define postmodernism
G*rd*n
"Kirsten L. Nantz" <nant...@wfu.edu>:
| I am looking for a clear cut definition of Post-modernism (in art
| preferably) without confusing terms that hide the meaning. if anyone
| can help me I would be grateful.
"Postmodern" refers to a set of styles in the plastic arts
and architecture which emerged in the 1960s, that is, as
Modernism declined (or changed); hence, "post-Modern" or
"postmodern." I haven't seen the _-ism_ applied to those
arts, but I suppose it could mean one who practiced one of
those styles.
I'll cross-post this to rec.arts.fine and see if anyone
wants to correct me.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Note: This mailbox generally cannot be reached from
sites which permit origination or relaying of junk mail.
mdeli
On 24 Feb 1998 20:12:12 -0500, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>"Kirsten L. Nantz" <nant...@wfu.edu>:
>| I am looking for a clear cut definition of Post-modernism (in art
>| preferably) without confusing terms that hide the meaning. if anyone
>| can help me I would be grateful.
>
>"Postmodern" refers to a set of styles in the plastic arts
>and architecture which emerged in the 1960s, that is, as
>Modernism declined (or changed); hence, "post-Modern" or
>"postmodern." I haven't seen the _-ism_ applied to those
>arts, but I suppose it could mean one who practiced one of
>those styles.
>
>I'll cross-post this to rec.arts.fine and see if anyone
>wants to correct me.
Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
artwork.
Postmodernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
incompetent artwork.
Probably the clearest definition of PM in the FAQ is:
"postmodernity is seen as involving an end of the dominance of an
overarching belief in scientific rationality and a unitary theory of
PROGRESS, the replacement of empiricist theories of representation and
TRUTH, and increased emphasis on the importance of the unconscious, on
free-floating signs and images, and a plurality of viewpoints. "
I would put it more directly. PM like other mystical creeds is,
anti-scientific, anti rational and consequently anti-empiricist. To
support these contentions it babbles about the unconscious, scientism,
Heidigger etc. I use the term babbles because no one agrees on what
any of this means.
PM is really ancient mystical stuff expressed in a new jargon. It
offers no substitute for science and logic other than cryptic slogans.
PM’s rational foundation is as tenuous as that of Christian Science.
Its half-life will be somewhat shorter. Eventually it will fade into a
newer fashion for the fickle irrationalist under another name for the
same old nonsense.
Most PM writing is about as stupid as the supposedly new art it
favors. It definitely appeals to those who put "emphasis on the
importance of the unconscious," and little else. It offers some new
angles on mystical self delusion.
PM got a lot of its lingo from Artspeak. Read the FAQ for some neat
samples.
Another quote:
"postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
intellectual systems to architecture. "
In a word, Bullshitology.
Mani DeLi
William Barkin
mdeli wrote:
>[snip]
> "postmodernism, on the contrary, is committed to
> modes of thinking and representation which emphasize fragmentations,
> discontinuities and incommensurable aspects of a given object, from
> intellectual systems to architecture. "
>
> In a word, Bullshitology.
I beg to differ...the current phrase is "Contemporary Persiflage"
Carter B. Hors
> Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
> artwork.
>
> Postmodernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
> incompetent artwork.
Speaking of Artspeak, here's Robert Atkin's entry on Postmodernism from his
book _Art Speak_.
-----
The term 'postmodernism' probably first appeared in print in Daniel Bell's
"End of Sociology" (1960). Charles Jencks began to apply it to
architecture a decade later, when it was also widely invoked in connection
with Judson-style dance, which was named after the Judson Memorial Church
in Greenwich Village and championed everyday or "vernacular" movement. It
was not until the late 1970s that the term began to be routinely used by
art critics. Its definition was so vague then that it meant little more
than "after modernism" and typically implied "against modernism."
Many theorists believe that the transition from modernism to postmodernism
signified an epochal shift in consciousness corresponding to momentous
changes in the contemporary social and economic order. Multinational
corporations now control a proliferating system of information technology
and mass media that renders national boundaries obsolete. (Images of
artwork that appear in the art magazines, for example, are instantly
accessible to an international audience.) Postmodern or postindustrial
capitalism has successfully promoted a consumerist vision that is causing a
rapid redrawing of the East-West boundaries established after World War II.
The ecological revolt that dawned during the 1960s -- as did most of the
changes that distinguish postmodernism from modernism -- signaled a loss of
modern faith in technological progress that was replaced by postmodern
ambivalence about the effects of that "progress" on the environment. Just
as modern culture was driven by the need to come to terms with the
industrial age, so postmodernism has been fueled by the desire for
accommodation with the electronic age.
Following World War II, modern art making and art theory grew more
reductive, more prescriptive, more oriented toward a singe, generally
abstract manistream. (Many other kinds of art were being produced, but
that kind of art and theory received the bulk of support from the art
establishment.) With Minimalism, artists of the 1960s reached ground zero
-- creating forms stripped down almost to invisibility -- and the
historical pendulum was set back in motion. Modernism's unyielding
optimism and idealism gave way to the broader, albeit darker, emothional
range of postmodernism.
Building directly on the Pop, Conceptual, and Feminist Art innovations of
the 1960s and '70s, postmodernists have revived various genres, subjects,
and effects that had been scorned by modernists. The architect Robert
Venturi succinctly expressed this reactive aspect of postmodernism by
noting, in his influential treatise 'Complexity and Contradiction in
Architecture' (1966), a preference for "elements which are hybrid rather
than 'pure,' compromising rather than 'clean,' ambiguous rather than
'articulated,' perverse as well as 'interesting.'..."
It is important to distinguish what is new about postmodernism from what
is a reaction against modernism. In the latter category is the widespread
return to traditional genres such as landscape and history painting, which
had been rejected by many modernists in favor of abstraction, and a turning
away from experimental formats such as Performance Art and Installations.
Appropriation artists challenge the cherished modern notion of Avant-Garde
originality by borrowing images from the media or the history of art and
re-presenting them in new juxtapositions or arrangements that paradoxically
function in the art world as celebrated examples of innovation or a new
avant-garde. Such practices are one source of the difficulty in defining
this open-ended term -- many observers speak of 'postmodernisms.'
One distinctinly new aspect of postmodernism is the dissolution of
traditional categories. The divisions between art, popular culture, and
even the media have been eroded by many artists. Hybrid art forms such as
furniture-sculpture are now common. In terms of theorizing about art,
earlier distinctions between art criticism, sociology, anthropology, and
journalism have become nonexistent in the work of such renowned postmodern
theorists as Michel Foucault, Jean Baudrillard, and Fredric Jameson.
Perhaps the clearest distinction between modern and postmodern art
involves the sociology of the art world. The booming art market of the
1980s fatally undermined the modern, romantic image of the artist as an
impoverished and alienated outsider. What many term the Vincent Van Gogh
model of the tormented artist has been replaced by the premodern ideal of
the artist as a (wo)man of the world, a la Peter Paul Rubens, the weathly
Flemish artist and diplomat who traveled widely throughout European society
during the seventeenth century. The postmodern phenomenon of retrospective
exhibitions for acclaimed artists in their thirties puts heavy pressure on
artists to succeed at an early age and frequently results in compromises
between career concerns and artistic goals, a problem unknown to the
generations of modern artists who preceded them.
-----
Does that help?
Carter Beaufort Hors
Carter B. Hors
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote in article <6cvr5c$e...@panix2.panix.com>...
> "Kirsten L. Nantz" <nant...@wfu.edu>:
> | I am looking for a clear cut definition of Post-modernism (in art
> | preferably) without confusing terms that hide the meaning.
Clearcutting is an ignoble deforestation practice.
Here's a list of "confusing terms" (nothing but the terms) that reveal the
meaning:
Modernism.....Postmodernism
Romanticism/Symbolism.....'Pataphysics'/Dadaism
Form (conjunctive, closed).....Antiform (disjunctive, open)
Purpose.....Play
Design.....Chance
Hierarchy.....Anarchy
Mastery/Logos.....Exhaustion/Silence
Art Object/Finished Work.....Process/Performance/Happening
Distance.....Participation
Creation/Totalization.....Decreation/Deconstruction
Synthesis.....Antithesis
Presence.....Absence
Centering.....Dispersal
Genre/Boundary.....Text/Intertext
Semantics.....Syntagm
Hypotaxis.....Metonymy
Selection.....Combination
Root/Depth.....Rhizome/Surface
Interpretation/Reading......Against Interpretation/Misreading
Signified.....Signifier
Lisible (Readerly).....Scriptable (Writerly)
Narrative/Grande Histoire.....Anti-Narrative/Petite Histoire
Master Code.....Idiolect
Symptom.....Desire
Type.....Mutant
Genital/Phallic.....Polymorphic/Androgynous
Paranoia.....Schizophrenia
Origin/Cause.....Difference-Differance/Trace
God the Father.....The Holy Ghost
Metaphysics.....Irony
Determinacy.....Indeterminacy
Transcendence.....Immanence
from Ihab Hassan's "Toward a Concept of Postmodernism"
Does this help?
Carter Beaufort Hors
Aidan Campbell
In article <01bd438d$6ae84aa0$LocalHost@gregdent>, Carter B. Hors
<ca...@sympatico.ca> writes
> Perhaps the clearest distinction between modern and postmodern art
>involves the sociology of the art world. The booming art market of the
>1980s fatally undermined the modern, romantic image of the artist as an
>impoverished and alienated outsider. What many term the Vincent Van Gogh
>model of the tormented artist has been replaced by the premodern ideal of
>the artist as a (wo)man of the world, a la Peter Paul Rubens, the weathly
>Flemish artist and diplomat who traveled widely throughout European society
>during the seventeenth century. The postmodern phenomenon of retrospective
>exhibitions for acclaimed artists in their thirties puts heavy pressure on
>artists to succeed at an early age and frequently results in compromises
>between career concerns and artistic goals, a problem unknown to the
>generations of modern artists who preceded them.
Modernism *agonises* over the impact that the distortions of the modern
world will have on humanity
Post-modernism *celebrates* the limitations of humanity represented by
that distorted modern world.
--
Aidan Campbell
www.zola.demon.co.uk
zi...@interport.net
I find that there is something fallacious is going on in this series
of paired words.
Take the words purpose paired with the word play. It seems to me that
they could, conceivable, be at opposite ends of a continuum. The same
might be true of the pairs, design-chance, hierarchy-anarchy,
distance-participation, and a few of the others.
