Isitart? website updated: Frankenthaler, Brancato, Satava
Steve Larson
(painting), Richard Brancato (poetry), and Richard Satava (glass).
The Isitart? website allows voting on artist's images to evaluate them
based on viewer opinion of effectiveness as an art object/artwork.
**A rating system from 0-5 where 0=not art and 5=perfect art (if there is
such thing) is used. Scores are then evaluated by the ratings and number of
votes and presented as a score from 0-100, again, 0=not art and 100=perfect
art.
Isit good art?
The Isitart? site is designed to promote dialogue and critique about
specific artwork, genres, and art in general. It is by no means definitive
or intended to be overtly critical. A comments area is provided to
encourage dialogue regarding the works presented, as well as dialogue
regarding the site and art in general.
gwen_...@cybergal.com
sla...@olemiss.edu (Steve Larson) wrote:
> The Isitart? website has been updated. New artists are: Helen Frankenthaler
> (painting), Richard Brancato (poetry), and Richard Satava (glass).
>
> The Isitart? website allows voting on artist's images to evaluate them
> based on viewer opinion of effectiveness as an art object/artwork.
>
see one of my suggestions not only taken up, but, apparently a bit of
a hit!
It is good to see that people are not only interested in 'pretty-pretty'
art, but also in radical and moving statements. It is also good to see that
mechanistic (though precise and full of 'skill' no doubt) has not had much
appeal.
I wonder what real-life art critics would think of what you are doing? I
can't see them liking it much!
I can't really relate to poetry on the same level as visual art, so I am
not sure about this week's stuff. I like the glass.
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Steve Larson
it is a voting sort of process, it would actually work best if nearly all
the images were by request - a voting of sorts to begin with. It could even
be your own images, assuming one has the stomach and interest to do it.
I have also found it interesting that some of the "grittier" work has been
received better than the academic work. "Form" was a great example, rating
higher than a well known artist like Soutine.
And I would love to have critics at the site. I have had a few and a bit of
discussion with them - they tend to be split between believing it a worthy
endeavor and a waste of time. Please post your comments to the site - the
discussion could be carried out there.
-steve larson
> I haven't looked at this site for quite a few weeks. It was great to
> see one of my suggestions not only taken up, but, apparently a bit of
> a hit!
>
> It is good to see that people are not only interested in 'pretty-pretty'
> art, but also in radical and moving statements. It is also good to see that
> mechanistic (though precise and full of 'skill' no doubt) has not had much
> appeal.
>
> I wonder what real-life art critics would think of what you are doing? I
> can't see them liking it much!
> Gwen Jones
Peter H.M. Brooks
sla...@olemiss.edu "Steve Larson" writes:
>
> I have also found it interesting that some of the "grittier" work has been
> received better than the academic work. "Form" was a great example, rating
> higher than a well known artist like Soutine.
>
I was interested to go and look at your site today. Even more interested
and amazed to find that the Peter Brooks was me! I am delighted to learn
that people have liked my painting 'Form' so much. It is quite a humbling
experience.
Obviously I would prefer it if people payed huge sums to buy my paintings,
but simple admiration is pretty terrific too!
Interestingly I have been interested in which of my paintings people have
liked or disliked in the past. I was amazed with the first art work I
sold - I hadn't completed it or put it up for sale, a visitor saw me
working on it and insisted I name my price on the spot. It was only
a pencil sketch too! I have put some of my paintings away in a dark
spot thinking them not very good, only to find somebody else dragging
them out with enthusiasm. Of course I have also had one or two pictures
that I have been really, really pleased about, but which have left most
people cold. I think that it is good to have a broad scope and variety,
not only is it much more fun to do the painting - which for me is certainly
at least 99% of the purpose of painting - but it means that there is usually
something that will appeal to everybody, though not to Mali, I imagine!
I am encouraged by this, and the lovely Spring day we had here today, to
put some more drawings and paintings onto my web page - I think that I
may do this tomorrow. If anybody is interested, my web page is:
http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
(I love all comments - especially the negative ones, some of which I
find very funny)
Since I now am a firm supporter of the excellent 'isitart' site, here
is its URL again too:
http://home.olemiss.edu/~slarson/isit
I don't know how my pictures got to this site - I must have done
something right in setting up the search engine entries! I am very
happy for any of my paintings to be used in this way again in
future.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
gwen_...@cybergal.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> http://www.psyche.demon.co.uk
> (I love all comments - especially the negative ones, some of which I
> find very funny)
>
> Since I now am a firm supporter of the excellent 'isitart' site, here
> is its URL again too:
>
> http://home.olemiss.edu/~slarson/isit
>
> I don't know how my pictures got to this site - I must have done
> something right in setting up the search engine entries! I am very
> happy for any of my paintings to be used in this way again in
> future.
>
>
I have a confession to make. I found your site through AltaVista when I
was looking for something quite different. I was delighted by the fresh
bold approach you go in for, as well as the original subject matter and
approach. I know that it is not very conventional so, when I found the
isitart site I thought that it would be an ideal place to see if anybody
had a similar view to mine.
Actually I suggested your whole site, not just the painting "Form", it was
selected by Stephan Larson.
I think it is a very different way of evaluating art. An Art museum, or a
gallery is, as Mani keeps saying, a reflection of effective marketing as well
as the intrinsic value of the art. It is certainly also a reflection of
academic fashion. Looking at the art that is popular in a shopping mall and
that people buy in poster form or small reproductions to put in their own
homes is a marketing and commercial judgement of a different form. Critics
who are paid to write their criticism and make their reputations on their
own cleverness and wit. This method of a self selected poll with gives a
completely different cut - again, I am not sure quite what it means, but
if it turns out different results then I think it is of great value. If it
simply confirms existing academic fashion or whatever, then it is not of
such value.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> I have a confession to make. I found your site through AltaVista when I
> was looking for something quite different. I was delighted by the fresh
> bold approach you go in for, as well as the original subject matter and
> approach. I know that it is not very conventional so, when I found the
> isitart site I thought that it would be an ideal place to see if anybody
> had a similar view to mine.
>
>
> Actually I suggested your whole site, not just the painting "Form", it was
> selected by Stephan Larson.
>
I see, good to know the history! Just out of interest, which painting
did you like most on my site? I didn't manage to get new pictures on
this weekend, it will have to wait to see if I have time in the evenings
this week or next weekend.
It is always nice to hear comments about my paintings, even, as I have
said, negative ones. Thank you for your kind words or appreciation. If
you know anybody really rich who shares your views please don't hesitate
to put them on to me!
I only get a few e-mails from people who visit my site, I wonder if
I should put up a chat facility like the one on the 'isitart' site -
it seems to have got some discussion going.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
gwen_...@cybergal.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I see, good to know the history! Just out of interest, which painting
> did you like most on my site? I didn't manage to get new pictures on
> this weekend, it will have to wait to see if I have time in the evenings
> this week or next weekend.
>
I liked 'Pan' most. I have had another look and it looks as if you had
a busier weekend than you expected!
>
> It is always nice to hear comments about my paintings, even, as I have
> said, negative ones. Thank you for your kind words or appreciation. If
> you know anybody really rich who shares your views please don't hesitate
> to put them on to me!
>
Sorry, I have no stock of millionaires here! Actually I would be interested
to see more recent paintings and drawings of yours, the ones posted are a
few years old, and, if you have been developing along the lines of your
web-site over these years I would be fascinated.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > I see, good to know the history! Just out of interest, which painting
> > did you like most on my site? I didn't manage to get new pictures on
> > this weekend, it will have to wait to see if I have time in the evenings
> > this week or next weekend.
> >
> I liked 'Pan' most. I have had another look and it looks as if you had
> a busier weekend than you expected!
>
That was my brother in law's favourite too. You are right, thought,
I didn't manage to update the web-site, maybe this weekend.
> >
> > It is always nice to hear comments about my paintings, even, as I have
> > said, negative ones. Thank you for your kind words or appreciation. If
> > you know anybody really rich who shares your views please don't hesitate
> > to put them on to me!
> >
> Sorry, I have no stock of millionaires here! Actually I would be interested
> to see more recent paintings and drawings of yours, the ones posted are a
> few years old, and, if you have been developing along the lines of your
> web-site over these years I would be fascinated.
>
I haven't done as much painting as I would have liked recently, but I
do have a few more paintings. I had meant only to add drawings and
pastels to the existing set, but I will see if there are some paintings
that would make sense - I might rejig the collection.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Hilly
Went to see you homepage. Was looking for some pencil drawings. But didn't see
any. I loved the photo's. Don't have negatives comments to your work. Only maybe
concerning your webpage. Don't put all the pictures at you first page.... or
make small thumbnails. Oh and you're email hyperlink doesn't work, that's why do
it like this. Take care,
Hilly
(from Hilly's Art)
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Arc/1700
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Hi Peter H.M. Brooks,
>
>Went to see you homepage. Was looking for some pencil drawings. But didn't see
>any. I loved the photo's. Don't have negatives comments to your work. Only maybe> concerning your webpage. Don't put all the pictures at you first page.... or
>make small thumbnails. Oh and you're email hyperlink doesn't work, that's why do> it like this. Take care,
>
Sorry about the e-mail - I will try to fix that, thank you for letting
me know! I will look into the thumbnail suggestion. Thank you for the
comments.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Hilly
Marilyn
>
> In article <920841...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
>
> > did you like most on my site? I didn't manage to get new pictures on
> > this weekend, it will have to wait to see if I have time in the evenings
> > this week or next weekend.
> >
> I liked 'Pan' most. I have had another look and it looks as if you had
> a busier weekend than you expected!
> >
> > said, negative ones. Thank you for your kind words or appreciation. If
> > you know anybody really rich who shares your views please don't hesitate
> > to put them on to me!
> >
> Sorry, I have no stock of millionaires here! Actually I would be interested
> to see more recent paintings and drawings of yours, the ones posted are a
> few years old, and, if you have been developing along the lines of your
> web-site over these years I would be fascinated.
>
>
> There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Isitart site:
You didn't notice that Frankenthaler's masterpiece only rated 49
out of 100. There is something wrong here.
M.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Isitart site:
> You didn't notice that Frankenthaler's masterpiece only rated 49
> out of 100. There is something wrong here.
