guess she's having another bad
period.
>In article <1c31fd54...@usw-ex0106-048.remarq.com>, lake
><lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes
>>I've said it before - I welcome mdeli's comments. I think they are
>>intelligent, and well-worth refuting. Personally, I find his passion
>>inspiring, his sincerity challenging.
>>
>>- Lake
Alison Writes:
>That's pretty funny. Next to you and Marilyn, I would say Mani is the
>next most insincere person in this list.
Gee, you mean I'm only third?
> He makes judgement without
>first seeing work and will never admit he might have made an unfounded
>judgement...
---and like who didn't I see?
>. but like you and Marilyn. Of course, it may be that he is
>so bored and so unhappy that the only thing he has in his life is to
>flame anyone who doesn't fit into his narrow minded world. Oh, but that
>would also sound like you and Marilyn wouldn't it ? Well at least he has
>the guts to show others his own work before mouthing off his prejudices.
>There is the difference.
>
>I guess you think you are being PC to praise Deli's sincerity and
>intelligence.
Bad bad. Shame on Lake. Well at least he can take a ribbing without
becoming volcanic.
> It certainly wasn't motivated by genuine sincerity from
>yourself or that would be a contradiction of almost every response by
>you to him.... in whatever name you choose to post under. BTW, I find
>your posts as dumb as Wanker Webber's. Strange huh ? Funny how people
>disappear here and are so often replaced by others who sound just like
>them. Something to do with needing to keep the balance I guess, eh ?
Indeed it helps offset your usual diarrhea of venom.
br...@wralaw.com
"scottvdv" <sc...@pain.net> wrote:
> I would like the people of this newsgroup who are familiar with the
attitude
> of Mani DeLi to reply to this post with their own personal commentary
on
> him, what they think of his preaching, his narrow-minded logic toward
art,
> and his belligerent attitude towards the people here.
Well he certainly has your goat.
I think somehow somewhere that the things in MAA he has come to dislike
are a result of negativity. Despite not being taught how to paint like
Raphaello or even Estes, Modern-post artschools are hardly love ins.
More like I don't like your work, etc. etc. etc. and many students get
a strong blast of negativity no matter what they do, even if they write
a lot of Arits Statements, and read alot. The solution to +all+ of
arts problems is to stop talking so much, and that will even take care
of Mani, as well as no skill hero's. After all what would happen if
artists spent their time learning art rather than learning talk? What
does art that isn't worth looking at got without it?
I for one wish I'd stop posting here!
> scottvdv
> ...no Mani no nausia
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
christopher moss
_Teach a man to see, and that man will make for us a work of art.
-cm
Tooloose Lowtec
but if you are talking about deli, I think this is more apt:
Never try to teach a pig to whistle,
it is a waste of your time, and annoys the pig.
--
Tooloose
lake
for my sincerity, you're wrong again! I really do admire & enjoy
mdeli's posts. I disagree with nearly everything he says, true. But the
guy is bright and articulate, and he has a well-thought-out point of
view.
So he's got an abrasive style, so he's rude, so what? Remember, he's
swimming against the grain here. Besides,you're no angel in that
department either. One can overlook such minor pecadillos, for the
greater glory of art.
Tooloose Lowtec
>
> No, you're mistaken there - I've never posted under any other name. As
> for my sincerity, you're wrong again! I really do admire & enjoy
> mdeli's posts. I disagree with nearly everything he says, true. But the
> guy is bright and articulate, and he has a well-thought-out point of
> view.
>
> So he's got an abrasive style, so he's rude, so what? Remember, he's
> swimming against the grain here. Besides,you're no angel in that
> department either. One can overlook such minor pecadillos, for the
> greater glory of art.
>
All of that would be ok, but the man just doesn't PLAY FAIR - he
deliberately misinterprets, avoids the points being made in favour of
scoffing at a turn of phrase & when all else fails - which is more often
than not - simply hurls insults. It is painful to watch people who
aren't on to him, present honest,
carefully constructed arguments, only to be subjected to his arrogant
abuse.
He turns what could be a place for honest exchange of ideas between
artists, a place for us to offer each other support, or seek support
when we need it, into an absurd battle zone.
How can you possibly have respect for him?
--
Tooloose Lowtec
scottvdv
>It's not easy to look back over your entire life and
>to figure out, "What's my story?"
>"What's my basic idea?" But once you begin, you will
>find an underlying pattern which has been more
>obvious to the people around you than to yourself.
But so far the pattern is "I hope my manic depression doesn't kick in
today."
scottvdv
>Most art schools certainly claim that they will teach you how to see
>(whatever that means) because they certainly can't teach you how to
>draw.
>
>Go to art school and they will also teach you how to imagine that you
>can create art.
>
>Happiness consists of being well deceived.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
>
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
First thing I can agree with Mani on.
mdeli
(christopher moss) wrote:
>_Teach a man to draw, and he will give you a drawing
>_Teach a man to see, and that man will make for us a work of art.
>
Most art schools certainly claim that they will teach you how to see
roac...@my-deja.com
or draw like the Old Masters in order to be great. By this standard,
anything and everything created since Modernism and has been one big
failure and joke. What a can of Vito Acconci *that* is! Especially in
light of the long body of research recently brought forward by David
Hockney re: the historical use of the camera lucida in artmaking. How
some viewers can look at Modernist art and claim it's all been a farce is
not a very *skilled* or *educated* viewer in my opinion. How one can so
easily belittle and dismiss 100 years of making art is beyond me. Being
an artist is definitely about learning how to see. And then about taking
what one sees and putting it into form. The variety of form or practice
these skills take shape in is what makes Modernism and art beyond so
exciting. The measure of a good artist cannot and should not be based
soley on the techniques of Old Masters.
End of rant.
Lissa
roac...@my-deja.com
> The reason is that, drawing well is something different than drawing
> the subject matter of the masters.
I am not talking about subject matter. That's irrelevant. Drawing well
can be learned much faster than you think. It is not a mystery. It is
especially not a mystery when you look at where the precision of the
masters really came from. A device.
> There is the modernism in museums which is usually a lot duller than a
> good joke and there is all that other fine work which is carefully
> kept out of museums which adds up to a hell of a lot of fine work.
Some is and some is not. Lots of traditional art is pretty boring too.
What's your point?
> Museums and critics dismiss 100 years of good art by not exhibiting or
> mentioning it.
This is way to laughable for words but let me try. Do you not read or
study art? Or maybe you just focus so hard on the art you hate that you
can't see the other stuff you profess to love.
>
> > The measure of a good artist cannot and should not be based
> >soley on the techniques of Old Masters.
> >
> It isn't.
Oh. Then would you please get around to explicating what it is you
consider skill? I don't think you even know.
Alison A Raimes
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> writes
>No, you're mistaken there - I've never posted under any other name. As
>for my sincerity, you're wrong again! I really do admire & enjoy
>mdeli's posts. I disagree with nearly everything he says, true. But the
>guy is bright and articulate, and he has a well-thought-out point of
>view.
>
>So he's got an abrasive style, so he's rude, so what? Remember, he's
>swimming against the grain here. Besides,you're no angel in that
>department either. One can overlook such minor pecadillos, for the
>greater glory of art.
>
Bollocks ! you are always coming up with these naive clichés - *greater
glory of art*. Jeeeeeeesus - what do you think you know by that stupid
statement - and all the other romantic notions you have. I doubt you
even know what they mean half the time. Are you even an artist ? or do
you just aspire to be like most of the others here ?
I have always admired Mani for his stance and love his abrasiveness -
this is a playground because of him, and I am grateful for that. Of
course, every new comer gets a letter from Fox telling them how much he
admires their writing and not to enter into discussions with Mani. Its
standard procedure. I guess Fox sees himself as some sort of saviour -
which is ironical as he posts under so many different names and has even
become Mani's *friend* under one pseudonym, that I doubt he even knows
what his own identity is - that is clearly apparent in his rip-offs of
past artists. Come on *Lake* - serious debate goes on around dinner
tables, not yelling across a disco like this. I personally, have tried,
on numerous occasions, to debate with him. He has some very valid
points, which I agree with. I've admitted to him on many occasions this
same thing. What I do not appreciate is his persistent lying to prove a
point - and his constant references to panties every time a woman tries
to argue with him. Some smart women have slaughtered his notions here -
he has hated every minute of it. His credibility went when he said he
had met Rothko in the Cedar Bar, along with the other AbEx crowd. Rothko
was not a frequenter of that bar - its well documented. He was a private
man, an intellect, who preferred the company of only a select few. This
revelation and challenge of Mani's credibility infuriated him, and since
then his attacks on me have always been nothing but of a personal nature
- calling me a *fat sow* being his favourite, and first retort, in
response to my uncovering his lies. Hard to be offended by being called
a fat sow, of course, but how does that fit into your *intelligent* and
sincere category ? Since then, I haven't wasted time trying to reason or
enter into any sort of intelligent conversation with him, except to have
some fun. Come on - no one else has ever offered Mani a virtual blow
job. He hated it so much because it reflected on his constant *panties*
references he uses on women. He's so easy to get wound up - just like
moaning Marilyn and upyourJaxart. Its called *sport*. I mean who would
seriously spend their time in the same room as Mani ... or me ...... if
they didn't enjoy it - that's what KILL buttons are for.
One thing about Mani's review is that you will notice he only bothers
with strong artists. He never wastes his time with the wannabees. But
Mani's anti *reviews* for anyone who doesn't fit into his neat little
narrow minded category - though god knows why he thinks he has been
given this job - are all revamps of each past one. A few words changed
here and there that's all. That invalidates everything he says. He
reviewed my drawings before I even posted them. He doesn't like smart
people - its as simple as that. He is not intelligent - he is not
sincere - and he is a very bad writer. I think he lives under delusions
of grandeur and wouldn't believe one single word that he says here.
Alison A Raimes - thats my real name. I have nothing to hide, or be ashamed of,
and do not fear anything. You should try it sometime. It's called being FREE.
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
scottvdv
words into my mouth like me calling him a Nazi?
I never posted or mailed him this shit:
>> I know you were a supporter of Hitlers degerate art theories but you have
>proved yourself to be a Nazi yourself.
>>
>>scottvdv
>>
>>...no Mani no nausia
Not to mention bad grammar Mani.
scottvdv
anna t
> are blocked so
> don't think your flaming eloquence will bother me.
Beautifully and artfully said. I always appreciate a
confident yet snide dismissal! Brava!
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
roac...@my-deja.com
> When you lived in NYC as long as I did and you are interested in art
> you don't miss out on what's happening. I was a card carrying member
> of the MOMA before you were born.
NYC is not the only the place in the world to view art. And let's not
forget that New York is the heart of American Modernism. And do you know
what MOMA stands for you fool? MUSEUM OF MODERN ART. Duh. If you want to
view pre-Modern art then you are visiting the WRONG gallery you goof.
Maybe you should go to Europe. You sound like an old bitter man living in
the dark ages to me. Go back to your cave.
> >
> >Oh. Then would you please get around to explicating what it is you
> >consider skill? I don't think you even know.
> >
> Skill, among other things is what you probably don't have.
You still didn't answer the question. Come on Mr. Know-It-All, lay it
out. Skill takes form in many ways, not just the narrow one you probably
mean (but since you are incapable of explicating what it is you do mean
then it's just a mute point ...err, that is your point is mute).
Lissa
roac...@my-deja.com
anna t wrote:
> > This is my last response to you and your future posts
> > are blocked so
> > don't think your flaming eloquence will bother me.
>
> Beautifully and artfully said. I always appreciate a
> confident yet snide dismissal! Brava!
Yeah, and then the ditzhead responded to Ali's next post. Duh.
scottvdv
and see how much you all love one another.
I'm not being sarcastic.
scottvdv
scottvdv
>> you don't miss out on what's happening. I was a card carrying member
>> of the MOMA before you were born.
do you know
>what MOMA stands for you fool? MUSEUM OF MODERN ART.
He's just making the point he knows Modern Art, in and out.
>Maybe you should go to Europe. You sound like an old bitter man living in
>the dark ages to me. Go back to your cave.
I've been all over Europe, and it's hardly an art 'cave.'
In fact, I prefer the gallery atmosphere in Europe over NYC any day. [big
generalization]
It's interesting to see how ethnocentric Americans are and they don't even
realize it. Assuming you're American, of course.
scottvdv
Scarlett
"scottvdv" <sc...@pain.net> wrote in message :
Roachgirl wrote to Mani:
: >Maybe you should go to Europe. You sound like an old bitter
man living in
: >the dark ages to me. Go back to your cave.
:
:
: I've been all over Europe, and it's hardly an art 'cave.'
:
: In fact, I prefer the gallery atmosphere in Europe over NYC any
day. [big
: generalization]
:
: It's interesting to see how ethnocentric Americans are and they
don't even
: realize it. Assuming you're American, of course.
