No skill no art!
zeno
Yes, depends on what one means by skill doesn't it?
When socalled "skill" keeps an artist trapped into not only
repeating himself, but repeating old history in a boring
mediocre and currently irrelevant fashion, then I would say
that this socalled "skill" is counterproductive, like the
proverbial "broken record" syndrome.
Western Fine Art, like its sciences, long ago embraced a
tradition of intellectual, philosophical, and perceptual
evolution. "New" is not necessarily a dirty word.
The eternal perpetuation of certain ancient or otherwise
already established traditional forms, is another matter,
sometimes called folklore, but other than that the Western
tradition of fine art seems to need some kind of innovative
creativity and ever renewed relevancy.
This whole ignorant trend which is attempting to
retrospectively call modern art somehow fradulent, to me,
sounds exactly like the fundamentalist trend which wants to
place "creationism" in some kind of equivalency with
"science". It is like those same folks who think the whole
creation was made manifest somewhere around 4000 years ago.
Forget fossils, they must be fakes too. What is the root of
this relatively new stubborn insistence on ignorance?
Maybe it is just that, it is ignorant because it is ignorant.
Guess I answered my own question. What apparently is "new" is
the "pride" and "stubborness" of this ignorance, like it was
some new kind of revelation or something. It won't fly.
Except, maybe in a hundred years or so, then currently
irrelevant mediocre work (brimming with SKILL & CRAFTMANSHIP)
will seem like some kind of interesting old folklore in an
antiques roadshow thrift store kind of way and will start to
command some kind of "collectible" value.....then the
"ignored in his time" might even add to the "legend". There
is always a collector out there for just about anything, bad
or good, given enough time.
-Zeno
Thur
"zeno" <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:411D7EED...@sonic.net...
I don't know whether I am agreeing with you or not, but here
goes.
> Western Fine Art, like its sciences, long ago embraced a
>tradition of intellectual, philosophical, and perceptual
>evolution. "New" is not necessarily a dirty word.
>The eternal perpetuation of certain ancient or otherwise
>already established traditional forms, is another matter,
>sometimes called folklore, but other than that the Western
>tradition of fine art seems to need some kind of innovative
>creativity and ever renewed relevancy.
The "long ago" you use must be mainly about the Renaissance.
The study of ancient arts and crafts, and other sciences were the
food for the new creativity.
.
Western Fine Arts embraces almost everything, but as a result,
champions little. We have absorbed so much that the mixture has
lost definition.
Whatever kind of art you are talking of, there must be ways of
judging it's importance and it's value. There must be something
more substantial than reacting to market forces.
That "new" is not a dirty word, is not to say that it could not be.
In an art world where "new" is the only thing one can recognise,
and where some works seem to be ridiculous in their attempt to
be so defined, where the effects upon the viewer seem not to
have been considered, where the theatrical, the trivial, the utterly
adolescent, and the downright offensive have replaced the
thoughtful, the careful, the skilled, the beautiful, the ideal and the
idea that a work of art could be made to impress for longer than
a month, then your "New" has indeed put itself forward as a dirty
word.
Thur
zeno
Thur wrote:
The "long ago" you use must be mainly about the Renaissance.
> The study of ancient arts and crafts, and other sciences were the
> food for the new creativity.
I meant that it started long ago, but I feel it continues through much of the
modern period as well. I wasn't excluding philosophy, literature, etc. as well.
>
>
> Western Fine Arts embraces almost everything, but as a result,
> champions little. We have absorbed so much that the mixture has
> lost definition.
>
I think I might be suspicious of art that only sets out to "champion"
something. I look for vision, creativity, innovation that integrally serves the
clarity of that vision, the emotional integrity which results.
>
> Whatever kind of art you are talking of, there must be ways of
> judging it's importance and it's value.
I just trust my own eyes.
> There must be something
> more substantial than reacting to market forces.
> /
I don't see art as so much a process of reacting, rather a process of creating.
Seems like too many here are obsessed with things other than the making of
their own art.
> That "new" is not a dirty word, is not to say that it could not be.
> In an art world where "new" is the only thing one can recognise,
> and where some works seem to be ridiculous in their attempt to
> be so defined, where the effects upon the viewer seem not to
> have been considered, where the theatrical, the trivial, the utterly
> adolescent, and the downright offensive have replaced the
> thoughtful, the careful, the skilled, the beautiful, the ideal and the
> idea that a work of art could be made to impress for longer than
> a month, then your "New" has indeed put itself forward as a dirty
> word.