>
That's interesting, I have just been to have another look. You
are right! I suspect that it may be that this is a picture that
doesn't reproduce well in a digital medium - after all the original
is eight foot by over five foot, while the reproduction is only
postcard size.
I am surprised that you should see this as 'something wrong'. After
all, as far as I can see people stumble across the site and take it
at face value, not knowing if what they are seeing is supposed to
be rubbish or a major masterpiece. Without these preconceptions you
get a more honest and direct response.
If I saw 'Holy Lassie' (a little gem in its why, I can't imagine where
it came from), getting 100 then I would be thinking that there is
something wrong! Given the transmission medium and the freshish minds
out there I don't really see the problem.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn
Peter,
Even as a thumbnail,
Frankenthaler's piece has a wonderful composition.
I suspect a prejudice against abstract painting among the
voters.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Even as a thumbnail,
> Frankenthaler's piece has a wonderful composition.
> I suspect a prejudice against abstract painting among the
> voters.
>
You may well be right!
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
gwen_...@cybergal.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> Isitart site:
> You didn't notice that Frankenthaler's masterpiece only rated 49
> out of 100. There is something wrong here.
>
>
people who have turned up to vote this time do not go for that sort of
art. Maybe the judgement that it is a masterpiece is open to question?
To test these questions it might be good for isitart to have three
unknown abstracts that reproduce well at that scale and see how they
compare.
There could be some people who wish to register an anti-establishment
vote and deliberately make the point that they think that it is not
a masterpiece. From the sound of this post-modernist/relativist/nihilist
debate, I wouldn't put it past some people!
It might be a throwback to Dada.
Marilyn
ISITART is absurd.
To expect the ordinary "man on the web" to interpret whether an
image is art or not is impossible. Art has to be interpreted
within art history and art theory.
Outside of art history and art theroy
Andy Warhol's Brillo Box is just a Brillo box.
What are your influences in your painting and where do you
see yourself in art history?
a bientot,
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> ISITART is absurd.
>
> To expect the ordinary "man on the web" to interpret whether an
> image is art or not is impossible. Art has to be interpreted
> within art history and art theory.
>
That is a nice trenchant observation - at least you don't have
any doubt about the matter!
According to this the original cave art produced could not have
been art because there was no 'art history and theory' to judge
it by.
According to this Matisse did not produce art for the first n years
of his life because the establishment (art history and theory) said
that it was no good. Once they changed their minds, then it became
art - as if by magic.
According to this van Gogh didn't produce any art, all his life. His
paintings only became art much later. Maybe they have now ceased to
be art because so many people, without the right grounding, go to
see them and put them on their walls.
>
> Outside of art history and art theroy
> Andy Warhol's Brillo Box is just a Brillo box.
>
I can't agree. I think that the idea of 'found objects' being
the art of the person who 'found' them is wrong. They must have
been aesthetically appealing in an artistic fashion (even if they
were not produced by artifice) before they were found, all the
person who found them did was put them in a different context to
draw attention to their artistic nature.
Exactly as anybody who photographs a sunset does.
>
> What are your influences in your painting and where do you
> see yourself in art history?
>
I don't really see myself in history, nor in art history, because
history happens after I am dead and beyond caring - to answer the
second part first.
My influences are everything that has happened to me since I first
opened my eyes. This has, of course, included exposure to a huge
amount of art, all of it has been influential.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn
I think you were chronologically challenged in your post
"according to this"
We look at cave art today within an art history context.
What the cave men thought or spoke of it will remain a mystery.
adieu,
M.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> I think you were chronologically challenged in your post
> "according to this"
> We look at cave art today within an art history context.
> What the cave men thought or spoke of it will remain a mystery.
>
Presumably your questioning this indicates that you agree with the rest.
I don't think that it is anachronistic to consider cave paintings as
art, nor to consider that the people who painted them didn't think them
art, nor that the people who painted them were very different from
people today.
The !kung are a pre-literate people, they are the descendents from the
people who painted the cave paintings - they still paint similar
paintings today. I think that you need special pleading to claim that
the cave paintings of 50,000 years or so ago were painted with
different motives, appreciation or feeling. The only reason I see for
this special pleading is to fit in with your theory of art history.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn
>
> In article <36E6E3...@bc.ca> m...@bc.ca "Marilyn" writes:
>
> >
> > I think you were chronologically challenged in your post
> > "according to this"
> > We look at cave art today within an art history context.
> > What the cave men thought or spoke of it will remain a mystery.
> >
> Presumably your questioning this indicates that you agree with the rest.
No that response could be repeated after each of your paragraphs.
Just trying to save time & space.
> I don't think that it is anachronistic to consider cave paintings as
> art, nor to consider that the people who painted them didn't think them
> art, nor that the people who painted them were very different from
> people today.
Of course they were different from us! What are you saying?
> The !kung are a pre-literate people, they are the descendents from the
> people who painted the cave paintings - they still paint similar
> paintings today. I think that you need special pleading to claim that
> the cave paintings of 50,000 years or so ago were painted with
> different motives, appreciation or feeling. The only reason I see for
> this special pleading is to fit in with your theory of art history.
This is not my theory of art history.
I stand by my claim that it is absurd to vote
that an image is art outside of art history & art theory.
To be judged art an image must be interpreted. To interpret one
needs the two.
That is an acceptable philosophy of art until a better one comes along.
Asking you where you stood in terms of art history was a trick
question. Like "when did you stop beating your wife."
If you placed yourself _beside_ someone like Frankenthaler,
I would have responded, "Dream on egoist." If you dismiss art history,
and cannot name one single influence, then I would think that you are
not a serious painter. But that was not really my point because
I do think you are trying to be serious. My real underlying
annoyance is that I really love Frankenthaler's work, and have
followed her career for years. She is not just some cheap trick
whose work is to be (mis)judged by web crawing philistines.
So there you have it, my dear chap. I hope I have been polite
even though we may never agree about ISitart etc..
adieu,
M.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > We look at cave art today within an art history context.
> > > What the cave men thought or spoke of it will remain a mystery.
> > >
> > Presumably your questioning this indicates that you agree with the rest.
>
> No that response could be repeated after each of your paragraphs.
> Just trying to save time & space.
>
I don't think that this makes sense as my other points were not about
chronology.
>
> > I don't think that it is anachronistic to consider cave paintings as
> > art, nor to consider that the people who painted them didn't think them
> > art, nor that the people who painted them were very different from
> > people today.
>
> Of course they were different from us! What are you saying?
>
What was so different? That they hadn't got the toys we have, or
inside bogs, I agree. However, as people who loved, hated, got ill,
had children, friends and enjoyed a chat they were the same.
>
> > The !kung are a pre-literate people, they are the descendents from the
> > people who painted the cave paintings - they still paint similar
> > paintings today. I think that you need special pleading to claim that
> > the cave paintings of 50,000 years or so ago were painted with
> > different motives, appreciation or feeling. The only reason I see for
> > this special pleading is to fit in with your theory of art history.
>
> This is not my theory of art history.
>
You are saying that their paintings cannot have been art at the time.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
> I stand by my claim that it is absurd to vote
> that an image is art outside of art history & art theory.
> To be judged art an image must be interpreted. To interpret one
> needs the two.
>
> That is an acceptable philosophy of art until a better one comes along.
>
If it were that simple we would expect the judgements made by the lucky
elite who have the right background to agree. This group suggests - as
other sources do - that this is not the case. That some people manage
to have whole careers as art critics suggests to me that something
else must be involved.
>
> Asking you where you stood in terms of art history was a trick
> question. Like "when did you stop beating your wife."
>
I am pleased to have sidestepped it, then!
>
> If you placed yourself _beside_ someone like Frankenthaler,
> I would have responded, "Dream on egoist." If you dismiss art history,
> and cannot name one single influence, then I would think that you are
> not a serious painter. But that was not really my point because
> I do think you are trying to be serious. My real underlying
> annoyance is that I really love Frankenthaler's work, and have
> followed her career for years. She is not just some cheap trick
> whose work is to be (mis)judged by web crawing philistines.
>
I understand your personal motivation and had suspected as much. Obviously,
quite apart from being interested in the idea, my perspective was skewed
by finding one of my paintings on the site on my first visit! It was quite
a surprise, made more pleasant by people having voted in favour of it. I
find it difficult now to divorce this influence from my intellectual interest
in the whole project.
I imagine that you quite enjoy my discomfort - you have been talking about
the importance of influence, after all.
To be as fair as possible, I believe that between my inclination to believe
that isitart produces art critics of an excellence seldom seen, and your
belief that they are 'web crawling philistines' lies the fact of the
matter.
I would like to subject more of my paintings to the site - even though
I will probably find less enthusiasm in future, simply because of Sod's
law! I suspect that you might be served by wishing more of Frankenthaler's
work onto the site - you might find the opposite pertains. I have just
been off to look at the site, and I see that the Frankenthaler is now
at 50 (you said it was 49 before, if I recall correctly). So, maybe
these philistines are not quite so bad!
>
> So there you have it, my dear chap. I hope I have been polite
> even though we may never agree about ISitart etc..
>
Of course you have been! Disagreement is no reason to be upset or
impolite - discussion is fun and healthy.
I would, of course, hope that some day we may agree on isitart because
one of us changes our mind as more evidence turns up. Maybe, one day,
another work of mine will be put on and get 0, and a Franenthaler will
also be put up and get 100 and we will find that we disagree again, but
from opposite sides of the fence!
I like the thrill of something new and unknown, like this, where all
bets are off and speculation and thought experiments rule.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Haber
Oh, come on, that's why we're all here -- to be misjudged by
Web-crawling philistines. Otherwise, I'd get some work done.
John (www.haberarts.com)
John Haber
I can't follow you. Are you saying that people in this forum, or
critics, come with no feelings about art? Really, now. You don't
have to think deeply to have presuppositions.
