E. H. Gombrich, anyone?
Iian Neill
Interest". Now, I am sure you've all at least *heard* of Gombrich, so I thought
that the newsgroup might benefit from some of the questions he answers in this
text.
Question: "The history of Western painting consists of trial and error, or
'making and matching'?"
Gombrich: "A number of critics misunderstood this, and thought that because I
say that we can never imitate what we see, I also say that everything is
relative, that is to say that Egyptian art is just as correct as a modern
realistic painting. This I do not believe. The two images affect us very
differently. Think of an expressive face or an erotic nude. The more it becomes
like the real thing the greater the psychological effect. And how was that
resemblance achieved? You had to learn!"
Q: "Do you like him [Kokoschka] as a painter?"
G: "At his best, he is wonderful, but like so many modern artists he was not
very self-critical. He thought: If I do it, it must be good. That is this false
theory of art, the theory of self-expression. He was immensely talented and some
of his landscapes are wonderful. But he could also be rather careless because he
believed in spontaneity. I do not believe at all in spontaneity."
Q: "Do you take an interest in modern art?"
G: "Of course I do! ... I should like to make a distinction of some importance
between the ideology of modern art and the works of modern art. I am very
critical of the ideology of modern art, that is, of the cult of progress and of
the avant garde which I have frequently analysed ... I agree with Popper that
this ideology is intellectually bankrupt and that it has sometimes done harm to
art."
Comments? Criticisms?
Regards,
Iian Neill.
bt
> Some months ago I perused a book by the name of "E. H. Gombrich - A Lifelong
> Interest".
> Comments? Criticisms?
After looking at Gombrich--"Art and Illusion" is his best known
theoretical work--you might want to read "Vision and Painting" by Norman
Bryson (Yale U. Press, 1983). Current students might find it useful to
read it in consultation with a faculty member, if you have that option.
(Bryson is not an "obscurantist," by any means--he writes clearly, but the
book is aimed at art historians, so it might be helpful to have someone on
hand who can elucidate some of the background of the terms and ideas he
invokes.)
Bryson critiques the view which Gombrich (and, perhaps, Iian) holds: that
art (specifically painting) is based on perception. Bryson argues that
this is a fundamental error; any full account must address art as an
interplay of socially produced signs. After proposing his theory of art
as signs (as opposed to percepts), he discusses the advantages and
problems with existing structuralist and formalist methodologies, and
elaborates on the fundamentally different role that this perspective
assigns to the viewer--as an interpreter of meanings.
It isn't the easiest reading, but I think that Bryson's book would prove
illuminating to anyone who is serious about understanding
"post-structuralist" approaches to art, particularly to the history of
European painting.
mark webber
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> Question: "The history of Western painting consists of trial and error, or
> 'making and matching'?"
> Gombrich: "A number of critics misunderstood this, and thought that because I
> say that we can never imitate what we see, I also say that everything is
> relative, that is to say that Egyptian art is just as correct as a modern
> realistic painting. This I do not believe. The two images affect us very
> differently. Think of an expressive face or an erotic nude. The more it becomes
> like the real thing the greater the psychological effect. And how was that
> resemblance achieved? You had to learn!"
I agree with this. I think it might be worth noting that he isn't making a
qualitative distinction by saying there is greater psychological effect,
because he doesn't feel that effect is the *only* goal or worthwhile end
product.
> Q: "Do you like him [Kokoschka] as a painter?"
> G: "At his best, he is wonderful, but like so many modern artists he was not
> very self-critical. He thought: If I do it, it must be good. That is this false
> theory of art, the theory of self-expression. He was immensely talented and some
> of his landscapes are wonderful. But he could also be rather careless because he
> believed in spontaneity. I do not believe at all in spontaneity."
I get the sense Gombrich likes Kokoschka more than I do. I agree that
he doesn't seem very critical of his work - personal opinion, of course.
I'm also less impressed with expressionism as a movement. I think "failed
theory of art" might be too strong - but, maybe not....
>
> Q: "Do you take an interest in modern art?"
> G: "Of course I do! ... I should like to make a distinction of some importance
> between the ideology of modern art and the works of modern art. I am very
> critical of the ideology of modern art, that is, of the cult of progress and of
> the avant garde which I have frequently analysed ... I agree with Popper that
> this ideology is intellectually bankrupt and that it has sometimes done harm to
> art."
I agree with Popper as well, and I think seeing Modernism as a succession
of reductions is an error. The notion of movements has become more
important than that of individuals and I think that's a mistake.
I don't see cubism as a valid "movement" - I see it as the voice of
Picasso and Braque, which was utilised with only a little less fluency by
two of their followers, Leger and Gris. The others, Metzinger and Gleizes
for example - to me they are hacks on a bandwagon. They weren't good
painters, so using someone else's "style" didn't help them. My opinion of
course.
But the "railroad to flatness" as its been called, and the subsequent
reductionism is, to my mind, not a profound way of looking at things and I
think Greenberg was a huge diletante.
OK, I'm dangling now.
Fire at will.
Mark
mdeli
snip
Quoting Gombrich
>Q: "Do you like him [Kokoschka] as a painter?"
>G: "At his best, he is wonderful, but like so many modern artists he was not
>very self-critical. He thought: If I do it, it must be good. That is this false
>theory of art, the theory of self-expression. He was immensely talented and some
>of his landscapes are wonderful. But he could also be rather careless because he
>believed in spontaneity. I do not believe at all in spontaneity."
K. even at his best is ordinary Modern Academic no-skill realism.
Every country has about 25 local Kokoschka who nobody beyond its
borders has ever heard of.
>Q: "Do you take an interest in modern art?"
>G: "Of course I do! ... I should like to make a distinction of some importance
>between the ideology of modern art and the works of modern art. I am very
>critical of the ideology of modern art, that is, of the cult of progress and of
>the avant garde which I have frequently analysed ... I agree with Popper that
>this ideology is intellectually bankrupt and that it has sometimes done harm to
>art."
>
> Comments? Criticisms?
Gombrich was better educated than most critics. His "art and
Illusion" makes some good points, but his understanding of technique
is somewhat stunted. His explanations are a bit inflated and his
theories except where he states the obvious are as passe' as most art
theories. I guess everyone who writes on art has to concoct theories
no matter how silly, in order to gain any academic respect. What I
like about the book are the illustrations because they show a range of
very different work and methods not usually seen by those who see
little more than modernism.
His story of Art is another matter. Once a standard text it is now
mostly replaced by others that say just about the same thing. His view
of 19th century painting is the usual standard mythology. No real
mention of 19th century academic art which allows the reader to
compare.
His writing about the modern stuff does convey an element of doubt.
However he seems to branch off in the conventional way of the early
1930's German historians. Namely that the root of art history
continues with Delacroix thru Manet, Courbet, impressionism etc, He
does mention Feininger, Grant Wood and Dali (unlike later books,
although he disapproves of his motives), At least he attempts to
write clearly even if it is a bit long winded. Perhaps it is that very
clarity which puts him behind the fashion.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Iian Neill
> | say that we can never imitate what we see, I also say that everything is
> | relative, that is to say that Egyptian art is just as correct as a modern
> | realistic painting. This I do not believe. The two images affect us very
> | differently. Think of an expressive face or an erotic nude. The more it becomes
> | like the real thing the greater the psychological effect. And how was that
> | resemblance achieved? You had to learn!"
>
> nudes, and assuming that mass-produced pornographic
> magazines are interested in affecting their customers as
> strongly as possible, we find that a great deal of posing,
> lighting, filtering, and airbrushing is applied to the
> photography apparently to stylize it.
This is an interesting observation and highlights the dangers in brief definitions of
art. Obviously more than accurate rendering is needed to make something a work of
art; what that "something" is has been touched upon in previous posts, particularly
with comments concerning "symphonic relationships", "distribution of mass, colour and
light", etc., all of which are fairly vague, but cannot help be in regard to the
enormous task of trying to account for all art, good and bad.
> Another very large body of evidence which contradicts
> Gombrich's theory is contemporary advertising art.
> According to Gombrich, every ad should be as realistic as
> possible, but the fact is, some are and many are not.
I am not sure whether Gombrich denies the power (and use) of stylization. If he did
so, he would be foolish, because stylization is present in almost all art (so far as
I am aware). Even such painters as Constable, who claimed that they were representing
Nature truly - ie., unstylized - have an easily recognisable style themselves.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Iian Neill
> theoretical work--you might want to read "Vision and Painting" by Norman
> Bryson (Yale U. Press, 1983). Current students might find it useful to
> read it in consultation with a faculty member, if you have that option.
> (Bryson is not an "obscurantist," by any means--he writes clearly, but the
> book is aimed at art historians, so it might be helpful to have someone on
> hand who can elucidate some of the background of the terms and ideas he
> invokes.)
[...]
Thank you for the book referrences, BT. I will pursue them at my local library.
The issues apparently raised in them seem most interesting.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Sun, 30 Aug 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
(snip)
>
> I am not sure whether Gombrich denies the power (and use) of stylization. If he did
> so, he would be foolish, because stylization is present in almost all art (so far as
> I am aware). Even such painters as Constable, who claimed that they were representing
> Nature truly - ie., unstylized - have an easily recognisable style themselves.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
Iian,
Only trying to help here, and just in case the distinction hasn't been
made clear to you, stylization is not the same thing as the presence of
style.
Stylization is the sort of formulaic approach to representation that we
see in Archaic Greek art, Byzantine art, etc. In other words, someone like
Duccio, aside from having a style, paints in a stylized way. An Egyptian
mural is stylized.
A portrait by Corot, a landscape by Ruisdael, a still life by Chardin -
these things can be quickly identified by the style of the painter, but
they are not considered stylized.
Hope this helps.
Mark
mark webber
On 30 Aug 1998, G*rd*n wrote:
> | >I don't see cubism as a valid "movement" - I see it as the voice of
> | >Picasso and Braque, which was utilised with only a little less fluency by
> | >two of their followers, Leger and Gris. The others, Metzinger and Gleizes
> | >for example - to me they are hacks on a bandwagon. They weren't good
> | >painters, so using someone else's "style" didn't help them. My opinion of
> | >course.
(snip irrelevance)
>
> Braque's stuff is nice, if you like a sort of quiet,
> balanced classicism. Too bad you can't dig it, but
> all of us have our blind spots.
>
I'm not sure which of us you are replying to, but I agree with you about
Braque - that's really a nice, brief description. I actually prefer his
color to Picasso's, too.
Mark
Iian Neill
> > so, he would be foolish, because stylization is present in almost all art (so far as
> > I am aware). Even such painters as Constable, who claimed that they were representing
> > Nature truly - ie., unstylized - have an easily recognisable style themselves.
>
>
> Only trying to help here, and just in case the distinction hasn't been
> made clear to you, stylization is not the same thing as the presence of
> style.
[...]
Thank you for the information, Mark. Point taken.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
>
>
> Stylization is the sort of formulaic approach to representation that we
> see in Archaic Greek art, Byzantine art, etc. In other words, someone like
> Duccio, aside from having a style, paints in a stylized way. An Egyptian
> mural is stylized.
>
> A portrait by Corot, a landscape by Ruisdael, a still life by Chardin -
> these things can be quickly identified by the style of the painter, but
> they are not considered stylized.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Mark
--
________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
"Purchase not friends by gifts; when thou ceasest to
give, such will cease to love."
-- Thomas Fuller (1608-1661)
mark webber
On Mon, 31 Aug 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
>
> Thank you for the information, Mark. Point taken.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
My pleasure, and thank you for the Gombrich stuff to chew on. I think
these are a good method of tweaking our thinking, and I'd like to see more
of them. I misplaced my Gombrich along time ago - in the ice age I think.
sincerely,
Mark
mark webber
On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, bt wrote:
(snip intro)
> Bryson critiques the view which Gombrich (and, perhaps, Iian) holds: that
> art (specifically painting) is based on perception. Bryson argues that
> this is a fundamental error; any full account must address art as an
> interplay of socially produced signs.
If I may, I'd like to have this clarified. (I am going to look for this
book, but before the thread dies I'd like to get some basic info)
When we make the distinction between perception and signs, do we mean
perception as in looking at the external subject itself during the act of
painting (as in Cezanne); looking at the object made without reference to
an external object (as in Pollock) or both?
> After proposing his theory of art
> as signs (as opposed to percepts), he discusses the advantages and
> problems with existing structuralist and formalist methodologies, and
> elaborates on the fundamentally different role that this perspective
> assigns to the viewer--as an interpreter of meanings.
Thanks, again, Bt for another intriguing post on this type of esthetics.
I'll be curious to see if Bryson feels the percept orientation is in error
for any other reasons. Depending on the definition of the distinctions
above, that is.
I'm thinking that a perception based approach needn't be formalist, and a
sign-oriented approach would seem to count "how" the thing is made
irrelevant. Am I mistaken?
regards,
Mark
G*rd*n
| > | >Picasso and Braque, which was utilised with only a little less fluency by
| > | >two of their followers, Leger and Gris. The others, Metzinger and Gleizes
| > | >for example - to me they are hacks on a bandwagon. They weren't good
| > | >painters, so using someone else's "style" didn't help them. My opinion of
| > | >course.
G*rd*n wrote:
| > Braque's stuff is nice, if you like a sort of quiet,
| > balanced classicism. Too bad you can't dig it, but
| > all of us have our blind spots.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>:
| I'm not sure which of us you are replying to, but I agree with you about
| Braque - that's really a nice, brief description. I actually prefer his
| color to Picasso's, too.