> Thur
The bottom line, you do what you yourself were meant to do, what you are
"called" to do.
Hopefully one has something to contribute, in that sense, "new". Crass or
negative work is easily dismissed when observed, why give it any more energy
than that, unless at some point you might find yourself "getting it" in which
case maybe you were too hasty or too narrowminded at first impression. I try to
stay open, and not assume I already know everything. Ultimately I trust my own
eye, my own intuition, independent take on things.
Someone not getting "modern art", what an old cartoon!
Zeno
Mani Deli
>No skill no art!
>
>Yes, depends on what one means by skill doesn't it?
>
>When socalled "skill" keeps an artist trapped into not only
>repeating himself, but repeating old history in a boring
>mediocre and currently irrelevant fashion, then I would say
>that this socalled "skill" is counterproductive, like the
>proverbial "broken record" syndrome.
Like Dada repetition and critics who have to constantly tell you its
something new.
>Western Fine Art, like its sciences, long ago embraced a
>tradition of intellectual, philosophical, and perceptual
>evolution. "New" is not necessarily a dirty word.
So!
Nothing much new in Modern Academic Art which is mostly Dada , dead
since 1923. Bad craftsmanship excepted.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
sarpedon
> This whole ignorant trend which is attempting to
> retrospectively call modern art somehow fradulent, to me,
> sounds exactly like the fundamentalist trend which wants to
> place "creationism" in some kind of equivalency with
> "science". It is like those same folks who think the whole
> creation was made manifest somewhere around 4000 years ago.
> Forget fossils, they must be fakes too. What is the root of
> this relatively new stubborn insistence on ignorance?
"Archbishop James Armagh, Ireland (1581-1656) used the generations
named in the Bible to calculate that the earth's creation took place
at noon on October 23, 4004 BC." Source: Physical Anthropology, by
Stein and Roe.
The point of this was to affirm that there was an all-powerful
Christian god who created everything that existed all at once, i.e.,
spontaneous creation. Since god, to the Christians, was all good and
made everything, there could be no doubt about the perfection of his
creation. This is why the idea of evolution had to be denied--because
it implied imperfection in the original creation.
I agree with you about the validity of what is new, and I try to
see how it evolved. For example, modern composed music, what some
might call classical, evolved from classical music. Beethoven,
building on the accomplishments of his predecessors, took tonality
about as far as it could go. Atonal music was invented by Berg and
Schonberg because tonality had been taken to its limits.
Atonal music was stopped in its tracks and people clung to tonal
music for about 80 years. The few places you could hear atonal music
in popular culture were B-grade American horror and sci-fi movies.
Relatively recently, alternative rockers, like Nirvana and Stone
Temple Pilots, have been playing atonal music. This means that
finally the idiom is truly established in Western culture.
The same thing happened to classical painting. In about 1850, fine
art began to splay out into impressionism, surrealism, and abstraction
because it had been taken as far as it could go. (God knows the
English neo-classicists proved that!). The modern torch bearers of
classical painting are the impressionists, who really represent only a
technical refinement Renaissance painting--that is to say the painting
of the realistic object in space-- not really a fundamental break; and
surrealism, which uses the same classical techniques as the
Renaissance masters, while altering the subject matter.
There will always be people who are instinctively conservative in
life. But one must not confuse them with neurotic cranks pretending to
be teachers while they circle around in a hole so deep they cannot see
the rainclouds overhead.
sarpedon
DNALJM
>surrealism, which uses the same classical techniques as the
To think that surrealism uses classical techniques is to reveal the modern
ignorance of said techniques. Magritte and Di Chirico had no better than a
high school command of color, anatomy, and perspective:
http://www.mcs.csuhayward.edu/~malek/Chirico8.html
Look how crude the torso is in this painting, and how he used the same tone and
color in all the shadows. It makes it look like dirt has been applied to the
body rather than defining the form. The head looks glued on because the
muscles of the neck are not understood. Even I am a better painter than Di
Chirico. Perhaps these ideas of dream-like situations are so profound (no
comment) that they excuse the artists from learning classical skill, but it
isn't Renaissance technique.