The people with the right background might make more interesting
judgments, or they might know enough to pontificate less, describe,
evoke, and interpret art more, hoping that more people will find art
of interest thereby. But typically the more judgmental we get, the
**more** we're caught up with cultural cliches.
John (www.haberarts.com)
earth...@plugged.com
what a wonderful comeback! thanks for making me laugh.
spirit
--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet for the Web
Steve Larson
I think it all is founded on an interpretation of art. One view is that art
must be understood (ie. art history/theory) to be appreciated. The opposite
view (and my own, I might add) is that art has some value regardless of
whether the history/theory is known. Most people would not argue that
Michelangelo's "David" is art, even though very few understand the
symbollic implication of rebellion that was a factor in its creation. Is
that factor truly relevant in art? Is art remembered for its underlying
theories or something else altogether?
And as moderator of the Isitart site, there is a level of absurdity to it
that mostly stems from the manner of presentation - the reproductions on
the web are far from superior in both color, texture, and of course, scale.
I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
-steve
Peter H.M. Brooks
> I'd like to jump into this latest thread...
> I think it all is founded on an interpretation of art. One view is that art
> must be understood (ie. art history/theory) to be appreciated. The opposite
> view (and my own, I might add) is that art has some value regardless of
> whether the history/theory is known. Most people would not argue that
> Michelangelo's "David" is art, even though very few understand the
> symbollic implication of rebellion that was a factor in its creation. Is
> that factor truly relevant in art? Is art remembered for its underlying
> theories or something else altogether?
>
I agree. I think that one simple argument shows that art must have
instrinsic meaning apart from the theory and the history, and that is
that the theory and history change so much over time as to be almost
unrecognisable while the art remains. I accept that some art becomes
unfashionable, but a huge corpus remains whatever the current theoretical
fad.
>
> And as moderator of the Isitart site, there is a level of absurdity to it
> that mostly stems from the manner of presentation - the reproductions on
> the web are far from superior in both color, texture, and of course, scale.
> I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
> world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
> just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
>
Though it clearly does detract from some, if not all, of the art that
you show, I still think that there is value in changing the context
so that all pieces seem to share a similar starting point. Who who
has travelled all the way to Florence to see the huge original David
in its own special gallery, not be deeply impressed by it. What is
really impressive about it is that, if it is reduced to a postcard,
along with other postcards it is still impressive. Some other works
that require their context for their effect may be reduced to nothing
by being enpostcarded. Still further pieces, unfortunate in life,
may take on a new vibrancy and be altogether more pleasing as a
postcard.
What it is that remains or changes during the transformation is
interesting. The debate raised over the pictures this week centres on
the 'masterpiece' getting such poor votes. As has been said before,
this could be philistinism, it could be a dadaist objection to the
new orthodoxy of abstraction being 'good' or it may simply be that
this work has not survived the transformation into a digital
postcard. I don't see that an inability to survive the transformation
being, necessarily, any reason to criticise the original or see
it as less than it is.
On thing that I think is true is that, if you love a piece of art,
then you may read into its enpostcardation all that you saw in the
original and miss the fact that it has been transformed into a
much lesser thing. I am not saying that this is what has happened
in this particular case, but I can certainly see it happening.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
jh...@columbia.edu "John Haber" writes:
>>If it were that simple we would expect the judgements made by the lucky elite
> who have the right background to agree. This group suggests - as other sources
> do - that this is not the case. That some people manage to have whole careers
> as art critics suggests to me that something else must be involved.
>
> I can't follow you. Are you saying that people in this forum, or
> critics, come with no feelings about art? Really, now. You don't
> have to think deeply to have presuppositions.
>
No! I am certainly not saying that! I am saying that to claim that the
'philistines' can't judge the art because they don't have the art
theory or history to do it is wrong.
As evidence, I am saying that even art critics disagree in their judgements,
and they have all the advantage of knowing the art theory and history,
together with years of judging. If the art could only be judged in the
context of their knowledge, then one would expect some unanimity in
the results. If, as you say pre-exposure, human feelings etc. have
a strong effect through the filter of theory, then, thoug the
'philistine' may see through a glass darkly, it would be wrong to
say the he does not see, and that his judgement must be wrong.
>
> The people with the right background might make more interesting
> judgments, or they might know enough to pontificate less, describe,
> evoke, and interpret art more, hoping that more people will find art
> of interest thereby. But typically the more judgmental we get, the
> **more** we're caught up with cultural cliches.
>
I do agree with you here. Obviously art critics have to spend a lot of
their time fighting tooth and nail (forgive me, I thought a cliche
was required here!) to avoid being to cliche ridden - their search for
unlikely metaphors is almost a cliche itself.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kay Kane
Steve Larson wrote in message ...
>
(snip)
>I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
>world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
>just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
>
>-steve
But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we would
be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
Kay
John Haber
>>If the art could only be judged in the context of their knowledge, then one would expect some unanimity in the results.
Not at all. First, if art came **without** a context of knowledge,
speaking naturally to reality and the heart, then we **might** all
agree (although I entirely doubt it). Second, your "if" statement
here appears doesn't hold anyhow. It appears to say something like
this:
1. Knowledge leads to uniformity of judgment.
2. People disagree.
3. Therefore, well, you've lost me. Therefore what?
The only thing that would follow logically is that people don't know
anything -- or simply that your premise is wrong. It doesn't prove
that art historians have less of value to say than laypeople, and it
certainly doesn't defend a popular fascination with value judgments
over understanding.
>>If, as you say pre-exposure, human feelings etc. have a strong effect through the filter of theory, then, thoug the 'philistine' may see through a glass darkly, it would be wrong to say the he does not see, and that his judgement must be wrong.
This time you're arguing something like this:
1. I believe that historical and theoretical awareness can be useful
in making sense of art.
2. Everyone has prejudices, and the less you study and think, the
more prejudices you have.
3. We'll need to add this step, which you don't state. Prejudices
are the same as thinking.
4. So if I'm right, everyone makes sense, the more ignorant the
better.
You can't be serious in that reasoning either. Or maybe you are. If
so, then forget about debating Postmodernism. You have far more
pressing things to do, such as dismissing modern art, art of other
nations, and art of the past centuries.
John (www.haberarts.com)
John Haber
Yeah, but I made a mistake. I misspelled Phyllis Steen. She's Jan
Steen's wife, a painter excluded from the 17th-century histories owing
to sexism. Mary Garrard has a monograph, but ever since Reagan my
library hasn't had the money for such things.
John (www.haberarts.com)
Marilyn
VIVA the artistic elite!
M.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Steve Larson
> > >...
> > >I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
> > >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
> > >just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
> > >
> > >-steve
Kay Kane
> > But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
> > experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
> > effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we would
> > be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
> > Kay
Lauri
I'm not a member of the elite exposed to high art critics,
just a humble journeyman of sculpture.
I do admit, that I do not model cows. I have an urge to make a
cat, but my lack of skill inhibits. I'm stuck to human female form :-)
Does it really matter, Kay, whether you paint abstract or cows?
As far as I know, whatever you paint, you want to do it honestly,
with intgrity. Is it but by a fortune, only a matter of practise,
that you find it more natural to make
art what your clientele calls "high art".
Manzu specialized to cardinals, was he any worse for that?
I wonder
marilyn:
> VIVA the artistic elite!
lauri
because that's where the money rolls in
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
lauri....@nokia.com
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
--
Disclaimer: The fact that I abuse my office address
does not imply that my employer agrees with
or is aware of the opinions expressed here
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> >I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
> >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
> >just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
>
> But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
> experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
> effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we would
> be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
>
The death of Yehudi Menuhin, and your comment lead me to think of the
other art, music and its connection with and 'artistic elite'.
I think that cows, barns and flowers can be part of 'high art', just
as crochets and quavers are part of Techno and part of Opera. Opera
is usually enjoyed by the 'artistic elite', and played and sung by
it too. However, I don't think that there are many people over twenty
who, when exposed to a brilliant opera are not moved by it. I believe
that it is the same with visual art.
It is also the case that, while one may enjoy some light music in the
car to pass the time, and still enjoy the 'Four last songs' so one may
have a catholic taste in visual art that can take pleasure in a cave
painting or a popular postcard as much as in a Pieta.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
jh...@columbia.edu "John Haber" writes:
> You're not convincing me.
>
It should take time, shouldn't it?
>
> 1. Knowledge leads to uniformity of judgment.
>
Almost, but not quite! If knowledge means an understanding of an
objective truth, then you would expect it to be consistent in identifying
this objective truth. If 'knowledge' does not mean an understanding of
objective truth, then what on earth does 'knowledge' mean?
>
> This time you're arguing something like this:
>
No, I don't think so.
>
> 1. I believe that historical and theoretical awareness can be useful
> in making sense of art.
>
No argument here.
>
> 2. Everyone has prejudices, and the less you study and think, the
> more prejudices you have.
>
No. How does this follow from what I said?
>
> 3. We'll need to add this step, which you don't state. Prejudices
> are the same as thinking.
>
Obviously they are not.
>
> 4. So if I'm right, everyone makes sense, the more ignorant the
> better.
>
This is entirely your invention!
>
> You can't be serious in that reasoning either. Or maybe you are. If
> so, then forget about debating Postmodernism. You have far more
> pressing things to do, such as dismissing modern art, art of other
> nations, and art of the past centuries.
>
If anything, I would say that your argument [that you attribute to me]
is a post-modern one.
Your final paragraph doesn't make a lot of sense either. Maybe you
can explain why you think your strawman lying deat on the floor should
influence my interest in the debate.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> Kay Kane wrote:
> >
> > Steve Larson wrote in message ...
> > >
> > (snip)
> >
> > >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
> > >just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
> > >
> >
> > But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
> > experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
> > effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we would
> > be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
>
> VIVA the artistic elite!
>
> M.
>
I took a look at the web site from my Ivory Tower, which grew a bit when I
saw how poorly rated B. Kruger's example was. Wow. Kruger always gives me a
lot to think about, but apparently this is taboo in artsville, huh?
But I can see value in the web site itself. Only a lot of data would have to
be collected and analysed before you could extrapolate. One thing that is
obvious to me is that the people who are looking and voting are already
interested in art, so it's not quite a 'person on the street' sort of thing.
The Frankenthaler was really nice. Strangely it reminded me of some
Contemporary Native American art. The image kind of burns on my mind.
Erik Mattila
Kay Kane
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote in message
<7cb3pu$7df$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>Steve Larson
>> > >...