I was mostly responding to mdeli's remarks. Picasso, I
believe, lifted pretty directly from Braque, but warped his
lifts so they made fun of Braque -- Picasso's Braquasms are
slightly skewed, slightly uneasy. There's a lot of that
sort of thing in Picasso, I think -- I think he liked
putting down his audience and his fellow artists -- and
mdeli ought to enjoy his work, which is so like mdeli's
writing in spirit, although just a little bit sharper in
technique.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 8/30 } <-adv't
bt
> On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, bt wrote:
>
> (snip intro)
>
> > Bryson critiques the view which Gombrich (and, perhaps, Iian) holds: that
> > art (specifically painting) is based on perception. Bryson argues that
> > this is a fundamental error; any full account must address art as an
> > interplay of socially produced signs.
>
> If I may, I'd like to have this clarified. (I am going to look for this
> book, but before the thread dies I'd like to get some basic info)
>
> When we make the distinction between perception and signs, do we mean
> perception as in looking at the external subject itself during the act of
> painting (as in Cezanne); looking at the object made without reference to
> an external object (as in Pollock) or both?
First of all, sorry for the delay in replying--busy week.
As I understand it, Bryson means by "Perceptualism" the idea that
painting is an attempt to transcribe with the greatest fidelity possible
an image that exists in its true, complete, form prior to the act of
painting. He gives an account of an ancient view (still much in evidence
in this newsgroup) that he calls "the Natural Attitude," starting with the
story of Zeuxis and his famous grapes so real that birds pecked at them,
and Parrhasius, whose painting of a curtain was so lifelike that it
deceived Zeuxis. Nature is the mistress, as Iian said here: the artist is
a retina attached to a hand that more-or-less sensitively transcribes that
masterful reality that presents itself to his or her optical senses. It's
art history as progress toward "the essential copy": Zeuxis surpassed his
predecessor Appolodorus; Giotto outstripped Cimabue, and so forth, on
grounds of greater fidelity to the world "out there." The viewer is (and
future generations always will be) able to recognize the superior copy
largely because of biology: optical truth provides them a share in
universal (i.e., transhistorical) visual experience. ("Unreal" objects
that are represented are accounted for as either composites of observed
forms or as forms that are perceived internally by the artist--"a
vision." The key idea, I think, is that the complete image pre-exists
(in consciousness) its transcription as a painting.) "Style," in this
account, is basically interference--either incompetence (where have we
heard that before?), or the by-product of inherited formulas, or an
inability to suppress subjective ticks.
As an historian, Bryson is especially concerned with the way in which this
account of art as an attempt to represent eternal optical truth
effectively brackets history out: history becomes the story of
superficially changing fashions--choices of subject matter, changes in
clothing or haircuts-- within a fundamentally unchanging reality. Bryson
insists that reality is substantially constructed by culture--the relation
of viewer to painting is very different according to the
historical-cultural context--and that, accordingly, this "Perceptualist"
model of art is fundamentally wrong-headed. (I'm oversimplyfying
this--take a look at the book if you want to understand the subtleties of
his argument. Maybe there's an art historian or someone else with a
background in stuff this lurking here who would like to correct or augment
my account.)
Bryson characterizes Gombrich as making a contribution to understanding
with his "making and matching" idea (spelled out in "Art and Illusion"):
culturally inherited "schema" are inserted between the artist's eye and
hand. But Gombrich is ultimately presenting a more sophisticated variant
of the perceptualist model (again, I direct you to Bryson's book for his
reasoning).
I don't remember how Gombrich deals with Cezanne: it's possible that he
fits him into the "making and matching" narrative: Cezanne looks at the
mountain and struggles to break through the limitations of inherited
models ("schema") to convey more truthfully the structures and effects of
light that the senses "really" perceive.
Gombrich has trouble accounting for Pollock--he renders "action paintings"
representational by talking about how they lead to the aestheticisation of
such things as a tangle of wires. This strikes me as a rather
impoverished view, as does suggest the need for an approach that
acknowledges, to quote Bryson, "the constitutive role of the social
formation in producing the codes of recognition which the image
activates."
>
> I'm thinking that a perception based approach needn't be formalist, and a
> sign-oriented approach would seem to count "how" the thing is made
> irrelevant. Am I mistaken?
Bryson makes an effort to include the how of painting--if by "how" you
mean the technical practices and the recalcitrance of paint. He considers
the limitations of various alternative models of how meaning operates,
including formalisms of a couple of kinds: he draws a distinction between
the purely self-referential semiotic idea (that signs only refer to other
signs) and insists that visual representation does have a meaningful
relationship to things outside the sign-system (i.e., our bodies).
If, "how" means the entire social organization that facilitates the
production of cultural objects--political and economic relationships--
this is crucial to what Bryson proposes.
mark webber
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 29 Aug 1998, bt wrote:
> >
> > (snip intro)
> >
> > > Bryson critiques the view which Gombrich (and, perhaps, Iian) holds: that
> > > art (specifically painting) is based on perception. Bryson argues that
> > > this is a fundamental error; any full account must address art as an
> > > interplay of socially produced signs.
> >
> > If I may, I'd like to have this clarified. (I am going to look for this
> > book, but before the thread dies I'd like to get some basic info)
> >
> > When we make the distinction between perception and signs, do we mean
> > perception as in looking at the external subject itself during the act of
> > painting (as in Cezanne); looking at the object made without reference to
> > an external object (as in Pollock) or both?
>
> First of all, sorry for the delay in replying--busy week.
Not at all, delighted to hear from you.
> As I understand it, Bryson means by "Perceptualism" the idea that
> painting is an attempt to transcribe with the greatest fidelity possible
> an image that exists in its true, complete, form prior to the act of
> painting. He gives an account of an ancient view (still much in evidence
> in this newsgroup) that he calls "the Natural Attitude," starting with the
> story of Zeuxis and his famous grapes so real that birds pecked at them,
> and Parrhasius, whose painting of a curtain was so lifelike that it
> deceived Zeuxis. Nature is the mistress, as Iian said here: the artist is
> a retina attached to a hand that more-or-less sensitively transcribes that
> masterful reality that presents itself to his or her optical senses. It's
> art history as progress toward "the essential copy": Zeuxis surpassed his
> predecessor Appolodorus; Giotto outstripped Cimabue, and so forth, on
> grounds of greater fidelity to the world "out there."
Ok, this is really very interesting to me, and I appreciate (once again)
your taking the time to summarize.
I'm a bit surprised, however, to see this "perceptualism" argument so
clearly made without acknowleging the formalist element in the works
cited. (I'm not sure whether these are your examples or Bryson's, but my
guess is that if they are yours, they are informed pretty well by Bryson's
material.)
My point is that while we have the Zeuxis story, we also have the
red-figure vases, which are clearly more about rhythm and formal ideas
than they are about representation. Among the ancient examples of murals
is that astonishing fresco in the Mystery Villa, which, for all purposes
should be some static, archaic cult illustration, but it isn't. It isn't a
representation oriented painting either - its a very dynamic arrangement
of shapes and colors, wonderfully considered shapes and colors.
And when we speak of Giotto outstripping Cimmabue, it isn't as much an
increase in reality that he gives us, as an increase in pictorial, visual
dynamics. I mean, that really seems to be the issue for Giotto - make the
thing move, make it alive - not neccessarily with more realism but better
design.
So if we look at the painting of figures or grapes as an excercise in
illusion-making, then I think Bryson's characterization isn't off the
mark. But that excercise hasn't been the goal for the masters. They've
been more interested in how to arrange the shapes than how to render them.
> The viewer is (and
> future generations always will be) able to recognize the superior copy
> largely because of biology: optical truth provides them a share in
> universal (i.e., transhistorical) visual experience. ("Unreal" objects
> that are represented are accounted for as either composites of observed
> forms or as forms that are perceived internally by the artist--"a
> vision." The key idea, I think, is that the complete image pre-exists
> (in consciousness) its transcription as a painting.)
Please note that I don't misunderstand this to neccessarily be your point
of view, but this thinking doesn't even make room for a realist like
Caravaggio, who wasn't any more sure of what the image would look like
than Dekooning was. I'm thinking of the many revisions made to the work in
progress.
Before this gets more confusing, I'll add that I wrote the post feeling
that if Bryson is seeing representational art as perceptually oriented as
defined above, and not as formally oriented, he might be missing enough
information to be putting forth a misdirected theory.
> "Style," in this
> account, is basically interference--either incompetence (where have we
> heard that before?), or the by-product of inherited formulas, or an
> inability to suppress subjective ticks.
>
> As an historian, Bryson is especially concerned with the way in which this
> account of art as an attempt to represent eternal optical truth
> effectively brackets history out: history becomes the story of
> superficially changing fashions--choices of subject matter, changes in
> clothing or haircuts-- within a fundamentally unchanging reality. Bryson
> insists that reality is substantially constructed by culture--the relation
> of viewer to painting is very different according to the
> historical-cultural context--and that, accordingly, this "Perceptualist"
> model of art is fundamentally wrong-headed. (I'm oversimplyfying
> this--take a look at the book if you want to understand the subtleties of
> his argument. Maybe there's an art historian or someone else with a
> background in stuff this lurking here who would like to correct or augment
> my account.)
>
I am going to try to find it.
> Bryson characterizes Gombrich as making a contribution to understanding
> with his "making and matching" idea (spelled out in "Art and Illusion"):
> culturally inherited "schema" are inserted between the artist's eye and
> hand. But Gombrich is ultimately presenting a more sophisticated variant
> of the perceptualist model (again, I direct you to Bryson's book for his
> reasoning).
>
> I don't remember how Gombrich deals with Cezanne: it's possible that he
> fits him into the "making and matching" narrative: Cezanne looks at the
> mountain and struggles to break through the limitations of inherited
> models ("schema") to convey more truthfully the structures and effects of
> light that the senses "really" perceive.
>
> Gombrich has trouble accounting for Pollock--he renders "action paintings"
> representational by talking about how they lead to the aestheticisation of
> such things as a tangle of wires. This strikes me as a rather
> impoverished view, as does suggest the need for an approach that
> acknowledges, to quote Bryson, "the constitutive role of the social
> formation in producing the codes of recognition which the image
> activates."
> >
Well I agree that to see Pollock as a renderer of tangles is on the dim
side of esthetics. But it does support my suspicion that Bryson is either
ignoring, or ignorant of, the forming point of view.
> > I'm thinking that a perception based approach needn't be formalist, and a
> > sign-oriented approach would seem to count "how" the thing is made
> > irrelevant. Am I mistaken?
>
> Bryson makes an effort to include the how of painting--if by "how" you
> mean the technical practices and the recalcitrance of paint.
No, that really isn't what I mean. By "how" I mean, "how the shapes are
arranged and how the colors interact" - not as illustration but as visual
play.
> He considers
> the limitations of various alternative models of how meaning operates,
> including formalisms of a couple of kinds: he draws a distinction between
> the purely self-referential semiotic idea (that signs only refer to other
> signs) and insists that visual representation does have a meaningful
> relationship to things outside the sign-system (i.e., our bodies).
Interesting. I really will try to find it. Even the notion of more than
one type of formalism is very intriguing.
>
> If, "how" means the entire social organization that facilitates the
> production of cultural objects--political and economic relationships--
> this is crucial to what Bryson proposes.
No, not that either, not for me. I mean I certainly see that these are
elements that shape the work, but I have little control over that. No, I'm
speaking of sensibility, visual judgement. That is the part I can control.
I can ask myself "now what happens if that red is less luminous?" or "how
can a make that plane create a more interesting pressure?" "Do I need to
get rid of all that green?" "How do I get the contrast to increase here?"
These aren't always the questions of a renderer, a perceptualist.
As always, bt, a really interesting conversation, to me, thanks,
Mark
bt
Again, I suggest that you look at the two books (Gombrich and Bryson) in
question (both are in print in paperback, though "Art and Illusion" is
fairly expensive): they are densely written, and I've given the ideas of
both short-shrift here. It would take quite a while to do them justice,
if I'm even capable: this stuff isn't my long suit. (I'll try to find
time to respond to the return of your criteria/David Salle question within
the next day or two, which is closer to my "beat".)
"I'm speaking of sensibility, visual judgement. That is the part I can control.
I can ask myself "now what happens if that red is less luminous?" or "how
can a make that plane create a more interesting pressure?" "Do I need to
get rid of all that green?" "How do I get the contrast to increase here?""
Do bear in mind that both books are explicitly constructing theories of
art HISTORY, so neither is likely to directly address this sort of
problem.
BT
mark webber
On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply, Mark.
>
> Again, I suggest that you look at the two books (Gombrich and Bryson) in
> question (both are in print in paperback, though "Art and Illusion" is
> fairly expensive): they are densely written, and I've given the ideas of
> both short-shrift here. It would take quite a while to do them justice,
> if I'm even capable: this stuff isn't my long suit. (I'll try to find
> time to respond to the return of your criteria/David Salle question within
> the next day or two, which is closer to my "beat".)
>
> "I'm speaking of sensibility, visual judgement. That is the part I can control.
>
> I can ask myself "now what happens if that red is less luminous?" or "how
> can a make that plane create a more interesting pressure?" "Do I need to
> get rid of all that green?" "How do I get the contrast to increase here?""
>
> Do bear in mind that both books are explicitly constructing theories of
> art HISTORY, so neither is likely to directly address this sort of
> problem.
>
> BT
Unfortunately, I know what you mean. Here's the next question though:
Whenever I look at an art history text, I see the same artists
represented. The chapter on the Italian Renaissance always has at least
one "Madonna and Child" by Raphael.
If it is only history, and not esthetics, that the author is dealing with,
why don't we see more Madonnas by, say, Il Sodoma? His style and technical
ability are nearly the same.
Art historians continually (and rightly, I think) present us with the
greatest works of art to illustrate their timelines, but they don't have
an obligation to explain why some other piece, which represents the same
culture equally well, isn't used.
Could this have something to with the appearance of an attitude that
states that quality in art is a biased, patriarchal pseudo-structure?