:
: scottvdv
Hello Mani's groupie. I knew he had one, just couldn't remember
the initials.
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs?
Two or three shock treatments," Mary George said.
"Get that artist business out of his head once and for all."
(from "The Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
Scarlett
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:3915cb59...@news.psi.ca...
: On Sat, 6 May 2000 11:26:10 +0100, Alison A Raimes
: <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
:
: > Some smart women have slaughtered his notions here -
: >he has hated every minute of it.
: Alison is into amiture telepithy
Let's see. You hated Ariane (and you never even saw her art!),
Alison and myself. Roachgirl was flamed by you tonight and her
views seem contemporary.
Contemporary women say: Boo, Mani! Flicker, Swat, Squish....
: > His credibility went when he said he
: >had met Rothko in the Cedar Bar, along with the other AbEx
crowd. Rothko
: >was not a frequenter of that bar - its well documented. He was
a private
: >man, an intellect, who preferred the company of only a select
few.
:
: Alison has repeated this balony before. Inever met Rothko naver
said I
: did.I said I saw him. I met people who know him through the
grape vine
: and I said he was bored.
Again, Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire. You did too!
: >This
: >revelation and challenge of Mani's credibility infuriated him,
It pissed him off a lot too!
: Alison, frankly I don't give a shit.
Yes you do or you wouldn't respond ;-)
: > and since
: >then his attacks on me have always been nothing but of a
personal nature
: >- calling me a *fat sow* being his favourite,
He called you ugly too ;-)
: As to your stupid personal attack and what brought it on I
repeat some
: of your more important comments on Modern Art
(snipping stuff that will make Marilyn mad and report Mani to his
server)
: >One thing about Mani's review is that you will notice he only
bothers
: >with strong artists.
Very true! My worst fear (almost) was to have Mani write that he
liked my work. I would lose respect from those whom I respect :-0
Go to Deja, Alta Vista, Remarq, get a false identity and then
write posts about how great you are Sweetie.
--
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
:
: Mani DeLi
: ...no skill no art - keep dose women away!
:
: Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Scarlett
actually Dan Henderson in San Francisco and was stalking her.
Real credible, Mani.
: Except when someone misquotes you or writes messages and sign
your
: name to it, as has happened to me on several occasions.
:
:
: Mani DeLi
: ...no skill no art
mdeli
>No, you're mistaken there - I've never posted under any other name. As
>for my sincerity, you're wrong again! I really do admire & enjoy
>mdeli's posts. I disagree with nearly everything he says, true. But the
>guy is bright and articulate, and he has a well-thought-out point of
>view.
>
>So he's got an abrasive style, so he's rude, so what?
I agree. No apologies!
You will notice that my serious messages call a lot of artists I don't
like names like charlatans, bullshit artists who produce crap etc. I'm
not writing for Time magazine here and everyone knows exactly what
these terms mean. Those who feign prudery here won't get any apologies
from me. I believe that art criticism should be direct and to the
point.
I have by now read about forty years of totally unchallenged idiotic
Modern Artspeak theory and criticism couched in a logic that shouldn't
fool a 12 year old. I believe its time too call a spade a spade,
directly, clearly and in as few words as possible. When I see tenth
rate artwork I say what I think of it.
I'm on to the bullshit of the MAA market and the phonies who are
curators. Even Fox tends to agree with me on this.
I lived in NYC for many years I know about scandals and how critics
are AKed and how one phoney artist can rise to the top while a
thousand other who are equally incompetent have to sleep under
bridges. Above all I know about artzy fartzy teachers who preach a
creed with steady stream of bullshit instead of teaching a craft, to
the ruin of their few talanted students
I'm also tired of whispering culties who walk around with a shit
eating grin and speak exclusivly in superlitive terms While they
expect you to only say nice things about what they like and will
compliment your work only if you compliment theirs. Art schools are
full of them.
Those who are offended by my personal attack should look back at the
thread and see who started it.. They will find that they did a play on
words on my name or said something like Lissa just did who concluded
with the statement,
"Do you have eyes or do you look at art through your ass?"
Every once in a while some particular dense idiot call me a Nazi.
Please feel free to call me whatever the fuck you want, but expect an
answer in kind.
> Remember, he's
>swimming against the grain here. Besides,you're no angel in that
>department either. One can overlook such minor pecadillos, for the
>greater glory of art.
And if you study art history you"ll have to overlook a lot of
peccadillos.
>- Lake
mdeli
>I have never understood the pretentious ideal that all artists must paint
>or draw like the Old Masters in order to be great.
The reason is that, drawing well is something different than drawing
the subject matter of the masters.
>By this standard,
>anything and everything created since Modernism and has been one big
>failure and joke.
There is the modernism in museums which is usually a lot duller than a
good joke and there is all that other fine work which is carefully
kept out of museums which adds up to a hell of a lot of fine work.
> What a can of Vito Acconci *that* is! Especially in
>light of the long body of research recently brought forward by David
>Hockney re: the historical use of the camera lucida in artmaking. How
>some viewers can look at Modernist art and claim it's all been a farce is
>not a very *skilled* or *educated* viewer in my opinion. How one can so
>easily belittle and dismiss 100 years of making art is beyond me.
Museums and critics dismiss 100 years of good art by not exhibiting or
mentioning it.
> The measure of a good artist cannot and should not be based
>soley on the techniques of Old Masters.
>
It isn't.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
>I re-read all this crap and it seems Mani has done a bad job at manipulating
>words into my mouth like me calling him a Nazi?
>
>I never posted or mailed him this shit:
YOU ARE ENTIRELY CORRECT and I offer my sincere apologies. It is very
unpleasant to be as misquoted ESPECIALLY in the way I misquoted you.
What happened is that I confused your author name with that of Sinhue
who signs Miles. I didn't catch on to my mistake until you mentioned
it here. Otherwise I would have written this message far sooner.
SO to get it straight it was SInhue - Miles who wrote
" I know you were a supporter of Hitlers degerate art theories but you
have proved yourself to be a Nazi yourself."
NOT YOU, My apologies again
mdeli
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> Some smart women have slaughtered his notions here -
>he has hated every minute of it.
Alison is into amiture telepithy
> His credibility went when he said he
>had met Rothko in the Cedar Bar, along with the other AbEx crowd. Rothko
>was not a frequenter of that bar - its well documented. He was a private
>man, an intellect, who preferred the company of only a select few.
Alison has repeated this balony before. Inever met Rothko naver said I
did.I said I saw him. I met people who know him through the grape vine
and I said he was bored.
>This
>revelation and challenge of Mani's credibility infuriated him,
Alison, frankly I don't give a shit.
> and since
>then his attacks on me have always been nothing but of a personal nature
>- calling me a *fat sow* being his favourite,
As to your stupid personal attack and what brought it on I repeat some
of your more important comments on Modern Art
> ""A good blow job would probably do you the world of good, dear thing...
>you should have just come right out and said it - always happy to give
>to the needy ;
>Erik: you've sat on the fence so long your testicles have ended up in your mouth.
>ROLOL - from the man who has to take Viagra even to contemplate writing
>the word *penetration*.
>
>well don't expect me to give him another blow job - its somebody else's
>turn now.
>ROLOL - from the man who has to take Viagra even to contemplate writing
>the word *penetration*.
>
>Hey ! I charged you 500 bucks for that blow job, you cheap skate.
> its
>about coming to terms with not having things presented to us neatly on a
>plate ... did your Mommy breast feed you until you were fifteen or
>something, Mani ?
>It was in reverence to Mani's trembling!
>
>He is so cute when he trembles, you can't blame me for wanting to do
>something nice for him.
>He already had it .... and then paid me with a check that bounced
>.....ungrateful old bastard - doesn't he realise it was his last chance
>to ever have one ? ;-) ""
>One thing about Mani's review is that you will notice he only bothers
>with strong artists.
You and Fox are pretty weak.
mdeli
>
>
>> The reason is that, drawing well is something different than drawing
>> the subject matter of the masters.
>
>I am not talking about subject matter. That's irrelevant. Drawing well
>can be learned much faster than you think. It is not a mystery. It is
>especially not a mystery when you look at where the precision of the
>masters really came from. A device.
Its easy all you have to get is the "DEVICE." Where did you pick
your's up, or is it still on order? Send the mailing address to Fox,
Alison and Scarlett, they desperatly need one.
>> Museums and critics dismiss 100 years of good art by not exhibiting or
>> mentioning it.
>
>This is way to laughable for words but let me try. Do you not read or
>study art? Or maybe you just focus so hard on the art you hate that you
>can't see the other stuff you profess to love.
When you lived in NYC as long as I did and you are interested in art
you don't miss out on what's happening. I was a card carrying member
of the MOMA before you were born.
>> > The measure of a good artist cannot and should not be based
>> >soley on the techniques of Old Masters.
>> >
>> It isn't.
>
>Oh. Then would you please get around to explicating what it is you
>consider skill? I don't think you even know.
>
Skill, among other things is what you probably don't have.
Mani DeLi
roac...@my-deja.com
> He's just making the point he knows Modern Art, in and out.
He could have fooled me. He thinks that the skill of a pencil is the only
defining marker of a good artist. He puts down Modernism because it is
the only way he knows how to elevate his own *realist/psuedo-Dali* art.
He might be a good draftsman but his work really does lack originality
and vision. I even prefer Clive Barker's drawings to this clown's work
(Clive's work is more imaginative and alive). Good execution means little
if the work lacks vision.
> I've been all over Europe, and it's hardly an art 'cave.'
Obviously you misunderstood my point: that he could find all sorts of art
throughout America, Europe, Australia, Canada etc. that isn't necessarily
*modernist*. As for the dark ages comment: I meant that *HE* is living in
a cave not that European art is. It's MANI's MIND that's a cave not
Europe. Get it????
> It's interesting to see how ethnocentric Americans are and they don't even realize it. Assuming you're American, of course.
>
> scottvdv
Bad assumption. I am Canadian (and there is a difference). A lot of work
here was made long before it ever became fashionable in America. And how
exactly am I showing my ethnocentricity? I have enjoyed looking at art of
the past, the present and look forward to the future. I have enjoyed work
from other countries/cultures/genders although the majority of work has
definitely, even unfortunately, centred around white European or American
male painters.
Alison A Raimes
<mtrueN...@enter.net.invalid> writes
>> This is my last response to you and your future posts
>> are blocked so
>> don't think your flaming eloquence will bother me.
>
>
>Beautifully and artfully said. I always appreciate a
>confident yet snide dismissal! Brava!
Oh please, if we all had five bucks for the times Marilyn has said this.
But she just doesn't have it in her - can't resist that pesky button to
see that people are saying about her. You know, like that nosey
neighbour across the road who peeks through the lace curtains.
Alison A Raimes
your hard drive. Cheers ! And please don't put me next to the fraud Fox.
In article <3915cb59...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
writes
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>
>Go to Deja, Alta Vista, Remarq, get a false identity and then
>write posts about how great you are Sweetie.
>
>--
>Scarlett
>http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Christ Scarlett - you got 850 hits on your site the day Mani did his
review !!! That's pretty good. He's not a bad old boot, is he ?
Ali
scottvdv
>
>> He's just making the point he knows Modern Art, in and out.
>
>He could have fooled me. He thinks that the skill of a pencil is the only
>defining marker of a good artist. He puts down Modernism because it is
>the only way he knows how to elevate his own *realist/psuedo-Dali* art.
>He might be a good draftsman but his work really does lack originality
>and vision. I even prefer Clive Barker's drawings to this clown's work
>(Clive's work is more imaginative and alive). Good execution means little
>if the work lacks vision.
>
I can't believe it, but I'm starting to defend this guy.
He says he doesn't condemn all Modern Art, if you pay attention.
And Clive Barker is a genius.
>> I've been all over Europe, and it's hardly an art 'cave.'
>
>Obviously you misunderstood my point: that he could find all sorts of art
>throughout America, Europe, Australia, Canada etc. that isn't necessarily
>*modernist*. As for the dark ages comment: I meant that *HE* is living in
>a cave not that European art is. It's MANI's MIND that's a cave not
>Europe. Get it????
"Maybe you should go to Europe. You sound like an old bitter man living in
the dark ages to me. Go back to your cave."
Well, that sentence is a little ambiguous then, isn't it?
>> It's interesting to see how ethnocentric Americans are and they don't
even realize it. Assuming you're American, of course.
>>
>> scottvdv
>
>Bad assumption. I am Canadian (and there is a difference). A lot of work
>here was made long before it ever became fashionable in America. And how
>exactly am I showing my ethnocentricity? I have enjoyed looking at art of
>the past, the present and look forward to the future. I have enjoyed work
>from other countries/cultures/genders although the majority of work has
>definitely, even unfortunately, centred around white European or American
>male painters.
Everything becomes fashionable (kitsch) in America at one point or another.
As for the ethnocentricity, you can understand I pulled that from the
misinterpretation of your previous comment. I never realized how
ethnocentric I was until my first overseas experience.
scottvdv
scottvdv
>the initials.