>> > >I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the
art
>> > >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and
not
>> > >just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
>> > >
>> > >-steve
>
>> > But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My
own
>> > experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has
will
>> > effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we
would
>> > be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
>> > Kay
>
>I'm not a member of the elite exposed to high art critics,
>just a humble journeyman of sculpture.
Not to be elitist, Lauri, but why not call yourself a humble "journeywoman"
or "journeyperson" of sculpture?
>I do admit, that I do not model cows. I have an urge to make a
>cat, but my lack of skill inhibits. I'm stuck to human female form :-)
>
>Does it really matter, Kay, whether you paint abstract or cows?
>As far as I know, whatever you paint, you want to do it honestly,
>with intgrity. Is it but by a fortune, only a matter of practise,
>that you find it more natural to make
>art what your clientele calls "high art".
>
>Manzu specialized to cardinals, was he any worse for that?
>I wonder
There are many different "art worlds". Anyone can find their place in one.
I started out very young, as a child actually (this is not calling adults
who do this kind of art childish) drawing "realistic" forms. My art evolved
through exposure to other art, art history, theory, education, etc. To
prove my point, look at the late art of many of the Masters - Michelangelo
comes to mind. The works evolves from reality to distortion. All work must
evolve in some way.
>
>marilyn:
>> VIVA the artistic elite!
>
>lauri
>because that's where the money rolls in
Yes, if you are "in"... The rest of us make far less money than the
traditionalists who do realism. Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will match
the furnishings (sofa art). Ours (the elite) are much more "at risk" and
will, most likely, make far less than other types of art (financially)...
Kay
>- lauri
>journeyman of sculpture (journeywoman?)
>lauri....@nokia.com
>http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
>--
>Disclaimer: The fact that I abuse my office address
>does not imply that my employer agrees with
>or is aware of the opinions expressed here
>
(I like your disclaimer!)
Kay Kane
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message <921259...@psyche.demon.co.uk>...
art
>> >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and
not
>> >just in the hands of the "artistic elite."
>>
>> experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
>> effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we
would
>> be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
>>
>other art, music and its connection with and 'artistic elite'.
>
>I think that cows, barns and flowers can be part of 'high art', just
>as crochets and quavers are part of Techno and part of Opera. Opera
>is usually enjoyed by the 'artistic elite', and played and sung by
>it too. However, I don't think that there are many people over twenty
>who, when exposed to a brilliant opera are not moved by it. I believe
>that it is the same with visual art.
>
>It is also the case that, while one may enjoy some light music in the
>car to pass the time, and still enjoy the 'Four last songs' so one may
>have a catholic taste in visual art that can take pleasure in a cave
>painting or a popular postcard as much as in a Pieta.
>
>--
>Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter,
I disagree completely. For most, taste in the arts changes with their
exposure to the arts and culture. Re: your example of music - my neighbor,
Bubba (not a joke), makes fun of any music that isn't "country" and does
not, I repeat - DOES NOT - enjoy a brilliant opera. When he hears me
blasting my music, he complains about it profusely, not for the volume, but
for the kind of music I play. Now, Bubba is NOT stupid, Bubba is uneducated
(past high school) and has not been exposed to much culture. This is the
most important factor in aesthetic taste in my opinion.
Kay
>
mdeli
wrote:
>You're not convincing me.
>
>>>If the art could only be judged in the context of their knowledge, then one would expect some unanimity in the results.
>
>Not at all. First, if art came **without** a context of knowledge,
>speaking naturally to reality and the heart, then we **might** all
>agree (although I entirely doubt it). Second, your "if" statement
>here appears doesn't hold anyhow. It appears to say something like
>this:
>
>1. Knowledge leads to uniformity of judgment.
>
>2. People disagree.
>
>3. Therefore, well, you've lost me. Therefore what?
You were lost from the start. This guy can't write a straight sentence
>
>The only thing that would follow logically is that people don't know
>anything -- or simply that your premise is wrong.
?
> It doesn't prove
>that art historians have less of value to say than laypeople, and it
>certainly doesn't defend a popular fascination with value judgments
>over understanding.
So what are you trying to say?
snip
>You can't be serious in that reasoning either.
Well if you're a POMO there's no such thing as reasoning.
> Or maybe you are.
I guess you have no way of telling.
> If
>so, then forget about debating Postmodernism.
The usual cop-out.
> You have far more
>pressing things to do, such as dismissing modern art, art of other
>nations, and art of the past centuries.
In other words you have the impertinence to disagree with this
blow-bag.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
>effect one's preference for "high art".
You mean one's pretence to high art.
> In the hands of the world, we would
>be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
Instead the artzy fartzy elate paints drips, sloppy geometric
patterns, no skill realism and chimpanzee style abstraction. I prefer
barns and flowers and lots else.
As to flowers, take a look at some Dutch 17th century works. There is
more fine abstraction in one square inch in these paintings then five
square miles of abstract AE schmier.
Steve Larson
> >I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
> >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
>
> But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
> experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
> be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
And by the same token, but opposite perspective, most viewers probably do
not relate to, appreciate, let alone purchase, most "high art" works.
Perhaps the reverse must be said that the mass audience needs educating in
art - but that would take a radical cultural shift that I do not see
happening anytime soon. I am not trying to illegitimitize high art by any
means, however, if the artist is to return at all to a pivotal role in
society, there must be some communication with an audience. I shudder when
I think that art for most people consists of posters, ornamentation
brickabrack, and television.
To discount cows, barns, and flowers as potential subject matter certainly
qualifies as artistic (if not cultural) elitism. A applaud your conviction
- I do not know many artists that can outright discount categories of
subject matter.
-steve
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> >It is also the case that, while one may enjoy some light music in the
> >car to pass the time, and still enjoy the 'Four last songs' so one may
> >have a catholic taste in visual art that can take pleasure in a cave
> >painting or a popular postcard as much as in a Pieta.
>
> I disagree completely. For most, taste in the arts changes with their
> exposure to the arts and culture. Re: your example of music - my neighbor,
> Bubba (not a joke), makes fun of any music that isn't "country" and does
> not, I repeat - DOES NOT - enjoy a brilliant opera. When he hears me
> blasting my music, he complains about it profusely, not for the volume, but
> for the kind of music I play. Now, Bubba is NOT stupid, Bubba is uneducated
> (past high school) and has not been exposed to much culture. This is the
> most important factor in aesthetic taste in my opinion.
>
How old is Bubba? It may be that, he has ossified as he has grown older -
maybe when he was younger he would have been more open.
On the other hand, maybe Bubba hasn't heard the music in the right
context. If he were immobilised with curare or ganja and wheeled into
an opera he might get really excited about the experience.
I don't know him, maybe you are right and some people are just beyond
redemption. Though, from the sound of it, he isn't completely stone deaf
if he likes country music.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> And by the same token, but opposite perspective, most viewers probably do
> not relate to, appreciate, let alone purchase, most "high art" works.
> Perhaps the reverse must be said that the mass audience needs educating in
> art - but that would take a radical cultural shift that I do not see
> happening anytime soon. I am not trying to illegitimitize high art by any
> means, however, if the artist is to return at all to a pivotal role in
> society, there must be some communication with an audience. I shudder when
> I think that art for most people consists of posters, ornamentation
> brickabrack, and television.
>
Plebvision is a great evil, I agree. I don't think that posters are
necessarily that evil. A poster of a great work may well inspire somebody
to learn more about similar works.
I feel more that there is a continuum, or a funnel. At the one end new
creative ideas, acceptable only to a few (possibly the artistic elite,
maybe not even them) feed into the system, a few years later and these
ideas and their derivatives drip out of the other end as shampoo design
or plebvision series.
>
> To discount cows, barns, and flowers as potential subject matter certainly
> qualifies as artistic (if not cultural) elitism. A applaud your conviction
> - I do not know many artists that can outright discount categories of
> subject matter.
>
A lot of artists, the sort Mani is keen on, have decided not to draw
hands - there is a commonly discounted category.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> > If
> >so, then forget about debating Postmodernism.
>
> The usual cop-out.
>
I fear you could be righ here.
>
> > You have far more
> >pressing things to do, such as dismissing modern art, art of other
> >nations, and art of the past centuries.
>
> In other words you have the impertinence to disagree with this
> blow-bag.
>
Well, Mani, congratulations! You made more sense of that sentence
than I managed to - it left me puzzled, it may have been designed
to be puzzling, but you saw through it. Maybe you have a knack with
this.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> >But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
> >experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
> >effect one's preference for "high art".
>
> You mean one's pretence to high art.
>
Well, Mdeli, you are hardly one to speak. If anybody makes a point of
claiming to be an authority on art it must be you!
>
> > In the hands of the world, we would
> >be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
>
> Instead the artzy fartzy elate paints drips, sloppy geometric
> patterns, no skill realism and chimpanzee style abstraction. I prefer
> barns and flowers and lots else.
>
Maybe you an Bubba would get along. However, though you seem to read
it between the lines somewhere, nothing was said about abstraction
here - only that the subject matter would be restricted to barns
flowers and cows.
Your criticism that that should be enough would exclude Pietas,
the Last Supper and any number of crucifixions, Mona Lisas etc.
etc.
If you really think that art is about well painted barns and cows
then you really are one with Bubba - in a sort of mystical rouge
cou resonance exists between you.
>
> As to flowers, take a look at some Dutch 17th century works. There is
> more fine abstraction in one square inch in these paintings then five
> square miles of abstract AE schmier.
>
If there is 'fine abstraction' in these square inches, how on earth
do you know that they are flowers?
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> Yes, if you are "in"... The rest of us make far less money than the
> traditionalists who do realism. Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
> many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will match
> the furnishings (sofa art). Ours (the elite) are much more "at risk" and
> will, most likely, make far less than other types of art (financially)...
>
I would worry about labelling yourself and people like you 'the elite'.
Unlike a military elite where the matter can be proven in a battle, today's
artistic 'elite' may end up discarded as irrelevant in the future while
those sneered at may be seen as the 'elite'. It has happened before
as fashions have changed, I would be very surprised if didn't happen
again.