But then there are the pairs which deal with historic styles:
Romanticism/Symbolism-Pataphysics/Dadaism
and Modernism-Postmodernism
The first set in the first of these is not one movement but two
movements which were not historically contemporaneous, but follow one
after the other, covering most of the nineteenth century. Most
nineteenth century painters would be included in a typical art history
study as members of one or the other. This is paired with Alfred
Jarry's personal and nonsensical illogic[by the way a purely literary
idea] and the Dada movement which certainly adopted Jarry. The
ranking of this with the two most important movements for most of the
nineteenth century, clearly shows a pro Dada bias on the part of the
list maker. And one which is historically indefensible.
Similarly, and again showing an indefenseible bias : Modernism is not
on any end of a continuum with Post-Modernism. Modernism is a
collection of movements generally thought of as begininng, sometimes
as early as Post-Impressionism, but never any later than the Fauve
movement. So Modernism includes a whole series of differing and
evolving avant Gardes from no later than 1904 through to 1985, about
when post-modernism appears, even as a word. So one small piece of the
puzzle, which its adherents believe is the new be all is held as the
end result of a continuum of 85 years.
Of course, there is major disagreement about the ultimate value of
"Post-Modernism" -work I believe to be just awful and in a series of
incoherently related styles[both in each piece and across from one
artist to the next]. In my opinion it belongs with its opposite
number at the end of the nineteenth century: Late, bad, academic
painting. It is the last gasp in this century of the great modernist
movements which dominated the century and produced most of its great
work. Just as the Salons of academic painting were the last gasp of
the Romantic movement.
Gabriel
O
zi...@interport.net wrote in article
<6d8ack$4dj$1...@broadway.interport.net>...
> Of course, there is major disagreement about the ultimate value of
> "Post-Modernism" -work I believe to be just awful and in a series of
> incoherently related styles[both in each piece and across from one
> artist to the next].
Could you describe a few of what you consider to be typical "postmodern"
works? And what exactly is awful about them?
O
zi...@interport.net
It is too much trouble to do this. I don't have either the time or the
energy. I suggest you read the New Republic in files in your local
library for Jed Perl's clear description of what is wrong with them.
Or if you are in England, allthe issues of Modern Painters before its
original editor -Peter Fuller-died and the newer ones selectively. You
will find Perl there, too. Or you can read Robert Hughres. Just
remember that I reject all his special pleading for his exceptions
which are not so by me. You will find that the Times critic, I cannot
get his name just now, has also come around to that viewpoint-read his
remarks. All three of these gentlemen have written etensivelt about
what is wrong with the style, the work of specific artists and the
general malaise they see in the official art world. You don't need me
on that. There probably are even more things of that sort in the New
Criterion, regularly.
Some of the qualities now prized by these folk are interesting,
though:
Insincerity, imitation of known styles self reflexivily,
appropriation,-of boith other people's styles and materials from
popular culture and photographs, arbitrary image relationships,
lack of struggle or "finding", lack or traditional or modernist
forming.
GL
zi...@interport.net
This is special pleading again. Here is a contrary view. The new
artists are leeches on the edge of the upper class. They produce the
work needed by that class to support its new money. Works which can be
taken for avant garde, even though they are its obverse. So thgey make
a great deal of money, just as Bouguereau and Meissoneir did. Thus
they are just as the aforesaid academics feted by the contemporary
critics, and their calues are upheld. Of course, there is no sturm and
drang in painting to a market. There is no struggle in maing new works
which fit the needs of a power and money elite!
The artists whom I respect range from impoverished and alienated
outsiders-still-through people who have learned how to cope but are
not raging money successes. There are very few money successes of thge
last years for whom I have any respect at all. This has changed over
the years. They number of people I respect who are very successful go
down with every succeeding year because the requiremements of this art
world are more and more specious and corrupt and the artists who
fulfill them more and more venal and ignorant.
It is amazing how we never learn! Generation after generation accepts
the successful artists as the geniuses of their times. Do you accpet
the Eugene Savagew, Paul Manship and going to Europe Augstus John and
a modernist of sorts-Felice Casorati? Casorati won second prize in he
Carnegie when Braque won a first in the 1930s! How about Eric Isenburg
or Johnb Koch? I am just picking out people who were he darlings of
the rich and famous before the modernist phony fad set in.
Peter Paul Rubens is not a fit model for these folk. They haven't got
the talent or knowledge he possessed in his little finger. For that
matter, neither do the good guys, now adays. The difference is -we
know it and they don't. So for us there is still a chance.
Tell me in twenty years whether any of these artists in their 30s who
have had retrospectives now are still around. I much doubt it. Who has
been touting Ross Bleckner's name, lately. By the way, my most famous
student, but far from my most talented or intelligent.
One of those is a janitor for a post modernist.
GL
Aidan Campbell <ai...@zola.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01bd438d$6ae84aa0$LocalHost@gregdent>, Carter B. Hors
><ca...@sympatico.ca> writes
>> Perhaps the clearest distinction between modern and postmodern art
>>involves the sociology of the art world. The booming art market of the
>>1980s fatally undermined the modern, romantic image of the artist as an
>>impoverished and alienated outsider. What many term the Vincent Van Gogh
>>model of the tormented artist has been replaced by the premodern ideal of
>>the artist as a (wo)man of the world, a la Peter Paul Rubens, the weathly
>>Flemish artist and diplomat who traveled widely throughout European society
>>during the seventeenth century. The postmodern phenomenon of retrospective
>>exhibitions for acclaimed artists in their thirties puts heavy pressure on
>>artists to succeed at an early age and frequently results in compromises
>>between career concerns and artistic goals, a problem unknown to the
>>generations of modern artists who preceded them.
Puss in Boots
"Carter B. Hors" <ca...@sympatico.ca>:
> Speaking of Artspeak, here's Robert Atkin's entry on Postmodernism from his
> book _Art Speak_.
> The term 'postmodernism' probably first appeared in print in Daniel Bell's
> "End of Sociology" (1960). Charles Jencks began to apply it to
> architecture a decade later, when it was also widely invoked in connection
> with Judson-style dance, which was named after the Judson Memorial Church
> in Greenwich Village and championed everyday or "vernacular" movement.
[...]
Undoubtedly that was the first, aside from the half-dozen or so
earlier times. I'd like to ask the rec.arts.fine folks about the
earliest cite I've seen. It's credited to a British painter name of
John Watkins Chapman. There's some dispute about this, but
supposedly he used the term in 1876 (which would put him about forty
years ahead of the runner-up). That's all I've got, though -- no
quote and no hints where to look. Anyone got some good suggestions?
-- Moggin
Gerry Quinn
A lot of what characterizes postmodernism seems to be a concentration
on surface; a flight from analysis or any form of real or
implied depth.
Consequently, postmodern styles are perfect for movies or TV serials,
which are all surface, but pretty useless for any other art form.
Jazz, fine art and literature might also experiment with the style
without being totally destroyed, but overall the results are likely to
be negative. My opinion (theory?) only.
- Gerry
===========================================================
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
http://indigo.ie/~gerryq
Original puzzlers for PC, Amiga, and Java
===========================================================
Stephen Rowley
Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> A lot of what characterizes postmodernism seems to be a concentration
> on surface; a flight from analysis or any form of real or
> implied depth.
>
I like that.
My working definition of Postmodernism is...
"Define Modernism, then think of all the different ways
one can react to it"
THis definition acknowledges the plurality of PM without the impossible
task of spelling out the infinite variety.
The difficulty most people have with PM is that compared to Modernism,
PM cannot be described as a movement.
Modernism was a state of society and a definable (more or less) art
movement. Post-modernism is a state of society in which artists exist,
and as such, what they produce reflects that society.
Strolls
Andy Lowry
On Sun, 1 Mar 1998, Gerry Quinn wrote:
> A lot of what characterizes postmodernism seems to be a concentration
> on surface; a flight from analysis or any form of real or
> implied depth.
Can we put this in a way more charitable and also more adequate? To the
extent this is true, it's the flipside of what we could call a horizontal
(or, heaven help us, "rhizomal") tendency; a postmodern work connects to
other works rather than having its own private depth to be plumbed. But
this isn't the same as _mere_ surface.
The problem with this definition is that lots of modernist stuff does
this, too, but muddying the distinction between M and P-M is probably a
sign of doing something right.
> Consequently, postmodern styles are perfect for movies or TV serials,
> which are all surface, but pretty useless for any other art form.
> Jazz, fine art and literature might also experiment with the style
> without being totally destroyed, but overall the results are likely to
> be negative. My opinion (theory?) only.
Literature? "Gravity's Rainbow": I rest my case. Jazz was probably born
postmodern. And while fine art sure looks like a danger zone to me, I
don't think allusiveness is such a fault.
(The more I think about it, the more I think that P-M is more like the
belated emergence of a modernist strain that wasn't as readily appreciated
as the canonical version. Duchamp, for ex. And even a museum piece of
high modernist lit like "The Waste Land" is perhaps better appreciated
from a P-M standpoint.)
(And how much of the difference depends on what the audience chooses to do
with the artwork? As I've just said, you can read Eliot as "modernist" or
"post-modernist." Woolf, ditto. Pound and Stein are darlings of much P-M
poetry. Other posters can supply examples from other arts.)
-- Andy Lowry
==========================================================================
"I can't be involved in this. I can't be a party to all this ugliness
that will do nothing except destroy people. . . ."
--Linda R. Tripp, in taped conversation with Monica Lewinsky
(_New York Times_ 25 January 1998, p. 16)
==========================================================================
redi...@nospam.net
In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98030...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, Andy
Lowry <a...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Mar 1998, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
> > A lot of what characterizes postmodernism seems to be a concentration
> > on surface; a flight from analysis or any form of real or
> > implied depth.
>
> Can we put this in a way more charitable and also more adequate? To the
> extent this is true, it's the flipside of what we could call a horizontal
> (or, heaven help us, "rhizomal") tendency; a postmodern work connects to
> other works rather than having its own private depth to be plumbed. But
> this isn't the same as _mere_ surface.
Think, for a moment, about the idea and significance of 'surface'. Another
manner of stating this would be to use the term 'superficial'.
A characterization of Postmodernism is that it deals with the superficial
or surface of experience. For a thinking individual what would this mean?