(even though few of the same folks would deny this restaurant is better
than that, or this movie better than that.)
Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
thanks again,
Mark
bt
> Here's the next question though:
> Whenever I look at an art history text, I see the same artists
> represented. [...] they don't have
> an obligation to explain why some other piece, which represents the same
> culture equally well, isn't used.
>
Seems to me that, while the "usual suspects" generally show up over and
over in brief art historical surveys, art historians are compelled to
specialize, and many relatively unsung artists and movements--as well as
relatively obscure works by well-known artists--are the subjects of books
and dissertations which argue for their importance. (Are there no art
historians who read this newsgroup? If you're out there, your
participation would enrich the discussion here, says me.)
> Could this have something to with the appearance of an attitude that
> states that quality in art is a biased, patriarchal pseudo-structure?
> (even though few of the same folks would deny this restaurant is better
> than that, or this movie better than that.)
I'm not sure I follow your "appearance of an attitude" theory. Certainly
the fact that the standard art history textbook into the 1970's -the
original editions of Janson's "History of Art"-- contained ZERO women
artists might support charges of a biased patriachial view, wouldn't you
say?
>
> Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
> encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
> beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
I vaguely remember reading, in that Smith and Naifeh (sp?) biography, that
Pollock created his gestural skeins by figuratively drawing with paint
above the surface of the canvas. Is that what you mean?
mark webber
On Sat, 12 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> > Here's the next question though:
> > Whenever I look at an art history text, I see the same artists
> > represented. [...] they don't have
> > an obligation to explain why some other piece, which represents the same
> > culture equally well, isn't used.
> >
> Seems to me that, while the "usual suspects" generally show up over and
> over in brief art historical surveys, art historians are compelled to
> specialize, and many relatively unsung artists and movements--as well as
> relatively obscure works by well-known artists--are the subjects of books
> and dissertations which argue for their importance.
I don't disagree with that, nevertheless, most people are introduced to
the history of art, and esthetics, through one of the surveys. In general,
most people who are studying art are being given explanations for the
importance of one example based on how it *differs* from another.
Such as: "Pointilism is important because it is a style in which the color
is mixed optically instead of on the palette, by the viewer, not the
artist. Here is an example by Seurat."
Now that doesn't say why Seurat is the pointilist we always begin with, or
why he's the best of them. The reason Seurat is a great painter is because
of the shapes he made and the general composition of shape and color he
arrived at.
We might do better to point out, in the survey, that Seurat had this in
common with, say, Raphael, and compare the sublime linear movements of the
two; the idealized shape-making, the measured spaces... but that would be
esthetics and that isn't the business of an art historian.
> (Are there no art
> historians who read this newsgroup? If you're out there, your
> participation would enrich the discussion here, says me.)
Says me too! Step forward, be heard!
>
> > Could this have something to with the appearance of an attitude that
> > states that quality in art is a biased, patriarchal pseudo-structure?
> > (even though few of the same folks would deny this restaurant is better
> > than that, or this movie better than that.)
>
> I'm not sure I follow your "appearance of an attitude" theory.
I'm thinking of the "Quality in Art" debate that I've read has been taking
place on callege campuses.
> Certainly
> the fact that the standard art history textbook into the 1970's -the
> original editions of Janson's "History of Art"-- contained ZERO women
> artists might support charges of a biased patriachial view, wouldn't you
> say?
I would say that the biased, patriarchal view was taking place in and
during the cultures that don't produce great woman artists. I don't deny
that they didn't have equal opportunity to emerge. I am also not saying
there haven't been any great women artists. Certainly, plenty have emerged
since 1970.
But if they didn't emerge during some periods, I doubt anyone benefits
from ignoring the great artists, regardless of gender, to refocus on
lesser artists, regardless of gender.
Praising Artemisia Gentilishi at the expense of the artist from whom she
borrowed her art, Caravaggio, doesn't serve the women artists of today
because Gentilishi is the inferior artist. That *could* be seen as a
lowering of standards.
> >
> > Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
> > encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
> > beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
>
> I vaguely remember reading, in that Smith and Naifeh (sp?) biography, that
> Pollock created his gestural skeins by figuratively drawing with paint
> above the surface of the canvas. Is that what you mean?
>
I'm refering to (recent?) computer analysis which reveals underlying
figures.
Good chatting with you,
Mark
mdeli
snip
>Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
>encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
>beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
Yes indeed Webber!!!
I definitely noticed two very large blue ass holes in a Pollock.
Anyone can obviously see these if he squints hard enough and squeezes
his imagination.
In fact I'm sure anyone with your vast sensitivity and scholarly
superiority could even see the figures that these anatomical parts
were attached to. I have to admit I tried, but an insensitive clod
like me could get no deeper.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
bt
> > > Could this have something to with the appearance of an attitude that
> > > states that quality in art is a biased, patriarchal pseudo-structure?
> > > (even though few of the same folks would deny this restaurant is better
> > > than that, or this movie better than that.)
Bt replied:
>
> > Certainly
> > the fact that the standard art history textbook into the 1970's -the
> > original editions of Janson's "History of Art"-- contained ZERO women
> > artists might support charges of a biased patriachial view, wouldn't you
> > say?
To Which Mark replied:
> I would say that the biased, patriarchal view was taking place in and
> during the cultures that don't produce great woman artists. I don't deny
> that they didn't have equal opportunity to emerge. I am also not saying
> there haven't been any great women artists. Certainly, plenty have emerged
> since 1970.
>
> But if they didn't emerge during some periods, I doubt anyone benefits
> from ignoring the great artists, regardless of gender, to refocus on
> lesser artists, regardless of gender.
>
> Praising Artemisia Gentilishi at the expense of the artist from whom she
> borrowed her art, Caravaggio, doesn't serve the women artists of today
> because Gentilishi is the inferior artist. That *could* be seen as a
> lowering of standards.
No doubt that "the biased, patriarchal view was taking place in and
during the cultures," including in and during the composition of art
history texts. In this example, you seem to imagine that the history text
is providing a transparent (i.e., unbiased) window onto reality, and any
challenge to it represents a distortion or corruption-"a lowering of
standards."
I don't see why including Gentilishi in the discussion threatens the
stature of Carravagio. Of course it is silly to revise history in a way
that pretends that the most influential works were not the most
influential--eliminating, say, Giotto and Rembrandt from the curriculum
because they're just more white men--but for the most part this is a
"straw man" argument: a fantasy of reactionaries. Very few historians,
artists, or thinkers of any stripe would ultimately argue in favor of
that, even if they do want to find room for books and college courses
("The Art of revolutionary lesbians of Latin America," and such) that
considers history from the point of view of the social margins rather than
the traditional regime.
I especially don't see how one can defend the exclusion from Jansen of
female artists of the early twentieth century of the stature of Hannah
Höch.
mark webber
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
No not really - I accept the fact that Janson or any other survey author
is unable to give us an unbiased view.. But I don't accept that that is
automaticly due to sexism on his part.
If Janson is unable to find three women painting in Venice in 1550 with
the greatness of Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto, that isn't a problem
in Janson or his text. That is a problem in 16th century Venice.
And my personal view is that to ignor those guys, for whatever end, is
detrimental to artists and students of both genders.
>
> I don't see why including Gentilishi in the discussion threatens the
> stature of Carravagio.
If I implied that, I didn't mean to - I only mean incuding Gentilishi
instead of caravaggio. That is what I meant by "at the expense of."
> Of course it is silly to revise history in a way
> that pretends that the most influential works were not the most
> influential--eliminating, say, Giotto and Rembrandt from the curriculum
> because they're just more white men--but for the most part this is a
> "straw man" argument: a fantasy of reactionaries. Very few historians,
> artists, or thinkers of any stripe would ultimately argue in favor of
> that, even if they do want to find room for books and college courses
> ("The Art of revolutionary lesbians of Latin America," and such) that
> considers history from the point of view of the social margins rather than
> the traditional regime.
You may be wrong there - I know some thinkers of that stripe. And that is
the point of the "Quality debate" for them. Since it isn't yours,
naturally I don't expect you to reply for them.
But I have heard it argued that just those guys, Giotto and Rembrandt, are
only important from a patriarchal point of view. Baffled me.
>
> I especially don't see how one can defend the exclusion from Jansen of
> female artists of the early twentieth century of the stature of Hannah
> Höch.
I'm in equal dismay that the following painters are excluded: Louisa
Mattiesdottir, Leland Bell, Robert deNiro, David L. Smith, and our old
friend, Gabriel Laderman, among others.
Not everyone is, or must, work against the background of conceptualism.
sincerely,
Mark
bt
> Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto [...] to ignore those guys, for whatever
end, is
> detrimental to artists and students of both genders.
If it comes to a choice between ignoring the recent past and the distant
past, what do you think? My own formal art education basically did ignore
those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s). One
historian started with David, others began with Manet or with the
invention of photography. Overwhelmingly, the readings and discussions
were situated in the debates of the twentieth century, with a clear
emphasis on understanding the present situation. Whatever its defects,
this approach has produced many artists of repute, and has increasingly
been adopted as a model for "high-end" art education.
> > I especially don't see how one can defend the exclusion from Jansen of
> > female artists of the early twentieth century of the stature of Hannah
> > H=F6ch.
> =20
> I'm in equal dismay that the following painters are excluded: Louisa
> Mattiesdottir, Leland Bell, Robert deNiro, David L. Smith, and our old
> friend, Gabriel Laderman, among others.=20
All of us can name lots of artists that we'd like to see recognized in the
art history surveys--which points to the limitations of that kind of quick
history. I mention Hoch in particular as I think she's indisputably a key
figure (as one of the inventors of dada photomontage, her work is on an
even footing with George Grosz and Max Ernst) in the standard story of
western art that those surveys tell. The artists you mention are entirely
respectable, but I'm not sure that you can make the same argument for
their historic impact, although questioning the standard story seems to me
to be the foundation of critical thought. In other words, if you want to
make those arguments, please do.
>
> Not everyone is, or must, work against the background of conceptualism.
I'd argue that minimalism and conceptualism have incontrovertably made it
into the art historical story mentioned above--it's been about thirty
years since conceptual art appeared, and I think that it (along with the
pop and minimalist work from which it emerged) has been, for better or
worse, the most challenging and most widely influential school of art (if
we can call it that) of the last three decades. I'd venture that young
artists who want to work within the tradition of modernist high
art--modern museums, etc.--are working against a background that includes
conceptualism and minimalism just as surely as it includes ab-ex, school
of Paris modernism, surrealism, Cubism, Impressionism, and so forth (and
the recent past--still under dispute--seems somewhat more urgent that the
more settled history).
Confronting the fact that conceptualism has influenced the context in
which one's work is seen doesn't mean that artists must become
neo-conceptualist parrots--they might ridicule the conceptualist legacy,
or twist it beyond all recognition, but can they fairly be judged an
educated or "advanced" artist if they carry on as if that history never
occurred?
Perhaps you can get around this history if you situate yourself within
another discourse: book illustration, say, or figurative painting
understood as its own tradition, separate from the practice (and critical
dialogues) of fine art.
Have fun with this,
BT
Chad Weinard
Mr. Timothy Hyman
Friday, September 18, 4pm
The Institute of Fine Arts
1 East 78th Street
reception to follow
British art historian Timothy Hyman will present the lecture
"Sienese Painting and the Image of the City" in anticipation of his new
Thames & Hudson book of the same name. Mr. Hyman is a painter and
author with wide-ranging interests. His recent volume on Bonnard has
been well received, and his other interests include contemporary Indian
painting, recent British painting, and the Neue Sachlichkeit. He will
be speaking at MoMA as a part of the Bonnard exhibition in October.
- Chad Weinard & Ellen Adams
Coordinators, Daniel H. Silberberg Lectures 1998-99
Philip Ayers
(mdeli) wrote:
: > mark webber wrote:
: > snip
: >
: > >Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
: > >encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
: > >beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
: >
: > Yes indeed Webber!!!
: >
: > I definitely noticed two very large blue ass holes in a Pollock.
: > Anyone can obviously see these if he squints hard enough and squeezes
: > his imagination.
: > --
: > Mani DeLi
Very funny come back.
I still like Pollock's painting though. No one after him did it as good as
him. Even if a 5 year old attempted this method the results would probably
be inferior to the master of drip. Give it a shot mani, I bet you 100$ you
can't paint those drip paintings as well as pollock did!
...and those aren't ass holes they're blue balls.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
Bt,
You end by saying "Have fun with this." It is, very much.
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> > Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto [...] to ignore those guys, for whatever
> end, is
> > detrimental to artists and students of both genders.
>
> If it comes to a choice between ignoring the recent past and the distant
> past, what do you think?
Intriguing choice - fortunately we don't have to make that choice. I'm not
trying to be snotty, Bt, but we're talking about education, research, and
I don't think we should have to put a cap on how much research we do.
Usually we find, contrary to some positions here in rec.arts.fine, that
the more we study and compare, the more we understand - especially about
those things we already love.
For my part, the Abstract Expressionist, Cubist, Fauvist, etc. paintings I
find most powerful, most beautiful, are very much related to painters like
Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto. (In some other post of a few months back
I went into more detail about the connections between Tintoretto, El
Greco, Hart Benton and Pollock, as well as some other historical/formal
threads. I can dig it up if you like.)
> My own formal art education basically did ignore
> those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s). One
> historian started with David, others began with Manet or with the
> invention of photography. Overwhelmingly, the readings and discussions
> were situated in the debates of the twentieth century, with a clear
> emphasis on understanding the present situation.
Well, I can just imagine what some of the hysterics are going to do with
this.
I think focusing on the present situation is paramount. But I also think
it can be understood much better with an attempt to understand past
situations and their relatonship to the present.