Of course, being unrecognised and having people tell you that your
pictures are crap is certainly not grounds for optimism about being
a genius only to be discovered post mortem! But neither is being
the currently most famous and most popular artist any reason to
be certain of a place in history - apart, maybe, as a footnote.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> But I can see value in the web site itself. Only a lot of data would have to
> be collected and analysed before you could extrapolate. One thing that is
> obvious to me is that the people who are looking and voting are already
> interested in art, so it's not quite a 'person on the street' sort of thing.
>
You are rather assuming that the 'person on the street' is not at all
interested in art - I would agree that this hypothetical person may not
know much about it, but I certainly think that they are interested in it,
as they are interested in music.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kay Kane
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7cbr93$tsh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36E8E2...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>> Kay Kane wrote:
>> >
>> > Steve Larson wrote in message ...
>> > >
>> > (snip)
>> >
>>
>> M.
>>
>
>I took a look at the web site from my Ivory Tower, which grew a bit when I
>saw how poorly rated B. Kruger's example was. Wow. Kruger always gives me
a
>lot to think about, but apparently this is taboo in artsville, huh?
>
to
>be collected and analysed before you could extrapolate. One thing that is
>obvious to me is that the people who are looking and voting are already
>interested in art, so it's not quite a 'person on the street' sort of
thing.
>
>Contemporary Native American art. The image kind of burns on my mind.
>
>Erik Mattila
>
jiggling my memory, Erik. Barbara Kruger is a perfect example of POMO,
Adriane. Appropriated images (she uses photos taken by others, crops them &
blows them up), text & concept. Very big in the museum/gallery/lecture
circuit/art history textbook scene. I guess that means you've "made it". I
haven't seen the specific Frankenthaler you ar talking about, Erik, but
other Frankenthalers I've seen don't give me any association with
Contemporary Native American art. Then again, there are many that I'm not
familiar with.
Kay
Kay Kane
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message <921279...@psyche.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <p%dG2.31497$YV6....@news2.giganews.com>
> scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
>>
>> Yes, if you are "in"... The rest of us make far less money than the
>> traditionalists who do realism. Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
>> many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will match
>> the furnishings (sofa art). Ours (the elite) are much more "at risk" and
>> will, most likely, make far less than other types of art (financially)...
>>
>Unlike a military elite where the matter can be proven in a battle, today's
>artistic 'elite' may end up discarded as irrelevant in the future while
>those sneered at may be seen as the 'elite'. It has happened before
>as fashions have changed, I would be very surprised if didn't happen
>again.
Of course! There are so many of the "elite" that some will fall by the
wayside and some will be noteworthy and be remembered in the future. My
point is that it isn't going to be my Aunt Martha's country barn scene.
>
>Of course, being unrecognized and having people tell you that your
>pictures are crap is certainly not grounds for optimism about being
>a genius only to be discovered post mortem!
I am only speaking of being unrecognized within the context of the entire
population. I've never met anyone who told me my pictures were crap (or any
similar comparison). I don't really believe in fame, port mortem (re: van
Gogh). I don't know of anyone besides him who didn't achieve a degree of
fame during their lifetime first. In addition, van Gogh's family had strong
connections (and were dealers) to the avante guard artworld, so they were
able to promote his work after his death. This doesn't usually happen.
I'll concede that the established artist's prices go up post mortem.
But neither is being
>the currently most famous and most popular artist any reason to
>be certain of a place in history - apart, maybe, as a footnote.
I agree!
Kay
-
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>
emat...@tomatoweb.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <7cbr93$tsh$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com> emat...@tomatoweb.com writes:
>
> >
> > be collected and analysed before you could extrapolate. One thing that is
> > obvious to me is that the people who are looking and voting are already
> > interested in art, so it's not quite a 'person on the street' sort of thing.
> >
> interested in art - I would agree that this hypothetical person may not
> know much about it, but I certainly think that they are interested in it,
> as they are interested in music.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
>
You're right, Pete. Usually when things seem 'obvious' to me they are
assumptions, for some strange reason. I think I mean by 'interested in art',
that one would search around the web and find a site like this. I'll bet I
wouldn't have found it if I hadn't read it posted here, and I do surf around
art sites (there are so many). So if 'interest = X, and surfing = Y.... (I'm
joking here).
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> I think I was having a discussion of this type with Ariane. Thanks for
> jiggling my memory, Erik. Barbara Kruger is a perfect example of POMO,
> Adriane. Appropriated images (she uses photos taken by others, crops them &
> blows them up), text & concept. Very big in the museum/gallery/lecture
> circuit/art history textbook scene. I guess that means you've "made it". I
> haven't seen the specific Frankenthaler you ar talking about, Erik, but
> other Frankenthalers I've seen don't give me any association with
> Contemporary Native American art. Then again, there are many that I'm not
> familiar with.
> Kay
>
Yeah, I thought this was a unique thing for Frankenthaler, insofar as I am
familiar with here work. It's the one on the ISITART site, you should take a
look.
It's pretty pointless arguing about Kruger's work on the topic of if its art.
It's very theoretical -- plays with all sorts of ideas from the criminal
justice system to simulacra. I can imagine here reading Rorty, slaming the
book down, and rushing to the studio with a brand new idea for a piece. I
like it, but I can understand if many don't. Types of art can do very well
with small or specialized patronage, even academia.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
>
You're very close to the arguments that Edward R. Murrow and Orsen Welles
made when they were campaigning for 'quality' in TV and Radio broadcasts in
the US. They both argued that the rank and file would appreciate classical
musich, opera, first rate drama etc. if given the opportunity to see it.
This lead to the NPR and PBS, of course. But I know an inordinate amount of
people who do not even pause a millisecond on the PBS channel when they're
channel surfing. While this may be true, it also has created the opportunity
for me and many others to see some wonderful broadcasts (and BBC is right up
there on top, in my opinion--The Jewel in the Crown was gripping, Merrick
being the best villian I ever had the pleasure to meet (not to mention Monty
Python and Dr. Who).
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> You're very close to the arguments that Edward R. Murrow and Orsen Welles
> made when they were campaigning for 'quality' in TV and Radio broadcasts in
> the US. They both argued that the rank and file would appreciate classical
> musich, opera, first rate drama etc. if given the opportunity to see it.
> This lead to the NPR and PBS, of course. But I know an inordinate amount of
> people who do not even pause a millisecond on the PBS channel when they're
> channel surfing. While this may be true, it also has created the opportunity
> for me and many others to see some wonderful broadcasts (and BBC is right up
> there on top, in my opinion--The Jewel in the Crown was gripping, Merrick
> being the best villian I ever had the pleasure to meet (not to mention Monty
> Python and Dr. Who).
>
I am probably close to them because the fundamental point is right. Culture
is a crucial part of the human existance. Some manage to exist with very
little of it, which is sad for them, it is a form of poverty that can
be cured with very little money. Others are rich in it, and it brings
far more rewards than simple monetary wealth ever can.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> >I would worry about labeling yourself and people like you 'the elite'.
> >Unlike a military elite where the matter can be proven in a battle, today's
> >artistic 'elite' may end up discarded as irrelevant in the future while
> >those sneered at may be seen as the 'elite'. It has happened before
> >as fashions have changed, I would be very surprised if didn't happen
> >again.
>
> Of course! There are so many of the "elite" that some will fall by the
> wayside and some will be noteworthy and be remembered in the future. My
> point is that it isn't going to be my Aunt Martha's country barn scene.
>
I wouldn't be so catagorical about that. I don't know Aunt Martha, but
primitive paintings of people like that have been very popular, Grandma
Moses comes to mind.
>
> >
> >Of course, being unrecognized and having people tell you that your
> >pictures are crap is certainly not grounds for optimism about being
> >a genius only to be discovered post mortem!
>
> I am only speaking of being unrecognized within the context of the entire
> population. I've never met anyone who told me my pictures were crap (or any
> similar comparison). I don't really believe in fame, port mortem (re: van
> Gogh). I don't know of anyone besides him who didn't achieve a degree of
> fame during their lifetime first. In addition, van Gogh's family had strong
> connections (and were dealers) to the avante guard artworld, so they were
> able to promote his work after his death. This doesn't usually happen.
> I'll concede that the established artist's prices go up post mortem.
>
The main reason that the prices go up is that the work cannot be diluted
by the artist painting a few hundred bad works - always a danger with
a living artist.
I would have to think of other examples of people who had no fame in their
life time, but became famous after death, but I can't recall names at
the moment - they do exist, though.
Some are never seen, as Gray put it; 'full many a gem of purest ray
serene, the dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear, full many a flower is
born to blush unseen and waste it sweetness on the desert air'.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> You're right, Pete. Usually when things seem 'obvious' to me they are
> assumptions, for some strange reason. I think I mean by 'interested in art',
> that one would search around the web and find a site like this. I'll bet I
> wouldn't have found it if I hadn't read it posted here, and I do surf around
> art sites (there are so many). So if 'interest = X, and surfing = Y.... (I'm
> joking here).
>
You still make a good point, though. I only found it from here - and it was
after it had found me! So, by my 'definition', I don't qualify as interested
in art.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn
>
> > >I personally find the rating to have interesting implications for the art
> > >world, however. I would like to see art brought back to the world and not
> >
Now your first sentence is really ego inflation.
Your rating site will not contribute to the art world.
Frankenthaler has contributed to it immensely.
The rating is skewed, because one person can vote
several times.
Secondly you miss my point. I was talking about making the
judgement on whether something was art. This judgement needs
some background, like art theory or art history (available to
anyone with a library card).
Would you ask anyone to diagnose
your illness, or would you seek the judgement
of a medical professional. Chicken soup is okay too
but it might not save you from a life threatening disease.
Why is it when artists claim professionalism, it is elitist.
Are you computer scientists elite to call yourselves professional?
If studying and making art and having an art background for one's
entire life is elitism. Then I'm elite.
> > But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite". My own
> > experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
> > effect one's preference for "high art". In the hands of the world, we would
> > be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
> > Kay
>
> And by the same token, but opposite perspective, most viewers probably do
> not relate to, appreciate, let alone purchase, most "high art" works.
> Perhaps the reverse must be said that the mass audience needs educating in
> art - but that would take a radical cultural shift that I do not see
> happening anytime soon. I am not trying to illegitimitize high art by any
> means, however, if the artist is to return at all to a pivotal role in
> society, there must be some communication with an audience. I shudder when
> I think that art for most people consists of posters, ornamentation
> brickabrack, and television.