Why don't you get a little bit of a clue and read the beginning of this
thread. I'm starting to see why Mani is so disgruntled.
scottvdv
Alison A Raimes
>
>Alison is into amiture telepithy
Wasssss that then ??????
>> His credibility went when he said he
>>had met Rothko in the Cedar Bar, along with the other AbEx crowd. Rothko
>>was not a frequenter of that bar - its well documented. He was a private
>>man, an intellect, who preferred the company of only a select few.
>
>Alison has repeated this balony before. Inever met Rothko naver said I
>did.I said I saw him. I met people who know him through the grape vine
>and I said he was bored.
I guess I will have to go search Usenet for it when I have enough time.
Your memory is almost as bad as Marilyn's.
Wish i had a list of all the times you referred to *panties* in your
posts, Mani - it may come close to my *blow jobs*
Oh and well done for spelling my name right, sweet pea
Alison
scottvdv
scottvdv
lake
see. Drawing, as you'd no doubt define it, is primarily rendering -
that is, getting what's on the paper to look exactly like what's in
front of you. This is a fine skill to have, but there's a big problem
with it - namely, that rendering does NOT duplicate reality, rather it
creates a MODEL of reality. This model is constructed out of a-priori
systems of rules, and has little to do with actual vision. What the
draughtsman does, in this type of drawing, is to manipulate the
pre-existing model until it corresponds with what s/he is looking at.
It can just as well be manipulated to create a convincing "reality"
which has no relation whatsoever to what is actually seen.
"Learning how to draw" in the common understanding of the phrase,
actually means learning how to control and manipulate the model - it
has little to do with really seeing.
- 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!
lake
appologize for being romantic either.
Alright, so you've got your reasons for despising mdeli - but that has
nothing to do with ME. I have a right to my own opinion. And PLEASE
stop insisting that I am somebody else. I assure you, I am a singular
entity, and have never posted under any other name.
Also I rather enjoy this "disco", and I don't yell.
Scarlett
"mdeli" <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
: >: scottvdv
: >:
: >Hello Mani's groupie. I knew he had one, just couldn't
remember
: >the initials.
: >
: >--
: >Scarlett
:
: Pheew, sounds like her panties are on fire.
:
: Mani DeLi
Yep! They call me "hot pants". Gotta run, see you in a month or
so and thanks for the PR on my site <smooch>
--
Scarlett
Website:
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
"Do you know what he needs?
Two or three shock treatments," Mary George said.
"Get that artist business out of his head once and for all."
(from "The Enduring Chill" by Flannery O'Connor)
: Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
: ...no skill no art
Thomas Ziorjen
lake wrote:
> There's a big difference between knowing how to draw and knowing how to
> see. Drawing, as you'd no doubt define it, is primarily rendering -
> that is, getting what's on the paper to look exactly like what's in
> front of you. This is a fine skill to have, but there's a big problem
> with it - namely, that rendering does NOT duplicate reality, rather it
> creates a MODEL of reality. This model is constructed out of a-priori
> systems of rules, and has little to do with actual vision. What the
> draughtsman does, in this type of drawing, is to manipulate the
> pre-existing model until it corresponds with what s/he is looking at.
> It can just as well be manipulated to create a convincing "reality"
> which has no relation whatsoever to what is actually seen.
>
> "Learning how to draw" in the common understanding of the phrase,
> actually means learning how to control and manipulate the model - it
> has little to do with really seeing.
>
While I certainly understand what you mean by 'learning to manipulate the
model' I wouldn't agree that it has 'little to do with really seeing'. I think
the kind of slowed down, careful observation that is learned as part of
learning to draw and paint from life, really does teach you to see in a way
that is very different from the way we habitually view the world.
It may not be the only way to awaken that kind of awareness, but it is a very
effective one. I also don't think of drawing as an end in itself, or buy into
the 'everyone needs rigorous classical training' argument, but it is a good
place to get started as an artist. And I do mean 'get started', -- there is SO
much more to explore, beyond accurate drawing/painting -- it would be a shame
to get stuck there.
Thomas
mdeli
>I'm glad I started this thread, it's always interesting to randomly log on
>and see how much you all love one another.
>
>I'm not being sarcastic.
>
>scottvdv
>
Well I being sarcastic. It ain't exactly a love in but its fun if you
enjoy that sort of stuff.
Except when someone misquotes you or writes messages and sign your
name to it, as has happened to me on several occasions.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
>>> His credibility went when he said he
>>>had met Rothko in the Cedar Bar, along with the other AbEx crowd. Rothko
>>>was not a frequenter of that bar - its well documented. He was a private
>>>man, an intellect, who preferred the company of only a select few.
>>
>>did. I said I saw him. I met people who know him through the grape vine
>>and I said he was bored.
>
>I guess I will have to go search Usenet for it when I have enough time.
>Your memory is almost as bad as Marilyn's.
You'll find it when your ass deflates.
>
>Wish i had a list of all the times you referred to *panties* in your
>posts, Mani - it may come close to my *blow jobs*
Gee "Panties" seems an inflammatory term to female chauvinist prudes
these days. A while back I was going with this gal and referred to
her panties as a part of the conversation. We weren't arguing or
anything and she suddenly had a shit fit in the middle of the street.
Well I learned something new. If you want to quietly light a bomb
under some ones ass always note what I call their thunder-words. In
art its Norman Rockwell. Next time some pompous ass lecturer at the
modern museum goes off in a verbal orgasm just ask what he thinks
about that picture compared to Norman Rockwell. I admit it doesn't
work all the time.
>
>Oh and well done for spelling my name right, sweet pea
>Alison
Glad to please you fart face.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
mdeli
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>: I've been all over Europe, and it's hardly an art 'cave.'
>:
>: In fact, I prefer the gallery atmosphere in Europe over NYC any
>day. [big
>: generalization]
>:
>: It's interesting to see how ethnocentric Americans are and they
>don't even
>: realize it. Assuming you're American, of course.
>:
>: scottvdv
>:
>Hello Mani's groupie. I knew he had one, just couldn't remember
>the initials.
>
>--
>Scarlett
Pheew, sounds like her panties are on fire.
Mani DeLi
Ken Bradford
scottvdv wrote:
> >Most art schools certainly claim that they will teach you how to see
> >(whatever that means) because they certainly can't teach you how to
> >draw.
> >
> >Go to art school and they will also teach you how to imagine that you
> >can create art.
> >
> >Happiness consists of being well deceived.
> >
> >Mani DeLi
> >...no skill no art
> >
> >Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> > http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
> First thing I can agree with Mani on.
roac...@my-deja.com
> >
>
> I can't believe it, but I'm starting to defend this guy.
> He says he doesn't condemn all Modern Art, if you pay attention.
> And Clive Barker is a genius.
Well Scott, I don't believe he makes his position very clear. He does *
say* he doesn't denounce all Modern Art but then he turns around and
makes sweeping generalizations about how awful the Modern Art world is. I
don't buy his arguments or his list of Modern artists. Especially since
most of his examples of Modern artists are illustrators, realist painters
or surrealists painters (there is nothing wrong with that kind of art
making but that's not all there is). I also don't buy his arguments that
what he wants to see isn't being shown. There is a Dali museum, Chicago
Art Institute houses a large collection of Surrealist art, and the list
goes on. I don't understand what he is whining about frankly ..especially
when he appropriates the things he hates most in Modernism and then
claims it as his own. How one can not see the brilliance and skill used
in Matisse's work, for example, is beyond me. "The Red Studio" is a
stunning example of how a painting can combine flat space with
perspective through beautiful colour and line. And if you look at
Matisse's line drawings you cannot deny the skill of his hand and his
perceptual prowess. He is able to create a pictorial space and form with
line only (no shadow). It should also be noted he created these drawings
in one long uninterrupted line. Yeah right ...as if that doesn't take any
skill.
I agree that Cliver Barker is brilliant. But for me it is his imagination
that is brilliant not his art. As much as I like looking at his art I
would not call its execution or presentation brilliant. It's mediocre for
the most part. But the visions he presents ...now they are brilliant!
>
> Well, that sentence is a little ambiguous then, isn't it?
And I clarified it ...so why beat a dead horse deader than dead?
roac...@my-deja.com
very well stated. I would stress that one cannot really learn to draw or
make visual art if they don't also learn how to see. It is a combined
effort. We need technique in order to execute visually what we *see* but
those same tools are useless if we don't know how to look. And for me
seeing doesn't always mean seeing what is there literally but seeing it
deeper or beyond or in a different way. And Lake, you cannot *manipulate
the pre-existing model until it corresponds with what s/he is looking at*
unless learn to look.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>You'll find it when your ass deflates.
Hey, whose being giving you medical information on me ? Your a bit too
close to home on this one ;-) Have you ever had one of those cameras
shoved up your rear end ? Now that is what I call a *close up* of your
inner self. Ouch.
>Gee "Panties" seems an inflammatory term to female chauvinist prudes
>these days. A while back I was going with this gal and referred to
>her panties as a part of the conversation. We weren't arguing or
>anything and she suddenly had a shit fit in the middle of the street.
Still going with *gals*, Mani ? Well good on you. My *guy* is 71 - a
Frenchman who studied art at Columbia in the mid fifties around the same
time as you purport to have been amongst the AbEx crowd. He once out
stared Picasso in Paris. You and he would get on just fine. He would be
around your age then ? He also appears to have a fixation with panties
... and I don't throw shit fits when he mentions them either ;-) Nor
does he seem to object to me discussing blow jobs on a regular basis ;-)
I sincerely hope you dumped that *gal* anyway, and got someone who likes
you talking about her panties and gives you a good blow job.
>Glad to please you fart face.
I have to admit you were fun and a good sport on this occasion.
Thanks cow pat breath.
Alison
martin adler
On Sat, 6 May 2000, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> I have always admired Mani for his stance and love his abrasiveness -
> this is a playground because of him, and I am grateful for that. Of
> course, every new comer gets a letter from Fox telling them how much he
> admires their writing and not to enter into discussions with Mani. Its
> standard procedure.
I DID NOT GET ONE!
martin adler (feeling badly neglegted now)
p.s. :)
Erik A. Mattila
handle on the rhetoric being splashed about.
I don't like the term 'model' at all, Lake, although I see what you are driving
at. The etymology of 'model' and 'drawing' are so diverse, but the one concept
that both share is 'representation.' Now, if you were going to really
seriously study drawing and all it's implication, and go to a library, you're
research tip would to look for theories of 'representation.' If you search
under 'model' you'll arrive at all sorts of unwanted destinations - even
astrophysics and molecular biology, egad! Do you have a problem with the term
'represention' in this regard?
But what really interests me, by way of rhetoric, is your statement "knowing
how to see" especially as it relates to an objective of studying art. Everyone
knows how to see, except for people who cannot see or people who have
benefitted by surgery and have experienced vision of the first time. It's part
of the package - and if you study vision and optics and psychology it becomes
apparent that vision, or knowing how to see, is extremely complex and it has
all sorts of evolutionary history related to our ability to survive as a
species these last million years or so, as well as our prototype ancestors all
the way back the the ancient lemurs who has stereoscopic vision which allowed
them to truck around in the treetops effeiciently. So let's agree that
everyone already 'knows how to see."
But artists like to produce rich metaphors, especially the kind that make art
seem mysterious, profound and (perhaps) more significant that it is. Insofar
as seeing is concerned, a competent artist will have learned certain things
about 'seeing' so it might be more accurate to say that an artist must learn
how to see differently than others. There's a difference betweeing saying
"learn how to see" as opposed to saying "learn how to see differently."
Principally, saying "learn how to see" implies that those who have not gone
through the sacred rites of articity do no know how to see (since they have not
learned this). Yet we know that everyone knows how to see. It's obvious. If
I felt that others could not see because they have not been initiated into the
artist priesthood I certainly would not operate a vehicle on the street, for
example (or agree to participate in a police lineup, or do mime or magic before
spectators.
Because some Impressionist Painters were interested in the philosophy of French
Naturalism, they wanted to make paintings that reflected some sort of truth of
reality, and we have a lot of paintings with fuzzy landscapes that strike us as
quite unnatural, since if we look at the subject itself it doesn't look that
way. Or does it? In fact, under the influence of a natural philosophy,
artists were compelled to experiment, and discovered that if one concentrated
visually on an object in nature, the forground and background was actually
quite blurry. Such is human vision, given our exceedingly short depth of
field, which we seldom notice, given our exceedling rapid focus mechanism. So
these French Impressionists felt they were being truthful by painting a
landscape, as if it were indeed frozen in time in reference to human vision.
But, on the other hand, we don't see the world this way - as frozen in time.
We see the world in time, even if instantaneous as our eyes focus from plane to
plane through time. One person's naturalism is another's artificiality, they
say...