Let me rephrase this, because its just the sort of vague, theoretical
sounding garble I'm trying to avoid using.
I think Picasso can be much better understood when Greek Classicism,
Raphael and Ingres are really looked at and thrown into the mix - not just
African Sculpture and Cezanne. (This is another unfortunate byproduct of
the brief survey course - limiting influences in such a manner.)
I think Dekooning can be similarly better appreciated when one sees his
relationship to Poussin and Corot - not just Soutine.
> Whatever its defects,
> this approach has produced many artists of repute, and has increasingly
> been adopted as a model for "high-end" art education.
I'm going to politely call you on this, Bt - not because I don't believe
you, but because I think you have an obligation to give some examples,
both of artists of repute who have not studied, among other periods, the
Venetian Renaissance, and of institutions considered "high-end" which
consciously regard the past as irrelevant.
Again - I'm not saying they don't exist - I'd just like to have some
examples.
Parsons School of Design, by the way, when I was a student there, placed a
great deal of emphasis on the past as well as the present. The same is
true of a very "high-end", highly regarded little undergraduate school
that is now defunct, called the Swain School of Design.
>
> > > I especially don't see how one can defend the exclusion from Jansen of
> > > female artists of the early twentieth century of the stature of Hannah
> > > H=F6ch.
> > =20
> > I'm in equal dismay that the following painters are excluded: Louisa
> > Mattiesdottir, Leland Bell, Robert deNiro, David L. Smith, and our old
> > friend, Gabriel Laderman, among others.=20
>
> All of us can name lots of artists that we'd like to see recognized in the
> art history surveys--which points to the limitations of that kind of quick
> history. I mention Hoch in particular as I think she's indisputably a key
> figure (as one of the inventors of dada photomontage, her work is on an
> even footing with George Grosz and Max Ernst) in the standard story of
> western art that those surveys tell.
I'm glad to see the phrase "on equal footing" - it connotes quality.
Yes the survey is inadequate on its own - I would argue that it is at
least a useful way to begin. I prefer to see a general picture before I
try to understand its details.
> The artists you mention are entirely
> respectable, but I'm not sure that you can make the same argument for
> their historic impact, although questioning the standard story seems to me
> to be the foundation of critical thought. In other words, if you want to
> make those arguments, please do.
I don't think I can argue a historical impact of the sort that can be
argued for Hoch. But I think Bell, for example, made better pictures.
Two different issues, to my thinking, and equally valid.
> >
> > Not everyone is, or must, work against the background of conceptualism.
>
> I'd argue that minimalism and conceptualism have incontrovertably made it
> into the art historical story mentioned above--it's been about thirty
> years since conceptual art appeared, and I think that it (along with the
> pop and minimalist work from which it emerged) has been, for better or
> worse, the most challenging and most widely influential school of art (if
> we can call it that) of the last three decades.
I don't disagree. However, I'm sure plenty of people, in the first half of
the century, felt that Futurism, Vorticism, Orphism and other movements
would prove to be more influential than they have. I'm not saying the same
fate awaits conceptual art - I think by its nature it will be more
enduring - but I do think its hard to see the long term significance of a
still active trend. Minimalism and pop are looking less relevant to me
these days. The original, Dada, is seeming more powerful to me.
> I'd venture that young
> artists who want to work within the tradition of modernist high
> art--modern museums, etc.--are working against a background that includes
> conceptualism and minimalism just as surely as it includes ab-ex, school
> of Paris modernism, surrealism, Cubism, Impressionism, and so forth (and
> the recent past--still under dispute--seems somewhat more urgent that the
> more settled history).
>
Above you invited me to argue against the "story". I won't go into detail,
but I will say that someone like Derain, who of course had been a Fauve
and a sort of Cubist, could turn his back on some aspects of Modernism
and, at times, make great paintings. (If there hadn't been some great
ones, I wouldn't bring him up.)
He was (I hate to put it this way - it sounds so corny) being true to
himself. So is Balthus. One can do so without trashing other points of
view. (That last is not directed at you, Bt.)
I think the "story" is biased - I think it reflects a misconception that
reduction = better. I think it doesn't always reflect individuality.
I seem to recall simultaneous movements, making a linear development
in which the greatest or most important artists "deal with the current
situation" sort of an impossibility.
It looks to me like the reason one movement or ism rises to the top is
because of the quality of the work, not the quality of the idea.
I also think illustrating Greenberg's writings was a vapid, desperate
thing to do. Even when done well.
> Confronting the fact that conceptualism has influenced the context in
> which one's work is seen doesn't mean that artists must become
> neo-conceptualist parrots--they might ridicule the conceptualist legacy,
> or twist it beyond all recognition, but can they fairly be judged an
> educated or "advanced" artist if they carry on as if that history never
> occurred?
>
Again, I don't mean this at all snidely, but can you give me an example of
how one carries on as though conceptualism never occured? Are you saying
one can't paint a still life any more, without being labeled uneducated or
unadvanced?
And if so, is that more important than the quality of the painting?
Is aligning oneself with a historical trend the same thing as creativity?
Hasn't conceptualism altered the way we look at everything, from the
Triboro Bridge to a painting of Elvis ? Is there a way to consciously
invoke conceptualism in oils, or is the job already done for us?
(please don't read the above as shrill cross-examination - it is intended
as pleasant, smilin' querying.)
> Perhaps you can get around this history if you situate yourself within
> another discourse: book illustration, say, or figurative painting
> understood as its own tradition, separate from the practice (and critical
> dialogues) of fine art.
>
I think we can only see figurative painting as separate from the practice
and dialogues of fine art if we adhere to the "story".
> Have fun with this,
>
> BT
>
Thank you, it is very enjoyable!
Mark
Irma Dillo
>>Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
>>encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
>>beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
The current issue of ArtNews addresses this subject.
It is an interesting concept and explains much about
some of Pollock's works for those of us who happen
to admire his 'drippy' stuff. Irma Dillo.
mark webber
On Tue, 15 Sep 1998, mark webber wrote:
>
>
> No not really - I accept the fact that Janson or any other survey author
> is unable to give us an unbiased view.. But I don't accept that that is
> automaticly due to sexism on his part.
>
> If Janson is unable to find three women painting in Venice in 1550 with
> the greatness of Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto, that isn't a problem
> in Janson or his text. That is a problem in 16th century Venice.
just wondering
mark
bt
> > > Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto [...] to ignore those guys, for whatever
> > > end, is detrimental to artists and students of both genders.
> >
> > If it comes to a choice between ignoring the recent past and the distant
> > past, what do you think?
>
> Intriguing choice - fortunately we don't have to make that choice. I'm not
> trying to be snotty, Bt, but we're talking about education, research, and
> I don't think we should have to put a cap on how much research we do.
I thought that we were talking about the choice of what gets promoted in
the limited space of the art history survey or the school curriculum. It
seems to me that a choice among resources underlies all good-faith
arguments about who and what gets included in the discussion--there's not
much argument to be made for totally disqualifying artists, sexes,
cultures, ideas, or historical periods from ever being considered
(although there are some, right and left, who might disagree with me about
this)--the issue is how the "short course" is constructed. Otherwise, why
do you resist including Gentelishi, or Norman Rockwell, or Madonna (of pop
music), or crochet at old-age homes, or various practices of "minority
groups"? I thought we were talking about what gets into Janson or
Gombrich's history, or whether we want to dispense with Janson and
Gombrich in favor of another approach. (In this case, I'm referring to
Gombrich's popular art history survey, "The Story of Art.") In other
words, the real question is which elements constitute the main terms of
the institutionally sanctioned discussion, not whether an artist or other
interested party should ultimately avail themselves of the entire
library. Of course they should. (And the text book or curriculum might
be judged, in some part, on the degree to which it encourages and prepares
students for continued independent investigations.)
Have I communicated why I think that--like it or not--we are always faced
with the choice of which periods, which cultures and social classes, which
ideas will be given pride of place, and which will be shuttled to the
margins?
>
> Usually we find, contrary to some positions here in rec.arts.fine, that
> the more we study and compare, the more we understand - especially about
> those things we already love.
I second this.
> > My own formal art education basically did ignore
> > those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s). One
> > historian started with David, others began with Manet or with the
> > invention of photography. Overwhelmingly, the readings and discussions
> > were situated in the debates of the twentieth century, with a clear
> > emphasis on understanding the present situation.
>
> Well, I can just imagine what some of the hysterics are going to do with
> this.
Hence my "Have Fun" closing salutation. Similar to Mark's "Fire at Will."
>
> I think focusing on the present situation is paramount. But I also think
> it can be understood much better with an attempt to understand past
> situations and their relatonship to the present.
Right. But that doesn't address the problem: which past situations, and
how are they narrated?
> > Bt [...] I think you have an obligation to give some examples,
> both of artists of repute who have not studied, among other periods, the
> Venetian Renaissance, and of institutions considered "high-end" which
> consciously regard the past as irrelevant.
>
> Again - I'm not saying they don't exist - I'd just like to have some
> examples.
Sorry for being coy. I enjoy my anonymity here--it makes candid and
casual writing easier. Anyway, if I'm "outing" myself, so be it. The
school I'm talking about is California Institute of the Arts, which opened
in 1971, I think, and numbers among its graduates Lari Pittman, Mike
Kelley, Jim Shaw, Barbara Bloom, Ross Bleckner, James Welling, your man
David Salle and many other artists of the under-50 generations.
I'm not claiming that none of these people have studied the Italian
Renaissance, just that such study was not required or particularly
encourged during their time at CalArts--many were there as graduate
students, and may, for all I know, have spent fifteen years painting
frescos in Italy before they arrived.
It is not fair to say that the CalArts program regards the past as
irrelevant. Rather it consciously focuses on argument about contemporary
art practices, and it usually finds the most relevant reference points for
such argument in the art, history, and criticism of the last, say, 150
years, with special emphasis on the very recent past: art (and "theory")
since Minimalism. The premises here that you might want to take issue
with would include the idea that new forms are appropriate to changing
historical circumstances and that the practice of fine art has come
unglued from "received" artisanal traditions. In other words, it is not
presumed that drawing is the foundation of art, or that an artist must
develop mastery of a particular handicraft.
To the best of my Cali-centric knowledge, these ideas have influenced the
programs at UCLA (many of their all-star faculty put in time at Cal Arts:
Welling, Pittman, Dean Mary Kelly, John Baldessari--the faculty also
includes Charles Ray and Chris Burden) and Art Center in Pasadena (ex
CalArtians Mike Kelley, Stephen Prina, Jeremy Gilbert-Rolfe) and some of
the other programs in the University of California system (Irvine,
Riverside, San Diego). In New York, consider the program at the Whitney
Museum, and the changes being made at Columbia.
[...]
>
> > Confronting the fact that conceptualism has influenced the context in
> > which one's work is seen doesn't mean that artists must become
> > neo-conceptualist parrots--they might ridicule the conceptualist legacy,
> > or twist it beyond all recognition, but can they fairly be judged an
> > educated or "advanced" artist if they carry on as if that history never
> > occurred?
> >
>
> Again, I don't mean this at all snidely, but can you give me an example of
> how one carries on as though conceptualism never occured? Are you saying
> one can't paint a still life any more, without being labeled uneducated or
> unadvanced?
A still life painting by Gerhard Richter might be understood as embodying
the contradictions and difficulties facing painting in the present:
reflecting the way photography, recent art history, and European
(specifically German) social history weigh on any possible effectiveness
of painting, and at the same time conveying his seemingly paradoxical deep
attachment to the craft of painting and its traditional meanings. I
realize this is an uncomfortably vague "artspeak" claim: I just don't have
time at the moment (I'm way over-budget as is) to elaborate very
specifically how these things operate in a given work, so I'm counting on
the reader's familiarity with Richter's work to fill in the blanks. We
can re-visit this if the example doesn't make sense.
Anyway, if you'll grant my interpretation for the sake of argument, this
has something to do with the esteem in which Richter is widely held, and
is part of the reason that there is (I imagine) a waiting list of willing
buyers of Richter's hypothetical still life for, say, $250,000. (My price
estimate may be low.)
A still life by A. Ernest Painter, on the other hand, might demonstrate
skill at observing and rendering form, at arranging shapes harmoniously,
at carefully modulating contrasts and the colors of shadows. Maybe he
plays with some push-and-pull of illusionism versus the materiality of
paint and canvas.
But my hypothetical Painter isn't offering any view of how the situation
facing an artist now is any different from that of fifty years ago. As a
result, though Painter's work may succesfully recapitulate established
notions of skill and beauty, he (or she--maybe A. stands for "Alice") is
unlikely to be judged (by future generations of artists, historians,
curators, etc.) as furthering the practice of art or as particularly
representative of the historical present. There may be much to enjoy about
this painting, in other words, but it can't be declared "advanced," can
it? (I strenuously disagree with Mani's Dali quote to the effect that an
artist is modern merely by virtue of being alive now.) A. E. Painter may
very well find an appreciative market, but is unlikely to join Richter in
the museums, the price stratosphere or the history books. (Those big
prices are largely bets being placed that the artist or particular work
will ultimately be judged historically important, right?)
> And if so, is that more important than the quality of the painting?
To a large extent, that CONSTITUTES the quality of the painting!
>
> Is aligning oneself with a historical trend the same thing as creativity?
No. But I'm hard pressed to think of an admirable artist who hasn't
self-consciously worked in relationship to historical precedents and
contemporary "trends".