I agree with you that original art is not valued. However, I would
prefer a poster of Van Gogh's work, than an original dud.
The average person doesn't even have a visual vocabulary, but that
doesn't mean that the average person does not have an eye for art.
Your site is something different, you are not asking "do you like it?"
You are asking "is it art?" This requires not an opinion but an
intepretation and an interpretation must be based on something!!!
> To discount cows, barns, and flowers as potential subject matter certainly
> qualifies as artistic (if not cultural) elitism. A applaud your conviction
> - I do not know many artists that can outright discount categories of
> subject matter.
> -steve
There are many layers of decoration, outsider art, folk art,
the discussion started with the work of a prima donna of the NYC
art scene, Frankenthaler.
Art is not discussed by its subject matter by artists. They discuss
genres, styles, categories. Subject matter nor non subject matter
doesn't matter.
Now, I think that you have given your site enough attention by
continuing these threads. You ask for opinion and like most
people, if the opinion is honest and not what you seek, then
you object.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Now your first sentence is really ego inflation.
> Your rating site will not contribute to the art world.
> Frankenthaler has contributed to it immensely.
>
You can't be sure of either. Critical opinion may move against Frankenthaler
at some stage in the future, and insofar as you or I, or anybody here is
part of the 'art world' and have thought about the questions raised by
the site, it has contributed. Your objection is as interesting as support
for it - I am interested by the visceral nature of your objection, rather
than your rationalisation of this.
>
> The rating is skewed, because one person can vote
> several times.
>
My, you do have a bleak view of human nature! I have checked, and, you
are right, it is possible. However the only way that you can know that
the rating 'is' skewed, rather than 'might be' skewed is if you yourself
have skewed it! Why would anybody wish to go and vote many times - if,
as you say, the site will not contribute anything?
There was an old irish saying about political elections 'vote early,
and vote often', but one can see more of an incentive there.
>
> Would you ask anyone to diagnose
> your illness, or would you seek the judgement
> of a medical professional. Chicken soup is okay too
> but it might not save you from a life threatening disease.
>
A lot of people do go to quacks for help with medical problems - often
severe ones. Vide the success of homeopathy that has no basis in reality
and is simply a placebo.
>
> Why is it when artists claim professionalism, it is elitist.
> Are you computer scientists elite to call yourselves professional?
> If studying and making art and having an art background for one's
> entire life is elitism. Then I'm elite.
>
I wouldn't say that computer 'science' is an elite, or that those that
practice it are professional - it isn't a science in any real sense of
the word, and it certainly isn't a profession. For one thing there are
no agreed bodies that administer universally acknolwedged exams. For
another computer 'scientists' don't act like professions, such as
the medical or legal profession.
Why can't artists claim tradesman status, as computer scientists should?
Apart from the simple meaning of professional, which is that one is paid
as opposed to amateur where one isn't, what is the attraction in the
label?
>
> Your site is something different, you are not asking "do you like it?"
> You are asking "is it art?" This requires not an opinion but an
> intepretation and an interpretation must be based on something!!!
>
The people who are answering the question must believe that they are
competent to judge - most people, even those with only a vague idea
of what art is, would probably feel comfortable in venturing an opinion -
which they would be less inclinded to do in the case of the symptoms
of a disease, I agree.
>
> There are many layers of decoration, outsider art, folk art,
> the discussion started with the work of a prima donna of the NYC
> art scene, Frankenthaler.
>
Being a prima donna, of a particular 'art scene' is not necessarily
an indication that the art itself is any good. Even the very best
artists produce some work that isn't up to their standard.
>
> Now, I think that you have given your site enough attention by
> continuing these threads. You ask for opinion and like most
> people, if the opinion is honest and not what you seek, then
> you object.
>
This is a little unkind! Everybody reacts to criticism, even if they
welcome it, if only to establish exactly what it means and what evidence
the critic has for it.
I think that it is more you that have given the attention to the site
by raising the interesting points that you have - after doing this, it
is a little hard to blame the creator who, at my count, has only contributed
two or three postings.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli
>Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>>
>> In article <36E646...@bc.ca> m...@bc.ca "Marilyn" writes:
>>
>> >
>> > Even as a thumbnail,
>> > Frankenthaler's piece has a wonderful composition.
>> > I suspect a prejudice against abstract painting among the
>> > voters.
Artzy fartzy style paranoia.
>ISITART is absurd.
But not for the reasons you state.
>To expect the ordinary "man on the web" to interpret whether an
>image is art or not is impossible. Art has to be interpreted
>within art history and art theory.
Right.
Only elite artzy fartzies of Marilyn's ilk are fit to judge. Only
they with their higher sensitivity are fit to distinguish the merits
of one schmier as opposed to another. They will tell you so and brand
all doubters as "ordinary."
>Outside of art history and art theroy
>Andy Warhol's Brillo Box is just a Brillo box.
Even inside art history and outside of your lame imagination, its just
that.
>What are your influences in your painting and where do you
>see yourself in art history?
Lets see your paintings and tell us about it.
mdeli
>The rating is skewed, because one person can vote
>several times.
Well Marilyn, why don't you vote for Frankenthaler about 400 time and
then you'll sleep better at night.
>
>Secondly you miss my point. I was talking about making the
>judgement on whether something was art This judgement needs
>some background, like art theory or art history (available to
>anyone with a library card).
>
Marylin has an Art detector built into her bra. She knows and you
don't because she is more theoretical than you.
>Why is it when artists claim professionalism, it is elitist.
>Are you computer scientists elite to call yourselves professional?
>If studying and making art and having an art background for one's
>entire life is elitism. Then I'm elite.
Of course you are darling. Don't let your doubts and the real world
get the better of you.
>> > But, art is, and has been, in the hands of the "artistic elite".
I'm looking forward to a long sermon on this matter,
My own
>> > experience shows that the more exposure to critical inquiry one has will
>> > effect one's preference for "high art".
Are you sure your not being prejudiced by that art detector? This
proves that Marilyn loves "high Art' more than you do, you insensitive
clod.
>> > In the hands of the world, we would
>> > be painting cows, barns and flowers. I prefer the "artistic elite".
>> > Kay
>I agree with you that original art is not valued.
You mean what you call original art.
>The average person doesn't even have a visual vocabulary, but that
>doesn't mean that the average person does not have an eye for art.
The average person doesn't understand Artspeak.
>Your site is something different, you are not asking "do you like it?"
>You are asking "is it art?" This requires not an opinion but an
>intepretation and an interpretation must be based on something!!!
...and Marilyn is the Grand Interpreter.
>There are many layers of decoration, outsider art, folk art,
>the discussion started with the work of a prima donna of the NYC
>art scene, Frankenthaler.
She won the Modern Academic Art lottery and Marilyn didn't.
>
>Art is not discussed by its subject matter by artists. They discuss
>genres, styles, categories. Subject matter nor non subject matter
>doesn't matter.
What matters is skill and quality neither of which Frankenthaler has.
There are square miles of the same drivel all over the net. It just
has the wrong signature so it doesn't buzz the art detector in you
bra.
Kay Kane
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message <921332...@psyche.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <2OhG2.32333$YV6....@news2.giganews.com>
> scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
>>
>> >I would worry about labeling yourself and people like you 'the elite'.
>> >Unlike a military elite where the matter can be proven in a battle,
today's
>> >artistic 'elite' may end up discarded as irrelevant in the future while
>> >those sneered at may be seen as the 'elite'. It has happened before
>> >as fashions have changed, I would be very surprised if didn't happen
>> >again.
>>
>> Of course! There are so many of the "elite" that some will fall by the
>> wayside and some will be noteworthy and be remembered in the future. My
>> point is that it isn't going to be my Aunt Martha's country barn scene.
>>
>I wouldn't be so catagorical about that. I don't know Aunt Martha, but
>primitive paintings of people like that have been very popular, Grandma
>Moses comes to mind.
***Tokenism. Few and far between.
>> >Of course, being unrecognized and having people tell you that your
>> >pictures are crap is certainly not grounds for optimism about being
>> >a genius only to be discovered post mortem!
>>
>> I am only speaking of being unrecognized within the context of the entire
>> population. I've never met anyone who told me my pictures were crap (or
any
>> similar comparison). I don't really believe in fame, port mortem (re:
van
>> Gogh). I don't know of anyone besides him who didn't achieve a degree of
>> fame during their lifetime first. In addition, van Gogh's family had
strong
>> connections (and were dealers) to the avante guard artworld, so they were
>> able to promote his work after his death. This doesn't usually happen.
>> I'll concede that the established artist's prices go up post mortem.
>>
>The main reason that the prices go up is that the work cannot be diluted
>by the artist painting a few hundred bad works - always a danger with
>a living artist.
>
>I would have to think of other examples of people who had no fame in their
>life time, but became famous after death, but I can't recall names at
>the moment - they do exist, though.
>
If so, then very rare, which proves my comment and nullifies the concept so
many have of "I'll be famous after I'm dead"...
>Some are never seen, as Gray put it; 'full many a gem of purest ray
>serene, the dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear, full many a flower is
>born to blush unseen and waste it sweetness on the desert air'.
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>
Beautiful quote and very appropriate. I often wonder how many wonderful
artists have lived and died and made wonderful art that we will never know
about because they weren't embraced by whatever establishment existed during
their lives and what we might be missing. (Lends more credence to my stand
on elitism, though).
Kay
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> >> Of course! There are so many of the "elite" that some will fall by the
> >> wayside and some will be noteworthy and be remembered in the future. My
> >> point is that it isn't going to be my Aunt Martha's country barn scene.
> >>
> >I wouldn't be so catagorical about that. I don't know Aunt Martha, but
> >primitive paintings of people like that have been very popular, Grandma
> >Moses comes to mind.
>
> ***Tokenism. Few and far between.
>
I think that that is unkind. They may be few and far between, but the
primitives that I have seen have been impressive to me, maybe I am just
a sucker for it, but I certainly wouldn't see it as tokenism.
>
> >I would have to think of other examples of people who had no fame in their
> >life time, but became famous after death, but I can't recall names at
> >the moment - they do exist, though.
