Intelligence in Art
John Ng
> > Bouguereau works I have seen
> > live. What makes you pick the most empty illustration? Do you
> > see something deep in his works.
>
> That is the whole point. Why must Art seem to say something "deep"
> where the "deep" means what dumb critics say they are.
Not so long ago Todd described his Rothko experience. I do not share it,
but it is an example of a deep experience. It is something real.
I do admire Bouguereau, though he leaves me cold. Wasn't all modernism
a reaction to empty academism - before there was any conspiracy of critics.
As young, Cesanne wanted to burm Louvre.
We have had discussion on the impact of photography. I blaim more the
printing press and advertising. There was a time 1300->1700 when a
realistic depiction was a rarity and therefore a strong experience.
I do see a difference between Velasques and Bouguereau. In1800's
an image as such was no longer a rare experience. So Ingres and
Bouguereau turned from content to virtuosity.
I opened this thread, to discuss the possibility of experimental art
(not my genre). When people say 'art is what an artist does and calls art'
that means anything goes. It is no longer experimental as the answer
cannot be 'no'. I still have a feeling that there is something to do
inside the domain of Art, not only on the fringes of it.
-lauri
I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
of art.
John Ng
> I do admire Bouguereau, though he leaves me cold
If too-clever intelligence (ie the critic's definition) is sought
after, then there is no reason why should it be painting art (not that
it can't be clever). Leave intelligence to photo-journalism or maybe
a different branch of art call “Intelligent Art” or
something (that is why I said art is of two distinct categories).
In my opinion, painting art should be like a flower. A flower doesn't
say much, just a simple, "Come". So likewise, a painting should just
grip you and you fall in love. In my own paintings, I could come up
with lots of very intelligent stuff but I try very hard not to
include such things which I consider not in the domain of art.
Bouguereau’s paintings are heterosexual male orientated that why
different persuasion of people perceive them differently. However,
his paintings have, in my opinion, a profoundness that is unequalled
to the analytical mind. Look at how he composes his paintings using
simple shapes… a culmination of the art principles that has been
developed since the Renaissance. I believe people like Mondrain (or
however you spell his name), is simply taking Renaissance principles
and work backwards until they come up with squares. Eureka, a
farcical result… great invention!
Back to Bouguereau… look at the way he crosses the hands, the
way he poses the fingers, the light in his model’s eyes, the
depth in his paintings, the colour he uses. There is even cleverness
in this paintings… as every artist knows, it is difficult to
paint something that looks as if you can feel it… very feel
photograph is able to do that without lots of artistic intervention.
John Ng
> Wasn't all modernism
> a reaction to empty academism - before there was any conspiracy of critics.
Yes, that is so. However, the time has come for academism to react
against the empty modernism.
I am so tired of all this modern art and the amount of commercial
trash that has come along with it. Look into any shopping centre and
public places, and you see lots of “modernised” statues,
“modernised” posters, “modernised”
shapes… It is just so tiring. Give me a 19C styled object and
I can stand in front of it for a long time… alas very hard to
find.
> We have had discussion on the impact of photography. I blaim more the
> printing press and advertising. There was a time 1300->1700 when a
 realistic depiction was a rarity and therefore a strong
experience.
Today, it is very easy to produce those things call modern art
especially with computers and computer-aided machines. Conversely,
until today, there are very few photos or prints that could take the
place of good academic painting such as Bouguereau… if so I
wouldn’t like to pay lots of money for excellent paintings when
I could buy prints (not considering investment).
> I do see a difference between Velasques and Bouguereau. In1800's
> an image as such was no longer a rare experience. So Ingres and
 Bouguereau turned from content to virtuosity.
I actually don’t see any difference except that Bouguereau could
look at Ingres and make a better result, and likewise, Ingres better
Velasques,
John Ng
> I opened this thread, to discuss the possibility of experimental art
> (not my genre). When people say 'art is what an artist does and calls art'
> that means anything goes. It is no longer experimental as the answer
> cannot be 'no'. I still have a feeling that there is something to do
 inside the domain of Art, not only on the fringes of it.