Aloha,
BT
CROCUSDES
>But my hypothetical Painter isn't offering any view of how the situation
>facing an artist now is any different from that of fifty years ago. As a
>result, though Painter's work may succesfully recapitulate established
>notions of skill and beauty, he (or she--maybe A. stands for "Alice") is
>unlikely to be judged (by future generations of artists, historians,
>curators, etc.) as furthering the practice of art or as particularly
>representative of the historical present. There may be much to enjoy about
>this painting, in other words, but it can't be declared "advanced," can
>it? (I strenuously disagree with Mani's Dali quote to the effect that an
>artist is modern merely by virtue of being alive now.) A. E. Painter may
>very well find an appreciative market, but is unlikely to join Richter in
>the museums, the price stratosphere or the history books. (Those big
>prices are largely bets being placed that the artist or particular work
>will ultimately be judged historically important, right?)
Excellent post Bt. The dialog between you and Mark is something that is well
worth the time reading. Thanks to both of you for sharing your time and
thoughtfullness, it's enlightening and appreciated.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
bt
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
Just noticed this post...it'll have to wait for another day. I hope my
latest post will keep you going for the moment.
Marilyn
First: I really enjoy your posts!
If the still life painted by Alice or Earnest Painter uses 1998
objects, say for example, a genetically engineered tomato (squarish)
some computer motherboards (Pentium) as its forms, could it be considered
contemporary? and might it further the course of painting just
a little?
I question this to point out that as Kandinsky, and Klee
both said, "there are no rules."
Marilyn
Charles Eicher
Actually, this isn't such a new concept, that Pollock's abstract works are
sometimes figurative. I first encountered this concept in a huge book
called "The Spiritual in Art - Abstract painting 1890-1985" which was the
catalog for a huge exhibition at the LA County Museum of Art in 1986. The
book is still in print, I recommend it highly. There is a particularly
excellent article called "Ritual and Myth: Native American Culture and
Abstract Impressionism" by W. Jackson Rushing. He analyzes Pollocks use of
American Indian symbology in his notebooks (including his notebooks he kept
for his psychoanalyst) and compares that with his finished paintings. In
particular, one very famous Pollock, "Mural" (1943) which is owned by my
local art school, is widely considered to be the foundation of all of
Pollock's later work. The painting is largely abstract, but if someone
tells you that it's a procession of figures across the canvas, you can
clearly see it. The author attributes the "Mural" as a reference to
"kokopelli" which is a Kachina spirit that Pollock is known to have
studied.
Due to the importance of this work at our school, (that one painting is
worth more money than the entire arts campus) I wrote a paper summarizing
this painting in light of this new scholarly research. Some of the teachers
were astonished, and agreed with the conclusions, but some scoffed at the
idea, even when I showed them pictures of Indian artworks that Pollock was
known to have studied as a basis for this painting. Months later, I was on
a class trip to a museum with one professor who had vehemently rejected
this idea. Amazingly, we came upon a display of authentic Indian figurines
depicting a Kokopelli ritual. The source of inspiration for this painting
could never have been made more obvious. I could only drag her over and
say, "See, I TOLD you so!"
Anyway, I haven't seen the latest Artnews (its sitting on the desk under a
stack of papers) so I don't know if this is the subject being addressed in
the magazine. But now, I'll have to check.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
Iian Neill
> > end, is detrimental to artists and students of both genders.
>
> If it comes to a choice between ignoring the recent past and the distant
> past, what do you think?
There is nothing that one would miss in technique if you were to ignore the past
seventy years of art history. However, there are various ideas which have
interest for their psychological value.
> My own formal art education basically did ignore
> those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s).
I can not say that I am surprised.
> One
> historian started with David, others began with Manet or with the
> invention of photography.
Did they remember to include Paul Delaroche, the originator of the famous
comment: "Photography will be the death of painting?"
> Overwhelmingly, the readings and discussions
> were situated in the debates of the twentieth century, with a clear
> emphasis on understanding the present situation. Whatever its defects,
> this approach has produced many artists of repute, and has increasingly
> been adopted as a model for "high-end" art education.
To ignore the roots of Art is fatal to the study of that discipline.
> > Not everyone is, or must, work against the background of conceptualism.
>
> I'd argue that minimalism and conceptualism have incontrovertably made it
> into the art historical story mentioned above--it's been about thirty
> years since conceptual art appeared, and I think that it (along with the
> pop and minimalist work from which it emerged) has been, for better or
> worse, the most challenging and most widely influential school of art (if
> we can call it that) of the last three decades.
I would like to question the value of a work being 'challenging'. What is it
that makes a controversial piece worthier of attention than something which
might be aesthetically superior?
I might sound over cynical, but I wonder if there are any preconceptions left
which Post-Modernism and its predecessory haven't yet 'challenged'.
Regards,
Iian Neill
Iian Neill
> > those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s). One
> > historian started with David, others began with Manet or with the
> > invention of photography. Overwhelmingly, the readings and discussions
> > were situated in the debates of the twentieth century, with a clear
> > emphasis on understanding the present situation.
>
> Well, I can just imagine what some of the hysterics are going to do with
> this.
The "hysterics" (to use a crudely defamatory term) agree with BT; the situation
in art education is a little better today, what with more courses being offered
in pre-20th century art history, however at my university - at least - the
balance is something like 60% 'modern' to 40% pre-20th C. Now, this is the same
university which doesn't even have one unit to cover the Baroque, Rococo or
Neo-Classical periods, so I will not claim that it is representative of the
general state of education - well, I sincerely hope it isn't.
> I think Picasso can be much better understood when Greek Classicism,
> Raphael and Ingres are really looked at and thrown into the mix - not just
> African Sculpture and Cezanne. (This is another unfortunate byproduct of
> the brief survey course - limiting influences in such a manner.)
Such study would only be valuable if there were signs of a continuous tradition
between the Greeks, Raphael, Ingres and Picasso. Now, there are a number of
drawings which are obviously taken from Ingres' work, however it is not enough
to include a few heads or torsos here or there to make something part of a
tradition.
To assert that Modernism is part of any tradition seems to go against its
original aims, which were a deliberate break with most Western art before it,
particularly the movements immediately preceeding it.
> I think Dekooning can be similarly better appreciated when one sees his
> relationship to Poussin and Corot - not just Soutine.
I would agree that the truth about Dekooning is revealed when you put him beside
Poussin and Corot. I wish that museum curators would do this more often.
> It looks to me like the reason one movement or ism rises to the top is
> because of the quality of the work, not the quality of the idea.
You are very optimistic, Mark. Fashion, however, hasn't been eliminated from
modern aesthetics.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On 16 Sep 1998, Irma Dillo wrote:
> In article <35fd79a5...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com says...
>
> >>Back to Pollock for just one moment. Have you or anyone else here
> >>encountered the relatively recent theory/discovery that there are figures
> >>beneath the drips in Pollocks paintings?
>
> The current issue of ArtNews addresses this subject.
> It is an interesting concept and explains much about
> some of Pollock's works for those of us who happen
> to admire his 'drippy' stuff. Irma Dillo.
Yes, there are Pollocks from each of his periods that I enjoy, too, and
I've felt for years that the notion he had "abandoned" figuration was a
kind of silly one. The last works have very noticable figure imagery in
them.
This, of course, is not to say that because the works have figuration they
are good, but simply that the notion that he, or for that matter
Dekooning, *had* to be abstract was a silly idea.
Mark
bt
> Question to BT
>
> First: I really enjoy your posts!
Thank you, I really appreciate you saying so.
>
> If the still life painted by Alice or Earnest Painter uses 1998
> objects, say for example, a genetically engineered tomato (squarish)
> some computer motherboards (Pentium) as its forms, could it be considered
> contemporary? and might it further the course of painting just
> a little?
Oh, gee. Depends on how it's handled, doesn't it?
The painting is certainly "contemporary" in the sense of being dated, the
way last week's newspaper is contemporary.
But I'm skeptical that this is going to make for a compelling contribution
to art history, if that's what you're asking. Is A. E. Painter making a
point of the anachronism of using pre-industrial technology to depict
post-industrial technology? Or is she pointing to the weird mindset that
such a project proposes--a 1998 motherboard is somehow equivalent to a
1648 goblet, or an 1898 apple? Or is this a pun about another kind of
Apple®--maybe it has something to do with advertising: the Pentium® is a
Classic©.
If Painter is true to her usual form, she's probably carrying on as though
the early twentieth century formal conventions of still life painting are
equally valid no matter what, where or when is being depicted. (Or where
or when the painting is being presented.) This sounds likely to result in
a pretty dull work of art to me, no matter how the colors sparkle.
But I haven't seen this painting: maybe I'll see it next time I visit
Victoria, and be deeply moved, or at least pleasantly surprised.
>
> I question this to point out that as Kandinsky, and Klee
> both said, "there are no rules."
I agree wholeheartedly with the impulse to point out the limitations of
prescriptions, dogma and formulas of all sorts. But I'm not exactly sure
what "no rules" means: I think K and K might be fantasizing about a degree
of freedom that they never really had.
Marilyn
or the objects almost invisible in the style of Agnes Martin.
>The painting is certainly "contemporary" in the sense of being dated, the
>way last week's newspaper is contemporary.
>
>But I'm skeptical that this is going to make for a compelling contribution
>to art history, if that's what you're asking. Is A. E. Painter making a
>point of the anachronism of using pre-industrial technology to depict
>post-industrial technology? Or is she pointing to the weird mindset that
>such a project proposes--a 1998 motherboard is somehow equivalent to a
>1648 goblet, or an 1898 apple? Or is this a pun about another kind of
>Apple®--maybe it has something to do with advertising: the Pentium® is a
>Classic©.
>
There are so many great works which will not make it into the history
books, maybe because the artist was poor at self-promotion. The fact
that there are so many artists to choose from (overpopulation in
general = overpopulation of artists), only the important ones will
be choosen. Here's an example of a "left-out artist": Louise Nevelson.
Would you consider acrylic paint pre-industrial?
>If Painter is true to her usual form, she's probably carrying on as though
>the early twentieth century formal conventions of still life painting are
>equally valid no matter what, where or when is being depicted. (Or where
>or when the painting is being presented.) This sounds likely to result in
>a pretty dull work of art to me, no matter how the colors sparkle.
>
Your premise is that still life painting is conventional.
Therefore you see it as adhereing to "early 20th cent. formal
conventions."
>But I haven't seen this painting: maybe I'll see it next time I visit
>Victoria, and be deeply moved, or at least pleasantly surprised.
It was hypothetical, but it could exist.
>> I question this to point out that as Kandinsky, and Klee
>> both said, "there are no rules."
>
>I agree wholeheartedly with the impulse to point out the limitations of
>prescriptions, dogma and formulas of all sorts. But I'm not exactly sure
>what "no rules" means: I think K and K might be fantasizing about a degree
>of freedom that they never really had.
Referring to the "rule," that still-life painting is conventional,
anachronistic and/or passe.
My outlook is on a pluralist era where many styles, or conventions can
co-exist.
For contemporary still-life,
you can look at Mary Pratt's work, a famous Canadian painter, maybe
unknown in the USA. What she can do with aluminum foil, and saran
wrap is amazing. The subject seems to be "light." (am I bordering
on artspeak here?)
And yet, I think I know what you mean, to paint a still life,
or other conventional 1850 style painting in 1998 is anachronistic.
We can't really deny our historical context. But some do try.
au revoir
bt
> >
> There are so many great works which will not make it into the history
> books, maybe because the artist was poor at self-promotion.
Promotion, alas, does seem key to a high profile. Most of the famous
artists that I've met are very good at self-promotion, and it seems to
have been ever thus, in the post-renaissance west, at least. (If I
remember correctly Michelangelo, Rubens, and Rembrandt were famously
agressive in courting patrons and jockeying for commissions). Some of the
most interesting (to me) 20th c. artists have explicitly confronted the
conditions of the market and the role of publicity by making
self-promotion and public persona an explicit aspect of their art. Warhol
is a prime example.
> Here's an example of a "left-out artist": Louise Nevelson.
Excellent example of an artist left out of Janson's survey, although I
don't think she's a lost-to-history for lack of promotion type. She's
really well known at this point: don't I recall a street or a traffic
island in Manhattan named after her?
> Would you consider acrylic paint pre-industrial?
I'm imagining that A.E. Painter prefers oils.
>
> >If Painter is true to her usual form, she's probably carrying on as though
> >the early twentieth century formal conventions of still life painting are
> >equally valid no matter what, where or when is being depicted. (Or where
> >or when the painting is being presented.) This sounds likely to result in
> >a pretty dull work of art to me, no matter how the colors sparkle.
> >
> Your premise is that still life painting is conventional.
> Therefore you see it as adhereing to "early 20th cent. formal
> conventions."
Not exactly--my premise is that the painter in question accepts a cartload
of traditions uncritically and assumes that they are a universally
applicable solution to the problem of making art. The fictional painter
that I cooked up was steeped in ideas based in seventeenth-century still
life but filtered through impressionism, maybe admitting Cezanne's ideas
into the practice, maybe even a touch of Hans Hoffman. But she could be
working strictly in the manner of Chardin, or Dibenkorn, or Warhol's
acrylic under photosilkscreen--my basic criticism would remain the same.
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that still life = conventional =
invalid. I hope my example of Richter, who investigates and continues the
traditional genres of European oil painting (Landscape, Portrait, Still
Life, Abstract) would suggest that it is possible for an artist to be
fully engaged with present "issues" by means of traditional forms. Are
you familiar with his work?
>
> >But I haven't seen this painting: maybe I'll see it next time I visit
> >Victoria, and be deeply moved, or at least pleasantly surprised.
>
>
> It was hypothetical, but it could exist.
I understood the painting was hypothetical: I was just trying to say that
since it's your fiction, I may not fully appreciate what you've imagined.
Plus I like to imagine a pleasant surprise on my next trip to Victoria--I
have family there.
> >> I question this to point out that as Kandinsky, and Klee
> >> both said, "there are no rules."