What does it mean to address the surface, scan the surface, deal on the
superficial layer, rather than on a mythic layer of 'depth'. A classic
example would be Marlboro cigarettes. What is it that distinguishes
Marlboro cigarettes from others? By staying on the surface layer of
meaning, the superficial layer, one can experience an enormous amount. One
thing to keep in mind, is to resist an uninformed assumption that the
surface or the superficial is trivial or nonvital. Rather, a view of
postmodernism would suggest the opposite: that the most significant level
of meaning and experience occurs on the surface. It is this exchange, the
exchange upon the surface layer that is the most vital area in
communication,shaping, and interpreting meaning and esperience. Marlboro
generates an enormous degree of wealth. It is recognizable virtually
around the globe. It has become a universal icon (as is Christ,
Madonna[both Madonna's] Marilyn Monroe. Less recognizable icons and
symbols exist to make up the historical language of painting]. The
cigarettes are a very valuable commodity. Where does its most significant
and vital meaning exist? In the actual tobacco? In the masses of people
that work within the Marlboro division manufacturing the cigarettes? The
farmers growing the tobacco? The deales and merchants distributing it and
selling it. No. The action all takes place in the Marlboro logo itself.
This is what is bought, sold, traded, desired, where meaning and image are
produced and exchanged; the play of the values. The most valuable element
to Marlboro cigarettes is on the surface, the superficial layer, the the
image, the logo. Whosoever owns that image and the rights to that image,
has the wealth and the value. Everything else is interchangeable: the
tobacco, farmers, workers, factories. When and if a law suit ensued, the
most important thing would be control of the surface: control of the
image/logo. Meaning and value exist on the surface. In our postmodern
culture, the valuable discourses are on the surface. That is where ideas,
values, identities are constructed, read, expressed, and exchanged. We
consume the images, the surfaces, of ourselves, each other, art.
This holds true for our identities, meaning, and values as people as well.
And the identities, meanings, and values of the images we generate, our
artwork. If you could hypothetically strip away the surfaces of the world,
its superficial layers, what would you have left? Where and how would
identity and meaning be constructed? What exactly is 'depth' anyway? Is it
a phantasmal construction? Strip away the surface and you reveal another
surface.
A harsh example. Were one to remove the surface and replace it with
another, what would one do to meaning and identity? If you were dressed in
the costume of the opposite sex, opposite age group, your surface codes
exchanged...how would this affect your meaning? Continue the example into
all aspects of your life and into your art, making surface exchanges. What
would you have left, particularly of this entity refereed to as 'depth' to
define, communicate, exchange, with the culture around you. Do not rashly
dismiss the surface, we are constructed by it and live within it.
Think about it, but donąt get too Śdeepą, just stay to the surface and
observe the world.
The superficial is by no means simple.
-N.
--
N.
To reach me,substitute "earthlink" where "nospam" appears in my address.
G*rd*n
Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
in thought what the interior must have been like before you
cut; thus you create yet another surface.
Ron Hardin
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
> like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
> what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
> inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
> only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
> in thought what the interior must have been like before you
> cut; thus you create yet another surface.
``Matter has no inwards.'' Schelling, Coleridge
--
Ron Hardin
r...@research.att.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
| > like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
| > what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
| > inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
| > only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
| > in thought what the interior must have been like before you
| > cut; thus you create yet another surface.
Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com>:
| ``Matter has no inwards.'' Schelling, Coleridge
Well, some matter, like the human brain, seems to; but you
can't find it by cutting, however great the temptation in
some cases may be.
Lee Rudolph
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) writes:
>Ron Hardin <r...@research.att.com>:
>| ``Matter has no inwards.'' Schelling, Coleridge
>
>Well, some matter, like the human brain, seems to; but you
>can't find it by cutting, however great the temptation in
>some cases may be.
So you're saying that, like, postmodernism isn't brain surgery?
Lee Rudolph
Gerry Quinn
In article <6de9ks$5...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
>like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
>what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
>inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
>only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
>in thought what the interior must have been like before you
>cut; thus you create yet another surface.
>
(1) Infinitely thin surfaces are mathematical idealizations. Even
soap bubbles consist of matter in well-defined 3D configurations.
Light does not reflect from infinitely thin layers.
(2) Our minds do not construct replicas of the visual field. Our
thoughts are of real objects.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Quinn
In article <redirect-020...@1cust48.tnt5.nyc3.da.uu.net>, redi...@nospam.net wrote:
>In article <Pine.SOL.3.96.98030...@Ra.MsState.Edu>, Andy
>Lowry <a...@Ra.MsState.Edu> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 1 Mar 1998, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>>
>> > A lot of what characterizes postmodernism seems to be a concentration
>> > on surface; a flight from analysis or any form of real or
>> > implied depth.
>>
>> Can we put this in a way more charitable and also more adequate? To the
>> extent this is true, it's the flipside of what we could call a horizontal
>> (or, heaven help us, "rhizomal") tendency; a postmodern work connects to
>> other works rather than having its own private depth to be plumbed. But
>> this isn't the same as _mere_ surface.
>
>Think, for a moment, about the idea and significance of 'surface'.
[Marlboro example snipped]
Define everything as surface, and you can justly claim that all is
'surface'. But how much of the 'action' described takes place in the
logo? And what is the great significance of one or other brand of
cigarettes, except the taste? If a movie character smokes a Marlboro
instead of a Camel, what difference does it make?
If you've surfed (!) the Web, you know how a lot of linkages with no
content add up to diddley-squat.
Andrew Werby
"O" <o...@symptagm.org> wrote:
>Could you describe a few of what you consider to be typical "postmodern"
> >works? And what exactly is awful about them?
zi...@interport.net wrote:
> It is too much trouble to do this. I don't have either the time or the
> energy. I suggest you read (reading list snipped}
> Some of the qualities now prized by these folk are interesting,
> though:
>
> Insincerity, imitation of known styles self reflexivily,
> appropriation,-of boith other people's styles and materials from
> popular culture and photographs, arbitrary image relationships,
> lack of struggle or "finding", lack or traditional or modernist
> forming.
>
> GL
[ Dear Gabriel:
If you are going to continually damn this artist and that for lack of this
"modernist forming" don't you think that giving some sort of working
definition would be apropos? If you haven't got the time and energy to defend
your increasingly wild statements (or even scan them for typos), preferring to
fob us off with references to obsolete publications, don't you think that
conserving the vital forces for a while might allow you to concentrate on this
major issue, upon which all your opinions seem to be based? We eagerly await
elucidation, but not another outpouring of abstruse references. Take your
time, though...]
UNITED ARTWORKS- SCULPTURE AND MORE
http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
Useful Resources, Technical Tips
and Custom Art in Many Media
mdeli
On Sat, 28 Feb 1998 09:22:02 GMT, zi...@interport.net wrote:
>Of course, there is major disagreement about the ultimate value of
>"Post-Modernism" -work I believe to be just awful and in a series of
>incoherently related styles[both in each piece and across from one
>artist to the next].
No more awful than Modern Academic Art. No more ridicules than any
other style of Modern Academic Art.
> In my opinion it belongs with its opposite
>number at the end of the nineteenth century: Late, bad, academic
>painting. It is the last gasp in this century of the great modernist
>movements which dominated the century and produced most of its great
>work. Just as the Salons of academic painting were the last gasp of
>the Romantic movement.
>
While Gabriel accepts the incompetence of Cezanne and Matisse he
rejects it when it turns into a style of abstraction no sillyer than
the work he was brought up with.
The last gasp of 19th century academic art as a fashion occurred with
Cezanne and Matisse, who espoused bad drawing and technique claiming
that its redeeming quality lay in the fact that it was modern and
anti-academic. The subject matter of these two artists was completely
academic. Their no-skill-realism was another matter.
Gabriel belongs to the school of the last gasp of academic
incompetence. His subject matter is actually academic while his
incompetence is modern. His ideas are a rehash of 1950's art history.
He is a left-over of the no skill-realism branch of the antiquated
avant garde which did little new since 1920. The only new thing about
this avant garde is the wording of the recurring claim that its all
new. Post Modern is just a continuation of this same old stuff with a
new set of catch phrases, psychobabble and philosophical mysticism.
Gabriel is a leftover from a past fashion complaining about the
present one. .As long as incompetence is in fashion and taught in
academia a slight change in fashion will have a short half-life.
Today's ism is tomorrow's was'im.
MAni DeLi
...no skill no art
>Gabriel
N
> This is special pleading again. Here is a contrary view. The new
> artists are leeches on the edge of the upper class. They produce the
> work needed by that class to support its new money.
Everybody works for and thus supports "The Man". If you teach in a school
accredited by the State, you are preserving and disseminating its
officially approved language and ideology...if not you would not be there.
If you are an artist, you are getting your paycheck ultimately from the
man, you sell him images. If you are a waiter, you serve "The Man" his
food. If you are a janitor, you clean up after "The Man". What
specifically is your point here other than hypocrisy and ingenuousness, or
contrarily, ignorance and self delusion on your part. Everyone works for
'The Man' in one form or another: one thing about 'The Man', is that 'The
Man' always pays. It is common sense. Then you take that money and give it
right back to 'The Man', by buying his goods and services (like your phone
service for example). Wake up and smell the coffee. An postmodern ideology
has no place in it for a myth of the avant garde, particularly its
fantasies of social utopias (and subsequent repression of its own means
and practices). We often do wish to, but we work for the man because the
man pays. Accept it and move on to whatever you wish to contribute to an
intelligent and insightful critique. Keeping your head in the clouds will
not bring you closer to a functioning understanding of art in this age.
Your heroes of your idealized past had the bosses finger up their asses as
much or more we do today. When the Pope summoned Michaelangleo, he went.
Botticelli served his economic masters, a leech. Leonardo died the
ultimate leechąs death (by your standards), curled up an coddled, a
parasitic leech a suckin' away. What exactly is your point? Save your
breathful of artless hypocritical disdain and feed it back into
questioning your own lax thinking, where it can serve a productive
function.
>Works which can be
> taken for avant garde, even though they are its obverse. So they make
> a great deal of money, just as Bouguereau and Meissoneir did. Thus
> they are just as the aforesaid academics feted by the contemporary
> critics, and their calues are upheld. Of course, there is no sturm and
> drang in painting to a market.
Ca you be more vague?
What 'works' and 'artists' are you referring to? What 'avant garde'? You
are conducting an argument here without a subject
All your talk of the contemporary is veiled in vagueness. I sense you are
attacking the contours of your mind's own phantasms than the contemporary
postmodern culture. Time to get concrete. It is time for you to start
naming those you are leveling charges at and furthermore, to prove how the
alleged are representatives of a large uncentered cultural phenomenon
referred to as postmodernism and how postmodern artists are constrained
and defined by your examples (if you feel you can provide them).