> >
> If so, then very rare, which proves my comment and nullifies the concept so
> many have of "I'll be famous after I'm dead"...
>
Oh, I agree that, unless you enjoy a fantasy, it is a foolish conceit. I
was just pointing out that it does happen.
>
> >Some are never seen, as Gray put it; 'full many a gem of purest ray
> >serene, the dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear, full many a flower is
> >born to blush unseen and waste it sweetness on the desert air'.
> >Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> Beautiful quote and very appropriate. I often wonder how many wonderful
> artists have lived and died and made wonderful art that we will never know
> about because they weren't embraced by whatever establishment existed during
> their lives and what we might be missing. (Lends more credence to my stand
> on elitism, though).
>
I don't know about the elitism, but it is good news for any millionaire
collector wishing to make even more money. He can go out and snap up
some unknown, but excellent artist, then, having cornered the market
sell them at an enormous profit.
I think that one of the Saatchi's did this recently - appropriate, really
them being marketing people...
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kay Kane
"Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote in message <921358...@psyche.demon.co.uk>...
>In article <3cAG2.34138$YV6....@news2.giganews.com>
> scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
>>
>> >> Of course! There are so many of the "elite" that some will fall by
the
>> >> wayside and some will be noteworthy and be remembered in the future.
My
>> >> point is that it isn't going to be my Aunt Martha's country barn
scene.
>> >>
>> >I wouldn't be so catagorical about that. I don't know Aunt Martha, but
>> >primitive paintings of people like that have been very popular, Grandma
>> >Moses comes to mind.
>>
>> ***Tokenism. Few and far between.
>>
>I think that that is unkind. They may be few and far between, but the
>primitives that I have seen have been impressive to me, maybe I am just
>a sucker for it, but I certainly wouldn't see it as tokenism.
I am sorry, but I see it exactly as tokenism. The elite are the elite and
every now and then they open their hearts and let in a "self-taught' (old
woman/prisoner/person of color/fill in the blank_____). How many "famous"
Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans do you know about?
More now, than a decade ago, but do you think this reflects "Artistic
TALENT"??? If so, than that means that over 80% of white males are MORE
TALENTED than the aforementioned groups. I think we both can agree that
this is untrue. I contend that tokenism is alive and well and flourishing!
I think it is incredibly smart and I wonder why more people aren't/haven't
done this. I read/heard that Jasper John's "One and Three Flags" originally
sold for $100-300 U.S. Lots of stories like that. (Enjoyed your posts
Peter - and yes, I will visit your site soon but when I look at art, I
really like looking closely and I like to see individual brush strokes,
colors, textures, etc.)
Kay
>--
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
>
> >> >I wouldn't be so catagorical about that. I don't know Aunt Martha, but
> >> >primitive paintings of people like that have been very popular, Grandma
> >> >Moses comes to mind.
> >>
> >> ***Tokenism. Few and far between.
> >>
> >I think that that is unkind. They may be few and far between, but the
> >primitives that I have seen have been impressive to me, maybe I am just
> >a sucker for it, but I certainly wouldn't see it as tokenism.
>
> I am sorry, but I see it exactly as tokenism. The elite are the elite and
> every now and then they open their hearts and let in a "self-taught' (old
> woman/prisoner/person of color/fill in the blank_____). How many "famous"
> Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans do you know about?
> More now, than a decade ago, but do you think this reflects "Artistic
> TALENT"??? If so, than that means that over 80% of white males are MORE
> TALENTED than the aforementioned groups. I think we both can agree that
> this is untrue. I contend that tokenism is alive and well and flourishing!
>
You haven't got quite the right comparisons. Most of the population is
white (in the US, UK and Europe), of this population, probably less than
.0001 of a percent are known artists (let alone well known ones), if we
apply this same percentage (assuming the same level of talent, neither
more nor less) to minority groups, then we are going to end up with
very, very few people. Of these very few, a tiny percentage are going to
be the 'elite', so, if one or two turn up every few years, that may
well be about right - I would have to have all the population figures,
and the number of artists etc. to do the calculations properly, but
I think you will get my point.
>
> >I think that one of the Saatchi's did this recently - appropriate, really
> >them being marketing people...
>
>
> I think it is incredibly smart and I wonder why more people aren't/haven't
> done this. I read/heard that Jasper John's "One and Three Flags" originally
> sold for $100-300 U.S. Lots of stories like that. (Enjoyed your posts
> Peter - and yes, I will visit your site soon but when I look at art, I
> really like looking closely and I like to see individual brush strokes,
> colors, textures, etc.)
>
If you wish to look at art closely then a web page is almost certainly
the wrong place to go! The time when I update my site to include more
pictures, including some drawings and pastels is drawing nearer - I
would like to think it would be tomorrow, but I have had some hassles
with tranferring pictures from one machine to another.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kay Kane
I get your point, but my point reaches entirely different conclusions and I
am only doing percentages of the population of "artists"... There have been
many studies about this.
>>
>> >I think that one of the Saatchi's did this recently - appropriate,
really
>> >them being marketing people...
>>
>> I think it is incredibly smart and I wonder why more people
aren't/haven't
>> done this. I read/heard that Jasper John's "One and Three Flags"
originally
>> sold for $100-300 U.S. Lots of stories like that. (Enjoyed your posts
>> Peter - and yes, I will visit your site soon but when I look at art, I
>> really like looking closely and I like to see individual brush strokes,
>> colors, textures, etc.)
>>
>If you wish to look at art closely then a web page is almost certainly
>the wrong place to go! The time when I update my site to include more
>pictures, including some drawings and pastels is drawing nearer - I
>would like to think it would be tomorrow, but I have had some hassles
>with tranferring pictures from one machine to another.
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>
I saw one page in which the artist showed the work and had it set up so that
it was subdivided into various sections and you could point to "center far
left" section and enlarge it. This worked pretty good for me (the viewer)
and I enjoyed it. All work won't be easily adaptable to this method, I
guess. Something to think about?
Kay
Peter H.M. Brooks
scarl...@theriver.com "Kay Kane" writes:
> I get your point, but my point reaches entirely different conclusions and I
> am only doing percentages of the population of "artists"... There have been
> many studies about this.
>
I think that that could be the problem. In stats you can easily get the
wrong answer if you consider the wrong population.
> >>
> >If you wish to look at art closely then a web page is almost certainly
> >the wrong place to go! The time when I update my site to include more
> >pictures, including some drawings and pastels is drawing nearer - I
> >would like to think it would be tomorrow, but I have had some hassles
> >with tranferring pictures from one machine to another.
> >
> I saw one page in which the artist showed the work and had it set up so that
> it was subdivided into various sections and you could point to "center far
> left" section and enlarge it. This worked pretty good for me (the viewer)
> and I enjoyed it. All work won't be easily adaptable to this method, I
> guess. Something to think about?
>
It is a nice idea. I might have the time to work out how to do it some
day too. At the moment, I just take a photo of the painting and plonk
it on the page. I ought, I know, to work out how to get thumbnails and,
as you say, enable people to move around the page, but I find I have
enough trouble just getting the stuff downloaded to the right place!
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
emat...@tomatoweb.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> I am probably close to them because the fundamental point is right. Culture
> is a crucial part of the human existance. Some manage to exist with very
> little of it, which is sad for them, it is a form of poverty that can
> be cured with very little money. Others are rich in it, and it brings
> far more rewards than simple monetary wealth ever can.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
>
I'm not quite at the point of agreeing with you 100%. I'm going to go ahead
and cast this within the terms "high and low' in art, simply because we need
some easy terms to talk about this (I don't want to convey an elitist pov,
since I am likly to argue that comics may be as significant as Renaissance
art).
Let's get a little historical. Between 1830 and 1870 in the US the principal
form of 'low' art, or 'popular art' was Burlesque, and I'm sure this was the
case in Britain also, although the timespan may have been different (many of
the outrageously popular Burlesque acts and stars were British imports,
anyway.) Incedentally, one shouldn't confuse this with the 'girley show
burlesque' which was a much later development -- the 'burlesque' I'm refering
to was parody of high class theatre, and the high class itself, in many
instances. (I think on some level this parody continues in posts on this
n.g., in fact -- this may be the source of the whole 'elitist' critique.)
Burlesque, which was often very complex and sophisticated (comparable with the
high-brow art it parodied) enjoyed popularity because...That's really the
question. Why was it so popular (and it was). To theory of popularity talks
about the enjoyment of experiencing the 'already known,' which can be part and
parcel of a very subtle mental process. Look at the outrageous success, in
terms of popularity, of chain restaurants (In the US, I can't speak for your
part of the world). People like to go to Dennys, MacDonalds, Holiday Inn, and
so on because they know exactly what they are getting into before they arrive.
Now it seems that the most successful movies are the ones that are 'already
known' before they are viewed. It's almost as if the same movie is produced
over and over again by simply changing the actors and scenery. Star Wars
recapitulates David and Goliath, and so forth.
What fascinated me about studing the early US comic strip was it's immediate
popular success in 1895. I thought it was impossible for a 'new form' to be
so successful, since it flew in the face of the 'familiarity' axiom intrinsic
to theories of popularity. So it's not remarkable that I found the early
comics to reflect the general subcategories of American Burlesque, every
thing from the Extravaganza, the Local Play, to the mighty British Import,
Vaudeville. Little Nemo in Slumberland parodied Fruedan (high-brow) theory,
so popular at the time.
Comics, cinema, soap-operas etc. are all complex forms when viewed on the
level of how they operate and function in society. I think critiques of
pop-culture usually react to to the 'sameness' of these forms, the same thing
said over and over again, and that sense that we already know what's going to
happen. Safe, predictable, there's no risk involved. But the 'sameness' is
their essential element.
But within this venue are the total surprises, which I think tends to
validate your position. "Taxi" could have just as well been off-Broadway as
it could be a network regular. "Seinfield" also, an idea that the experts
thought would fail. In older times, there have been others. Richard Boone
Theatre, was outstanding (and he was active with Welles and Murrow in their
efforts, including testifying before congress). The Hallmark Hall of Fame.
These were pretty well recieved by a large audiance -- but is was in the TV
days when there was not much choice. Today it is much different, with
hundreds of choices.