So in this example here is something concrete about how an artist learns to see
differently. And I stress 'concrete' as opposed ot sweeping metaphorics which
always hide anything that might be useful.
Of course the 'seeing differently' that artists learn (and some never learn,
and some others sort of learn - I mean they can employ the 'seeing different'
lesssons without ever being aware of them, in a concrete sense - include many
other things. The value of very tight descriptive drawing and rendering is
that you do learn to see differently. But it's not as if you are seeing the
world - the 'out there' differently - but rather you are learning to see
representation itself differently. It is a metadiscourse, in fact - learning
to see about seeing. Since the 'out there' world is being translated into
another kind of world - of two dimensions with very curtailed possibilities of
light - with a completely different set of relationships and interdependencies
that exist in nature. So you might eventually learn (if you are to succeed in
a 'faithful rendering') that there are five keys to the believability of a
grape, and if you employ these five keys you can pull it off everytime - that
is a rendering of a grape which everyone will believe in. If you don't use the
five keys (and I'm just inventing this figure - maybe there are only 3 keys
with grapes, or maybe 12) then a faithful rendering involves representing what
you actually see in your subject, and you could spend forever trying to
replicate the physics of grapicity and end up with an image that does not say
'grape' any more than using the five key.
Given the radical discontinuity between the 'out there' world and the
abbriviated simplism of the canvas, panel or sheet of paper, it's important to
understand what realm the 'five keys' reside in. Not in the world, certainly.
The infinity of a grape or any other object in nature is testimony to this.
The five keys clearly reside in the agent of belief, that is, the viewer. It
works because the viewer can, in fact, see. So the viewer will not see the
'five keys' and understand that she/he has been tricked by the artist - they
will see a grape.
But not all people will see a grape, even though most of humanity will. But
everyone who sees the five keys well executed in a drawing to a refinement of
believability will have learned to see, and interpret, the five keys. Any
representation, no matter how truthful it appears within the context of a human
culture, runs the risk of being unintelligible to other cultures. There is no
guaranatee that everyone will see the five keys and think 'grape.' It's like
TV is so unimpressive to dogs and cats, you know.
The thing is, Lake, that I totally disagree with what you have said - "It can
just as well be manipulated to create a convincing "reality" which has no
relation whatsoever to what is actually seen." Au contrare, it has every
relationship between what is rendered faithfully and what exists, as 'seen, in
reality. That's the way we see - employing ideological systems as my fanciful
'5 keys' method. Don't you ever wonder how we are able to recognize and name
things, or perhaps better stated - how interdependent recognition and naming
really are? As human beings who can see, we have a very complex retinue of
clues, tip-offs, and schematics that allow us to recognize things in the visual
field. Many times, recognition depends as much on filtering, or 'not seeing'
extraneous material that interferes with recognition.
The 'out there' world is unknowable. We can only orgainze it with our various
devices, and experience it in a symbolic form. Achievment in arts is depicting
this symbolic form, which in itself is a representation of the unknowable. If
we could 'see' the world as it really is, we would go bonkers, swept away by
the chaos of experience.
Erik Mattila
lake wrote:
> There's a big difference between knowing how to draw and knowing how to
> see. Drawing, as you'd no doubt define it, is primarily rendering -
> that is, getting what's on the paper to look exactly like what's in
> front of you. This is a fine skill to have, but there's a big problem
> with it - namely, that rendering does NOT duplicate reality, rather it
> creates a MODEL of reality. This model is constructed out of a-priori
> systems of rules, and has little to do with actual vision. What the
> draughtsman does, in this type of drawing, is to manipulate the
> pre-existing model until it corresponds with what s/he is looking at.
> It can just as well be manipulated to create a convincing "reality"
> which has no relation whatsoever to what is actually seen.
>
> "Learning how to draw" in the common understanding of the phrase,
> actually means learning how to control and manipulate the model - it
> has little to do with really seeing.
Erik A. Mattila
Dang, Ali, you're bringing-up the nostalgia deamons once again. Now I'm
remembering an old song...
My gal's a corker,
She's a New Yorker,
I buy her anything,
To keep her in style.
She's got a head of hair,
Just like a grizzley bear,
Hey, boys!
That's were my money goes.
It has indeterminable verses, all the same, except for the 'parts' list:
She's got a set of lips,
Just like two poker chips
She's got a set of thighs,
Just like two railroad ties
She's got a set of hips,
Just like two battleships
And it goes on and on. But is it art?
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Dang, Ali, you're bringing-up the nostalgia deamons once again. Now I'm
>remembering an old song...
>
>My gal's a corker,
>She's a New Yorker,
>I buy her anything,
>To keep her in style.
>
>She's got a head of hair,
>Just like a grizzley bear,
>Hey, boys!
>That's were my money goes.
>
>It has indeterminable verses, all the same, except for the 'parts' list:
>
>She's got a set of lips,
>Just like two poker chips
>
>She's got a set of thighs,
>Just like two railroad ties
>
>She's got a set of hips,
>Just like two battleships
>
>And it goes on and on. But is it art?
>
>Erik
Damn right it is, Erik !
Ali fart face.
Chris
"Erik A. Mattila" wrote:
=============
You know Erik, an argument over the definition of "learning how to see"
could pretty well degenerate into a combination of preciousness &
querulousness, so I'm going to just avoid it by saying that (at least in
the artistic sense) "learning how to see" is a meme for "establishing
within oneself the reflexive system for analyzing and adapting one's
response to visual stimulation in light of the theoretical knowledge
that our interpretation of conditioned by factors both within and beyond
our control bla blah blah smiley." It's a whole process of coming to
grips with the visual filters with which we are equipped. ("reflexive" a
la Soros...)
As you point out later in your post, without visual filters, we'd get
swept away by the chaos of what's out there; both nature and culture
have provided us with any number of mechanisms to automatically edit our
visual input. "Learning how to see" involves identifying those visual
filters, and ideally how to go beyond them when necessary. Classical
artists hit upon one effective method - drawing from the model (life
drawing). It is effective because so much of our inherent visual
filtering centers on encapsulating the human form, particularly the
face, into primitives. We operate on a day to day basis on differencing
visual information from those primitives, and adapting those primitives
to new information. Life drawing (as well as other forms of visual
training) gives one a set of methods to get down to a level where you
can consciously challenge the primitive representation itself.
The real genius of Matisse & Picasso in particular lay in their ability
to reach down into their respective artistic psyche & examine those
forms - in no small part by comparing other ethnic representations, and
the European one, and exploring the difference between photographic and
artistic representation - in the search for basic visual elements.
Pollock's genius, OTOH, lay in being able to approach the problem from
180 degrees - rather than reducing the visual input to a minimum in
order to find an essential match with the internal, his most famous work
demonstrates the existence of those internal patterns through the supply
of what comes pretty close to random fields.
As a digression, it is really interesting (to me, at least) how much
these two approaches correspond to (and to a large degree predate)
similar scientific work. There's a far greater degree of parallel
analysis in the sciences & arts than most on either side of the border
would care to admit, but that's another topic...
See ya;
. It seems we are fitted with all sorts of filters; some biological,
some cultural.
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
http://www.gammarat.com
scottvdv
>that is brilliant not his art. As much as I like looking at his art I
>would not call its execution or presentation brilliant. It's mediocre for
>the most part. But the visions he presents ...now they are brilliant!
If he wasn't a writer first, what would you think of his art, then?
David Lynch has the same problem, like so many other persons famous for one
thing that do something else.
scottvdv
scottvdv
>But artists like to produce rich metaphors, especially the kind that make
art
>seem mysterious, profound and (perhaps) more significant that it is.
Insofar
>as seeing is concerned, a competent artist will have learned certain things
>about 'seeing' so it might be more accurate to say that an artist must
learn
>how to see differently than others. There's a difference betweeing saying
>"learn how to see" as opposed to saying "learn how to see differently."
>Principally, saying "learn how to see" implies that those who have not gone
>through the sacred rites of articity do no know how to see (since they have
not
>learned this). Yet we know that everyone knows how to see. It's obvious.
If
>I felt that others could not see because they have not been initiated into
the
>artist priesthood I certainly would not operate a vehicle on the street,
for
>example (or agree to participate in a police lineup, or do mime or magic
before
>spectators.
What are you talking about? Art *is* profound and mysterious.
Being literal is for scientists and plumbers.
Just like musicians must learn how to 'hear.' I'm sure visual artists take
their sight less for granted than the average soul uninitiated into the
priesthood.
scottvdv
christopher moss
what I meant by my statement.
Teach a man to draw and he will give you a drawing,
Teach him to see and he will produce a work of art.
I was in fact speaking metaphorically here, to some extent at least.
There is something mysterious and cult like about the way a lot of
artists speak about their work, or about art in general, but I would
stress that this 'cult' is not secretive, anyone who wants in can get
in. I hold no secrets from anyone who shows they want to learn. I took
it for granted that we all knew the difference between drawing and
seeing, but I guess we don't. I admit that the statement above was
purposefully vague, so that hopefully some sort of intelligent
conversation could be erected out of the rubble that was "thoughts on
Mani". We all seem clear about this idea of drawing meaning the ability
to render on a 2-d surface that which we see in the 3-d world. Lake,
chris and roachgirl also gave some insight here on their respective
posts, and I think they're on the same track. By drawing I mean mimesis,
that is all.
Seeing is a different story. In some sense this idea of seeing is
related to 'desagnio" the Italian word for both drawing and design. But
I also mean a study of what it is that makes a drawing a work of art.
This includes a study of the masters in a way that we can dissect what
they did and learn from it. Seeing is the study of form in the arts, a
study of how the different parts of a painting, drawing, sculpture,
music, etc. work together to produce a grand whole. It's something that
I don't see a whole lot of artists engaging themselves in, which I find
odd as this is what art has always been about. Seeing is the study of
what makes art 'work', from the paintings at Pompeii to della
Francesca's work in Arezzo, from Hokusai's 100 views of Fuji to Franz
Klein's black and white gesture paintings. Once we can 'see' and
understand form, then we can begin to make works of art, and then we can
begin to go beyond what was done in the past, we can begin to make the
art of the present. But first and foremost it is important to recognize
our position within this grand and noble tradition.
Hope this clears some things up a bit, but not so much that there's
nothing left to talk about here.
-cm
lake
I don't think we disagree substantially on this, but you explained what
I was trying to express, only more fully and accurately. My use of the
word "model" was admittedly misleading, but at least it raised the
relevant issue.
And you're right, the five keys to grapeness system IS precisely the way
we humans are able to percieve reality. My definition of learning how
to see, or see differently if you will, would be the ability to
percieve the systems underlying the projections of these systems. The
ability to distinguish experience from interpretation, and to do this
without, as you say, going bonkers.
Recognition and naming, and the systems they entail are essential to
our very identity. The world 'out there', in its entirety is indeed
unknowable - however there are significant portions of it which are NOT
unknowable, but simply unknown. And the only way to know them is to go
beyond the borders of recognition.
The ability to draw well can lead up to this threshold, because it
teaches that reality (at least on the canvas) is a kind of trick. But
if the artist stops there, and fails to note that these tricks have a
deeper significance, then s/he has not leaned how to see differently,
but only how to draw.
lake
very convincing picture of cliches. Like that guy who used to draw
nudes for Playboy. He could sure draw, but I doubt if he could see past
his nose.
roac...@my-deja.com
I am pretty sure I would feel the same way. When I am looking at his art
I am looking at the work, not at what's on his resume. I get the feeling
that you might be thinking that I would elevate his art if he was an
educated visual artist instead of a writer.Incorrect. The resume of an
artist lends insight to where they might come from and where they have
been but it is the products of their practice I look to first.
roac...@my-deja.com
Instead of spending your time slamming artists who have made a difference
in the making of art ...why don't you go back into your studio and let
your art talk instead of your bitter mouth.
Erik A. Mattila
> Erik, Erik, Erik, thanks for the discourse on sight but that's not quite
> what I meant by my statement.
>
> Teach a man to draw and he will give you a drawing,
> Teach him to see and he will produce a work of art.
Well, I was responding to Lake's post, not yours. But since you want to
make this claim, I'll bite.
> I was in fact speaking metaphorically here, to some extent at least.
This is not a metaphor. If anythng, it is a metonymy - but this is
doubtful because standard use of the term now means a lot of things,
primarily related to vision or understanding. Get the picture? I'm just
fooling. "I see" is "I understand" or "I get the picture." I think it's
fascinating how 'understanding" is linked to visual culture, don't you?
> There is something mysterious and cult like about the way a lot of
> artists speak about their work, or about art in general, but I would
> stress that this 'cult' is not secretive, anyone who wants in can get
> in. I hold no secrets from anyone who shows they want to learn.