>There is no struggle in maing new works
> which fit the needs of a power and money elite!
Again with your elite? Heavy indoctrination here (you are really showing
your age...this is 1940's and 1950's modernism talking)? Some issues to
confront? Tell us where 'struggle' lies. Your thinking is not particularly
struggling hard to think clearly, what makes you think that your art could
? My understanding of Postmodernism (such a broad term) has as a
foundation the notion of the "end of the avant garde". That seems to be
widely accepted and passé. What year exactly did you step off the boat?
The belief in the mythologies of originality, avant garde, spontaneity,
etc. (I think quite well outlined in Carter B. Hors' "Confusing Terms"
post) would make a sensible starting point. I sense the degree with which
you are out of touch with the times. You seem to be elucidating a classic
modernist ideology, not a postmodern one.
> The artists whom I respect range from impoverished and alienated
> outsiders-still-through people who have learned how to cope but are
> not raging money successes.
I do not see what money has to do with a description of postmodernism.
There have been rich and poor artists of all ages but this is not a
defining quality of the art. On the other hand,it is congradulatory that
art continues to be made and developed despite the burdens and pressures
of economic success (and failures).
>There are very few money successes of thge
> last years for whom I have any respect at all.
Ok, we heard all that before. Artists sell their art and make money. Next point.
>This has changed over the years.
Remove your blinders, take a small peek into history, then get back to us
on this one.
>They number of people I respect who are very successful go
> down with every succeeding year because the requirements of this art
> world are more and more specious and corrupt and the artists who
> fulfill them more and more venal and ignorant.
Firstly, we can't know what you respect, because you have not clearly
expressed your values. One thing that is clear to me is you possess little
understanding of postmodernism.
Present specific examples of alleged speciousness, corruption, venality ,
and ignorance and then its function throughout historical time. Time to
get concrete here and back up your position with some hard facts.
Otherwise, it is just so much more R.A.F. hot air (or R.A.F.
speciousness, ignorance, venality, and corruption.)
>
> It is amazing how we never learn!
Speak for yourself here.
>Generation after generation accepts
> the successful artists as the geniuses of their times.
"Genius" is another of the ideological notions brought into question in
postmodernist thought and practice...the strike of lightning, the
transcendent genius, the flash of originality. Modernist critics tend to
want to repress a great deal of information about the artist, who they
stole from, are derivative from, and to allow just enough of this
information to make it into consciousness, and place it under the category
of tradition and influences. The rest is smoke, magic, repression of the
facts, and a little good ol' fashion genius is incarnated. POOF! See the
that chart on derivation.
>Do you accpet
> the Eugene Savagew, Paul Manship and going to Europe Augstus John and
> a modernist of sorts-Felice Casorati? Casorati won second prize in he
> Carnegie when Braque won a first in the 1930s! How about Eric Isenburg
> or Johnb Koch? I am just picking out people who were he darlings of
> the rich and famous before the modernist phony fad set in.
Not familiar with the Carnegie in 1930. What is the point, that the art
(both Casorati's and Braque's, had an audience)? Times change, tastes
change. Do I hear the rumblings of eternal values and aesthetic absolutes
churning in the distance?
> Peter Paul Rubens
...another fine example of Gabriel's "artists are leeches on the edge of
the upper class" One doesn't get parasitically 'leechier' on the edges of
the upper classes than a Peter Paul. Oh, but I forgot...he is old, shines
forth from the crust of history, has been scoured clean and left immune by
the corrupted lens of idealism (and he was an 'eternal genius' to boot so
he doesn't count)[cough]. And surely he wasn't kept around by the upper
class, and "needed by that class to support its (new)[old, or whatever
form of] money". Not good ol' Pete!
Oh, the corruption and venality of this postmodern age! Wealth never
needed art to support it (god forbid!).
>is not a fit model for these folk. They haven't got
> the talent or knowledge he possessed in his little finger [Peter Paul
Ruben's little finger that is. -N.] For that
> matter, neither do the good guys, now adays. The difference is -we
> know it and they don't. So for us there is still a chance.
With a mind like that, a chance at WHAT I am afraid to ask: the Pantheon
of Moral Hypocrisy? Or election to the Board of Directors of Sentimental
Rubbish? Graduation with Honors from the Self Delusion Home Study
Institute? The world, art, has all gone to Hell in a hand basket [I never
understood that 'hand basket' part]. What is to be done? Is there no one
pure of soul to rid the world of villainy?
I know...I know...the good janitor will save us. The good janitor is on
his way. The good janitor is THE man [violins being moved in from the
wings, a sentimental tune begun...]. The good janitor is coming to clean
it all up for the approval of the upper classes so they can clean the
world of corruptness, venality, speciousness, and ignorance. But when will
he come? How long do we have to wait? When will this corrupted world be
made over?
There is plenty of vice to go around in every conceivable
demographic...just hit the street and open your eyes. Your simpering
apologia idealizing the poor and villainising the rich...cursing the
present and glorifying the past: what can one say? As has so often been
said, 'do I laugh or do I cry?"
> Tell me in twenty years whether any of these artists in their 30s who
> have had retrospectives now are still around. I much doubt it. Who has
> been touting Ross Bleckner's name, lately. By the way, my most famous
> student, but far from my most talented or intelligent.
In your opinion. Which based upon your ability to speak to the
contemporary art world, seems particularly limited.
What do you mean by still around? If you mean making art, that remains to
be seen (what kind of art it will be and its audience is also an unknown),
neither you nor I have that answer, such knowledge remains unavailable to
us...and is pure speculation and therefore completely irrelevant. Nor, as
Clement Greenberg used to say, can one prescribe for the future. The
future will come and it will come as an unknown to all of us. Stay in the
present where at least we can have a sensible and realistic discussion
(instead of flying off to gaga land to shoot some imaginary barbs at
artists you dislike and/or misunderstand in some fantasy scenario of the
future).
> One of those is a janitor for a post modernist.
What are we to say to that? Is this artist and their work fictional,
exaggerated, actual? Post the name of the artist/janitor and where one
might see their work in the public, then (if one sees the work in person)
one can compare it to Bleckner's and come to their own conclusions. You
will not score points by declaring judgment over the invisible than
expecting us to jump up onto your lap and agree. Be reasonable. At least
use identifiable examples if you are conspiring to prove the worth of the
one over the other. I declare....your proofs are appearing rather...well,
non-apparent(is this the trickle down of dreaded upper class speciousness?
or is this middle-class speciousness?...or for that matter
janitorial-grade speciousness?).
The janitor job would be desired in your artworld view/cosmology. He is
not supporting the upper classes, which he will if he sells his art to
them. Better he should remain a janitor with no success and acknowledgment
from the establishment. You should be proud and not wish to see any change
in his position...let us hope he remains a janitor his entire life. The
assumed poverty, innocence, detachment from earthly success would suggest
a position of virtue.
Your ability to assess art is wanting. What if any, is your point here?
I fear for your soul Gabriel. Send all that dirty money my way, so you can
purify your art. If you have even a modest leech's position and privilege
sucking parasitic ally off of the wealth of the upper classes or its
trickle down, I will disburden you of it, sign it over to me as an
inheritance. Your art cannot but improve. Those financial assets of yours,
hand em over and you can rest assured you will have no hand in the
venality of the upper classes and the ignorance it generates. You might
just then have a shot to become the artist that it is in you to be (if you
can get poorer than the janitor, that is). The choice is yours. E-mail me
for assistance in making out the check.
SENTIMENTAL RUBBISH.
You are self-righteous moral hypocrite.
Ignorant of the issues, venal, specious in your venal attacks and
accusations, and thoroughly corrupted.
Yawn.
(that was a postmodern yawn)
-N
P.S. where IS that janitor when you need him?
James Kearman
Carter B. Hors wrote:
> Speaking of Artspeak, here's Robert Atkin's entry on Postmodernism from his
> book _Art Speak_.
> -----
> <...>
> Following World War II, modern art making and art theory grew more
> reductive, more prescriptive, more oriented toward a singe, generally
> abstract manistream. <...>
>
Thanks for going to the trouble of typing that up. And your fortuitous typo gives this
group a new tool to define contemporary art: It's either "mainstream" or
"manistream."
Cheers,
Jim Kearman
No stream no fish
--
James E. Kearman
NOTE: You MUST replace "dot" in my reply-to address with "." or your reply will
bounce!
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
| >like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
| >what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
| >inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
| >only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
| >in thought what the interior must have been like before you
| >cut; thus you create yet another surface.
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
| (1) Infinitely thin surfaces are mathematical idealizations. Even
| soap bubbles consist of matter in well-defined 3D configurations.
| Light does not reflect from infinitely thin layers.
A Russian mathematician constructed a geometrical object by
starting with a cube and specifying that the midpoint of
the cube be removed, and then, considering the cube to
consist of eight cubes defined by the planes through the
midpoint parallel to the sides, removing the midpoints of
those cubes, and so on an infinite number of times. This
cube had interesting properties; unfortunately, not being a
transfinitist, I can remember none of them except that the
mathematician proved the resultant object was "a curve."
| (2) Our minds do not construct replicas of the visual field. Our
| thoughts are of real objects.
Then perhaps the universe is _not_ "queerer than we can
suppose." Too bad, Eddington; it's exactly as queer as we
can suppose, no more and no less. Consider that ghostly
cube, above -- no insides and no surface either, and yet
there it is.
Benny Shaboy
James Kearman wrote:
more oriented toward a singe, generally
> >
>
> Thanks for going to the trouble of typing that up. And your fortuitous typo gives this
> group a new tool to define contemporary art: It's either "mainstream" or
> "manistream."
> Cheers,
>
> Jim Kearman
> No stream no fish
>
And isn't singe what a flame does?
Ben
> --
>
> James E. Kearman
>
> NOTE: You MUST replace "dot" in my reply-to address with "." or your reply will
> bounce!
zi...@interport.net
Dear Andrew,
Probably have been getting wild. But should be better now. My model
had a healthy boy by Caesarean today and is feeling an awful lot
better. She was very scared.
Modernist forming has to be found in obsolete books, because it was
found too traditional to continuew by those who were working for the
new moneyed class which has beenbuying art and wants a contintuous
succession of avant gardes as its due. So it is only in modernist
artists' words thatg you will find this stuff.
Anyway, do you really think that old technical books are obsolete? If
you want to learn Albertian or Brunelleschian perspective, where to
you think you will have to go? If you want to learn anatomy, where do
you think you will have to go? If you want to learn something about
color which is not color wheel oriented but representation oriented,
where would you go? Even the color we read nowadays, goes back to
Moses Harris color wheel which is an obsolete idea of the 18th
century. Then, of course, there is Chevreul-mid 1850s for the first?