> >
> >I agree wholeheartedly with the impulse to point out the limitations of
> >prescriptions, dogma and formulas of all sorts. But I'm not exactly sure
> >what "no rules" means: I think K and K might be fantasizing about a degree
> >of freedom that they never really had.
>
> Referring to the "rule," that still-life painting is conventional,
> anachronistic and/or passe.
Do my above comments clarify why that's not precisely what I mean?
>
> My outlook is on a pluralist era where many styles, or conventions can
> co-exist.
> For contemporary still-life,
> you can look at Mary Pratt's work, a famous Canadian painter, maybe
> unknown in the USA. What she can do with aluminum foil, and saran
> wrap is amazing. The subject seems to be "light." (am I bordering
> on artspeak here?)
>
> And yet, I think I know what you mean, to paint a still life,
> or other conventional 1850 style painting in 1998 is anachronistic.
> We can't really deny our historical context. But some do try.
>
Many do, but it doesn't take much trying. It requires great effort to
grapple with our historical context.
I'm sorry that I don't know Mary Pratt, but it sounds as if she's
interrogating the tradition of still life, looking for ways to represent
light that we may not have seen before, not simply recapitulating the
acheivements of well-known "Masters."
mark webber
On 16 Sep 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Excellent post Bt. The dialog between you and Mark is something that is well
> worth the time reading. Thanks to both of you for sharing your time and
> thoughtfullness, it's enlightening and appreciated.
>
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
Well, at the risk of forming a mutual appreciation society thread, the
same to you, Chris.
Mark
mark webber
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> > > > Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto [...] to ignore those guys, for whatever
> > > > end, is detrimental to artists and students of both genders.
> > >
> > > If it comes to a choice between ignoring the recent past and the distant
> > > past, what do you think?
> >
> > Intriguing choice - fortunately we don't have to make that choice. I'm not
> > trying to be snotty, Bt, but we're talking about education, research, and
> > I don't think we should have to put a cap on how much research we do.
>
> I thought that we were talking about the choice of what gets promoted in
> the limited space of the art history survey or the school curriculum.
Well, yes, and it is a limited amount of time, but somewhere in 4 or 6
years, I think there is time for at least a survey of the sort Janson
offers, and I'd prefer to see it take place in the first year.
Even if only one or two semesters are spent looking at a general overview,
which points out the ways that artists respond to earlier artists, and
even better, points out how much modernism is indebted to the past, that
can't be too threatening to a balance of 6 or 8 more semesters of
completely contemporary issues.
> It
> seems to me that a choice among resources underlies all good-faith
> arguments about who and what gets included in the discussion--there's not
> much argument to be made for totally disqualifying artists, sexes,
> cultures, ideas, or historical periods from ever being considered
> (although there are some, right and left, who might disagree with me about
> this)--the issue is how the "short course" is constructed.
I don't want, at this point in a discussion that I value, to quibble or
appear sarcastic, but are we talking about a "short course' or a
curriculum? There is certainly time in an art curriculum to look at the
history of art. And in the "short course" I'd include as many of those who
were great as I could. The way we arrive at who is great may vary, and
that's ok, but the way I do it is visually, since it's visual art.
(I don't mean this sarcastically, and I also don't mean any offense to
your alma maters. Clearly, whoever you are, you aren't an uneducated
person.)
(Come on, email me and introduce yourself. I promise I won't tell.)
> Otherwise, why
> do you resist including Gentelishi,
I don't. She wasn't as good as her fellow Caravagist Valentin de Boulogne,
though, and who the hell has heard of him.
> or Norman Rockwell,
I don't - he was terrific at what he did, which happened to be pap.
> or Madonna (of pop
> music), or crochet at old-age homes, or various practices of "minority
> groups"? I thought we were talking about what gets into Janson or
> Gombrich's history, or whether we want to dispense with Janson and
> Gombrich in favor of another approach. (In this case, I'm referring to
> Gombrich's popular art history survey, "The Story of Art.")
I think we are and don't know whether to put Madonna in Byzantine art or
Happenings. Crochet will fit nicely in Rococo. We can evaluate the
"minority practices" on a case by case. The good ones can even have their
own chapter.
Yes, in fact, another approach is probably a good idea, but the survey, of
some sort, should stay, I'm afraid. Otherwise we don't know what we're
rejecting.
> In other
> words, the real question is which elements constitute the main terms of
> the institutionally sanctioned discussion, not whether an artist or other
> interested party should ultimately avail themselves of the entire
> library. Of course they should. (And the text book or curriculum might
> be judged, in some part, on the degree to which it encourages and prepares
> students for continued independent investigations.)
>
Agreed. I have to say I feel the institution that doen't sanction art
history seems threatened by it. No offense intended.
> Have I communicated why I think that--like it or not--we are always faced
> with the choice of which periods, which cultures and social classes, which
> ideas will be given pride of place, and which will be shuttled to the
> margins?
Yes, but that isn't the same thing as explaining why the survey doesn't
work for you.
(minor snip)
> >
> > I think focusing on the present situation is paramount. But I also think
> > it can be understood much better with an attempt to understand past
> > situations and their relatonship to the present.
>
> Right. But that doesn't address the problem: which past situations, and
> how are they narrated?
I guess it's clear enough now that I think we should begin by trying to
see what is in common between as many as we can fit into a semester or
two.
I think looking at the similarities between Raphael and Seurat is more
useful than looking at the differences - because that is what Seurat was
doing. And why Seurat? Why Raphael, Titian, Veronese, Piero, Corot?
Because I have never heard a convincing argument that they aren't worthy
of the attention they've been getting all these years. They were great
painters and I think, in the art world, it's still worth passing that
along.
>
> > > Bt [...] I think you have an obligation to give some examples,
> > both of artists of repute who have not studied, among other periods, the
> > Venetian Renaissance, and of institutions considered "high-end" which
> > consciously regard the past as irrelevant.
> >
> > Again - I'm not saying they don't exist - I'd just like to have some
> > examples.
>
> Sorry for being coy. I enjoy my anonymity here--it makes candid and
> casual writing easier. Anyway, if I'm "outing" myself, so be it. The
> school I'm talking about is California Institute of the Arts, which opened
> in 1971, I think, and numbers among its graduates Lari Pittman, Mike
> Kelley, Jim Shaw, Barbara Bloom, Ross Bleckner, James Welling, your man
> David Salle and many other artists of the under-50 generations.
(snip)
Ok, so it's a coastal thing. (kidding.)
Thank you for the support info.
> >
> > > Confronting the fact that conceptualism has influenced the context in
> > > which one's work is seen doesn't mean that artists must become
> > > neo-conceptualist parrots--they might ridicule the conceptualist legacy,
> > > or twist it beyond all recognition, but can they fairly be judged an
> > > educated or "advanced" artist if they carry on as if that history never
> > > occurred?
> > >
> >
> > Again, I don't mean this at all snidely, but can you give me an example of
> > how one carries on as though conceptualism never occured? Are you saying
> > one can't paint a still life any more, without being labeled uneducated or
> > unadvanced?
>
> A still life painting by Gerhard Richter might be understood as embodying
> the contradictions and difficulties facing painting in the present:
> reflecting the way photography, recent art history, and European
> (specifically German) social history weigh on any possible effectiveness
> of painting, and at the same time conveying his seemingly paradoxical deep
> attachment to the craft of painting and its traditional meanings.
Fair enough, but Marinetti's Futurist paintings reflected the difficulties
of painting in the technological world of the teens (specifically
Italian), the burdens of World War, and the ineffectiveness of depicting
the speed and angst of his era.
The paintings weren't very good, though, and he is becoming little more
than a historical footnote.
> I
> realize this is an uncomfortably vague "artspeak" claim: I just don't have
> time at the moment (I'm way over-budget as is) to elaborate very
> specifically how these things operate in a given work, so I'm counting on
> the reader's familiarity with Richter's work to fill in the blanks. We
> can re-visit this if the example doesn't make sense.
No, I think I understand. And I do see that Marinetti's is a much less
sophisticated type of painting.
>
> Anyway, if you'll grant my interpretation for the sake of argument, this
> has something to do with the esteem in which Richter is widely held, and
> is part of the reason that there is (I imagine) a waiting list of willing
> buyers of Richter's hypothetical still life for, say, $250,000. (My price
> estimate may be low.)
>
Well, a lot of things sell for a lot of money and then can't be resold for
the same value, too. Color field painters aren't doing too well these days
in the auction houses. Just another vantage.
> A still life by A. Ernest Painter, on the other hand, might demonstrate
> skill at observing and rendering form, at arranging shapes harmoniously,
> at carefully modulating contrasts and the colors of shadows. Maybe he
> plays with some push-and-pull of illusionism versus the materiality of
> paint and canvas.
>
> But my hypothetical Painter isn't offering any view of how the situation
> facing an artist now is any different from that of fifty years ago.
Yes, you're right. He/she may not be offering anything of the sort.
I still think it is legitimate to avoid the illustration of theory,
though. Those visual ideas aren't all worn out yet.
> As a
> result, though Painter's work may succesfully recapitulate established
> notions of skill and beauty, he (or she--maybe A. stands for "Alice") is
> unlikely to be judged (by future generations of artists, historians,
> curators, etc.) as furthering the practice of art or as particularly
> representative of the historical present.
I wouldn't say that. In all honesty, I think there is an equal chance,
maybe even better than equal, that someone like the late Lelend Bell could
be viewed as one of the painters who was actually making paintings that
can still be looked at, enjoyed.
A next generation of critics could decide that the way something looks is
more valid than the theory it illustrates.
To take your future as the only possible future would be to both adhere to
the "story" in it's reductive mode, and to ignor the patterns of it's
earlier chapters.
> There may be much to enjoy about
> this painting, in other words, but it can't be declared "advanced," can
> it?
You could have said the same in 1900 about Cezanne without seeing his
work.
> (I strenuously disagree with the Dali quote to the effect that an
> artist is modern merely by virtue of being alive now.)
Me too.
> A. E. Painter may
> very well find an appreciative market, but is unlikely to join Richter in
> the museums, the price stratosphere or the history books.
Yes, unlikely. You know, one can "earnestly" persue fame as well.
> (Those big
> prices are largely bets being placed that the artist or particular work
> will ultimately be judged historically important, right?)
Yes, bets.
>
> > And if so, is that more important than the quality of the painting?
>
> To a large extent, that CONSTITUTES the quality of the painting!
In your definition it seems to have more to do with the investment value
than the quality. But we disagree on the meaning of quality, and that is
ok. At the personal level I have no difficulty with this difference - but
on the level of public debate, it is interesting to see how the word is
used.
> >
> > Is aligning oneself with a historical trend the same thing as creativity?
>
> No. But I'm hard pressed to think of an admirable artist who hasn't
> self-consciously worked in relationship to historical precedents and
> contemporary "trends".
Oh I agree, I just don't think our earnest painter necessarily isn't one
of them. You may be forming a canon of legitimate precedents and trends.
great talking with you,
Mark
mark webber
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> > > My own formal art education basically did ignore
> > > those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s). One
> > > historian started with David, others began with Manet or with the
> > > invention of photography. Overwhelmingly, the readings and discussions
> > > were situated in the debates of the twentieth century, with a clear
> > > emphasis on understanding the present situation.
> >
> > Well, I can just imagine what some of the hysterics are going to do with
> > this.
>
> The "hysterics" (to use a crudely defamatory term) agree with BT;
Again, Iian, this wasn't meant for you. I've never called you hysterical,
and once again, I apologise if I've offended you. I have no interest in
the sort of unilateral bombast and nastiness you seem to condone
elsewhere.
> the situation
> in art education is a little better today, what with more courses being offered
> in pre-20th century art history, however at my university - at least - the
> balance is something like 60% 'modern' to 40% pre-20th C. Now, this is the same
> university which doesn't even have one unit to cover the Baroque, Rococo or
> Neo-Classical periods, so I will not claim that it is representative of the
> general state of education - well, I sincerely hope it isn't.
>
Um, are you sure the hysterics agree with Bt?
> Such study would only be valuable if there were signs of a continuous tradition
> between the Greeks, Raphael, Ingres and Picasso. Now, there are a number of
> drawings which are obviously taken from Ingres' work, however it is not enough
> to include a few heads or torsos here or there to make something part of a
> tradition.
Such study would yield this tradition. Try it.
>
> To assert that Modernism is part of any tradition seems to go against its
> original aims, which were a deliberate break with most Western art before it,
> particularly the movements immediately preceeding it.
Are you sure all modern artists were attempting a deliberate break with
all the elements in earlier Western art, or only those you admire.
>
> > I think Dekooning can be similarly better appreciated when one sees his
> > relationship to Poussin and Corot - not just Soutine.
>
> I would agree that the truth about Dekooning is revealed when you put him beside
> Poussin and Corot. I wish that museum curators would do this more often.
>
Well, me too. I know what you mean, but I'm beginning to wonder if you'll
ever know what I mean.
Mark
mark webber
On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Charles Eicher wrote:
> In article <35ffc...@oracle.zianet.com>, di...@tante.com (Irma Dillo) wrote:
>
> > In article <35fd79a5...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com says...
> >
>
> Actually, this isn't such a new concept, that Pollock's abstract works are
> sometimes figurative. I first encountered this concept in a huge book
> called "The Spiritual in Art - Abstract painting 1890-1985" which was the
> catalog for a huge exhibition at the LA County Museum of Art in 1986. The
> book is still in print, I recommend it highly.
(snip)
Yes, I've seen this book too. I second your recommendation.
I was refering to the computer analysis - whatever that entails - that has
apparently been done recently.
Mark
mark webber
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
(In reply to Marilyn, who I hope will forgive me for butting in...)
> >
>
> Many do, but it doesn't take much trying. It requires great effort to
> grapple with our historical context.