>There will always be people who are instinctively conservative in
>life. But one must not confuse them with neurotic cranks pretending to
>be teachers while they circle around in a hole so deep they cannot see
>the rainclouds overhead.
And there will always be people who find trusted bodies of information
disposable, but to do so excuses them from speaking intelligently about the
history, influence, and practice of the subject as a whole. Please print out a
Bronzino painting and hold it up to a Di Chirico, and ask yourself how much
more powerful and disconcerting the painting would be if didn't suck. People
like poor painting skills because it makes them feel they can be good at
something without investing any time or effort.
Mani Deli
expressionist_a...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
>zeno <ze...@sonic.net> wrote in message news:<411D7EED...@sonic.net>...
>
> Atonal music was invented by Berg and
>Schonberg because tonality had been taken to its limits.
There's the baloney in your premise.
> The same thing happened to classical painting. In about 1850, fine
>art began to splay out into impressionism
Art school mythology.
>, surrealism, and abstraction
>because it had been taken as far as it could go.
-By those who don't know their craft.
> (God knows the
>English neo-classicists proved that!).
God doesn't know much of anything.
>There will always be people who are instinctively conservative in
>life.
and charlatans who can't do much of anything.
King Rundzap
Well, not all art consumers are looking for the same thing, or for
only one thing in a painting. Not everyone is (just) looking for
realistic illustrations that would be chosen for an anatomy book. You
seem to be implying that they should be, but I'm not sure what the
argument for that would be. Likewise, not all artists are only
looking to (only) achieve the same thing, or only one thing.
So, maybe Di Chirico sucks if you're applying a criterion that he
wasn't trying to achieve, and that most viewers who like or appreciate
Di Chirico aren't looking for in his works, but by the same token, if
Di Chirico or those viewers applied a criterion that he achieved
perfectly in The Child's Brain to all other works, then a Bronzino
work such as An Allegory (Venus, Cupid, Time and Folly)--
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/B/bronzino/venus_cupid.jpg.html
--sucks and the Di Chirico is perfection.
It's not that Di Chirico had no skills, or poor skills, it's that he
wasn't trying to use his skills to do the same thing that Bronzino
tried to use his skills for. Personally, I like both of the works
we're talking about, but I have varied tastes and do not expect
everyone to be shooting for the same goals. I don't think either one
sucks, because I don't abide by only one narrow view of what art
should be, and I especially wouldn't expect everyone else to conform
to my view or suck.
So what you really need to do is argue why all artists should be
trying to achieve one very narrow view of what one can do with art,
and why all viewers should only expect that, but good luck, since
normatives and aesthetics in general are both subjective.
--King Rundzap
DNALJM
>trying to achieve one very narrow view of what one can do with art,
>and why all viewers should only expect that, but good luck, since
>normatives and aesthetics in general are both subjective.
I was responding to the original poster's contention that Di Chirico was
working with the skill base of the Rennisance.
sarpedon
> >surrealism, which uses the same classical techniques as the
> >Renaissance masters, while altering the subject matter. (!!!!)
>
> To think that surrealism uses classical techniques is to reveal the modern
> ignorance of said techniques.
my post was not meant to be an opportunity for a rant. I was talking
about the place of the genres, impressionism and surrealism in fine
art. One can practice either of these genres and be well trained in
classical painting techniques, although even in the latter there is
considerable leeway. One can paint like Van Eyck or Mantegna. One can
painting with glazes or alla prima. Whether an individual
impressionist or surrealist had little training is as unimportant to
the meaning of my statement as the undeniable fact that many loyal
adherents of classicism have bad technique.
Pure classicism, in fact, has been relegated to endless ads for
kitsch to be found on eBay.
sarpedon
DNALJM
If you want to dictate the nature of the replies you recieve than I humbly
submit you find a moderated group.
>Whether an individual
>impressionist or surrealist had little training is as unimportant to
>the meaning of my statement as the undeniable fact that many loyal
>adherents of classicism have bad technique.
You said: and
> >surrealism, which uses the same classical techniques as the
> >Renaissance masters, while altering the subject matter.
But now you seem to quantify saying that it does not use the same technique,
but may or may not.
>Pure classicism, in fact, has been relegated to endless ads for
>kitsch to be found on eBay.