Is there really an advance with Albers? Or is that obsolete too?
Obsolete is the word obsolete. When you knw what is good and where you
should not look, you are getting close to obsolete, because you have
hemmed yourself into a pigeonhole. How can we ever know where we
should not look? I think we cannot. So I will look at it all and make
my mind up about traditions and cultures afterwards. This is most true
of your own culture. The places where we have been toldnot to look are
themost useful places TO look.
As far as forming is concerned I have published on it in several
articles. I have an analysius of a Corot in an Art News Annual of
about 1970. The issue was later reprinted as a 12mo paper back.
The issue, edited by Thomas B. Hess was dedictaed to light. It is
called "Light in Painting." There also is my Art News article "The
importance of Cezanne", It is all about forming inhis work, Giotto and
other people-comparatively, too, so it should get clearer. That
appeared in about 1970 or so. I have not beenwriting the past twenty
years or so. But I am still alive, so go and read the articled.
I also did a piece for Art Forum inthe late sixties called
Expressionism Eccentric and Concentric. This one is about forming in
such artists as Soutine, for example.
The two books which give the most intense feeling for what forming i
is about are the Charles Hawthorne book which was reprinted by Dover
with a Lawrence Campbell introduction. The title is something like
"Notes on Painting." The otherone would be the William Morris Hunt
book which I think has to be found in old libraries. I think Hans
Hofmann's book fits in with thes. It is his own writings and class
critocisms - it is called "The Search for the Real."
On W.M. Hunt-Doesn't it excite you that he was a close friend of
Millet and painted along with him daily in the forest of Barbizon?
None of them wrote much down, but a student collected his studio
criticisms and we have them, just as we have Hawthorne's.
The problem is that forming is something best understood by example.
I or anyone else need a painting in forn of use and we have to show
what is happening from one spot to another, working ad and worrying at
how the forms add upo to not only tensions with the surfacebut
indicators as to movement through the spacewhich result in a full
exposition ofthe motif. And if we are looking at a truly great
painting there will be muchmore there besides, including a way inwhich
the particular forming process has evenmore meaning and give us a
metaphoric statement about the little world we perceive inthe painting
and by implication the whole of our world outside the painting.
While I am not Hillel, I am also not Shamai.
Do look up my list of obsolete books. They may have knowledge in them
which is not obsolete.
The sculptors I know go to the Victoria and Albert museum whenever
they are inLondon, especially to see the room full of casts of Italian
Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance sculpture, cheek by jowl. These are
the best teachers [together with some older artists, well seen in the
British Museum] for learning forming in sculpture.
For painters it is not only these but also paintingsand drawings, as
we find them in museum after museum in various countries.
If we look and have good eyes, we can learn without drawing. But it is
even better to draw from an old master. Not merely or primarily to
reproduce the look of the thing, but to learn what is happening
pictorially in the painting and get that worked through in our own
hand-at least in some measure.
If any one knows how to do this and has done it once, it can be done
again. Each new work, each new style, each new culture may teach us
something we did not know before.
Reading through and understanding forming is not everything. But
without it, an awful lot of the work we all hold most dear does not
make any sense at all.
I have enormous respect for Picasso. But, he only learned his forming
skills when he became a cubist. Those realistic drawings of his
childhood are just awful by forming standards, and they do apply. So
are the paintings of the blue and rose periods. If you find yourself
able to look at them and say, oh, those are just wonderful, then you
cannot read forming in painting, because he did not have any yet.
By the way since when are Meyer Schapiro's books on Van Gogh and
Cezanne obsolete?
If you will do some reading I will also try to do some explaining. One
of the problems is that explaining via the internet without a proper
shared object toward which I can gesture and show tensions and
movements just will not work very well. I might be able toput up a
series ofjpegs but my machine has become very buggy and won;tlet me
turnthe tifs into jpegs. Art is a VISUAL activity. Words donot easily
explain its most intimate secrets.
In friendship,
Gabriel
PS I think it is a great disaster that today there are so few out
there teaching this.
PPS I hope I made less typos. I did some proofreading
dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
>"O" <o...@symptagm.org> wrote:
> >Could you describe a few of what you consider to be typical "postmodern"
>> >works? And what exactly is awful about them?
> zi...@interport.net wrote:
>> It is too much trouble to do this. I don't have either the time or the
>> energy. I suggest you read (reading list snipped}
>> Some of the qualities now prized by these folk are?
Murph the Surf
zi...@interport.net wrote:
> I have enormous respect for Picasso. But, he only learned his forming
> skills when he became a cubist. Those realistic drawings of his
> childhood are just awful by forming standards, and they do apply. So
> are the paintings of the blue and rose periods. If you find yourself
> able to look at them and say, oh, those are just wonderful, then you
> cannot read forming in painting, because he did not have any yet.
Gabriel,
I'd be interested in your thoughts on the importance of Picasso's "Les
Demoiselles d'Avignon" as well as Leo Steinberg's essay about that painting,
"The Philosophical Brothel".
Rob Murphy
zi...@interport.net
Dear Mr. Werby,
You have a problem. And all of you defenders of the postmodernists. By
the way if in the magazines and in the books about them, they are
often INDEED labeled by their proponents as AVANT GARDISTES. Remember,
by the way, They represent the status quo. What a joke!
The problem is that I come from the past you wish were dead so you
could malign it more. I was there in 1948 and 1949 when Abstract
Expressionism began,. AND I was in the studios of the major artists. I
talked to them and I heard them talking to others and I heard them
lecture, and I baby sat for some of them, and I went to their
openings. ANd as far as music was concerned, I was part of the
audience of about 500 which would go to every radical music concert
given[justabout the same audience, every time]. The Composer's Forum
at Columbia, the ISCM concerts and, in those dasy, the concerts of the
Cage crowd.[which is the way we all referred to them]. And my wife and
my brother, and several of my friends were active composers and
performers in that world. By the way performing music, most of which
is again not beingplayed. It is too ugly! Schoenberg and Berg and
Webern and Varese and Bartok have all given way to Shostakovich the
minimalists and, God protect me, Percy Grainger and movie music!
So here, put this in your pipe and smoke it: None of them were getting
it in your delightful phrase "up the ass" from the Man. They were all
broke, and rejected. Varese was in his sixties-and broke and rejected.
Living on private students and his wife's translations from the
French. Wolpe pretty much the same[a little younger in his late
fifties], except his wife was a pianist and teacher. Tworkov sold
some, he had a rep as a Picasso classic school artist. He paid the
rent on the studio he shared with deKooning, letting Bill have the
front. He invited Bill and Elaine to dinner every Friday night, and
gave them sandwiches to last over the weekend. And Bill painted with
the left over enamels which his house painter friends [he did that
too] gave him. That is why the paintings were black and white. By the
way the "striper" brush he used in his paintings, he learned about
because of his work as a commercial wall painter.
I don't think Jack was "the man". I could go on like this with minute
detail about the lives of at least ten of the best [know] respected
artists of those days.
But there is another issue. You just don't know your history, or you
lie about it. In 1912 the American radicals pushed through the Armory
show in New York. It traveled to Boston, as well. After the show, most
of them lost their incomes. The American collectors,many of them,
bought the Europeans fromthen on. Dove lived in a houseboat-so as to
avoid paying rent [this was before my time, but one of my friends is
the son of a sort of patron of his, a fellow illustrator named Henry
Raleigh]. The people whowere members of the American Abstract Artists
Association lived from hand to mouth for many years. Some did get jobs
in art schools. But they worked hard for it, teaching advertising
designers and such, so their product which was questionable was there
kids, not their own work. But many others could not teach. Giorgio
Cavallon made his living as a fine cabinetmaker designing hifi
installations, Balcomb Greene who had an MA inEnglish Lit. and and MA
in Art History taught lecture courses meant to unite the actors and
the artists in one school. Some of them worked as welders repairing
antique metal work. Anyhow they struggled through the twenties and
then almost every single one had the wonderful, uplifting experience
of the WPA art Program. Where the were paid [poorly, but enough to
manage] for producing their work for some eight years or so. [by the
way their politics ranged from liberal over to communist and anarchist
in those days].
The big American tradition I grew up in was one inwhich since an
artist didn;t have a chance for money, anyhow, he might as well
supporthimself and goand do the kind of thing he found interesting and
enlightening. The whole idea of the artist as a kind of self propelled
scholar in his own right [scholar of art, only] developed between 1912
and 1935, but it kept on happening during the WPA days and afterwards.
It was one of the things which made te Americans different fromthe
Europeans. The Europeans had -because they could see the successes of
earlier days all around rgem-the tought that they could be
commercially successful without giving anythingup. The Americans did
not. But I would not call Wols and HArtung and V.Da Silva asnd company
corrupt.
No, your myth of the corruption of all artists is just that, a self
justifying myth for your belief in the complete reduction by the
current crop, of the status of art to the lackey of privilege.
Much later I was present at a College Art Association panel when
Robert Pincus Witten-the chief critic for minimal art, but still
around, tried to get Hilton Kramer and a panel which included Sylvia
Plimack Mangold, Bill Bailey, and Al Held to agree with him that the
corruption he avowedly practiced was practiced by all and was just
fine and dandy.
Well he did not get those assurances. And they would not have been
true if given.
There have been individually corrupt artists as well as artists who
were intellectually corrupt, but this is the first time -these last
years, more and more every year, when nearly the whole of the
establishment artist group, and especially the younger artists
seem to be going that way as a class. And you prove it, by arguing
that it was always so and that is the way things ought to be!
Gabriel
PS One last thing. Do you know the average age of the bunch who made
it between 1952 and 1962? I would guess it was 58. They had made it on
their own -or within their own families until then. Almost all of them
were not from money, either. So they did do it alone. And without
corruption, especially not in the work.
Gerry Quinn
In article <6dful2$9...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
>| >Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
>| >like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
>| >what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
>| >inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
>| >only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
>| >in thought what the interior must have been like before you
>| >cut; thus you create yet another surface.
>
>ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
>| (1) Infinitely thin surfaces are mathematical idealizations. Even
>| soap bubbles consist of matter in well-defined 3D configurations.
>| Light does not reflect from infinitely thin layers.