Well, this is essentially my claim. However, I disagree a bit about the
secrecy issue. We have, as a matter of language, a distinct vocabulary at
our disposal to talk about the mysterious, the occult, the mysterium
conuinctionis, if you will. Some of the virtues that this otherwise
diverse collection of terms share are abstractness, ambiguity and
opaquenesss. So while it may be true that 'art' is an open university,
indoctrination into its mysteries involves the valorization of a language
that is in itself secret, since it has no capacity to reveal meaning in a
concrete sense. One might ask then, "how is this language useful" or "what
is its purpose." My answer is that it is useful and functional as an
'oath' or 'declaration' of membership in a particular discourse - in this
case the 'art discourse.' It is not distinct to artists, of course. We
see this type of language operating in any of several social segments,
where a sense of belonging to a group, and sharing the ideologies and
disposition of a group, is continually attested to and verified by the
utterance of oath statements.
> I took
> it for granted that we all knew the difference between drawing and
> seeing, but I guess we don't.
Well, you may not wish to take apart your aphorism, above, but I like to do
this sort of thing. I'm genuinely interested in how words 'mean' and
indeed what they mean. Your aphorism has a nice quality insofar as form
goes - the sound-image of the words, the meter and so forth are very
pleasant - symmetrical. But what does it mean? In my mind it does not say
anything about the difference between 'seeing' and 'drawing' because you
have apples and oranges here. Line one elicits a concret idea, and line
two elicits an abstract idea (which works against the formal symmetry in
that any possible equivalency collapses on the level of meaning). On the
level of analysis, the aphorism can be reduced to "concrete is not
abstract" so it's a sort of stating the obvious.
> I admit that the statement above was
> purposefully vague, so that hopefully some sort of intelligent
> conversation could be erected out of the rubble that was "thoughts on
> Mani". We all seem clear about this idea of drawing meaning the ability
> to render on a 2-d surface that which we see in the 3-d world. Lake,
> chris and roachgirl also gave some insight here on their respective
> posts, and I think they're on the same track. By drawing I mean mimesis,
> that is all.
Well, I was disagreeing with Lake about this, as I disagree with you. I
don't think drawing in mimesis at all. The problem with the concept of
mimesis is that it only considers the the object in nature and a 'model' of
it on paper. I'm concerned with with it doesn't consider - primarily the
social dimension of seeing and interpreting representations. It does't
account for consenses - that is, the tacit agreement we all make, however
'automatic,' to read a sequence of marks on paper as a representation of an
object in nature. The real question in my mind is how we enter this
agreement, especially unless one overtly studies the implications of this
process, you are unlikely to ever realize that it is, in fact, a consensual
agreement.
> Seeing is a different story. In some sense this idea of seeing is
> related to 'desagnio" the Italian word for both drawing and design. But
> I also mean a study of what it is that makes a drawing a work of art.
But 'a work of art' is intangible - or at the very least a complex social
institution. We've hashed out the ambiguity of this slippery concept
endlessly on RAF, to no avail (beyond a series of oath statements). You
can only make meta-assumptions, really, and that is that the meaning of 'a
work of art' is totally ambiguous. On the other hand, you can talk about
both 'seeing' and 'drawing' in a concrete sense, and you can really make
exciting discoveries that are 'transferable' from one person to the next by
avoiding the ambigous questions completely.
> This includes a study of the masters in a way that we can dissect what
> they did and learn from it. Seeing is the study of form in the arts, a
> study of how the different parts of a painting, drawing, sculpture,
> music, etc. work together to produce a grand whole.
But this is merely a study of devices, in a concrete sense. It's a good
practice, in my opinion, and it allows one to explore the complex question
of graphic language in a very positive venue.
> It's something that
> I don't see a whole lot of artists engaging themselves in, which I find
> odd as this is what art has always been about. Seeing is the study of
> what makes art 'work', from the paintings at Pompeii to della
> Francesca's work in Arezzo, from Hokusai's 100 views of Fuji to Franz
> Klein's black and white gesture paintings. Once we can 'see' and
> understand form, then we can begin to make works of art, and then we can
> begin to go beyond what was done in the past, we can begin to make the
> art of the present. But first and foremost it is important to recognize
> our position within this grand and noble tradition.
I would like you to explain to me what it means "to see" and "understand"
form, in a concrete way that I can use to better my practice. I've
mentioned this before on RAF, but I once participated in a landscape
painting class where the very skillful instructor moved a group of very
naive beginners from total frustration to excellence - all by handing them
a bag of tricks (all good art lessons, I might add). These students were
absolutely amazed at their accomplisments by semesters end. The
curriculum, however, was totally devoid of ambiguity in terminology as well
as practice. It was a very wonderful atmosphere to be in - the class
became so supercharged with positivism and energy.
> Hope this clears some things up a bit, but not so much that there's
> nothing left to talk about here.
Not a chance, Christopher. Do you actually imagine that you could make the
definitive statement about these things?
Erik Mattila
>
>
> -cm
>
Erik A. Mattila
> You know Erik, an argument over the definition of "learning how to see"
> could pretty well degenerate into a combination of preciousness &
> querulousness, so I'm going to just avoid it by saying that (at least in
> the artistic sense) "learning how to see" is a meme for "establishing
> within oneself the reflexive system for analyzing and adapting one's
> response to visual stimulation in light of the theoretical knowledge
> that our interpretation of conditioned by factors both within and beyond
> our control bla blah blah smiley." It's a whole process of coming to
> grips with the visual filters with which we are equipped. ("reflexive" a
> la Soros...)
Dang, were you embarrassed to finish that thought? You had me going there...
But I'm just attempting to drive a wedge between the idea of 'reality' and the idea
of 'drawing.' Where these two converge is almost superficial, in my opinion. So as
a society, modern masss media culture, we have learned to 'see' the photograph as a
faithful representation of reality. But is it? I read a study in an art rag years
ago which displayed a series of photographs taken of a street scene, from a fixed
tripod, with about 15 different camera lenses. It was remarkable. This exact same
scene appeared radically different with each lens, and some did not even appear to
be the same scene at all (unless you really took to the task of counting buildings
and parking meters etc.). Yet any one of these photos, viewed individually, would
be regarded as a 'truth' of vision. The camera never lies, of course. Or maybe it
always lies. But I like this example because it is good evidence of the influence
of ideology on seeing. The same is true of drawing. I did study descriptive
drawing and rendering, along with technical illustration. (I've always have been
thoroughly engaged with drawing - it is essential - so I've taken about every type
of drawing class ever offered. You should see my navel archectural drawings.) So
one thing I've learned from very formal descriptive drawing is that a 'one on one'
attempt to account for every form and its subspecies of the subject is often
self-defeating, and shortcuts and even some bazzare artisticc passages can assist in
the drawing's 'believability' in a much more powerful way than the 'one on one'
approach (oftren saving a great deal of time). But ultimately, in order to pull
this sort of stuff off successfully, you have to breach the topic of 'how we see'
and decide on what is essential and what is non-essential insofar as visual
recognition is concerned. I remember a specific example, in fact. The 'set-up' was
a piece of redwood 1"x2" which had been broken, exposing the myriad fibres, with a
piece of broken glass leaning on it, both on a piece of white illustration board.
Materials were the old Pelikan Designer tempera - great stuff.
I thought the glass would be the challenge, but it was easy. It was the redwood
splinters which were the most difficult. After hours of working with a triple ought
brush I realized that the project would fail, because I just wasn't getting the
picture. I think it was total frustration that caused me to 'loosen up' and get a
bit haphazard about it, and Viola, it worked! I eventually realized that the
problem was in how we actually 'see.' We don't see in a way that was causing me to
try to build a one on one representation of each splinter, which you might say was
an example of how an artist could learn to see incorrectly, in fact. But we just
accept enough visual data to create the 'idea' of splintered wood, and ignore the
details. Of course this is standard faire for painting - there are innumerable
examples of artists 'abbreviating' textures and form in a way that screams 'I
believe this image.' It was just a little out of context for a descriptive drawing
and rendering exercise, where we would think that 'artistic license' was a bit out
of place.
So my rant is, essentially, that we are drawing and rendering ideas about vision,
not the thing itself. It's a hermeneutic problem, really. My claim is that this is
very useful information for artists, even though it may be a difficult concept to
grasp. As a good friend used to say "reality is a crutch!"
> As you point out later in your post, without visual filters, we'd get
> swept away by the chaos of what's out there; both nature and culture
> have provided us with any number of mechanisms to automatically edit our
> visual input. "Learning how to see" involves identifying those visual
> filters, and ideally how to go beyond them when necessary. Classical
> artists hit upon one effective method - drawing from the model (life
> drawing). It is effective because so much of our inherent visual
> filtering centers on encapsulating the human form, particularly the
> face, into primitives. We operate on a day to day basis on differencing
> visual information from those primitives, and adapting those primitives
> to new information. Life drawing (as well as other forms of visual
> training) gives one a set of methods to get down to a level where you
> can consciously challenge the primitive representation itself.
I agree. I don't know what a 'primitive representation' is, unless you're using it
in the same way as Gombrich uses 'schemata.'
> The real genius of Matisse & Picasso in particular lay in their ability
> to reach down into their respective artistic psyche & examine those
> forms - in no small part by comparing other ethnic representations, and
> the European one, and exploring the difference between photographic and
> artistic representation - in the search for basic visual elements.
> Pollock's genius, OTOH, lay in being able to approach the problem from
> 180 degrees - rather than reducing the visual input to a minimum in
> order to find an essential match with the internal, his most famous work
> demonstrates the existence of those internal patterns through the supply
> of what comes pretty close to random fields.
Alternatively, Picasso and Matisse did nothing more than challenge society to see
different things as art, and there was no psychic mining involved at all. I
recommend Edward Wind's "Art and Anarchy." He gets into the nitty-gritty of the
Jungian underpinning of late modernism very wall. He changed my thinking about it.
> As a digression, it is really interesting (to me, at least) how much
> these two approaches correspond to (and to a large degree predate)
> similar scientific work. There's a far greater degree of parallel
> analysis in the sciences & arts than most on either side of the border
> would care to admit, but that's another topic...
Except that mysticism persists in the arts, even offered up as a Rx to protect the
soul against the deamons of science.
C U 2, Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> >But artists like to produce rich metaphors, especially the kind that make
> art
> >seem mysterious, profound and (perhaps) more significant that it is.
> Insofar
> >as seeing is concerned, a competent artist will have learned certain things
> >about 'seeing' so it might be more accurate to say that an artist must
> learn
> >how to see differently than others. There's a difference betweeing saying
> >"learn how to see" as opposed to saying "learn how to see differently."
> >Principally, saying "learn how to see" implies that those who have not gone
> >through the sacred rites of articity do no know how to see (since they have
> not
> >learned this). Yet we know that everyone knows how to see. It's obvious.
> If
> >I felt that others could not see because they have not been initiated into
> the
> >artist priesthood I certainly would not operate a vehicle on the street,
> for
> >example (or agree to participate in a police lineup, or do mime or magic
> before
> >spectators.
>
> What are you talking about? Art *is* profound and mysterious.
> Being literal is for scientists and plumbers.
> Just like musicians must learn how to 'hear.' I'm sure visual artists take
> their sight less for granted than the average soul uninitiated into the
> priesthood.
>
> scottvdv
OK, tell me how art is profound and mysterious. I've studied art for years,
and had some pretty outstanding teachers. I think that some of the 'greats' I
have known would say that the art market is profound and mysterious, but as far
as 'art' goes, it's more intellectual and extremely rational -- a thoughtful
endeavor.
But I'm all ears. I suspect you can only ague the case with 'less than
literal' terms, however. But I could be wrong.
Erik Mattila
scottvdv
>OK, tell me how art is profound and mysterious. I've studied art for
years,
>and had some pretty outstanding teachers. I think that some of the
'greats' I
>have known would say that the art market is profound and mysterious, but as
far
>as 'art' goes, it's more intellectual and extremely rational -- a
thoughtful
>endeavor.
>
>But I'm all ears. I suspect you can only ague the case with 'less than
>literal' terms, however. But I could be wrong.
Wrong, I couldn't argue the case at all with someone who prefers to think of
art as "extremely rational." Let me ask you this, if art is so lucid and
rational, why is it that every single interpretation of it is different for
everyone? "A thoughtful endeavor" I can agree with, but rational, never. I
have no idea was rational art is, unless ofcourse you're refering to
propaganda or commercial advertising. There's a very simple reason why the
artworld is made up of metaphors, because the very existence of 'art' is
irrational, you can't define it, so you explain it in relation to something
'rational.' You don't need art to 'live' in the literal/rational sense of
the word. I could continue, but I think I've gotten enough across.
scottvdv
lake
blossoms in the borderland between knowing and feeling, and if it
strays too far in either direction it withers.
lake
"we are drawing and rendering ideas about vision, not the thing
itself. It's a hermaneutic problem really."
which is a brilliantly concise statement and which, if carefully
studied, goes a long way towards clarifying the supposed dichtomy
betweeen representation and non-representation in art.
When you were trying to paint those wood splinters, and you had to
loosen up, get a bit haphazard - that's the part that I'm really keen
on. That process. It goes beyond the five keys to grapicity doesn't it?