If someone argues that typing on this keyboard (as I am doing now) is
a “sport” as it exercises my fingers, how could I say
otherwise?
> I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
> artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
> of art.
It is hard, Art has died the last 100 years. In my opinion, there are
very few real artists because most concentrate on worthless art (that
is where the money is). I am really not acquainted with enough 20C
artists except those that the so-call art books tell me.
However some are Rockwell, Wyeth, and Morgan Weistling. (Pardon if I
get some of these guy’s century wrong as I am simply basing on
the type of art I believe to be 20C)
Looking around the web, I see there are some very good artists today -
Stephen Gjertson, Allan Banks, Kamille Corry (my favourite), Paul
McCormack, Han Wu Shen but I can’t consider them masters like
some of the 19C people are.
Strange isn’t it, these artists paint the same subject as
Bouguereau but they could never come close to his kind of punch. That
is what really makes Bouguereau one of the best all time artist!
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
> > I opened this thread, to discuss the possibility of experimental art
> > (not my genre). When people say 'art is what an artist does and calls art'
> > that means anything goes. It is no longer experimental as the answer
> > cannot be 'no'. I still have a feeling that there is something to do
>  inside the domain of Art, not only on the fringes of it.
>
> If someone argues that typing on this keyboard (as I am doing now) is
> a “sport” as it exercises my fingers, how could I say
> otherwise?
>
That comment I do not understand, please expand.
>
> > I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
> > artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
> > of art.
>
> It is hard, Art has died the last 100 years. In my opinion, there are
> very few real artists because most concentrate on worthless art (that
> is where the money is).
Wasn't Bouguereau so productive an artist, who said "it costs me 5 frangs to
pee"?
-lauri
John Ng
> > If someone argues that typing on this keyboard (as I am doing now) is
> > a “sport” as it exercises my fingers, how could I say
> > otherwise?
> >
>
> That comment I do not understand, please expand.
I am merely trying to point out that if people insist on saying that
one item is group of something else (like "Typing" is a "Sports"), it
is very difficult to say otherwise. So art, if you think that
splatters, squares, and cartoons are Art, then who is able to argue
otherwise?
> > > I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
> > > artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
> > > of art.
> >
> > It is hard, Art has died the last 100 years. In my opinion, there are
> > very few real artists because most concentrate on worthless art (that
> > is where the money is).
>
> Wasn't Bouguereau so productive an artist, who said "it costs me 5 frangs to
> pee"?
Yes, Bouguereau is one of the few artists (I mean the classical kind),
who really made it big (he made 2 million by his death). He is also
incredible productive against all logic.
However, realist art is not the way to go if you want easy money. If
you have ever done or try doing a realist painting, you would know how
long it takes and how much blood, sweat and tears you got to put in.
A result like Bouguereaus's is out of reach of most artists... better
do the easy stuff of the "modern" kind.
Nobody can tell if Picasso distorted his model's face because of his
incompetence. (I guess, Pigcasso's logic is to enlarge one eye over
the other so that people think it is done on purpose). On the other
hand, if Bouguerea, distorts the face, that is it. He better burn it
or else it would affect the potential sale of his next painting.
Bob & Dale Ford
John Ng wrote:
> Lauri Levanto wrote:
>
> > I do admire Bouguereau, though he leaves me cold
>
> If too-clever intelligence (ie the critic's definition) is sought
> after, then there is no reason why should it be painting art (not that
> it can't be clever). Leave intelligence to photo-journalism or maybe
> a different branch of art call “Intelligent Art” or
> something (that is why I said art is of two distinct categories).
>
> In my opinion, painting art should be like a flower. A flower doesn't
> say much, just a simple, "Come".
Again too simplistic an argument. As an avid gardener and amateur
botanist, I can tell you that flowers say a hell of alot but just like
art, they have their own language that not all understand.