>
>A Russian mathematician constructed a geometrical object by
>starting with a cube and specifying that the midpoint of
>the cube be removed, and then, considering the cube to
>consist of eight cubes defined by the planes through the
>midpoint parallel to the sides, removing the midpoints of
>those cubes, and so on an infinite number of times. This
>cube had interesting properties; unfortunately, not being a
>transfinitist, I can remember none of them except that the
>mathematician proved the resultant object was "a curve."
I should say 'construction' of this object is one thing he did not do.
Again, this is a mathematical idealization. It may be asserted with
confidence that an object of this kind could not exist in the
universe.
A finite series of symbols can be used to refer to such an object.
Unlike "the largest prime" which can just as easily be referred to,
the existence of such an object does not give rise to a contradiction
in standard mathematics. But that is as far as it goes.
>| (2) Our minds do not construct replicas of the visual field. Our
>| thoughts are of real objects.
>
>Then perhaps the universe is _not_ "queerer than we can
>suppose." Too bad, Eddington; it's exactly as queer as we
>can suppose, no more and no less. Consider that ghostly
>cube, above -- no insides and no surface either, and yet
>there it is.
>
Where?
Not in reality, and not in our imaginations (mine anyway). My concept
of this object consists of a cube on which the iterative process has
been performed a few times, and a mental note that the process must go
on to infinity. A finite series of symbols, in fact.
Andrew Werby
> Dear Andrew,
>
> Probably have been getting wild. But should be better now. My model
> had a healthy boy by Caesarean today and is feeling an awful lot
> better. She was very scared.
[CONGRATULATIONS- Are you passing out virtual cigars?]
>
> Modernist forming has to be found in obsolete books, because it was
> found too traditional to continuew by those who were working for the
> new moneyed class which has beenbuying art and wants a contintuous
> succession of avant gardes as its due. So it is only in modernist
> artists' words thatg you will find this stuff.
>
> Anyway, do you really think that old technical books are obsolete? If
> you want to learn Albertian or Brunelleschian perspective, where to
> you think you will have to go? If you want to learn anatomy, where do
> you think you will have to go? If you want to learn something about
> color which is not color wheel oriented but representation oriented,
> where would you go? Even the color we read nowadays, goes back to
> Moses Harris color wheel which is an obsolete idea of the 18th
> century. Then, of course, there is Chevreul-mid 1850s for the first?
> Is there really an advance with Albers? Or is that obsolete too?
[Granted that if I was seriously researching any of the above-mentioned
topics I'd have to dust off some old sources. But do you really expect us
to go digging through all the back issues of The New Criterion (or whatever
it was) just to be able to understand what it is you mean when you go on
about "modernist forming"? If you really want us to scurry off to the
Reader's Guide, you'll have to at least whet our appetites, and give us
a hint of the riches we'd find.]
>
> Obsolete is the word obsolete. When you knw what is good and where you
> should not look, you are getting close to obsolete, because you have
> hemmed yourself into a pigeonhole. How can we ever know where we
> should not look? I think we cannot. So I will look at it all and make
> my mind up about traditions and cultures afterwards. This is most true
> of your own culture. The places where we have been toldnot to look are
> themost useful places TO look.
[Perhaps I should have said "out of print and difficult to find". Even
if we were to spend our entire lives reading, we can't get near to knowing
"all". But if something is really interesting to me, I'll dig it out.]
>
> As far as forming is concerned I have published on it in several
> articles. I have an analysius of a Corot in an Art News Annual of
> about 1970. The issue was later reprinted as a 12mo paper back.
> The issue, edited by Thomas B. Hess was dedictaed to light. It is
> called "Light in Painting." There also is my Art News article "The
> importance of Cezanne", It is all about forming inhis work, Giotto and
> other people-comparatively, too, so it should get clearer. That
> appeared in about 1970 or so. I have not beenwriting the past twenty
> years or so. But I am still alive, so go and read the articled.
[Since you wrote them, you won't be violating copyright if you were to
summarize them for us here, with an emphasis on the rules of forming as
you see them. No doubt many of us will be so impressed that we will be
crowding the libraries shortly thereafter to check out the original
articles.]
>
> I also did a piece for Art Forum inthe late sixties called
> Expressionism Eccentric and Concentric. This one is about forming in
> such artists as Soutine, for example.
>
> The two books which give the most intense feeling for what forming i
> is about are the Charles Hawthorne book which was reprinted by Dover
> with a Lawrence Campbell introduction. The title is something like
> "Notes on Painting." The otherone would be the William Morris Hunt
> book which I think has to be found in old libraries. I think Hans
> Hofmann's book fits in with thes. It is his own writings and class
> critocisms - it is called "The Search for the Real."
[If he wrote a whole lot better than he painted, it might be worth a read.
I know the guy is considered a god by some, but I just can't get into his
work- sorry. The entire upper floor of Berkeley's University Art Museum is
dedicated to an unchanging exhibition of Hoffmann's stuff, due to some deal
made at the height of his fame, I suppose, and it is the deadest place in
the entire town- a great place to experience utter solitude. Is this someone
who exemplifies Modernist Forming to you? If so, I can save myself a visit
to the stacks...]
>
> On W.M. Hunt-Doesn't it excite you that he was a close friend of
> Millet and painted along with him daily in the forest of Barbizon?
[Somehow I seem to be keeping my excitement in check enough to go
through the motions of daily life...]
> None of them wrote much down, but a student collected his studio
> criticisms and we have them, just as we have Hawthorne's.
>
> The problem is that forming is something best understood by example.
> I or anyone else need a painting in forn of use
[In front of us? There are a lot of paintings up on the web- pick one
and expound.]
and we have to show
> what is happening from one spot to another, working ad and worrying at
> how the forms add upo to not only tensions with the surfacebut
> indicators as to movement through the spacewhich result in a full
> exposition ofthe motif. And if we are looking at a truly great
> painting there will be muchmore there besides, including a way inwhich
> the particular forming process has evenmore meaning and give us a
> metaphoric statement about the little world we perceive inthe painting
> and by implication the whole of our world outside the painting.
[This is a tad vague, I hope you realize. I think you need an example to
point to, so when you say "tensions" you can indicate where you think
they are happening, and the "motif" can be separated out.]
>
> While I am not Hillel, I am also not Shamai.
[But you are a Pharisee?]
>
> Do look up my list of obsolete books. They may have knowledge in them
> which is not obsolete.
[Like what? Could you give a few examples of the gems you've culled?]
>
> The sculptors I know go to the Victoria and Albert museum whenever
> they are inLondon, especially to see the room full of casts of Italian
> Romanesque, Gothic and Renaissance sculpture, cheek by jowl. These are
> the best teachers [together with some older artists, well seen in the
> British Museum] for learning forming in sculpture.
[Is this the same as or different than general Modernist Forming?
Wasn't Modernism conceived in reaction to this sort of thing?]
>
> For painters it is not only these but also paintingsand drawings, as
> we find them in museum after museum in various countries.
>
> If we look and have good eyes, we can learn without drawing. But it is
> even better to draw from an old master. Not merely or primarily to
> reproduce the look of the thing, but to learn what is happening
> pictorially in the painting and get that worked through in our own
> hand-at least in some measure.
>
> If any one knows how to do this and has done it once, it can be done
> again. Each new work, each new style, each new culture may teach us
> something we did not know before.
[Actually, I agree with this, but I'm not a Modernist.]
>
> Reading through and understanding forming is not everything. But
> without it, an awful lot of the work we all hold most dear does not
> make any sense at all.
[So help us get it straight, instead of bashing those who fall short.]
>
> I have enormous respect for Picasso. But, he only learned his forming
> skills when he became a cubist.
[So does "forming" flow from cubist reanalysis? Is this something every
artist needs to do?]
Those realistic drawings of his
> childhood are just awful by forming standards, and they do apply. So
> are the paintings of the blue and rose periods. If you find yourself
> able to look at them and say, oh, those are just wonderful, then you
> cannot read forming in painting, because he did not have any yet.
[Once again you seem to be concentrating much more on what it's not than
on what it is.]
>
Art is a VISUAL activity. Words donot easily
> explain its most intimate secrets.
[This is true. But nobody said it was going to be easy, did they?]
>
> In friendship,
>
> Gabriel
> PS I think it is a great disaster that today there are so few out
> there teaching this.
[But you're going to remedy the situation for those of us fortunate
enough to be reading this newsgroup, right?]
>
> PPS I hope I made less typos. I did some proofreading
>
[I appreciate the effort, as I'm sure we all do.]
Richard Crew
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
: g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
: | >Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
: | >like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
: | >what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
: | >inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
: | >only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
: | >in thought what the interior must have been like before you
: | >cut; thus you create yet another surface.
:
: ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
: | (1) Infinitely thin surfaces are mathematical idealizations. Even
: | soap bubbles consist of matter in well-defined 3D configurations.
: | Light does not reflect from infinitely thin layers.
:
: A Russian mathematician constructed a geometrical object by
: starting with a cube and specifying that the midpoint of
: the cube be removed, and then, considering the cube to
: consist of eight cubes defined by the planes through the
: midpoint parallel to the sides, removing the midpoints of
: those cubes, and so on an infinite number of times. This
: cube had interesting properties; unfortunately, not being a
: transfinitist, I can remember none of them except that the
: mathematician proved the resultant object was "a curve."
This sounds pretty neat. You wouldn't have a reference, would you?
: | (2) Our minds do not construct replicas of the visual field. Our
: | thoughts are of real objects.
:
: Then perhaps the universe is _not_ "queerer than we can
: suppose." Too bad, Eddington; it's exactly as queer as we
: can suppose, no more and no less. Consider that ghostly
: cube, above -- no insides and no surface either, and yet
: there it is.
This depends on what you mean by "inside" and "surface." It would seem
to me that this "cube" has empty interior, and so is entirely "surface"
(i.e. boundary). But maybe only a mathematician would really care about
this.
--Rich
--
Better to toss a stone at random, then a word.
-Porphyry
Richard Crew
Gerry Quinn <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote:
[G*rd*n said:]
: >A Russian mathematician constructed a geometrical object by
: >starting with a cube and specifying that the midpoint of
: >the cube be removed, and then, considering the cube to
: >consist of eight cubes defined by the planes through the
: >midpoint parallel to the sides, removing the midpoints of
: >those cubes, and so on an infinite number of times. This
: >cube had interesting properties; unfortunately, not being a
: >transfinitist, I can remember none of them except that the
: >mathematician proved the resultant object was "a curve."
: I should say 'construction' of this object is one thing he did not do.
: confidence that an object of this kind could not exist in the
: universe.