Against all this is the idea we maintain of "highbrow art" which is of little
consequence to the masses beyond being a good subject of parody. So the
distinction is really only valuable to the group of humans who wish to
support it. It's a minority, for sure, but it also serves a symbolic
function for the minority within that minority, the class of wealth holders.
I think the whole high art industry revolves around this social organization.
In that sense high art is stable, since it will be supported by wealth
because it is important to wealth by its symbolic value (and I'm not
discrediting aesthetic investments here, like the enjoyment and richness of a
good concert or play). A lot of people just don't like opera (I remember
watching a TV performance of the three great tenors and Sting. Sting should
have not agreed -- he sounded really bad next to Carreras, Domingo, and
Pavarotti, where he 'normally' sounds pretty good).
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Against all this is the idea we maintain of "highbrow art" which is of little
> consequence to the masses beyond being a good subject of parody. So the
> distinction is really only valuable to the group of humans who wish to
> support it. It's a minority, for sure, but it also serves a symbolic
> function for the minority within that minority, the class of wealth holders.
> I think the whole high art industry revolves around this social organization.
> In that sense high art is stable, since it will be supported by wealth
> because it is important to wealth by its symbolic value (and I'm not
> discrediting aesthetic investments here, like the enjoyment and richness of a
> good concert or play). A lot of people just don't like opera (I remember
> watching a TV performance of the three great tenors and Sting. Sting should
> have not agreed -- he sounded really bad next to Carreras, Domingo, and
> Pavarotti, where he 'normally' sounds pretty good).
>
Interesting points. I have been thinking of a book that I read many years
ago, that dealt with some of the questions of an intellectual elite and
the value of what it did. I was impressed at the time, but then I was reading
all the Herman Hess that I could. I mean the 'Glass bead game'.
Somehow, once one has understood something esoteric, difficult and exclusive
the question does arise if it is really worth while.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
> >Lauri
> >I'm not a member of the elite exposed to high art critics,
> >just a humble journeyman of sculpture.
Kay:
> Not to be elitist, Lauri, but why not call yourself a humble "journeywoman"
> or "journeyperson" of sculpture?
lauri: Dear Kay, Why sould I? In my language, Laura is the feminine form,
Lauri the masculine. I'm used that Yankpersons misspell it Laurie. It is
pronounced Lowry by the way. Lauri I do believe in equality, and thus expect
that even males should be referred to in the right gender in the silly
grammar of foreign languages forces to discriminate the other sex. In the
Finnish language the third person has common gender, and "Kisaelli" refers to
the professional degree, without sexist sidetones.
Kay:
> Yes, if you are "in"... The rest of us make far less money than the
> traditionalists who do realism. Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
> many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will match
> the furnishings (sofa art).
When I have an opportunity to buy art, I definitely buy sofa art, something
that improves my feelings at home. When I display works, I sometimes have to
make pieces that likewise match the gallery environment ( coctail party art).
My bright side is that I am "free of risk"
economically independent of selling art.
the other side of coin is that I can't afford much of making either.
>
> >- lauri
> >journeyman of sculpture
> >lauri....@nokia.com
> >http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
> >--
> >Disclaimer: The fact that I abuse my office address
> >does not imply that my employer agrees with
> >or is aware of the opinions expressed here
Kay Kane
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote in message
<7ch0m7$28p$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>> >Lauri
>> >I'm not a member of the elite exposed to high art critics,
>> >just a humble journeyman of sculpture.
>
>Kay:
>> Not to be elitist, Lauri, but why not call yourself a humble
"journeywoman"
>> or "journeyperson" of sculpture?
>
>lauri: Dear Kay, Why sould I? In my language, Laura is the feminine form,
>Lauri the masculine. I'm used that Yankpersons misspell it Laurie. It is
>pronounced Lowry by the way. Lauri I do believe in equality, and thus
expect
>that even males should be referred to in the right gender in the silly
>grammar of foreign languages forces to discriminate the other sex.
But your reply was in my language - English, therefore my opinions were
based on the assumption that you were a woman. I have 2 freinds whose names
derived from that - Laurie and Lauri, both are women.
In the
>Finnish language the third person has common gender, and "Kisaelli" refers
to
>the professional degree, without sexist sidetones.
If I am ever in your country (which I would love), I will try to abide by
the language of your country.
>> Yes, if you are "in"... The rest of us make far less money than the
>> traditionalists who do realism. Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
>> many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will match
>> the furnishings (sofa art).
>
>When I have an opportunity to buy art, I definitely buy sofa art, something
>that improves my feelings at home.
Lots of people do (re: my remark above about the Scottsdale art market). I
don't.
When I display works, I sometimes have to
>make pieces that likewise match the gallery environment ( coctail party
art).
I'm not sure I follow... (?)
>My bright side is that I am "free of risk"
>economically independent of selling art.
>the other side of coin is that I can't afford much of making either.
Sounds like you are doing what you like and that's what's important.
Kay
gotts...@my-dejanews.com
> >Some are never seen, as Gray put it; 'full many a gem of purest ray
> >serene, the dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear, full many a flower is
> >born to blush unseen and waste it sweetness on the desert air'.
> >Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> Beautiful quote and very appropriate.
I must agree that it is a beautiful quote indeed.
> I often wonder how many wonderful
> artists have lived and died and made wonderful art that we will never know
> about because they weren't embraced by whatever establishment existed during
> their lives and what we might be missing. (Lends more credence to my stand
> on elitism, though).
One would have hoped that the supposedly "enlightened" era we live in would
have avoided such problems - the rejection of traditional realist art during
the Modernist period proves otherwise, however.
I am reminded of a quote from J. Krishnamurti:
"Rebels are closet aristocrats."
How true, how true.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
First things first of course, Kay.
But after exchanging sexist remarks, can we now proceed
with the subject?
I asked the following questions:
1. lauri:
>Does it really matter, Kay, whether you paint abstract or cows?
>As far as I know, whatever you paint, you want to do it honestly,
>with intgrity.
In other words: If I got a commission to make the portrait of
aunt Martha's cow, I would work on it until I can be proud
of it. I would take that commisssion more as a challence than limitation.
How do you see such an situation?
2. Lauri:
Is it but by a fortune, only a matter of practise,
>that you find it more natural to make
>art what your clientele calls "high art".
Kay:
> >> Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
> >> many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will match
> >> the furnishings (sofa art).
lauri
> >When I have an opportunity to buy art, I definitely buy sofa art, something
> >that improves my feelings at home.
lauri
What I did not say, is that the art I buy is mainly abstract, but the sole
reason is that it pleases me.
Kay
> Lots of people do (re: my remark above about the Scottsdale art market). I
> don't.
Lauri: Why then do you buy?
lauri
> When I display works, I sometimes have to
> >make pieces that likewise match the gallery environment ( coctail party
> art).
Kay:
> I'm not sure I follow... (?)
lauri:
Some works I have seen are too huge to any home, others smell rotten
or involve living performers that you had to feed regularly.
Those works are not made for keeping. They are for display. Part of
the experience of walking through a gallery/museum with a glass
od sparkling and intellectual small talk.
They are made to please the "elite", to give an "artistic experience"
* * *
Kay:
> Sounds like you are doing what you like and that's what's important.
lauri:
Just the opposite
I do what is important, but I like it, too
- lauri
journeyman of sculpture
lauri....@nokia.com
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
--
Disclaimer: The fact that I abuse my office address
does not imply that my employer agrees with
or is aware of the opinions expressed here
Kay Kane
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote in message
<7cihoc$aro$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>First things first of course, Kay.
>But after exchanging sexist remarks, can we now proceed
>with the subject?
Gladly, and excuse me for the delay.
>
>I asked the following questions:
>1. lauri:
>>Does it really matter, Kay, whether you paint abstract or cows?
>>As far as I know, whatever you paint, you want to do it honestly,
>>with intgrity.
>In other words: If I got a commission to make the portrait of
>aunt Martha's cow, I would work on it until I can be proud
>of it. I would take that commisssion more as a challence than limitation.
>
>How do you see such an situation?
I see this type of situation far too often to suit me. Yes, I recently
painted a *&*(%%$$#$%^ COW on a MILK CAN (though I would never admit it to
friends) to a relative who asked me to do so a year ago. She is an elderly
aunt and loves that kind of stuff. Our family gossips throughout thousands
of miles and it reached my sister who nagged me into finishing it. When I
got started I painted the best damned cow I could! (It still disgusted me,
though). Because I don't do that kind of thing! I don't like commissions.
Don't get them usually because my art you look at and like or not, but it
doesn't lend itself to specifications. The reason I begrudge these
situations is that, in my own experience, when people hear that you are an
artist, they feel inclined to ask you to paint a cow, footballs on their
childrens bedroom walls, work on the float for ____ (fill in blank with
appropriate holliday) parade or celebration or festival, etc., etc., etc.. I
read a book a while ago by Mary Gordon called "Spending" in which a woman
artist discusses what I have just complained about and gives a wonderfully
humerous analogy about asking a brain surgeon to do a bit of brain surgery
for you in his/her spare time, etc., etc.
>2. Lauri:
>Is it but by a fortune, only a matter of practise,
>>that you find it more natural to make
>>art what your clientele calls "high art".
I grew up in Chicago. Hung out at the Art Institute. Exposed to a lot of
"high art". Didn't think high or low. Had good teachers & went to Art
Institute while in high school. Went to University. After graduation, I
realised that I could never know enough about art so have been reading
anything and seeing everything I possibly could. There is a place for all
art, but "high art" is the only think that stimulates the intellect in my
experience.
>
>Kay:
>> >> Big bucks can be made in Scottsdale and
>> >> many other markets by making pleasing works of art or art that will
match
>> >> the furnishings (sofa art).
>
>lauri
>> >When I have an opportunity to buy art, I definitely buy sofa art,
something
>> >that improves my feelings at home.
>
>lauri
>What I did not say, is that the art I buy is mainly abstract, but the sole
>reason is that it pleases me.
>
>Kay
>> Lots of people do (re: my remark above about the Scottsdale art market).
I
>> don't.
>Lauri: Why then do you buy?
I wish I had the money to collect art! I usually do an art exchange with
friends. This works really well for me. Sometimes art is given to me as a
token of friendship with none expected in return.
Kay
(snip for space)