Think you that process is analysable? Or is it not another key at all -
but rather some sort of mystical 'Open Sesame'? This is a question, not
a statement.
And indeed, we have LEARNED to regard the photograph as a faithful
representation of reality. In fact, the camera is the biggest liar on
the block! Not because it is less real than a drawing, but because our
perception of it is skewed. Uncritical faith in the latest technology,
coupled with pretentions to objectivity from the 19th century,have
given the photograph an iconic status way out of proportion to its
actual abilities as a truth-teller.
mdeli
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
>Dang, Ali, you're bringing-up the nostalgia deamons once again. Now I'm
>remembering an old song...
>
>My gal's a corker,
>She's a New Yorker,
>I buy her anything,
>To keep her in style.
snip>
>
>And it goes on and on. But is it art?
>
>Erik
Reminds me of the ugliest woman I ever saw. It was on the NY subway,
she had legs like Greek Columns.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
mdeli
> How one can not see the brilliance and skill used
>in Matisse's work, for example, is beyond me. "The Red Studio" is a
>stunning example of how a painting can combine flat space with
>perspective through beautiful colour and line. And if you look at
>Matisse's line drawings you cannot deny the skill of his hand and his
>perceptual prowess. He is able to create a pictorial space and form with
>line only (no shadow). It should also be noted he created these drawings
>in one long uninterrupted line. Yeah right ...as if that doesn't take any
>skill.
Matisse's subject matter is utterly conventional. His style varied
from no-skill realism of the most incompetent sort to magazine
abstraction. Unlike Picasso who could draw better than most famous
Modern Artists, Matisse was different in that he couldn't draw at all.
He never had an idea in his life. His scratchy schmiery painting
technique is about three levels below Hockney.
Matisse should be canonized as the patron saint of horrible
draftsmanship, silly color and bad composition. Were he ranked in
inverse relation to his fame, he would truly stand out as the most
idiotic painter of the 20th century.
Look closely at Matisse’s rendering of hands and feet,. They are all
art school flippers when he fails to hide them. His so-called
masterpiece "The Dance" is one of the most idiotic revered painting of
the century. Music, is even worse.
Unlike Picasso who hardly ever completed anything, Matisse never
really started anything.
Matisse studied with Bouguereau at the Academie Julian.
Matisse in an interview relates that Bouguereau said to him,
"you'll never learn how to draw." It is just about the only
intelligent thing Matisse ever said, even though it was only second
hand.
mdeli
Claiming to teach how to see in drawing classes is a good example. The
term is designed to impress the naive student. Those who learn to draw
are able to draw from reality and from imagination. The result of
their efforts if successful is an image realistic or abstract which is
able to attract a viewer.
Those who have trouble seeing should visit an eye doctor.
I know the following statement isn't romantic enough for an average
artzy fartzy but learning how to draw entails learning how to
INTERPERET WHAT IS SEEN for purposes of creating artwork.
The accumulated knowledge of draftsmanship teaches, roughly speaking,
scientific rules of why objects look the way they do and how to use
this knowledge to gain the skills and craft in order to produce
artwork.
Another thing Artzy fartzies are totally confused about is that they
mistakenly think that the term realism refers solely to a
photographic rendition of reality.
>lake wrote:
>> There's a big difference between knowing how to draw and knowing how to
>> see. Drawing, as you'd no doubt define it, is primarily rendering -
>> that is, getting what's on the paper to look exactly like what's in
>> front of you.
It isn't.
Hardly any fine drawing looks "exactly like what's in front you."
>> This is a fine skill to have, but there's a big problem
>> with it - namely, that rendering does NOT duplicate reality, rather it
>> creates a MODEL of reality. This model is constructed out of a-priori
>> systems of rules, and has little to do with actual vision.
Why is this a problem? Even vision is a model of reality.
Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
>:> What the
>> draughtsman does, in this type of drawing, is to manipulate the
>> pre-existing model until it corresponds with what s/he is looking at.
>> It can just as well be manipulated to create a convincing "reality"
>> which has no relation whatsoever to what is actually seen.
> I also don't think of drawing as an end in itself, or buy into
>the 'everyone needs rigorous classical training' argument, but it is a good
>place to get started as an artist. And I do mean 'get started',
Drawing is an end in itself if you are creating a drawing and a
foundation for all that goes beyond that.
>-- there is SO
>much more to explore, beyond accurate drawing/painting -- it would be a shame
>to get stuck there.
My point is that an artist who can't draw is on a level of an
accountant who can't add. And nobody in his right mind would claim
that all an account ever does is add.
Erik A. Mattila
> >OK, tell me how art is profound and mysterious. I've studied art for
> years,
> >and had some pretty outstanding teachers. I think that some of the
> 'greats' I
> >have known would say that the art market is profound and mysterious, but as
> far
> >as 'art' goes, it's more intellectual and extremely rational -- a
> thoughtful
> >endeavor.
> >
> >But I'm all ears. I suspect you can only ague the case with 'less than
> >literal' terms, however. But I could be wrong.
>
> Wrong, I couldn't argue the case at all with someone who prefers to think of
> art as "extremely rational."
"Wrong," indeed. Are you certain you're not just wimping out - and projecting
your frustration on me? At any rate, I'm not asking you to 'argue a case,'
since I don't believe that such a thing is arguable (given that 'argument'
itself is based on findings of fact and measures of truth). I'm simply asking
you to tell me how art is profound and mysterious. How it works? I happen to
agree that it is "profound and mysterious" - but I'm certain for reasons
totally different than you might state. So it's an honest question.
> Let me ask you this, if art is so lucid and
> rational, why is it that every single interpretation of it is different for
> everyone?
I assume you are talking about the concept of 'art' as opposed to how
individuals interpret a specific work of art.
As for the concept of 'art' as it exists in our culture, It's not true to say
that every single interpretation of the term is different for everyone. You
can verify this yourself simply by accessing the many posts on this newsgroup
over the last couple of years, and organizing the many responses to this
question into a typology structure. You will find that the 'interpretations'
fall into three or four broad categories. I'm just guessing, as I have not
done this research. On the othere hand, since this is a topic that interests
me a great deal, I've made a mental note on these many responses to 'the
question' over the past few years, and it is obvious that we are dealing with a
rather limited number of interptetations. You might call these 'schools of
thought.' So what we're talking about here are shared values and attitudes. I
would guess that around 25% of the responses would be cross-overs -- meaning
that an individual interpretation of 'art' wouldn't be a pure expression of a
major category, but an amalgamation of aspeccts from more than one of the major
categories of interpretation. But taken out of context of a whole series of
repsonses to the question, any individual response may 'appear' to be unique
and different from the next. It's a simple "you can't see the forest through
the trees" problem.
At the core of the diversity, even if it is diverse in a few types, is the
nature and function of the term 'art' itself. We have several terms which we
use regularly that share some of 'art's' virtues, which is, specifically,
ambiguity and vagueness. So we have terms like 'culture,' 'freedom,' (in fact,
most of the terms we use daily that generate great debates insofar as their
explicit meaning is concerned.) So why do we have such terms, and why are they
useful? It's just efficiency. Broad, generaly categories are useful in
setting the language apart from other language objects. When we say 'art' we
have created a category of possibilities that reduces the field. Imagine what
we would have to do if we did not have this term (and many human cultures do
not have this term). If we wanted to talk about 'art' we would have to create
a phrase or paragraph each time we wished to distinguish this body of culture
for all the others.
But you originally responded to something quite different that I wrote, I mean
different from the term 'art.' I made the claim "But artists like to produce
rich metaphors, especially the kind that make art seem mysterious, profound and
(perhaps) more significant that it is." So here I'm talking about "the artists
share" in a broad cultural category that we call "art," which is a bit
different than how the rank and file interpret the term 'art.' It's rather
obvious that artist's have a vested interested in how society in general
evaluates the concept of 'art.' So it's not surprising that artist's would
spontaneously support and prozlytize a body of ideas that exist in culture that
renders this concept positive and valuable. Particularly, a relatively modern
trend is to create the idea that the artist is a culture hero of sorts, and
many artist's see themselves as the modern equivalent of shamans and witch
doctors. And why not? Certainly everyone needs to have some positive feedback
and a sense of importance. And this need would be even more poignant with
artists who are not doing well in breaking into the very brutal 'art game,'
especially when they are bombarded with the message, from culture, that art
making is a form of recreation as opposed to a 'real' vocation.
The real question, in my mind, is if we, as artist, can look at culture
objectively, and see how our place in culture operates. The mistake many make,
I think, is that they want to see the valorazation of art as a 'real' thing, as
opposed to a cultural institution (which is regarded as 'less real' or even
'phoney.') In my view anything that happens in culture is very real - perhaps
even the substancial reality of human experience, so the 'truth/fraud'
dichotomy doesn't really apply. But artists, especially in western
industrialized society, propose a 'reality' that exists outside culture as a
universal. This idea simply doesn't hold up to critical thought or careful
historical observation. Certain Italian Friars may have said that Giotto or
Massacio were 'inspired by the Holy Spirit, true, but it is well to note that
they may have said the same about the guy who carved a kitschy crucifix. After
all, they had a vested interest in valorizing the decorations of Holy places -
thus we have the ever-present production of meaning in culture.
In the mythologies of the world a common theme exists about the spoiling power
of knowledge - Pandor's Box - let's call it, or the "Faust complex." A modern
recreation of this melodrama is in Carlos Casteneda's novel, "Journey to
Ixtlan." The initiate succeeds in the transformation to brujodom, but the
price he pays is that the (formerly) real world is now peopled by phantoms. And
of course, you can't go home again. Any artist who rigorously seeks knowledge
about what 'art' is will come to this irony - and knowledge itself will be
presented as a costly idea, the price being the sacrifice of old ideas about
art which may make the artist feel comfortable and supported. This is just the
nature of knowledge, if it has any truck at all. It may be very difficult to
shed off old understandings, especially if the individual artist has a large
emotional investment and dependence on an older view that needs to abandoned in
order to let new knowledge sink in and rearrange the mind.
> "A thoughtful endeavor" I can agree with, but rational, never. I
> have no idea was rational art is, unless ofcourse you're refering to
> propaganda or commercial advertising.
But 'thought' and 'rationality' are co-equal. I thought that Van Gogh's works
were the epitome of the magical transference of emotions to paint, until I
bothered to read his letters. And I had an emotional investment in seeing Van
Gogh this way, as it was part of my general idea of what 'art' and 'artists'
really were. But reading his letters, I realized that Van Gogh was
intellectually exploring a systems of visual codes that would evoke specific
emotional responses in his viewers. It was a contrivance, in other words, as
opposed to the idea, which is so popular, that the artist's anguish was
transferred to the canvas by some mystical process. "I intended to produce a
landscape that produced a feeling of utter hopelessness, so I did x, y, and z"
to paraphrase. His writings are full of this sort of information. So what was
he doing? He was attempting to understand the 'visual semiosis' of art - or
what marks, lines, compositions, colors would cause the viewer to 'read' the
painting in this or that way. This is, in fact, a very rational practice, as
opposed to the idea of the artist mining the ores of the unconscious mind and
creating universal imagery.
> There's a very simple reason why the
> artworld is made up of metaphors, because the very existence of 'art' is
> irrational, you can't define it, so you explain it in relation to something
> 'rational.'
Of course I disagree. In the first place, the core function of a metaphor is
to explain things and establish meaning. "The artist's brush plowed through
the landscape" is a way of talking about 'painterlyness' and 'impasto.' (a
poor example, but all I could think of on the spot.) What fills up the art
world is a particular type of metaphor (and metonymy) that 'explains' that art
is mystical, special, heroic and so forth. This class of metaphor is splayed
around the Jungian idea of the unconscious mind, which, ironically, is a
metaphor itself. If you read Jung, for example, you will realize that his
theory of the unconscious rests firmly on the idea that the unconscious is
"unknowable" in itself, and can only be talked about indirectly by metaphor.
In spite of this, many insist on reifying the concept of the unconscious, and
assigning real world properties to it. There is no real dichotomy between
'rational' and 'irrational.' By definition, 'irrational' cannot be thought at
all - hey, that's why it's called 'irrational.' It's like a dream. At best a
dream is a spontaneous firing of neurons, but the 'dream' appears to us in its
dream form once this neural physical phenomena is translated into a symbolic
form. What Freud and Jung and others did, to build a psychotherapy of dream
interpretation, was to study and measure the significance of how an individual
interpreted a dream, but not the actual dream itself, which is completely
'unkowable.'
> You don't need art to 'live' in the literal/rational sense of
> the word. I could continue, but I think I've gotten enough across.
>
> scottvdv
Well, I wouldn't want to live in an artless world. But the importance of art
isn't the subject of this discussion. It is rather a matter of how we think
about it.
Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
> You say,
>
> "we are drawing and rendering ideas about vision, not the thing
> itself. It's a hermaneutic problem really."
>
> which is a brilliantly concise statement and which, if carefully
> studied, goes a long way towards clarifying the supposed dichtomy
> betweeen representation and non-representation in art.
>
> When you were trying to paint those wood splinters, and you had to
> loosen up, get a bit haphazard - that's the part that I'm really keen
> on. That process. It goes beyond the five keys to grapicity doesn't it?
No, actually I think not. What's important here, ass far as I can see, is that
we actually 'see' the splinters in a symbolic, so the task of representation
isn't to replicate the splinters, one by one (as percieved by visual scrutiny
of the model) but to replicate the idea of splinters (which we experience). In
other ways, what we 'interpret' when we see somthing as complex as a
hundred-thousand splinters is a visual stereotype.
> Think you that process is analysable? Or is it not another key at all -
> but rather some sort of mystical 'Open Sesame'? This is a question, not
> a statement.
Yes, I think it is analysable. This is exactly what computer engineers have
done with high-end of 3D software. Based in physics, they have been able to
create metaphors (called virtual reality) which allows the end user to create
believable images by selecting numerical values for such obscurities as
'refraction index' 'transparenccy' 'bump map' and on down the line. We
wouldn't want to make the claim that these engineers have duplicated reality,
of course, but they have isolated and indentified key components of visual
systems, equal attention payed to physics and the human representation (hence
they are able to ignore many of the data that 'physics' knows, simplify the
process, and succeed in producing a representational system that produces
believable imagery.
> And indeed, we have LEARNED to regard the photograph as a faithful
> representation of reality. In fact, the camera is the biggest liar on
> the block! Not because it is less real than a drawing, but because our
> perception of it is skewed. Uncritical faith in the latest technology,
> coupled with pretentions to objectivity from the 19th century,have
> given the photograph an iconic status way out of proportion to its
> actual abilities as a truth-teller.
I think in some ways drawing can be 'more truthful' than the photograph, since
it has the capacity to represent tha human experience of vision and is not
subject to the mechanical limitations of a camera lens. But now I'm wondering
if this is a grand entrance into a discussion of analytic cubism - I'll leave
it at that.
Erik
scottvdv
I'm sure you could say all this in a few sentences, I don't feel like
reading this.
Thanks.
'A very drunk' scottvdv.
Erik A. Mattila
Sure, Scott. Icelandic Proverb: "A man loves the smell of his own
farts."
That's about the best I can do to dumb it down -- does it work for you?
Regards, Erik, sober, yet sleepy
christopher moss
<some sniping, for brevity's sake>
Teach a man to draw and he will give you a drawing, Teach him to see and
he will produce a work of art.
This is not a metaphor. If anything, it is a metonymy - but this is
doubtful because standard use of the term now means a lot of things,
primarily related to vision or understanding. Get the picture? I'm just
fooling. "I see" is "I understand" or "I get the picture." I think it's
fascinating how 'understanding" is linked to visual culture, don't you?
_You're right it's not a metaphor, but the idea of a metonymy is quite a
bit closer to what I was getting at. The statement was intended as a
blanket one where "man" refers to those people who don't recognise what
is great in all the arts (that being form, or as some say significant
form). We can teach this man how to draw technically accurate drawing (a
representation of space using perspectival "tricks" if you will) and
that man will still not have produced a work of art. We can take that
man's training a step further and get him to look at form and then that
man can begin to make pictures with regard to composition, color and
value contrast, line etc.
_the secrecy issue...
Well, this is essentially my claim. However, I disagree a bit about the
secrecy issue. We have, as a matter of language, a distinct vocabulary
at our disposal to talk about the mysterious, the occult, the mysterium
conuinctionis, if you will. Some of the virtues that this otherwise
diverse collection of terms share are abstractness, ambiguity and
opaquenesss. So while it may be true that 'art' is an open university,
indoctrination into its mysteries involves the valorization of a
language that is in itself secret, since it has no capacity to reveal
meaning in a concrete sense.
_Not true, there are essentially two ways we can talk about art,
formally and interpretively. When we speak about form we are speaking
about what exists 'on the canvas' or 'in the music' or 'on the
sculpture' etc. Form is in all the arts, in fact it is the only concrete
thing in art.
One might ask then, "how is this language useful" or "what is its
purpose." My answer is that it is useful and functional as an 'oath' or
'declaration' of membership in a particular discourse - in this case the
'art discourse.' It is not distinct to artists, of course. We see this
type of language operating in any of several social segments, where a
sense of belonging to a group, and sharing the ideologies and
disposition of a group, is continually attested to and verified by the
utterance of oath statements.
_True, see above statement, you're talking interpretation here.
I took it for granted that we all knew the difference between drawing
and seeing, but I guess we don't.
<snip>
_Mimetic theory...
Well, I was disagreeing with Lake about this, as I disagree with you. I
don't think drawing in mimesis at all. The problem with the concept of
mimesis is that it only considers the the object in nature and a 'model'
of it on paper. I'm concerned with with it doesn't consider - primarily
the social dimension of seeing and interpreting representations. It
doesn't account for consensus - that is, the tacit agreement we all
make, however 'automatic,' to read a sequence of marks on paper as a
representation of an object in nature. The real question in my mind is
how we enter this agreement, especially unless one overtly studies the
implications of this process, you are unlikely to ever realize that it
is, in fact, a consensual agreement.
_It is right and fair that you point to the failure of mimesis. However,
cultural consensuses (sp?Plural of consensus) have little to do with art
making, for me anyway. My concern here is to explain form to you, so
that maybe it might become a useful 'tool' that you can use in your own
art.
But 'a work of art' is intangible - or at the very least a complex
social institution. We've hashed out the ambiguity of this slippery
concept endlessly on RAF, to no avail (beyond a series of oath
statements). You can only make meta-assumptions, really, and that is
that the meaning of 'a work of art' is totally ambiguous. On the other
hand, you can talk about both 'seeing' and 'drawing' in a concrete
sense, and you can really make exciting discoveries that are
'transferable' from one person to the next by avoiding the ambiguous
questions completely.
_But form is something concrete and it can be studied. Let's talk about
specific examples here. Caravaggio's "Supper at Emaus", There are
certain visual signals in this painting that coalesce to give us what I
would call good form. C. uses the draperies and chiaroscurro effects for
which he is well know to compose a picture. (I hope you can find a
reproduction of this one as I haven't done my internet homework and
don't know if one is out there). Look at the shape of the drapery on the
man on the left, that sort of triangular shape gives us entrance into
the picture plane and acts as a sort of parenthesis, keeping our eyes in
the picture. It also points toward Jesus' face, C's next statement. From
there the picture unfolds into a dramatic play of light and dark shapes,
this is the idea that I think everyone understands as essential to C.
But beyond that there are other 'tricks' C. uses to keep us interested
in his picture, one of these is subtle color contrasts where the darks
are slightly bluish in hue, the lights are slightly yellowish. These
subtleties were probably not really "there" in real space but C was
always more sensitive to pictorial needs so he tells us some convincing
white lies. These little lies are what makes this painting work, as
opposed to the paintings by several "caravaggisti" or followers in his
style. Very few of these painters ever composed a picture with the
sensitivity that Caravaggio did, they usually only reduced C's visual
vocabulary to a few easily understood phrases, and that is why we for
the most part could care less for them.
_I can only suggest looking more carefully at paintings (both good ones
and bad ones) so that you can become more familiar with the way painters
use form. I'll also point out that it is much easier to see these
subtleties in C's work when you see it in the flesh and compare it to
the work of the caravaggisti that is usually hung quite close by.
This includes a study of the masters in a way that we can dissect what
they did and learn from it. Seeing is the study of form in the arts, a
study of how the different parts of a painting, drawing, sculpture,
music, etc. work together to produce a grand whole.
But this is merely a study of devices, in a concrete sense. It's a good
practice, in my opinion, and it allows one to explore the complex
question of graphic language in a very positive venue.
_True, form is a bunch of devices, it is however only the second step
toward making great art. (the first being a knowledge of how to draw) My
point is that too many artists skip this step and move immediately into
the realm of expression and interpretation, where they get lost. An
intimate knowledge of how to use form is primary. Form is how artists
speak to one another and I'll stress again that it is concrete, it is
what is on the canvas. Expression on the other hand can always be
misinterpreted, as can metaphor and narration.
I would like you to explain to me what it means "to see" and
"understand" form, in a concrete way that I can use to better my
practice.
_I've tried my best.
I've mentioned this before on RAF, but I once participated in a
landscape painting class where the very skillful instructor moved a
group of very naive beginners from total frustration to excellence - all
by handing them a bag of tricks (all good art lessons, I might add).
These students were absolutely amazed at their accomplishments by
semesters end. The curriculum, however, was totally devoid of ambiguity
in terminology as well as practice. It was a very wonderful atmosphere
to be in - the class became so supercharged with positivism and energy.
_That's wonderful, I hope that all teachers can do this for a class,
I've had similar experiences too. It is my contention that you can teach
anyone to draw well, and some people are satisfied with this ability
alone, while others want to know how to go beyond a good representation
and address formal issues.
Hope this clears some things up a bit, but not so much that there's
nothing left to talk about
here.
Not a chance, Christopher. Do you actually imagine that you could make
the definitive statement about these things?
_Not at all, just hope I clarified my points in a concrete enough way
for you. Again, go look, form can't be taught through theory alone.
_I've wanked it long enough here, now it's somene else's turn.
-cm
lake
'composition' or 'wholeness' in relation to drawing. While this concept
is not so easy to analyse, I agree with you that it is essential to
the production of great art. You find it in simple sketches, as well as
grand paintings.
I wouldn't attempt to define it absolutely, but surely it has to do
with a cognisance of boundaries, both physical and metaphysical. Also,
it has to do with balance, with a certain understanding of yin and
yang, so that the balance of the dynamic forces involved come to rest
squarely within the boundaries of the artwork.
These forces might include, not only the well-known left-right balances
within the rectangular frame, but many other kinds of balance. Balances
of intention, balances of legibility, balances of context, balances of
technique, to name but a few.
But it all comes down to whether an artist can coax or force these
various polarities to work for him - that is, to contain them within
the boundaries of the work.
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>Art is both rational AND irrational, or rather, supra-rational. It
>blossoms in the borderland between knowing and feeling, and if it
>strays too far in either direction it withers.
>- Lake
Sounds like art school conversation. The last similarly useless
conversation here was about the sublime. Nobody said anything about
any artwork, they just gassed off in large quantities and came to
conclusions as useful and memorable as last month's lottery numbers.
Tell us is Guernica rational or irrational or as you say both, which
of course doesn't mean anything. No POMO lectures please.
I think Guernica is a stupid third rate cartoon blown up to large size
which evoked a lot of hype. The painting has nothing to do with
rationality.
Anat Ostrovsky
> Seeing is a different story. In some sense this idea of seeing is
> related to 'desagnio" the Italian word for both drawing and design. But
> I also mean a study of what it is that makes a drawing a work of art.
> This includes a study of the masters in a way that we can dissect what
> they did and learn from it. Seeing is the study of form in the arts, a
> study of how the different parts of a painting, drawing, sculpture,
> music, etc. work together to produce a grand whole. It's something that
> I don't see a whole lot of artists engaging themselves in, which I find
> odd as this is what art has always been about. Seeing is the study of
> what makes art 'work', from the paintings at Pompeii to della
> Francesca's work in Arezzo, from Hokusai's 100 views of Fuji to Franz
> Klein's black and white gesture paintings. Once we can 'see' and
> understand form, then we can begin to make works of art, andthen we can
> begin to go beyond what was done in the past, we can begin to make the
> art of the present. But first and foremost it is important to recognize
> our position within this grand and noble tradition.
>
> Hope this clears some things up a bit, but not so much that there's
> nothing left to talk about here.
>
> -cm
well said, christopher.
but when i read all the "see" posts i thought of a different
interpretation. (thats the point right?) to me seeing is what makes
drawing a model or still life fascinating! i agree drawing is just
duplicating the model to the paper. i can do that, so it is just boring
to me! but then my teacher (its my first year here at the
university) started talking about really seeing and since
then my whole attitude towards drawing has changed! a new world of
exploring how objects exist in their environment, how i can use the paper
to make it work with the drawing, how i want the objects to appear on the
paper, trying to capture movement, thinking how i can manipulate the
objects so the drawing actually expresses something, thinking about the
whole - the environment, perspective, etc, not only the object or model.
and so on.. looking at drawing as a new world i get to explore - not just
like a machine who duplicates - but also through my thoughts always
seeking new interesting ways of looking.
so thats what seeing means to me.
anat.
scottvdv
Nobody ever accused an Icelander of being overly-refined, but at least they
get to the point.
-scottvdv
Erik A. Mattila
christopher moss wrote:
> <some sniping, for brevity's sake>
> Teach a man to draw and he will give you a drawing, Teach him to see and
> he will produce a work of art.