Pretty, intelligent and good are not interchangeable words. Artists got
over beauty=good about 150 years ago. Let us not go back there.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
John Ng wrote:
Please he hired students to create many pieces of work. It is not difficult. Yes
it is a skill, but it is a skill that can be acquired. Yes it takes time, but that
doesn't mean it is inspired or creative.
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > In my opinion, painting art should be like a flower. A flower
doesn't
> > say much, just a simple, "Come".
>
> Again too simplistic an argument. As an avid gardener and amateur
> botanist, I can tell you that flowers say a hell of alot but just like
> art, they have their own language that not all understand.
>
Really? Do you mean like hydrangeas saying that their soil is acid by
turning blue?
--
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at the outset - is
that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible.."
- Bertrand Russell
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
>
> > > If someone argues that typing on this keyboard (as I am doing now) is
> > > a “sport” as it exercises my fingers, how could I say
> > > otherwise?
> > >
> >
> > That comment I do not understand, please expand.
>
> I am merely trying to point out that if people insist on saying that
> one item is group of something else (like "Typing" is a "Sports"), it
> is very difficult to say otherwise. So art, if you think that
> splatters, squares, and cartoons are Art, then who is able to argue
> otherwise?
>
Yes, <i think that all those your mentioned are art, but only in very few cases
they are fine art.
>
> > > > I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
> > > > artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
> > > > of art.
> > >
> > > It is hard, Art has died the last 100 years. In my opinion, there are
> > > very few real artists because most concentrate on worthless art (that
> > > is where the money is).
> >
> > Wasn't Bouguereau so productive an artist, who said "it costs me 5 frangs to
> > pee"?
>
> Yes, Bouguereau is one of the few artists (I mean the classical kind),
> who really made it big (he made 2 million by his death). He is also
> incredible productive against all logic.
>
> However, realist art is not the way to go if you want easy money. If
> you have ever done or try doing a realist painting, you would know how
> long it takes and how much blood, sweat and tears you got to put in.
> A result like Bouguereaus's is out of reach of most artists... better
> do the easy stuff of the "modern" kind.
>
I do not work in abstract - it is too difficult to me.
Poor abstract art is easier than "elvis on velvet",
which does not mean that the latter is more tolerable to me.
>
> Nobody can tell if Picasso distorted his model's face because of his
> incompetence. (I guess, Pigcasso's logic is to enlarge one eye over
> the other so that people think it is done on purpose). On the other
> hand, if Bouguerea, distorts the face, that is it. He better burn it
> or else it would affect the potential sale of his next painting.
I do not know Warhol (and I do not appreciate him).
I do know that there was a lot of blood, sweat and tears
behind Picasso's work
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
I go further, B. is virtuoso, and as such as entertaining as
any circus act - those are also incredible demanding and virtuoso.
-lauri
John Ng
> Again too simplistic an argument. As an avid gardener and amateur
> botanist, I can tell you that flowers say a hell of alot but just like
> art, they have their own language that not all understand.
> Pretty, intelligent and good are not interchangeable words. Artists got
> over beauty=good about 150 years ago. Let us not go back there.
Maybe it was 100 years not 150 as that is exactly when art died. Yes
if beauty<>good, then that is the end of discussion. We have
ascertained that there are two categories of art:
category 1: art = beauty
category 2: art = novel
Lets call category 1 "Modern Art" and the other "Classic Art". We
have been talking in two different wavelengths.
John Ng
> > splatters, squares, and cartoons are Art, then who is able to argue
> > otherwise?
>
> Yes, <i think that all those your mentioned are art, but only in very few cases
> they are fine art.
I really cannot understand the distinction after all Picasso does some
calligraphic cartoons (calligraphy not as good as the Chinese masters;
cartoons not as good as Walt Disney). Mondrain paints squares. How
come all these are considered fine arts?
> I do not know Warhol (and I do not appreciate him).
> I do know that there was a lot of blood, sweat and tears
> behind Picasso's work
Yes, a lot of blood, sweat and tears... according to him. The
portrait (I think "Gertrude" is its name) took him one year of labour
to complete. Good, because only he can take that long... probably
arthritic fingers… the rest of us would take two leisurely days.
I seriously love painting these things because there is no stress,
every brush stroke is ok.
John Ng
> I go further, B.[Bouguereau] is virtuoso, and as such as entertaining as
> any circus act - those are also incredible demanding and virtuoso.
Well that is an analogy and correct as well. Likewise, those
Hollywood actors and movies are circus acts as well... same with the
Three Tenors, and Picasso and Matisse as well except that the latter
two hasn't any ability... just hot air. I sure won't go to a circus
where the clowns aren't funny and the trapeze keeps falling...
Ng
Edward
No wonder we have so much of poor art that has nothing behind it except
"Come!"
And, by ollowing this great line, we won't have anything save some
pictures of kittens, sweet little dogs, flowers, and unpretentious
stilllifes.
Let's pull off all the meaning and deep background, reason and ideas,
particular vision and thoughts (that artist tries to depict and deliver
to public)... but leave swee-e-e-e-t pictures hardly any better
sentimental postcards of 50-70-ties.
Ed.
mani deli
> > A result like Bouguereaus's is out of reach of most artists... better
> > do the easy stuff of the "modern" kind.
>
> Please he hired students to create many pieces of work. It is not difficult. Yes
> it is a skill, but it is a skill that can be acquired. Yes it takes time, but that
> doesn't mean it is inspired or creative.
> Dale
>
realism Dale hire some students and see how far you get. On the other
hand the fact is that many great artists had assistance and workshops
from Rubens to Disney and long before. Primarily, what counts is
what's on the wall, not how it was done, or whether the artist was
constipated at the time etc.
> >
> > Nobody can tell if Picasso distorted his model's face because of his incompetence.
Picasso didn't distort! His results are flat as a board. Distortion in
painting maintains the form. Most all artists distort to some degree.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
John Ng
> Please he hired students to create many pieces of work. It is not difficult. Yes
> it is a skill, but it is a skill that can be acquired. Yes it takes time, but that
> doesn't mean it is inspired or creative.
True, skill <> art... but what how do you measure inspiration or
creativity? Many of Titian's supposedly pieces are done partially if
not wholly by students as well. Many of his pieces are not unlike
Bouguereau’s minus the perfection.
Also, does inspiration and creativity mean NEW! In that case, take
away almost all the great masters spanning from Raphael to Van Dyck,
to Grueze to Jacues-Louis David to almost every one… leave
Picasso, because he came up with Cubism which is wholly new and never
done before… leave Matisse who came of with cartoons because it
has never been done before (probably because the great masters would
be too embarrassed; imagine Leonardo taking his sketches and passing
if off as finished pieces to the Medici)
By the way, have you really looked at Bouguereau, in-between his nudes
which is probably the only ones that Bouguereau detractors saw.
Have you seen “Souls Brought to Heaven” which is really a
moving piece about death and after life.
Have you seen “The Shepherdess, 1873” and see how lovingly
the shepherdess carried the lamb while the human personified ewe
looked on with concern?
John
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>
> > Please he hired students to create many pieces of work. It is not
difficult. Yes
> > it is a skill, but it is a skill that can be acquired. Yes it takes
time, but that
> > doesn't mean it is inspired or creative.
>
>
> True, skill <> art... but what how do you measure inspiration or
> creativity? Many of Titian's supposedly pieces are done partially if
> not wholly by students as well. Many of his pieces are not unlike
> Bouguereau’s minus the perfection.
>
done by the foundry. I don't see that it makes it any less their
sculpture, though.
--
'Say "pounds", :"sovereigns", "Bradburies" - almost
anything you choose,' said Raisley, 'but not "quid", Let us not have
proletarian usage.'
Simon Raven 'In the image of god'