"Pure" classiscism to me would be a Greek statue which could be found in a
museum. Dopey statues of them can be found in tourist traps in Greece and on
Ebay. Mondern figurative art is typically sold in galleries because the return
for the investment of time and materials wouldn't happen on Ebay. The most
significant bulk of things on Ebay artwise are self-taught, self-representing
artists.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>It's not that Di Chirico had no skills, or poor skills,
He had poor skills
>it's that he
>wasn't trying to use his skills to do the same thing that Bronzino
>tried to use his skills for.
I'm not interested in wat he wasn't trying to do.
Mani Deli
expressionist_a...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
> One can practice either of these genres and be well trained in
>classical painting techniques, although even in the latter there is
>considerable leeway. One can paint like Van Eyck or Mantegna. One can
>painting with glazes or alla prima.
-and one can paint well and one can paint badly.
Milton
One might also add that the argument is dependent on a highly
selective survey of De Chirico's and Magritte's work and ignores the
extreme anatomical distortions in the Bronzino especially in the
figure of Cupid.
King Rundzap
Well, it's not right to say that it has nothing to do with the skill
base of the Renaissance, either, which is something I didn't really
touch on in my original reply. It's not as if Di Chirico's works do
not deal with perspective, representationalism, figural work, there
are similarities in subject matter and the way it is arranged, etc.
As I read the post that you were replying to, that's more what Zeno
meant--not that surrealists were trying to do something identical, or
with the same exact goals, as a typical Renaissance-era painter (if
there is such a thing). Of course they didn't have identical aims, or
the "movement" would have probably been dubbed something like
"Neo-Renaissance" instead of Surrealism.
However, I would agree in general with an objection to saying that
Surrealism is partially defined by using those same kinds of skills,
since later Miro, Jean Arp, and many others who did many works that
are more abstract are also considered surrealists. Also, Di Chirico
wasn't initially considered a surrealist, but is usually said to have
been an influence on Dali, Tanguy and others, and was later lumped
with them by many critics, at least before Di Chirico changed his
style later on.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> >It's not that Di Chirico had no skills, or poor skills,
> He had poor skills
What is the list of good skills versus poor skills and why is that the
list versus some other proposed list?
> >it's that he
> >wasn't trying to use his skills to do the same thing that Bronzino
> >tried to use his skills for.
> I'm not interested in wat he wasn't trying to do.
Wait, you're not interested in Bronzino, say? I know you're
interested in Bouguereau. That's something that Di Chirico wasn't
trying to do.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
>
> One might also add that the argument is dependent on a highly
> selective survey of De Chirico's and Magritte's work and ignores the
> extreme anatomical distortions in the Bronzino especially in the
> figure of Cupid.
Yeah, that's a great point, and one often ignored in these arguments.
After I posted my original reply, I realized that the Bronzino
painting I used for an example (here's another link, although this one
seems slow: http://www.beloit.edu/~classics/main/courses/classics150/museum150/cupid/Bronzino_Venus_and_Cupid%20_1545.htm)
features what looks to me like a "pasted on" head, just to the right
of Venus' head, and like almost all paintings, the figures do _not_
look like typical people in the actual world. In this case, to me
they look a bit waxy (almost like death masks), disproportionate
(especially Cupid, as you point out, who also looks a bit like a
"pasted on" head), etc. So the artists who are supposedly approved by
the Art Renewal Center crowd (or anyone of like mind), are often not
drawing or painting people who are anatomically "correct" (although I
agree that some artists do anatomically "correct" work more often than
others), or average (maybe they're anatomically possible in the real
world, but they'd be a bit freakish), or who look like actual people,
either. Not that I personally expect anatomical correctness--I
couldn't care less. I prefer fantasy (fiction) in my art, and I like
seeing things that aren't possible in the actual world (which I can
just look around to see, and don't have to look at a painting). So to
me, Bronzino kicks ass, but so does Picasso's figure drawing and
portraiture, such as
http://www.abcgallery.com/P/picasso/picasso170.html
Of course, the "Art Renewal Crowd"-sympathetic folks often repeat that
the aim isn't to produce visual art that emulates photography (even
though that's how people from the actual world look in two dimensional
representations), and often, revered artists, such as Mani's idol,
Salvador Dali (which is where I suspect Mani got his current attitude
from--Dali claimed at least as far back as 1948 in his book _50
Secrets of Magic Craftsmanship_ to hate Cezanne, Mondrian, etc.), were
not even trying to approach actual world anatomy (as Mani obviously
isn't, also, when you look at his own work).
Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with this, and Dali is
also one of my favorite artists, but it leaves it a bit of a mystery
as to just what is approved and just what isn't approved. Actual
world anatomy is presumably approved, although preferably not
photorealistic, but so are many distortions of actual world anatomy
approved. It's difficult to guess which distortions will lead to
approval and which to censure, and I doubt that even Mani could make
such a list, let alone justify it in a persuasive way.
King Rundzap
> On 23 Aug 2004 19:55:53 -0700,
> expressionist_a...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
>
> > One can practice either of these genres and be well trained in
> >classical painting techniques, although even in the latter there is
> >considerable leeway. One can paint like Van Eyck or Mantegna. One can
> >painting with glazes or alla prima.
>
> -and one can paint well and one can paint badly.
Yes, a lot of people have opinions that certain works are good and
certain works bad. Different people apply those opinions to different
works. I agree strongly with the objection regarding one way to speak
"Artspeak": "When stating your subjective opinion make it sound like
it is universally accepted as unquestionable truth" I agree that's
often done, but know that you believe you're just stating your opinion
(your belief), which might not be shared by anyone else.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> expressionist_a...@yahoo.com (sarpedon) wrote:
>
> > One can practice either of these genres and be well trained in
> >classical painting techniques, although even in the latter there is
> >considerable leeway. One can paint like Van Eyck or Mantegna. One can
> >painting with glazes or alla prima.
>
> -and one can paint well and one can paint badly.
Yes, a lot of people have opinions that certain works are good and
DNALJM
>selective survey of De Chirico's and Magritte's work
I have a book with the complete works of Magritte and he was obviously
uninterested in improving how he saw color. Also, we weren't arguing the value
of those works, I was just pointing out that they were painted poorly.
>nd ignores the
>extreme anatomical distortions in the Bronzino especially in the
>figure of Cupid.
Look at his portrait of Lucrezia Panciatichi and tell me that he wasn't
making a conscious decision when it came to anatomy.
Also, I've said in the past that good figurative artwork doesn't try to
emulate how a camera sees. It's an expression of how a human being sees with
some editing decisions made for sound reasons.
DNALJM
>also one of my favorite artists, but it leaves it a bit of a mystery
>as to just what is approved and just what isn't approved.
If you read the mission statement page for ARC, you see that their aim is
not to "approve" artworks but to encourage education and also to remove
discrimination for those wanting to study and preserve traditional ways of
working.
I think that it is far worse for an art school to lead people to believe
that they can master skills in two years and give them passing grades for
repeating the same mistakes over and over. These schools charge thousands of
dollars and have very little culpability in the fact that students are unable
to support themselves or are even able to draw.
I have to wonder at people who demonize the ARC which offers scholarships,
articles, forums, and quality reproductions for research purposes. What an
evil group of people! Obviously they are trying to fund a covert operation to
sneak into people's bedrooms and give them lobotomies, so they want to do
perverse things like learn about the materials that they use and the history of
art.
King Rundzap
> >Again, I don't think there's anything wrong with this, and Dali is
> >also one of my favorite artists, but it leaves it a bit of a mystery
> >as to just what is approved and just what isn't approved.
>
> If you read the mission statement page for ARC, you see that their aim is
> not to "approve" artworks but to encourage education and also to remove
> discrimination for those wanting to study and preserve traditional ways of
> working.
That could be with the ARC, but with Mani and many others posting
here, they continually approve or disapprove of artworks based on who
knows what criteria. And I do remember seeing
articles/campaigns/petitions on the ARC site complaining about a
museum selling a Bouguereau to acquire an Alma-Tadema, or someone
similar. That seems like an implied approval/disapproval, at least.
I would think that if the aim were really focused on education, there
would be more about what courses certain schools have, what certain
teachers are doing (for example, specific instances of discouraging
certain knowledge in classes where it would be appropriate), etc.
> I think that it is far worse for an art school to lead people to believe
> that they can master skills in two years and give them passing grades for
> repeating the same mistakes over and over.