> _I was in fact speaking metaphorically here, to some extent at least.
>
> This is not a metaphor. If anything, it is a metonymy - but this is
> doubtful because standard use of the term now means a lot of things,
> primarily related to vision or understanding. Get the picture? I'm just
> fooling. "I see" is "I understand" or "I get the picture." I think it's
> fascinating how 'understanding" is linked to visual culture, don't you?
>
> _You're right it's not a metaphor, but the idea of a metonymy is quite a
> bit closer to what I was getting at. The statement was intended as a
> blanket one where "man" refers to those people who don't recognise what
> is great in all the arts (that being form, or as some say significant
> form). We can teach this man how to draw technically accurate drawing (a
> representation of space using perspectival "tricks" if you will) and
> that man will still not have produced a work of art. We can take that
> man's training a step further and get him to look at form and then that
> man can begin to make pictures with regard to composition, color and
> value contrast, line etc.
Just to split hairs, I don't think it is metonymy either, although it
sounds like one - :
"Metonymy: a figure of speech consisting of the use of the name of one
thing for that of another of which it is an attribute or with which it is
associated (as "crown" in "lands belonging to the crown")."
I realize that this kind of argument is obtuse - it's just something that
interests me - classical rhetoric - and I like to 'test' my understanding
from time to time. So in this case I would say that because the verb "to
see" has meant 'understanding' and 'wisdom' in English for a long time, it
is no longer a 'turn of meaning' (as in 'trope,' or rhetorical form) so it
is not metonymy. But as a matter of self-criticism, the word 'crown' also
has been used for a long time to signifiy a monarchy, yet it is offered
here as a trope. To tell you the truth, I could be entirely incorrect, as
I really don't know where you draw the line (given that just about every
word we use meant something else in its historical life). So as you can
see, it's just academics.
More to the point of your essay, the 'form vs. content' argument is very
old, and is still as controversial as it ever was. The word 'form' itself
is couched is ambiguity, and it's important to say how you define 'form.'
I'm just saying this because when someone says, as you do, that the key to
greatness is art is seing form, I draw a blank as to what that actually
means. This is because it is a very abstract statement, especially when
'form' is left undefined.
"Significant Form" entered the lexicon of art theory and criticism from the
writings of Clive Bell, and he has been criticized for not defining the
term adaquately. But Bell offered this as what is essential about all art,
regardless of time and circumstances. This seems to be pretty much what
you are saying. So it is proposed as a 'unversal' which will apply to all
art. The problem is, that Bell didn't define the concept adaquately (at
least in the minds of Bell's critics.)
Here's a pretty good definition of 'form' from
http://www.arts.ouc.bc.ca/fiar/glossary/gloshome.html (which everyone on
this ng should bookmark - it's a very good lexicon of art theory and crit.)
"FORM: The constituent elements of a work of art independent of their
meaning (e.g., the colour, composition, medium or size of a flag, rather
than its emotional or national significance). Formal elements are primary
features which are not a matter of semantic significance -- including
colour, dimensions, line, mass, medium, scale, shape, space, texture,
value, and their corollaries -- and secondary features which are the
relations of the primary features with one another -- including balance,
contrast, dominance, harmony, movement, proportion, proximity, rhythm,
similarity, unity, and variety."
Where the controversy in the form vs. content debate comes in, is in
categorizing formal elements such as 'balance, contrast, dominance, harmony
etc." as universals. Detractors claim that these are cultural conventions,
and not shared my everyone in the world, and thus do have a semantic value,
and thus belong to the 'content' side of the debate.
You obviously have a definition of 'form' in mind when you say that
"...people who don't recognise what is great in all the arts (that being
form, or as some say significant
form)." But is it fair to think someone who doesn't know what you have in
mind doesn't 'understand form?" I mean you seem to be using the term
'form' in this context as if it had an explicit authority and meaning -- as
if there was no controversy about this term in the annals of art theory and
criticism. I submit that it is controversial, and the term itself won't
stand on its own two feet without a supportive, contextual definition.
> _the secrecy issue...
>
> Well, this is essentially my claim. However, I disagree a bit about the
> secrecy issue. We have, as a matter of language, a distinct vocabulary
> at our disposal to talk about the mysterious, the occult, the mysterium
> conuinctionis, if you will. Some of the virtues that this otherwise
> diverse collection of terms share are abstractness, ambiguity and
> opaquenesss. So while it may be true that 'art' is an open university,
> indoctrination into its mysteries involves the valorization of a
> language that is in itself secret, since it has no capacity to reveal
> meaning in a concrete sense.
> _Not true, there are essentially two ways we can talk about art,
> formally and interpretively. When we speak about form we are speaking
> about what exists 'on the canvas' or 'in the music' or 'on the
> sculpture' etc. Form is in all the arts, in fact it is the only concrete
> thing in art.
But you have limited the concept of 'greatness' in art to its formal
qualities, independant of content (I would assume). In doing so, you are
breaching the borders between a "formal and intrepretive" discourse. But
we usually talk this way - there's no point in maintaining a distinction in
conversation. But in criticism there is reason to make the distinction and
keep everything in its place, if at all possible.
It's a salting the mine sort of argument, really. We are being very
selective when we claim one type of a composition is superior to another,
by saying it is the cause of greatnesss in art. Do you know what I mean?
All that we have to compare with, has already been selected and presented
as great art - that which did not conform to the selected range of
compositional (or formal) criteria has already been confined to the heap of
failure and shortcomings. So we take the remainder, that which has, by the
cunning of history, passed the test of selection and valorize it and hold
it up as the criteria that needs to be met to qualify any art as 'great.'
Sort of a self-fullfilling prophecy.
In my mind form is a small part of the argument of significance. I believe
that content is very important. But more importantly, I don't think you
can successfully disassociate form and content, even in a artificial
theoretical venue. It's like Einstein said that as long as we think of
time and space as two things, we will never understand nature.
Additionally, content can be discussed in a concrete sense. I'm
remembering an old assignment in a creative writing class - it was to write
a description of a book of matchess without using any evaluative language.
It was very difficult to do.
> One might ask then, "how is this language useful" or "what is its
> purpose." My answer is that it is useful and functional as an 'oath' or
> 'declaration' of membership in a particular discourse - in this case the
> 'art discourse.' It is not distinct to artists, of course. We see this
> type of language operating in any of several social segments, where a
> sense of belonging to a group, and sharing the ideologies and
> disposition of a group, is continually attested to and verified by the
> utterance of oath statements.
>
> _True, see above statement, you're talking interpretation here.
Not in the way I understand interpretation, which is to 'translate' from on
form to another. "Oath statements" aren't tranlation at all, as there are
not two forms to be breached. It is simply a matter of producing
linguistic signals which say "I belong" to this group or that group, or "I
share your values, interests etc." In other words, what is being said is
not what is being spoken - sort of a non-verbal language, or, as Bronislav
Malinovski called it, "phatic communion." I'm not knocking this sort of
practice - it is critical to the good functioning of our social reality.
In the arts this sort of social communication is essential to producing
meaning and maintaining what Benjamin called the 'aura' of the work of art.
But on the plane of criticism, these various types of communications need
to be identified and sorted out. Of course, in critical literature, there
is a whole great sub-debate going on about how these things are identified
ans sorted out, and I don't think anyone has the last word on the topic, or
ever will.
> I took it for granted that we all knew the difference between drawing
> and seeing, but I guess we don't.
>
> <snip>
> _Mimetic theory...
> Well, I was disagreeing with Lake about this, as I disagree with you. I
> don't think drawing in mimesis at all. The problem with the concept of
> mimesis is that it only considers the the object in nature and a 'model'
> of it on paper. I'm concerned with with it doesn't consider - primarily
> the social dimension of seeing and interpreting representations. It
> doesn't account for consensus - that is, the tacit agreement we all
> make, however 'automatic,' to read a sequence of marks on paper as a
> representation of an object in nature. The real question in my mind is
> how we enter this agreement, especially unless one overtly studies the
> implications of this process, you are unlikely to ever realize that it
> is, in fact, a consensual agreement.
> _It is right and fair that you point to the failure of mimesis. However,
> cultural consensuses (sp?Plural of consensus) have little to do with art
> making, for me anyway. My concern here is to explain form to you, so
> that maybe it might become a useful 'tool' that you can use in your own
> art.
I think 'consensus' is plural, or at least can be used this way without
getting a red mark. But what are you claiming? That you are not
influenced by your culture? By 'social consensus' I am talking about very
covert processes that we don't ordinarily acknowledge or recognize. Every
value and attitude you express here on this thread, as regards your
evaluation and measure of art, has been expressed within the context of
western culture. And in so many words you have claimed these as
'universals' by which all art can be measured. I'm not about to condem or
criticize you for this, as it's just what we people do, all the time, but
at the same time I would ask you to recognize that you are representing
cultural consensus. Weltanschauung - or world view - is a great
construction of culture.
I'm not contesting that we can discuss form concretely at all. Carravaggio
is a good example, since every art historian has messed up his paintings
with little triangles and lines to illustrate compositional schemata -
sometime quite arbitrarily, in my opinion. It's a good example because
Carravaggio is so good that his works are dramatically 'unreal.' The
painting you cite is a good example. He was wonderful in capturing a
'frozen moment' in time (even if it was mythological) but by being so good
he makes us realize how unnatural such a view is, as we never see the world
that way - as 'frozen' or 'out of time.' So his works become very
ideological, and this extends to his use of color and dramaticc lighting
etc. What's amazing is that a lot of people see Carravaggio as a
'realist.' But it is no more amazing than how people see the photographic
image as visual 'truth.'
And this supports my position on this thread. That artistic 'seeing' and
'drawing' are based on a discourse that is internalized in 'art' itself, as
opposed to the common conception that art has something to do with
'reality.' Art creates it's own reality with its own internal
consistencies, it's own grammers and rules of formation. Artists learn how
to operate in this virtual space.
> This includes a study of the masters in a way that we can dissect what
> they did and learn from it. Seeing is the study of form in the arts, a
> study of how the different parts of a painting, drawing, sculpture,
> music, etc. work together to produce a grand whole.
>
> But this is merely a study of devices, in a concrete sense. It's a good
> practice, in my opinion, and it allows one to explore the complex
> question of graphic language in a very positive venue.
>
> _True, form is a bunch of devices, it is however only the second step
> toward making great art. (the first being a knowledge of how to draw) My
> point is that too many artists skip this step and move immediately into
> the realm of expression and interpretation, where they get lost. An
> intimate knowledge of how to use form is primary. Form is how artists
> speak to one another and I'll stress again that it is concrete, it is
> what is on the canvas. Expression on the other hand can always be
> misinterpreted, as can metaphor and narration.
I think you have a good point here. Don't try to walk before you can
crawl. But I'm just trying to argue that the criterion of good drawing is
a cultural criterion, as opposed to a universal. Look at the thread about
Picasso's drawing abilities. I love Picasso's drawings, personally. I
don't think much of his early drawings, which were more classical and
formal, which Picasso defenders offer up as proof he could draw. How
silly, the proof he could draw are in looking at his minotaurs and nudes.
They're wonderful drawings, visually exciting and delightful to the eye.
By contrast I really love the drawings in the Ancient Mexican codices
also. But if I hold them up to the criterion of wester art, I can't love
them, because then they say "Hey, this guy can't draw!" and they appear
clunky and childish and amaturish. But viewed on their own terms, as much
as is possible due to my own cultural influence, this art is quite
wonderful. Compositions that would make Carravaggio murder again, I
suppose, but again, on their own terms, and recognize that there are other
aesthetics in the world, they are quite nice.
I've run out of thinking energy, believe it or not. Great conversation.
Erik
scottvdv
I'm going to make Mani an award.
Very Modern-looking, and sculpted out of cheese.
scottvdv
mdeli
Try it in the shape of one of those horrible Matisse heads with that
stale shit patina look. I'm also concerned with the species of cheese
you plan to use. Make sure it sticks to the armiture.
Another suggestion is a stale American cheese mobil. The sheets could
be held together with rivets and zippers.
Of course I would prefer the other. The least one can ask of sculpture
is that it stands still.
Or (much more avant garde) An installation consisting of a large panel
made of Limburger with inscriptions of all of Alison's insults flanked
by Marilyn's favorite banana peels.
christopher moss
suspended in the exact center of a square room. (Swiss cheese of course,
as there is less substance to it).
-cm
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Or (much more avant garde) An installation consisting of a large panel
>made of Limburger with inscriptions of all of Alison's insults flanked
>by Marilyn's favorite banana peels.
I think this is an admirable suggestion.
But to be fair, as I know how concerned Mani is with fairness, be sure
to add all his venomous insults next to mine - we wouldn't want anyone
to call him a hypocrite would we ?
scottvdv
Maybe a cheese Giacometti figure shooting itself in the head, but the gun is
backwards.
scottvdv