Well, that depends what you mean by "construction." In the ordinary
usage of mathematics, it's a perfectly valid construction.
: >| (2) Our minds do not construct replicas of the visual field. Our
: >| thoughts are of real objects.
: >
: >Then perhaps the universe is _not_ "queerer than we can
: >suppose." Too bad, Eddington; it's exactly as queer as we
: >can suppose, no more and no less. Consider that ghostly
: >cube, above -- no insides and no surface either, and yet
: >there it is.
: >
:
: Where?
:
: Not in reality, and not in our imaginations (mine anyway). My concept
: of this object consists of a cube on which the iterative process has
: been performed a few times, and a mental note that the process must go
: on to infinity. A finite series of symbols, in fact.
I'm not sure what could be meant by this, since anything that can be
described in symbols can be described by a finite series of symbols.
I won't venture a suggestion as to what "reality" might mean in
mathematics. But as far as imagination goes, maybe one could say that
the purpose of mathematical proof is to extend one's imagination. If your
concept of this object is what you say it is, then it would seem that you
can't imagine why this thing is a curve (and I have to confess that I
can't imagine it either... that's why I asked G*rd*n for a reference). But
if one had the proof in hand -- then one could *see* why this is so.
G*rd*n
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
| >Then perhaps the universe is _not_ "queerer than we can
| >suppose." Too bad, Eddington; it's exactly as queer as we
| >can suppose, no more and no less. Consider that ghostly
| >cube, above -- no insides and no surface either, and yet
| >there it is.
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
| Where?
In front of us, at least when we face in the direction of
Oakland.
| Not in reality, and not in our imaginations (mine anyway). My concept
| of this object consists of a cube on which the iterative process has
| been performed a few times, and a mental note that the process must go
| on to infinity. A finite series of symbols, in fact.
I see it differently. For one thing, the iterative process
would not change its appearance, for it removes only
countable points at rational coordinates from the cube; but
these are invisible, being infinitely small, and in any
case are overwhelmed by the burgeoning irrationality and
transcendence all around them. So: it is like our world
after all.
Just the sort of thing a Russian would think of.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n:
| : | >like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
| : | >what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
| : | >inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
| : | >only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
| : | >in thought what the interior must have been like before you
| : | >cut; thus you create yet another surface.
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
| : | (1) Infinitely thin surfaces are mathematical idealizations. Even
| : | soap bubbles consist of matter in well-defined 3D configurations.
| : | Light does not reflect from infinitely thin layers.
G*rd*n:
| : A Russian mathematician constructed a geometrical object by
| : starting with a cube and specifying that the midpoint of
| : the cube be removed, and then, considering the cube to
| : consist of eight cubes defined by the planes through the
| : midpoint parallel to the sides, removing the midpoints of
| : those cubes, and so on an infinite number of times. This
| : cube had interesting properties; unfortunately, not being a
| : transfinitist, I can remember none of them except that the
| : mathematician proved the resultant object was "a curve."
| This sounds pretty neat. You wouldn't have a reference, would you?
Just... Russia. It was a little gray book from the library,
a long, long time ago.
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
| : | (2) Our minds do not construct replicas of the visual field. Our
| : | thoughts are of real objects.
G*rd*n:
| : Then perhaps the universe is _not_ "queerer than we can
| : suppose." Too bad, Eddington; it's exactly as queer as we
| : can suppose, no more and no less. Consider that ghostly
| : cube, above -- no insides and no surface either, and yet
| : there it is.
| This depends on what you mean by "inside" and "surface." It would seem
| to me that this "cube" has empty interior, and so is entirely "surface"
| (i.e. boundary). But maybe only a mathematician would really care about
| this.
After awhile I realized that what I said was wrong, but I
thought everyone would have more fun if they got to correct
me, than if I canceled the article and wrote it over. Some
other methods of removing points from the cube might make it
a bit hollower....
Richard Crew
G*rd*n <g...@panix.com> wrote:
:
: cr...@math.ufl.edu:
: | This depends on what you mean by "inside" and "surface." It would seem
: | to me that this "cube" has empty interior, and so is entirely "surface"
: | (i.e. boundary). But maybe only a mathematician would really care about
: | this.
:
: After awhile I realized that what I said was wrong, but I
: thought everyone would have more fun if they got to correct
: me, than if I canceled the article and wrote it over. Some
: other methods of removing points from the cube might make it
: a bit hollower....
And don't think we aren't grateful for these cheap thrills, no
sir, no no no.
And with this we return to our regularly scheduled rant.
Gerry Quinn
In article <6di3oh$1bt$2...@nostromo.clas.ufl.edu>, cr...@math.ufl.edu wrote:
> : Not in reality, and not in our imaginations (mine anyway). My concept
> : of this object consists of a cube on which the iterative process has
> : been performed a few times, and a mental note that the process must go
> : on to infinity. A finite series of symbols, in fact.
>
> I'm not sure what could be meant by this, since anything that can be
> described in symbols can be described by a finite series of symbols.
>
> I won't venture a suggestion as to what "reality" might mean in
> mathematics. But as far as imagination goes, maybe one could say that
> the purpose of mathematical proof is to extend one's imagination. If your
> concept of this object is what you say it is, then it would seem that you
> can't imagine why this thing is a curve (and I have to confess that I
> can't imagine it either... that's why I asked G*rd*n for a reference). But
> if one had the proof in hand -- then one could *see* why this is so.
>
Originally, we were talking about the real world, so I don't want to
get too embroiled in maths. I can imagine *why* this 'object' is a
curve, by dealing with symbols. I cannot picture the object in all
its detail, however. It contains levels of iteration described by
numbers which are individually too large for a human brain to
comprehend or describe in symbols, even though there are larger
numbers than the numbers I refer to which can be so described.
Paul D. Lanier
On 2 Mar 1998, G*rd*n wrote:
>
> Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
> like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
> what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
> inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
> only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
> in thought what the interior must have been like before you
> cut; thus you create yet another surface.
A plausible analysis. Here is my question: does this then make the deep
structure non-existent? (I should think not.) Is there not something
to the structure than makes it, like an orange, digestible and noticeabl
real. Or would you call it entirely ghostly? Something not to be ever
truly gotten at? And is comparing it to an orange the best way to
describe the text of the story or the text of the philosophical
meditation.
Regards,
Paul Lanier
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
| > like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
| > what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
| > inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
| > only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
| > in thought what the interior must have been like before you
| > cut; thus you create yet another surface.
"Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu>:
| A plausible analysis. Here is my question: does this then make the deep
| structure non-existent? (I should think not.) Is there not something
| to the structure than makes it, like an orange, digestible and noticeabl
| real. Or would you call it entirely ghostly? Something not to be ever
| truly gotten at? And is comparing it to an orange the best way to
| describe the text of the story or the text of the philosophical
| meditation.
Take your own body for example. You, looking out, are its
inside. No scan, x-ray, dissection, or analysis would be
the same as that _you_. They would all be _outsides_ of
the _you_, however well they might explain the externals of
that _you_.
So I would parody the _Tao_Te_Ching_ and say that the
structure than one constructs is not the _deep_ structure.
Does a work of art have an inside, then? That is a deep
question.
Paul D. Lanier
On 4 Mar 1998, G*rd*n wrote:
>
> G*rd*n wrote:
> | > Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
> | > like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
> | > what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
> | > inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
> | > only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
> | > in thought what the interior must have been like before you
> | > cut; thus you create yet another surface.
>
> "Paul D. Lanier" <lan...@email.uah.edu>:
> | A plausible analysis. Here is my question: does this then make the deep
> | structure non-existent? (I should think not.) Is there not something
> | to the structure than makes it, like an orange, digestible and noticeabl
> | real. Or would you call it entirely ghostly? Something not to be ever
> | truly gotten at? And is comparing it to an orange the best way to
> | describe the text of the story or the text of the philosophical
> | meditation.
>
> Take your own body for example. You, looking out, are its
> inside. No scan, x-ray, dissection, or analysis would be
> the same as that _you_. They would all be _outsides_ of
> the _you_, however well they might explain the externals of
> that _you_.
>
> So I would parody the _Tao_Te_Ching_ and say that the
> structure than one constructs is not the _deep_ structure.
Hmmm... I wouldn't think that the structure of my body were constructed
by me. Even by a analysis which gives me a picture of that body. I do
contend that I can get a good picture by x-ray, etc. of the body.
There is the scary part of dissection, that one kills to dissect. And
then the soul flies away, and you haven't the whole person to understand
or converse with. In fact you would need a resurrection, if possible, to
make the body and soul come back together acting with free choice. If one
were to make this the simile of the text (as does, say, Coleridge), one
immediately understands a work of art should not be left dissected and
analyzed, but rather ressurrected afterwards. I don't know if even this
simile is the best way to look at it.
> Does a work of art have an inside, then? That is a deep
> question.
Can it be answered? Deeply studied, and looked at? And meanings and
mythos derived from the work of art? And turn back to the art to make
sure one has not derived a meaning and mythos which is false to the
artwork itself (though perhaps, a mythos of better meaning and practice)?
You call me forward to answer deep questions. As Socrates and Alcibiades
in one and the same, I can attempt to give a answer that makes sense to
the soberly "drunk" Silenus.
Musing,
Paul Lanier
mdeli
On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:38:58 GMT, zi...@interport.net wrote:
>Dear Mr. Werby,
>
>You have a problem. And all of you defenders of the postmodernists. By
>the way if in the magazines and in the books about them, they are
>often INDEED labeled by their proponents as AVANT GARDISTES. Remember,
>by the way, They represent the status quo. What a joke!
Its tedious reading but it boils down to an argument between the
antiquated Modern vs. the fashionable Post Modern. Note the difference
in convoluted writing styles.
Gabriels kvetsches because:
His brand of No-skill realism is out of fashion. He's a leftover from
the past the muttering about POMO's lack of understanding of the
romantic avant-gone. He compulsively defends his position by naming
all the intellectuals he has known and read. Name dropping was a
popular in Artspeak up to the mid 70's.