I don't think that's bad, as you can master many skills in two years
(if you meant "master all skills", I don't think one could ever do
that), and I don't believe that there are objective mistakes, although
there are plenty of subjective (individually-goal-defined) mistakes
that could occur. On the other hand, I agree with the idea of
teaching "traditional" skills alongside less traditional skills in art
schools, if that's not being done.
> These schools charge thousands of
> dollars and have very little culpability in the fact that students are unable
> to support themselves or are even able to draw.
They should have art marketing classes if they don't. In my
experience, that's the biggest barrier to being able to support
oneself, and that's the source of a lot of the bitterness that leads
to attitudes like Mani's (not necessarily that it was the case for
Mani)--a lot of artists think, "Geez, my stuff rocks, and this stuff
is crap, yet this guy is making tons of money". Aside from the
understandable bias they have towards their own work (it's a bit like
loving your own kids versus someone else's), those people more often
than not are basically expecting the world to come knocking at their
door because they're "great artists". That's not the way it works.
One has to devote as much time to marketing, making contacts, etc. as
one devotes to making art--it's a lot of hard work, and there is a
skill set with marketing that can lead to success or not.
But aside from that, I disagree that schools are implying guarantees
of finding employment in a field, anyway. They're only guaranteeing
that you'll learn something about the field you majored in, as the
current curriculum stands. Usually only independent "trade" schools
(but certainly not all or even most of them) have any kinds of
guarantees about finding employment.
> I have to wonder at people who demonize the ARC which offers
> scholarships,
> articles, forums, and quality reproductions for research purposes. What an
> evil group of people!
Well, I haven't looked at the site in awhile, and I only looked at it
a few times over the course of a month or so, but they, or at least
many of the members, seem to be demonizing "modern art" while pursuing
their more positive goals, and in campaigns like the one where the
Bouguereau was being replaced, they even seemed to be demonizing more
traditional expressions of art, just because whoever is in charge
doesn't like them as much. I think those kinds of stances are worthy
of criticism. In general, their tone doesn't seem to be one of
wanting to add something back into art curricula (if indeed it is
absent), but of an almost fundie-sounding dogmatism.
> Obviously they are trying to fund a covert operation to
> sneak into people's bedrooms and give them lobotomies, so they want to do
> perverse things like learn about the materials that they use and the history
> of art.
I haven't been to art school, but I'd put a sizeable bet down that Art
History is still a required course in most of them, and that handling
materials is covered at least at the beginning of painting classes in
various media.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> >One might also add that the argument is dependent on a highly
> >selective survey of De Chirico's and Magritte's work
>
> I have a book with the complete works of Magritte and he was obviously
> uninterested in improving how he saw color.
How would one "improve how they saw color"? By attaining coloration
that is closer to a (subjective, by the way) perception of the actual
world? Why are we assuming that everyone is or should be shooting for
that? I definitely do not try to mimic the color I see in the actual
world in my works. I don't know if Magritte ever commented on whether
he was trying to mimic the colors he experienced in the actual world,
but I'd doubt it. If he said he was, maybe the colors he painted
_were_ the colors he saw in the actual world.
> Also, we weren't arguing the value
> of those works, I was just pointing out that they were painted poorly.
How are they painted poorly, exactly?
> Look at his portrait of Lucrezia Panciatichi and tell me that he wasn't
> making a conscious decision when it came to anatomy.
How would we know someone's intention in their work if they don't
report it to us? We're (paleo)psychics now? And why would that
matter, anyway?
> Also, I've said in the past that good figurative artwork doesn't try to
> emulate how a camera sees.
Why not? Plenty of people might think that's good. I think that a
lot of work that tries to emulate a camera is good, too. What makes
them/us wrong? Or are you just expressing a personal opinion, but as
Mani says, "stating your subjective opinion [and making] it sound like
it is universally accepted as unquestionable truth"?
> It's an expression of how a human being sees with
> some editing decisions made for sound reasons.
Where are you getting this from? Why couldn't it be, for example, a
human portraying things they'd like to see (and there are countless
other possibilities)? And what are the criteria for a sound versus
unsound editing decision? I'm familiar with the criteria for
soundness in various logics, but none of those would make sense here.
--King Rundzap
Lauri Levanto
DNALJM wrote:
> If you read the mission statement page for ARC, you see that their aim is
> not to "approve" artworks but to encourage education and also to remove
> discrimination for those wanting to study and preserve traditional ways of
> working.
I was not interested enough to find out what is the real "mission
statement page", but about the second sentence on theri homepage is:
[quote]With a growing body of experts, we are setting standards of ARC
Approval for artists, art schools, systems of training, museum
exhibitions and historical scholarship, to bring guidance, direction,
goals and reality ... [/quote]
That is explicit "approval" statement, isn't it?
My opinion is that they have good intentions, and excellent sense of
business like similar fundamentalists on other aspects of life.
I am quite conservative. I do not like much the Danish Per Kirkeby.
However, he once noted on modern glass painting that they take the
external resemblance of old masters as goal, not as starting point.
For me that makes sense.
-lauri
Andrew D
kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
[snip]
> I don't think that's bad, as you can master many skills in two years
> (if you meant "master all skills", I don't think one could ever do
> that), and I don't believe that there are objective mistakes, although
> there are plenty of subjective (individually-goal-defined) mistakes
> that could occur.
Perhaps I misunderstand you but I would suggest that if there really are
no "objective mistakes" then there can be no rights or wrongs and and if
that is the case then there is no need for art schools and there is no way
to determine which pieces are "good enough" to put in a museum since all
art would be equal.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.
King Rundzap
> Perhaps I misunderstand you but I would suggest that if there really are
> no "objective mistakes" then there can be no rights or wrongs and and if
> that is the case then there is no need for art schools and there is no way
> to determine which pieces are "good enough" to put in a museum since all
> art would be equal.
I do not think there are objective mistakes in art, but I think that
different people want to do different things, and it's helpful to have
people around to teach you how to better approach your goals, whatever
they may be. The fact that there are no objective mistakes doesn't
mean that there aren't subjective goals, or that there aren't actions
that are judged subjectively as mistakes towards those goals. So
ideally, it's useful to have art schools. Plus, it's helpful to be
familiar with art history. Among many other reasons, art history can
help you avoid "reinventing the wheel", if you want to avoid that (and
many people do), and it can help spark directions that you might not
have thought of otherwise. I would structure art schools so that you
learn art history, and you learn the basic techniques of most
historical movements in many media. From there, you'd choose which
styles and media you want to focus on (with the option of changing),
and teachers would help you get where you want to go. There would
also be a heavy focus on art marketing/business for those students who
want to make art a career, and instruction in various current
commercial art trends for students who think they might want a career
that involves working for others rather than being self-employed.
But I also wouldn't say that art schools are necessary for someone to
be an artist (and maybe no rec.arts.fine regulars would say that).
Depending on how they're actually structured versus how I'd ideally
structure them, art schools might be leading to as many problems as
they are helping solve problems that individual students are having.
As for curating, gallery ownership, etc., those folks would do what
they do now--pick pieces that they're familiar with (and that's part
of where art marketing/business comes into play for living, non-famous
artists), that they can acquire, and that they like and/or think are
worthwhile to put in their museum or gallery (for a variety of
criteria that they hold personally and think the artwork in questions
meets). Just like the objective/subjective distinction when it comes
to mistakes, the fact that there are no objective value judgments
doesn't mean that there are no subjective value judgments. People act
on their subjective value judgments all the time.
--King Rundzap
Thur
> help you avoid "reinventing the wheel", if you want to avoid that (and
> many people do), and it can help spark directions that you might not
> have thought of otherwise.
I think it worth noting that the Renaissance was to a large extent founded
upon intensive studies of The Roman and Greek "Classical" eras.
This did begin with works that were noticeably modelled on ancient styles.
It was not long, though before the Renaissance found it's own style(s).
It is the culture of the new, the trivial and the transient, which seems to
have the centre stage. There isn't enough space for everyone to produce
something new. I see that in many works, which seem to have followed the
work of some "enfant terrible" rather than having made any effort at all to
produce "new".
Once someone has had the idea to deliberately produce work with rough,
"brutal" brush strokes, or omit some skill or content which had until then
been the norm, then only one work has been new, and all the rest afterwards
is "derivative", are they not?
Once a work is considered to be some "****ist" then it has become uniform
and not new.
Art History is important, and like any academic subject, should be studied,
so that students can improve their capability as artists rather than as an
example of how not to progress.
Where else do we see such attitudes (not yours, but the many you refer to)
to the study of the past?
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04082...@posting.google.com...
Erik A. Mattila
Thur wrote:
>>Among many other reasons, art history can
>>help you avoid "reinventing the wheel", if you want to avoid that (and
>>many people do), and it can help spark directions that you might not
>>have thought of otherwise.
>
>
> I think it worth noting that the Renaissance was to a large extent founded
> upon intensive studies of The Roman and Greek "Classical" eras.
> This did begin with works that were noticeably modelled on ancient styles.
> It was not long, though before the Renaissance found it's own style(s).
Thur, you may want to note also that the Renaissance was founded on
capital - specifically capital that flowed into Europe from looted
cultures around the globe, ending up in private hands as opposed to the
Royals and the Church. Let's not forget that Lorenzo the Magnificant
was a banker. It's really very interesting to read art history in
search for the patrons of the (then) new art. This applies to the
Northern Renaissance as well, even though Charles HRE was buying a lot
of art to glorify himself.
Erik
DNALJM
>of finding employment in a field, anyway. They're only guaranteeing
>that you'll learn something about the field you majored in, as the
>current curriculum stands.
I doubt that they even are doing that. How many people have fine arts
degrees who don't know how to write an artist's statement, or stretch a canvas,
or know what sort of binders are in pigments? In the Russian academies
students learn about science and history, that's why artists are respected
there and not here.
King Rundzap
I don't think I worded my statement effectively. "Learn something
about the field as the current curriculum has it" would have been
closer to what I meant. That way I can't be wrong, because it's
tautological :-)
I don't know how many people have fine arts degrees who don't know how
to write an artist's statement, stretch canvas, etc. but I agree they
should be learning those things. I suppose I don't talk that much to
many people who have arts degrees (and actually, my limited
interaction in the past suggested to me that I probably wouldn't get
along with a lot of them, since many I encountered seemed to have kind
of snobbish opinions). They can't be teaching much about marketing if
they're not even teaching how to write an artist's statement, since
that's required many places where one would submit one's work.
Although I disagree that artist's statements should be required, just
as I think that resumes are ridiculous for artists, but fat chance
that I'm going to change those standards, and they are standards in
many areas of the artworld, so one needs to know how to do them and
have them. (At one point, my resume consisted mostly of the text
under my heading "Objection to the concept of resumes for artists" . .
. needless to say, that went about as smoothly as I-95 through the
Bronx, LOL.)
I have to say that at least the ARC-oriented view has made me curious
about just what is taught in most art schools. It's not something I
thought very much about previously. On the other hand, I suppose I
wouldn't be surprised by researching art schools and finding out that
they're not teaching a lot of practical skills. I think a lot of
things about our school curricula (including grade schools) could use
revising.
--King Rundzap
Andrew D
kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote:
[snip]
> But I also wouldn't say that art schools are necessary for someone to
> be an artist (and maybe no rec.arts.fine regulars would say that).
I haven't been to art schoool myself. There are two main reasons for that.
1: in my second year of high school (14 years old) my art teacher insisted
I not try to draw and paint realistically. He actively discouraged my
ambition to improve in those areas.
2: the major art college in my old home town has a reputation for doing
exactly the same to aspiring adults.
Richard R. Hershberger
> Thur wrote:
>
> >>Among many other reasons, art history can
> >>help you avoid "reinventing the wheel", if you want to avoid that (and
> >>many people do), and it can help spark directions that you might not
> >>have thought of otherwise.
> >
> >
> > I think it worth noting that the Renaissance was to a large extent founded
> > upon intensive studies of The Roman and Greek "Classical" eras.
> > This did begin with works that were noticeably modelled on ancient styles.
> > It was not long, though before the Renaissance found it's own style(s).
>
> Thur, you may want to note also that the Renaissance was founded on
> capital - specifically capital that flowed into Europe from looted
> cultures around the globe, ending up in private hands as opposed to the
> Royals and the Church. Let's not forget that Lorenzo the Magnificant
> was a banker.
Umm, no, unless you are contending that property is theft or some such
ideology. The Renaissance Italians got their money through trade,
principally by acting as middle men between the Levant and western
Europe. The Levantines were largely doing the same thing, with them
all being links in a chain reaching to China and Indonesia. And yes,
the Medici were bankers, providing a service for willing customers.
Whatever you think of the nobility or lack thereof of trade and
banking, neither is exactly Conquistadors looting Mexico City.