> I'm sorry that I don't know Mary Pratt, but it sounds as if she's
> interrogating the tradition of still life, looking for ways to represent
> light that we may not have seen before, not simply recapitulating the
> acheivements of well-known "Masters."
>
>
I'm just curious - why was it ok for artists to recapitulate these
achievements for the previous 25 centuries?
Mark
Marilyn
>
>Promotion, alas, does seem key to a high profile. Most of the famous
>artists that I've met are very good at self-promotion, and it seems to
>have been ever thus, in the post-renaissance west, at least. (If I
>remember correctly Michelangelo, Rubens, and Rembrandt were famously
>agressive in courting patrons and jockeying for commissions). Some of the
>most interesting (to me) 20th c. artists have explicitly confronted the
>conditions of the market and the role of publicity by making
>self-promotion and public persona an explicit aspect of their art. Warhol
>is a prime example.
>
>> Here's an example of a "left-out artist": Louise Nevelson.
>
>Excellent example of an artist left out of Janson's survey, although I
>don't think she's a lost-to-history for lack of promotion type. She's
>really well known at this point: don't I recall a street or a traffic
>island in Manhattan named after her?
My favorite image of Louise Nevelson,
she is sitting in a bar quite close to the gallery where her
exhibition is a resounding success. By this time she is 80
or so, and she is weeping. When her friends seek her out,
and ask her what's wrong, she keeps saying "It's too late. It's too late."
>
>> Would you consider acrylic paint pre-industrial?
>
>I'm imagining that A.E. Painter prefers oils.
Yes, you know you can't get a perfect green in acrylics for those
parsley-trees that he loves to paint.
>> >If Painter is true to her usual form, she's probably carrying on as though
>> >the early twentieth century formal conventions of still life painting are
>> >equally valid no matter what, where or when is being depicted. (Or where
>> >or when the painting is being presented.) This sounds likely to result in
>> >a pretty dull work of art to me, no matter how the colors sparkle.
>> >
>> Your premise is that still life painting is conventional.
>> Therefore you see it as adhereing to "early 20th cent. formal
>> conventions."
>
>Not exactly--my premise is that the painter in question accepts a cartload
>of traditions uncritically and assumes that they are a universally
>applicable solution to the problem of making art. The fictional painter
>that I cooked up was steeped in ideas based in seventeenth-century still
>life but filtered through impressionism, maybe admitting Cezanne's ideas
>into the practice, maybe even a touch of Hans Hoffman. But she could be
>working strictly in the manner of Chardin, or Dibenkorn, or Warhol's
>acrylic under photosilkscreen--my basic criticism would remain the same.
>
>I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that still life = conventional =
>invalid. I hope my example of Richter, who investigates and continues the
>traditional genres of European oil painting (Landscape, Portrait, Still
>Life, Abstract) would suggest that it is possible for an artist to be
>fully engaged with present "issues" by means of traditional forms. Are
>you familiar with his work?
No but, I will look him up.
>>
>>
>>
>
>Plus I like to imagine a pleasant surprise on my next trip to Victoria--I
>have family there.
Well, on the corner of Belleville & Douglas, there is a sculpture/
installation using the mattress as a form entitled "The Night Is Not
for Sleeping." I can only remember the artist by his first name
Morrie (former dean of F.A. at U of Victoria). He will be having
a show at Open Space Gallery in October. I believe you will like it.
>
>>> >> I question this to point out that as Kandinsky, and Klee
>> >> both said, "there are no rules."
>> >
>> >I agree wholeheartedly with the impulse to point out the limitations of
>> >prescriptions, dogma and formulas of all sorts. But I'm not exactly sure
>> >what "no rules" means: I think K and K might be fantasizing about a degree
>> >of freedom that they never really had.
>>
>> Referring to the "rule," that still-life painting is conventional,
>> anachronistic and/or passe.
>Do my above comments clarify why that's not precisely what I mean?
Yes, it is not so much the genre you are referring to but rather
the outlook or the intention of the artist.
>>
>> My outlook is on a pluralist era where many styles, or conventions can
>> co-exist.
>> For contemporary still-life,
>> you can look at Mary Pratt's work, a famous Canadian painter, maybe
>> unknown in the USA. What she can do with aluminum foil, and saran
>> wrap is amazing. The subject seems to be "light." (am I bordering
>> on artspeak here?)
>>
>> And yet, I think I know what you mean, to paint a still life,
>> or other conventional 1850 style painting in 1998 is anachronistic.
>> We can't really deny our historical context. But some do try.
>>
>
>Many do, but it doesn't take much trying. It requires great effort to
>grapple with our historical context.
There is the crux.
>I'm sorry that I don't know Mary Pratt, but it sounds as if she's
>interrogating the tradition of still life, looking for ways to represent
>light that we may not have seen before, not simply recapitulating the
>acheivements of well-known "Masters."
Right.
Her work, which you could see in Art Gallery of Vancouver, is dazzling.
Come on up, your dollar is worth $1.50 up here.
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
>
>
>On 16 Sep 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
>>
>> Excellent post Bt. The dialog between you and Mark is something that is well
>> worth the time reading. Thanks to both of you for sharing your time and
>> thoughtfullness, it's enlightening and appreciated.
>>
>> Chris Ray - sculptor
>
>
>Well, at the risk of forming a mutual appreciation society thread, the
>same to you, Chris.
>
>Mark
at the risk of stirring the wrath of "Blatant Beasts" too.
bt
> I will look him [Gerhard Richter] up.
Please do, and check to see whether they have any works by him at the Art
Gallery of Vancouver. The best thing is to see his abstract and
figurative works together: they seem to me specifically designed to rub
against each other (metaphorically speaking). There was a Richter
retrospective about ten years ago that originated at the Art Gallery of
Ontario--the catalog to that show would be a good place to start. There's
also a more recent three volume set of his works (catalogue raisonne, I
think) that would be great to look through if a local library (maybe
U.Vic?) has it. If you come across a big book called "Atlas," I'd pass on
it in favor one of the painting catalogues. "Atlas" collects a lot of
Richter's photographic source materials: I think it would be a misleading
introduction to his work. The thing that reproductions miss is the
weirdly contradictory nature of his painting's surfaces, which strike me
as simultaneously a presentation and denial of luscious beauty.
> >>
> >
> >Plus I like to imagine a pleasant surprise on my next trip to Victoria--I
> >have family there.
>
> Well, on the corner of Belleville & Douglas, there is a sculpture/
> installation using the mattress as a form entitled "The Night Is Not
> for Sleeping." I can only remember the artist by his first name
> Morrie (former dean of F.A. at U of Victoria). He will be having
> a show at Open Space Gallery in October. I believe you will like it.
Mowry Baden, is it?
Thank you for the tip. Unfortunately, I'm not sure when I'll be there
again--maybe next summer.
> >Do my above comments clarify why that's not precisely what I mean?
>
> Yes, it is not so much the genre you are referring to but rather
> the outlook or the intention of the artist.
Right: although the genre carries with it all sorts of connotations, I'm
talking about the degree to which the artist manages to address those
connotations. Thanks for your patience while I try to clarify this.
> >I'm sorry that I don't know Mary Pratt [...]
> Her work, which you could see in Art Gallery of Vancouver, is dazzling.
>
> Come on up, your dollar is worth $1.50 up here.
And I get free lodging in Oak Bay! (A sharp contrast to my usual
circumstances, believe me.) It was very tempting to head up there last
month, when we were experiencing weeks on end of unbearable heat, but it
isn't always easy to get away. Thanks for the invite, though--if you
don't mind I may send you an email some months down the road when I am
planning my next visit: I would appreciate gallery-going tips such as the
one above.
bt
> On 16 Sep 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> >
> > Excellent post Bt. The dialog between you and Mark is something that
is well
> > worth the time reading. Thanks to both of you [..]
>
>
> Well, at the risk of forming a mutual appreciation society thread, the
> same to you, Chris.
Ditto. Thanks for the kind word, Chris. And please don't hesitate to
jump in to this discussion.
bt
note and a couple of questions.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
[giant snip]
> > Bt says: But my hypothetical Painter isn't offering any view of how
the situation
> > facing an artist now is any different from that of fifty years ago.
>
> Yes, you're right. He/she may not be offering anything of the sort.
> I still think it is legitimate to avoid the illustration of theory,
> though. Those visual ideas aren't all worn out yet.
This seems a bit of a non-seqiter. Could you help me understand by
filling in the path between your second and third sentences above?
>
>
[more snipping]
>
> A next generation of critics could decide that the way something looks is
> more valid than the theory it illustrates.
A "theory backlash" is in full swing. Did you ever find the Dave Hickey
book I mentioned several weeks ago? I think you'd be interested in either
of his collections of critical essays: the short volume about beauty--"The
Invisible Dragon"--or the more recent collection of wide-ranging personal
essays called "Air Guitar." He's been rather influential among young
artists and other writers in the past four or five years, and his concerns
include a "return to beauty" and an attack on stodgy academicism. He also
writes lively prose, hardly a given with art critics. Please let me know
what you think. ("You" being Mark or any interested reader.) Some of the
young artists sactioned by Hickey are actually dredging up color field
painting again!
[small snip]
> > There may be much to enjoy about
> > this painting, in other words, but it can't be declared "advanced," can
> > it?
>
> You could have said the same in 1900 about Cezanne without seeing his
> work.
>
This is the other remark that I don't understand. Could you please
amplify this?
Thanks as usual,
BT
Charles Eicher
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Sep 1998, Charles Eicher wrote:
>
> > In article <35ffc...@oracle.zianet.com>, di...@tante.com (Irma Dillo)
wrote:
> >
> > > In article <35fd79a5...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
says...
> > >
> >
> > Actually, this isn't such a new concept, that Pollock's abstract works are
> > sometimes figurative. I first encountered this concept in a huge book
> > called "The Spiritual in Art - Abstract painting 1890-1985" which was the
> > catalog for a huge exhibition at the LA County Museum of Art in 1986. The
> > book is still in print, I recommend it highly.
>
> (snip)
>
> Yes, I've seen this book too. I second your recommendation.
I forgot to mention, it wasn't just a damn good book, it was an damn good
show too. I saw it in 1986, and the book barely scratches the surface of
all the good stuff at the show (check the exhibit list in the back of the
book, and compare it to the illustrations).
Ironically, about two years ago I was at the home of that professor I
mentioned who had rejected the new interpretation. She was holding a
reception for Brice Marden. On her bookshelf, I discovered a recently
purchased copy of that "Spiritual in Art" book! I guess I finally got her
to look at the new evidence. I teased her mercilessly, that she should ask
Brice to autograph his pages in the book! I had studied Brice's encaustic
paintincs and his related Crowley notebooks at the '86 show, so I made a
color xerox of a bizarre occult diagram that I thought would amuse him and
brought it. I showed it to him, and his eyes bugged out, and he said, "Can
I have this?" I agreed on the condition that he mailed me an autographed
postcard for his next show. So far, no postcard. I'm still waiting to see
his latest work, to see if that image had any impact..
> I was refering to the computer analysis - whatever that entails - that has
> apparently been done recently.
Haven't seen it yet, that magazine went astray somewhere.. I missed the
early discussion, I'm still playing catch-up.
Iian Neill
> > > > those guys: not in favor of Gentilishi, but in favor of Modernism(s).
[...]
> > > Well, I can just imagine what some of the hysterics are going to do with
> > > this.
> >
> > The "hysterics" (to use a crudely defamatory term) agree with BT;
>
> Again, Iian, this wasn't meant for you. I've never called you hysterical,
> and once again, I apologise if I've offended you.
You're quite correct - I jumped the gun here. My apologies.
> I have no interest in
> the sort of unilateral bombast and nastiness you seem to condone
> elsewhere.
I do not particularly approve of it, but we have all seen what comes about when others
interfere in such discussions; I believe I-free gave a perfect demonstration of this
some weeks ago, when reprimanded for the overly-aggressive tone of his posts - unless
my memory is faulty in this case, he went ballistic.
> > the situation
> > in art education is a little better today, what with more courses being offered
> > in pre-20th century art history, however at my university - at least - the
> > balance is something like 60% 'modern' to 40% pre-20th C. Now, this is the same
> > university which doesn't even have one unit to cover the Baroque, Rococo or
> > Neo-Classical periods, so I will not claim that it is representative of the
> > general state of education - well, I sincerely hope it isn't.
> >
>
> Um, are you sure the hysterics agree with Bt?
Well, I haven't conferred with them on this issue - incidentally, who do you consider
these "hysterics" are? It is obvious that you find Mani Deli to be one - who are the
others? I can not properly answer your above question until I know who you are
referring to, and hence, what opinions and views I must take into account to give an
accurate response.
> Such study would only be valuable if there were signs of a continuous tradition
> > between the Greeks, Raphael, Ingres and Picasso. Now, there are a number of
> > drawings which are obviously taken from Ingres' work, however it is not enough
> > to include a few heads or torsos here or there to make something part of a
> > tradition.
>
> Such study would yield this tradition. Try it.
Do you think that Ingres, Raphael or Poussin would have acknowledged Picasso as a
member of their tradition? Wouldn't such men be qualified to judge, particularly since
they are key figures in the Western pre-20th C tradition?
> > To assert that Modernism is part of any tradition seems to go against its
> > original aims, which were a deliberate break with most Western art before it,
> > particularly the movements immediately preceeding it.
>
> Are you sure all modern artists were attempting a deliberate break with
> all the elements in earlier Western art, or only those you admire.
No, they weren't all trying to break with Western tradition; Salvador Dali is a case
in point. And we have Pietro Annigoni, Ives Gammell, Frederick Hart, Bruno Lucchesi,
and others.
> > > I think Dekooning can be similarly better appreciated when one sees his
> > > relationship to Poussin and Corot - not just Soutine.
> >
> > I would agree that the truth about Dekooning is revealed when you put him beside
> > Poussin and Corot. I wish that museum curators would do this more often.
>
> Well, me too. I know what you mean, but I'm beginning to wonder if you'll
> ever know what I mean.
I know what you are saying - whether I will agree with the essence of it is a
distinctly different matter.
Best Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998, bt wrote:
>
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> [giant snip]
>
> > > Bt says: But my hypothetical Painter isn't offering any view of how
> the situation
> > > facing an artist now is any different from that of fifty years ago.
> >
> > Yes, you're right. He/she may not be offering anything of the sort.
> > I still think it is legitimate to avoid the illustration of theory,
> > though. Those visual ideas aren't all worn out yet.
>
> This seems a bit of a non-seqiter. Could you help me understand by
> filling in the path between your second and third sentences above?
Yes, I guess that doesn't read well. Sorry, what I mean is that painting
about how the situation has changed could be seen as illustrating a theory
about how the situation has changed, as opposed to painting as a self
referencial experience, not tied to dogma.
An example of this would be a painting that is only about, or primarily
about, the relationships between its parts. That is what I mean by "those"
visual ideas. ( I should have stressed *visual*.)
And by not being worn out, I mean that it still seems no less legitimate
or relevant today than at any other time to try to make a painting that is
more about form than content.
Of course, I also accept that some folks see *this* as dogma.
> >
> >
> [more snipping]
> >
> > A next generation of critics could decide that the way something looks is
> > more valid than the theory it illustrates.
>
> A "theory backlash" is in full swing. Did you ever find the Dave Hickey
> book I mentioned several weeks ago? I think you'd be interested in either
> of his collections of critical essays: the short volume about beauty--"The
> Invisible Dragon"--or the more recent collection of wide-ranging personal
> essays called "Air Guitar." He's been rather influential among young
> artists and other writers in the past four or five years, and his concerns
> include a "return to beauty" and an attack on stodgy academicism. He also
> writes lively prose, hardly a given with art critics. Please let me know
> what you think. ("You" being Mark or any interested reader.) Some of the
> young artists sactioned by Hickey are actually dredging up color field
> painting again!
>
Boy am I glad you mentioned him again, because I lost track of the name
and couldn't trace it through dejanews. I will try to find it. I was
embarrassed to ask you again.
> [small snip]
>
> > > There may be much to enjoy about
> > > this painting, in other words, but it can't be declared "advanced," can
> > > it?
> >
> > You could have said the same in 1900 about Cezanne without seeing his
> > work.
> >
> This is the other remark that I don't understand. Could you please
> amplify this?
Sorry, I wasn't writing very responsibly yesterday.
What I'm saying is that the work of A. Earnest Painter, which we haven't
seen, can be dismissed as not advanced because in theory, it only
regurgitates those tired formal issues.
And in 1900, without seeing Cezanne, but based on a description like
"there is much to be enjoyed, visually, but it is simply another example
of an earnest painter looking at a mountain, or arranging nudes, just like
Claude or Poussin", we can say that oil paint is, now, in 1900, an
irrelevant medium and that all those issues are finished, now, in 1900.
We could have said this then, and gone on to say that we need to break
away from irrelevant materials, or from tonal color, or illusionistic
space, and briefly, we could be satisfied by Picasso and Matisse (as long
as we only notice how they differ from Poussin, not how they are similar.)
But then how do we explain Bonnard or Derain?
What I am saying is that if you can dismiss an imaginary work of art as
not advanced then there may be too much dogma.
We should be able to dismiss a visual experience as not advanced or
irrelevant, badly made or ill-formed, insipid or precious - but we
should have to see it first.
And by the way (chuckle) I invite everyone to come to the Prince Street
Gallery, at 121 Wooster Street near Prince, in NYC, Friday the 25 of
September, to dismiss my work as any or all of the above.
and again, thanks,
Mark
mark webber
On Fri, 18 Sep 1998, Iian Neill wrote:
> > >
> > > The "hysterics" (to use a crudely defamatory term) agree with BT;
> >
> > Again, Iian, this wasn't meant for you. I've never called you hysterical,
> > and once again, I apologise if I've offended you.
>
> You're quite correct - I jumped the gun here. My apologies.
Accepted, with pleasure.
>
> > I have no interest in
> > the sort of unilateral bombast and nastiness you seem to condone
> > elsewhere.
>
> I do not particularly approve of it, but we have all seen what comes about when others
> interfere in such discussions; I believe I-free gave a perfect demonstration of this
> some weeks ago, when reprimanded for the overly-aggressive tone of his posts - unless
> my memory is faulty in this case, he went ballistic.
>
Everyone has bad days, and Ifree has made some fine contributions as well,
I think.
> > > the situation
> > > in art education is a little better today, what with more courses being offered
> > > in pre-20th century art history, however at my university - at least - the
> > > balance is something like 60% 'modern' to 40% pre-20th C. Now, this is the same
> > > university which doesn't even have one unit to cover the Baroque, Rococo or
> > > Neo-Classical periods, so I will not claim that it is representative of the
> > > general state of education - well, I sincerely hope it isn't.
> > >
> >
> > Um, are you sure the hysterics agree with Bt?
>
> Well, I haven't conferred with them on this issue
I only asked because of the first line in this post. It seems you may have
misread - but I'm not sure.
> - incidentally, who do you consider
> these "hysterics" are?
Well, let me say this. You and I have shared private email, and I think
when we want to mention other people in the group, its better to keep it
out of this forum, so as not to bore everyone else. I see email as gossip,
newsgroup as esthetics.
> > Such study would only be valuable if there were signs of a continuous tradition
>
> > > between the Greeks, Raphael, Ingres and Picasso. Now, there are a number of
> > > drawings which are obviously taken from Ingres' work, however it is not enough
> > > to include a few heads or torsos here or there to make something part of a
> > > tradition.
> >
> > Such study would yield this tradition. Try it.
>
> Do you think that Ingres, Raphael or Poussin would have acknowledged Picasso as a
> member of their tradition? Wouldn't such men be qualified to judge,
particularly since
> they are key figures in the Western pre-20th C tradition?
If Picasso was alive at the same times they were, I'm sure they would. If
they were contemporaries of Picasso, the same.
I'm not sure that if Raphael could have looked into the future at Ingre's
work, he would have admired every aspect of it. Simply not sure about
that.
>
> > > To assert that Modernism is part of any tradition seems to go against its
> > > original aims, which were a deliberate break with most Western art before it,
> > > particularly the movements immediately preceeding it.
> >
> > Are you sure all modern artists were attempting a deliberate break with
> > all the elements in earlier Western art, or only those you admire.
>
> No, they weren't all trying to break with Western tradition; Salvador Dali is a case
> in point. And we have Pietro Annigoni, Ives Gammell, Frederick Hart, Bruno Lucchesi,
> and others.
>
My point here is there may be more elements to the "Western tradition"
than those you admire, and that some modernists may not be breaking with
those elements at all. But we have been here before, and not with great
success, I'm afraid.
> > > > I think Dekooning can be similarly better appreciated when one sees his
> > > > relationship to Poussin and Corot - not just Soutine.
> > >
> > > I would agree that the truth about Dekooning is revealed when you put him beside
> > > Poussin and Corot. I wish that museum curators would do this more often.
> >
> > Well, me too. I know what you mean, but I'm beginning to wonder if you'll
> > ever know what I mean.
>
> I know what you are saying - whether I will agree with the essence of it is a
> distinctly different matter.
>
Fair enough.
best wishes, Iian,
Mark
bt
>
> My favorite image of Louise Nevelson,
> she is sitting in a bar quite close to the gallery where her
> exhibition is a resounding success. By this time she is 80
> or so, and she is weeping. When her friends seek her out,
> and ask her what's wrong, she keeps saying "It's too late. It's too late."
> >
A poignant anecdote, which I've never heard before. Where did you come
across this?
Marilyn
I meant to note that Louise was left out of more than just Janson's
or Gardner's but even, books on selected New York artists. The
art "specialists" looked down on her use of found materials, for one
thing.
Today, that seems so silly.
Found the anecdote in a comprehensive biography, I've given it away, but
I will get the details for you. I think perphaps it may be a prophetic
anecdote for many of us, as recognition comes either late, too late, or
post-mortem.
So drink up.
Also, the name of the Victoria sculptor is
Mowry Baden (who did "The Night Is Not for Sleeping.")
Be sure to check out Open Space on Fort Street, Victoria's
only contemporary non-profit art gallery.
au revoir
Marilyn
--
wq...@victoria.tc.ca
Victoria BC Canada
Marilyn
Snipped the part about Ri> Re: Veronese vs. Warhol (was: Gombrich and Bryson)
>
> From: b...@notarealaddress.org (bt)
> Reply to: [1]bt
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 17:38:49 -0700
> Organization: bt
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<36019...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
snipped part about Richter, thanks!>
>> >>
>> >
>> >Plus I like to imagine a pleasant surprise on my next trip to Victoria--I
>> >have family there.
>>
>> Well, on the corner of Belleville & Douglas, there is a sculpture/
>> installation using the mattress as a form entitled "The Night Is Not
>> for Sleeping." I can only remember the artist by his first name
>> Morrie (former dean of F.A. at U of Victoria). He will be having
>> a show at Open Space Gallery in October. I believe you will like it.
>
>Mowry Baden, is it?
Right you are. (not that I am on first name basis with him .)
>
>
>And I get free lodging in Oak Bay!
and you know that Oak Bay is a separate city from Victoria, although
they are talking about amalgamation.
It is always cool in Victoria, near the water, in the shade.
The dry season this year was exceptionally dry and because of this,
we have had a cougar walk into an office in town (door was left open).
It was in our neighbourhood for about a month.
It has since been re-located.
The natives called the cougar "Our Silent Brother"
and they never killed them.
are we very far off the topic?
Anyway, I would be happy to email you about Victoria's contemporary
galleries, all two of them.
au revoir,
Andrew Werby
b...@notarealaddress.org (bt) wrote:
>
> Confronting the fact that conceptualism has influenced the context in
> which one's work is seen doesn't mean that artists must become
> neo-conceptualist parrots--they might ridicule the conceptualist legacy,
> or twist it beyond all recognition, but can they fairly be judged an
> educated or "advanced" artist if they carry on as if that history never
> occurred?
>
> another discourse: book illustration, say, or figurative painting
> understood as its own tradition, separate from the practice (and critical
> dialogues) of fine art.
>
> Have fun with this,
>
> BT
[A provocative point. First of all, can we equate "educated" and "advanced"
as BT seems to do here? Can't one learn about something and then dismiss it
as essentially irrelevant to the things one is trying to do in ones own art?
For instance, one might be an expert on, and even an enthusiast for, the
photorealist movement of the 'seventies, but pursue a career as a color-
field painter, carrying on as if photorealism had never occurred, couldn't
one? Is it really necessary to consciously grapple with all the issues that
preoccupied the artists of the past; even if it is the immediate past? Or do
you contend that since this stuff happened, it is necessarily internalized,
and every brushstroke will reflect the "conceptualist legacy" whether we
intend it to or not?
Secondly, is it necessary to consider art as some kind of "discourse"? Isn't
this forcing it into an academic mold? I realize that art historians like to
make The Story of Art into a tidy and coherent narrative, but in reality,
doesn't each artist pick and choose the sort of thing- history, theory,
technique- that appeals to him or her, and go on from there? Is it required
that every work of art stand as a commentary on all the art of humanity's past?
Can't it be an original response to the materials, or a subject, or individual
psychological preoccupations, and owe little to art history in general, not to
mention Conceptualism?
The idea of the "advanced" artist, or the "Avante-Garde", as the French say-
isn't this a relic of the linear development model of art, which we are now,
in the Post-Modernist era, free to accept or reject? Implicit in the comment
above is the notion of High Art versus Low, the book illustrator being exempt
from conformity to the prevailing "critical dialogues" of Fine Art. Do we all
need to be concerned with the same issues, in order to be taken seriously as
artists- can't we concentrate on the ones that resonate with us, and leave it
to the academics of the future to sort out who was in advance of whom? Although
we don't know what issues will preoccupy them, it is a safe bet that they will
at least attempt to turn the orthodoxy of our time on its head- after all,
that's how academic reputations are made, isn't it?]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
bt
me for a while--demands in the non-virtual realm are making it difficult
to take the time to write the responses that your questions and challenges
merit.
Mr. Werby's post is outstanding--glad to have you participating--and
Chris, Iian and, of course, Mark, have all batted drives onto my side of
the court. I imagine them whistling and twiddling thumbs as they await my
volley in return. I'll respond to as many of these as I can, but it will
be a few days before I'm able to write at any length.
Sorry for dropping the pace--I've been enjoying the conversation--and
thanks for your patience.
BT
mark webber
Take your time, just don't quit on us!
Mark
CROCUSDES
Bt states:
>(snip) have all batted drives onto my side of
>> the court. I imagine them whistling and twiddling thumbs as they await my
>> volley in return. I'll respond to as many of these as I can, but it will
>> be a few days before I'm able to write at any length.
Don't feel any pressure Bt, it does take a lot of time to respond but not
everything has to be addressed. You can certainly ignore my posts if it
helps. Still, we can skitter around the courtyard with whatever players are
available.
Marilyn
Excellent points, Andrew. As I was reading your questions which you
mostly answer yourself, I kept thinking of the enormity of the task
of keeping abreast with all the art that every was. It is not possible,
so one has to choose.
How can a working artist,
study art history
study modern art
study post-modern art
keep up to date with all the important art being
achieved today (shall we say in the Western world)
seek truth, seek one's own truth
make a living
have a family
do art work
have a social life
go to cafes
(fill in the blanks, like "read newsgroups")
Marilyn