>But there is another issue. You just don't know your history, or you
>lie about it. In 1912 the American radicals pushed through the Armory
>show in New York. It traveled to Boston, as well. After the show, most
>of them lost their incomes. The American collectors,many of them,
>bought the Europeans fromthen on. Dove lived in a houseboat-so as to
>avoid paying rent [this was before my time, but one of my friends is
>the son of a sort of patron of his, a fellow illustrator named Henry
>Raleigh]. The people whowere members of the American Abstract Artists
>Association lived from hand to mouth for many years. Some did get jobs
>in art schools. But they worked hard for it, teaching advertising
>designers and such, so their product which was questionable was there
>kids, not their own work. But many others could not teach. Giorgio
>Cavallon made his living as a fine cabinetmaker designing hifi
>installations, Balcomb Greene who had an MA inEnglish Lit. and and MA
>in Art History taught lecture courses meant to unite the actors and
>the artists in one school. Some of them worked as welders repairing
>antique metal work. Anyhow they struggled through the twenties and
>then almost every single one had the wonderful, uplifting experience
>of the WPA art Program. Where the were paid [poorly, but enough to
>manage] for producing their work for some eight years or so. [by the
>way their politics ranged from liberal over to communist and anarchist
>in those days].
>
The Armory Show, Dove, Cavallon, Balcomb Green, WPA etc. Most people
don't know about your has-beens because they created little of note.
Our present artzy fartzy curators have long since become bored by this
stuff.
>the usual money kvetch snipped.
>Much later I was present at a College Art Association panel when
>Robert Pincus Witten-the chief critic for minimal art, but still
>around, tried to get Hilton Kramer and a panel which included Sylvia
>Plimack Mangold, Bill Bailey, and Al Held to agree with him that the
>corruption he avowedly practiced was practiced by all and was just
>fine and dandy.
>
An important art historical event and G. was there and he wants you to
know.
>>Werby's POMO stuff snipped.
Werby summarizes Gabriel's position:
>>SENTIMENTAL RUBBISH.
>>You are self-righteous moral hypocrite.
>>Ignorant of the issues, venal, specious in your venal attacks and
>>accusations, and thoroughly corrupted.
Right-on Werby
>>Yawn.
>>(that was a postmodern yawn)
Werby's writing is a "postmodern yawn," not any less silly than old
Gabriel's. Both of you don't realize your in the same camp.Its like
two bald men fighting over a hairbrush.
Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
artwork.
Post modernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
incompetent artwork.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Andrew Werby
In article <34ff2ae7...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Mar 1998 10:38:58 GMT, zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> >Dear Mr. Werby,
> >
> >You have a problem. And all of you defenders of the postmodernists. By
> >the way if in the magazines and in the books about them, they are
> >often INDEED labeled by their proponents as AVANT GARDISTES. Remember,
> >by the way, They represent the status quo. What a joke!
>
> Its tedious reading but it boils down to an argument between the
> antiquated Modern vs. the fashionable Post Modern. Note the difference
> in convoluted writing styles.
[I never saw this post- if anybody's got the unmutilated text of it, could
he or she send it by e-mail?]
>
>
> Werby summarizes Gabriel's position:
>
> >>SENTIMENTAL RUBBISH.
> >>You are self-righteous moral hypocrite.
> >>Ignorant of the issues, venal, specious in your venal attacks and
> >>accusations, and thoroughly corrupted.
>
> Right-on Werby
[Much as I hate to spurn any accolades that come my way, I didn't write
the summary above, or any of the other stuff attributed to me in this
post- in fact I never saw this one either. I don't find personal attacks of
this sort at all interesting, either to read or to write. I wouldn't
even say these things about Mr. Deli, whose rather predictable and
repetitious posts I mostly skip these days.]
>
> >>Yawn.
> >>(that was a postmodern yawn)
>
> Werby's writing is a "postmodern yawn," not any less silly than old
> Gabriel's. Both of you don't realize your in the same camp.Its like
> two bald men fighting over a hairbrush.
>
[I suspect Gabriel and I share some common ground- we are both passionate
about art and have some feeling for beauty- at least we both believe that
it exists, although we may disagree on where it might be found. I am
hopeful I may be able to prod him into being a bit more specific about
what exactly it is that appeals to him in the paintings he likes. This is
always more interesting than attacks on paintings one dislikes- are you
listening, Mani?]
mdeli
On 6 Mar 1998 19:43:28 GMT, dre...@lanminds.com (Andrew Werby) wrote:
I apologize.
The message was confusing and I thought it was from you. I have also
been misquoted on occasion. It was late at nite and I guess I was a
bit bleary .
However that's no excuse and I'll try to be more careful in future.
>> Werby summarizes Gabriel's position:
Snip
>
>[Much as I hate to spurn any accolades that come my way, I didn't write
>the summary above, or any of the other stuff attributed to me in this
>post- in fact I never saw this one either. I don't find personal attacks of
>this sort at all interesting, either to read or to write. I wouldn't
>even say these things about Mr. Deli, whose rather predictable and
>repetitious posts I mostly skip these days.]
>[I suspect Gabriel and I share some common ground- we are both passionate
>about art and have some feeling for beauty- at least we both believe that
>it exists, although we may disagree on where it might be found. I am
>hopeful I may be able to prod him into being a bit more specific about
>what exactly it is that appeals to him in the paintings he likes. This is
>always more interesting than attacks on paintings one dislikes- are you
>listening, Mani?]
>
I do write about work I like and name artists and usually say
something about them. Read my messages on illustrators art nuveau and
deco along with long recent messages on Dali and Bouguereau. I also
mentioned about ten academic artists I hold in high esteem. I even
like most artists Gabriel likes.
Mani Deli
...no skill no art
obiwon
> In article <6de9ks$5...@panix2.panix.com>, g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> >Analysis of deep structure creates another surface. It is
> >like cutting an orange in two: you create a new surface from
> >what was formerly the inside, but you can't reveal an
> >inside. No matter how many times you cut, you still create
> >only more surfaces. From these surfaces you can reconstruct
> >in thought what the interior must have been like before you
> >cut; thus you create yet another surface.
There can be a finite limit to these surfaces. Take a real close look at
any "surface". A surface dosnt really exist as a surface, rather it is a
collection of atomic structures, which consist mainly of "empty" space.
Take this orange for example. how about i stick a camera through the
skin of the orange, so that it is inside this orange, Is the camers just
observing more surfaces??
And I really know what Im talking about.
obiwon
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, mdeli wrote:
> Gabriels kvetsches because:
> His brand of No-skill realism is out of fashion.
This makes me curious Mani de Li...
What brand of No-Skill realism do you use in your paintings?
> He's a leftover from the past
Er. So, people who happened to be born in the past (all of us), who
happened to grow up in the past (all of us), and who happened to live
their lives from the past to the present, formulating opinions and
artistic ideals all the while (all, or most, of us) are somehow negated as
'leftovers'? Mani, YOUR ideals ALSO come from the PAST. FURTHER back in
the past than Gabriel's! Give me a huge break. The strangest thing about
it is that Gabriel actually LIVED at the point in the past at which
some of these EVIL MODERNIST theories were 'contemporary', so it's valid
life experience as well as currently practiced methodism. On the other
hand, you have reconstituted archaic beliefs with which you can't even
historically identify. If anyone is the mutant product of academia, who
is it...You or Gabriel?
> He compulsively defends his position by naming
> all the intellectuals he has known and read. Name dropping was a
> popular in Artspeak up to the mid 70's.
So, instead of granting credit to the source, what should be done? I
suppose he could pretend to have made quotes up himself.
> An important art historical event and G. was there and he wants you to
> know.
And this is bad because...?
It's probably of no value to you since you have such a low view of the
truth, but at least for me a greatly appreciate hearing from people who
were actually involved in things rather than to have to rely on the lies
the critics and historians tell in their books.
> Werby summarizes Gabriel's position:
>
> >>SENTIMENTAL RUBBISH.
> >>You are self-righteous moral hypocrite.
> >>Ignorant of the issues, venal, specious in your venal attacks and
> >>accusations, and thoroughly corrupted.
>
> Right-on Werby
Yeah. I don't think it was Werby's painting I saw in last month's ArtNews.
> Werby's writing is a "postmodern yawn," not any less silly than old
> Gabriel's. Both of you don't realize your in the same camp.Its like
> two bald men fighting over a hairbrush.
I don't agree with that at all. Post Modernism is the limbless idiot
inbred child of some odd deviation on Dada and the flailing crappy
remains of 1960's Pop.
> Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
> artwork.
That's copntemporary Modernist THEORY not Modernist painting.
ArtSpeak comes from those who seek to build a career talking about things
they don't understand to grant-giving government agencies.
> Post modernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
> incompetent artwork.
Post Modernist THEORY is USDA Prime ArtSpeak. Such high levels of
meaningless large words are required to pretend to understand something
that itself has no content.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
mdeli
>
>On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, mdeli wrote:
>
>> Gabriels kvetsches because:
>> His brand of No-skill realism is out of fashion.
>> He's a leftover from the past
>
>Er. So, people who happened to be born in the past (all of us), who
>happened to grow up in the past (all of us), and who happened to live
>their lives from the past to the present, formulating opinions and
>artistic ideals all the while (all, or most, of us) are somehow negated as
>'leftovers'?
Depends on what one does and says. I believe many of the artists he
reminisces about are has-beens who are no more important than any
fashionable post-modern.
> Mani, YOUR ideals ALSO come from the PAST. FURTHER back in
>the past than Gabriel's!
Both of us admire the master works of the past but that was not the
subject of the discussion.
> Give me a huge break. The strangest thing about
>it is that Gabriel actually LIVED at the point in the past at which
>some of these EVIL MODERNIST theories were 'contemporary', so it's valid
>life experience as well as currently practiced methodism.
So did I. So what.
>On the other
>hand, you have reconstituted archaic beliefs with which you can't even
>historically identify. If anyone is the mutant product of academia, who
>is it...You or Gabriel?
More likely you. Gabriel can draw.
>
>> Werby summarizes Gabriel's position:
>>
Werby did not make these statements, It was someone else. I apologized
to Werby for this. The message was written in a way that was confusing
and it was late at night when I composed an answer.
snip
>. Post Modernism is the limbless idiot
>inbred child of some odd deviation on Dada and the flailing crappy
>remains of 1960's Pop.
Agreed, So is most Modern Academic Art
>
>> Modernism: long-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing incompetent
>> artwork.
>
>That's copntemporary Modernist THEORY not Modernist painting.
>ArtSpeak comes from those who seek to build a career talking about things
>they don't understand to grant-giving government agencies.
?
>> Post modernism: longer-winded excuses (Artspeak) for producing
>> incompetent artwork.
>
>Post Modernist THEORY is USDA Prime ArtSpeak. Such high levels of
>meaningless large words are required to pretend to understand something
>that itself has no content.
>
Try reading some Pre-Post-Modern Artspeak. It's much the same.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
...check out my webpage for a skeptical view of Modern Art and some of
my work at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod