Zap!
William Engell
headed for my filter list. Unfortunately, newgroups have the unfortunate
effect of permitting almost unfettered access to others for folks who, for
reasons of mania, would not be tolerated for very long in person. Name
calling, back biting, a web site with the ambience of an alien abduction
site and just plain gross negativity. Mani has it all. Hasta la vista,
baby!.
Sharon Barcone
"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:spnu8t...@corp.supernews.com...
pretty boring if we all agreed? Or would you really like it if it were easy
to change one opinions to your own with a few simple arguments?
Seems to me your own comments could also be called name calling, back biting
and rather negative.
"Sticks and stones..." I have never felt threatened for listening to the
opinions of others. And though I may not change my own opinions, hearing
opinions different from my own offers me an opportunity to ponder what I
have heard and learn from the experience.
The free exchange of ideas is an important aspect in our ability to
communicate and grow as human beings.
How can anyone who has spend years trying to develop skill disagree with
Mani's "No skill- No art" mantra? And how can anyone who is unskilled
understand the concept he is presenting.? Unskilled artists can rant and
rave all they wants but they are wasting time, they should be doing their
homework.
Personally I would not block anyone's comments. I believe the variety of
opinion is what makes this group interesting and that most present their
arguments well. When opinions deteriorate to garbage I move on to another
thread.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
William Engell
the guy stays on my killfile. It's not so much what he's saying, as how.
The way he expresses himself degrades whatever message he may have.
Personally, I don't want to have to wade through it. There are other people
who think along similar lines and whose posts are not inter-personally
contentious.
I may choose to defend AE, for example, but I choose to do so in a way
that doesn't subject me to a withering fire of invective and an assault of
contentious buzzwords. To suggest that because I choose to appreciate, say,
Hans Hoffman, I may be a dupe of (enter your favorite Mani epithet for the
academic or critical establishment) certainly doesn't further a position, or
make me inclined to deal with it.
There is a person on a botany newsgroup whose approach to dialectic is
similar to Mani's. He's been ostracized by so many that he may be posting
to himself by now. This fellow has no ax to grind, and he has a wealth of
botanical knowledge, but he's just a difficult person. He spends time
making people feel unwanted. He spends time composing degrading preambles
to interesting technical responses. I wish it were otherwise. (I'm
reminded that a harangue is often also referred to as a jeremiad. Folks
have found prophets difficult for ages.) There are so many people with a
wealth of knowledge and a willingness to share it in an even-handed and
courteous way, that, for me, there seems too little time in this life to
deal with anyone who can't find a civil voice. (And to the extent that my
zap post was not those things, I apologize.)
An interesting incidental point you mention deserves some consideration.
I've heard the term skill used quite a lot, without much specificity. The
relationship of skill and art begs examination, without a doubt. However,
it might be more interesting to start by trying to understand more clearly
what constitutes skill (s). How objective can you be about these skills?
Since the acquisition and possession of skill (s) varies considerably over
time for the painter (let's say), and between painters, is there some point
at which the painter begins to produce art, as contrasted to mere painting?
Are works of considerable artifice--and I don't mean that in the
perjorative, but as a reflection of evidence of a high level of skill--
which are not, in fact, art? Is there such a thing as painting totally
bereft of art? Is that only a matter of it's author being deficient of
skill (s), or can it be something else?
These are interesting questions that beg discussion. It's possible that
art and skill may be linked, but I, for one, am not ready to stipulate that
without some discussion--discussion of the ideas, not of the holders of the
ideas.
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <399ff...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
Sharon Barcone
> Perhaps my comments were not constructive. But, I've got to tell you,
> the guy stays on my killfile. It's not so much what he's saying, as how.
> The way he expresses himself degrades whatever message he may have.
> Personally, I don't want to have to wade through it. There are other
people
> who think along similar lines and whose posts are not inter-personally
> contentious.
I think with Mani it is often cause and effect, even when presenting a new
arguement he is attacked first and I think he attitude has been affected by
this.
> I may choose to defend AE, for example, but I choose to do so in a way
> that doesn't subject me to a withering fire of invective and an assault of
> contentious buzzwords. To suggest that because I choose to appreciate,
say,
> Hans Hoffman, I may be a dupe of (enter your favorite Mani epithet for the
> academic or critical establishment) certainly doesn't further a position,
or
> make me inclined to deal with it.
A good reason for not getting involved in the thread to begin with. I do see
your point. Arguements presented in an intelligent and articulate manner are
the most intriging to become involved in.
> There is a person on a botany newsgroup whose approach to dialectic is
> similar to Mani's. He's been ostracized by so many that he may be posting
> to himself by now. This fellow has no ax to grind, and he has a wealth of
> botanical knowledge, but he's just a difficult person. He spends time
> making people feel unwanted. He spends time composing degrading preambles
> to interesting technical responses. I wish it were otherwise. (I'm
> reminded that a harangue is often also referred to as a jeremiad. Folks
> have found prophets difficult for ages.) There are so many people with a
> wealth of knowledge and a willingness to share it in an even-handed and
> courteous way, that, for me, there seems too little time in this life to
> deal with anyone who can't find a civil voice. (And to the extent that my
> zap post was not those things, I apologize.)
> An interesting incidental point you mention deserves some
consideration.
> I've heard the term skill used quite a lot, without much specificity. The
> relationship of skill and art begs examination, without a doubt. However,
> it might be more interesting to start by trying to understand more clearly
> what constitutes skill (s).
I have considered your questions. A great deal of discussion has occured in
this group about skill, ability, and art. For myself, skill is the ablilty
to complete a task with some competence. Ability is a can-do word and Art is
the end product of a creative pursuit by one with the skill to create the
produce of one's vision.
>How objective can you be about these skills?
How can one be objective about anything? (no, I don't expect an answer to
that.) As I have said before, I think that there are a number of different
skills that may come into play by one who is doing a painting. There is the
skill of execution and technical ability, the skill to communicate an idea
effectively, the skillfull use of imagination to create a vision, and maybe
even the skill in marketing should be considered. I believe a skill of some
sort in necessary for a work to be considered fine art. Most dictionaries
contain more that one defination for all the words we are discussing. How do
we ever know which defination is referred to by a speaker unless it is made
clear by the speaker.
> Since the acquisition and possession of skill (s) varies considerably
over
> time for the painter (let's say), and between painters, is there some
point
> at which the painter begins to produce art, as contrasted to mere
painting?
> Are works of considerable artifice--and I don't mean that in the
> perjorative, but as a reflection of evidence of a high level of skill--
> which are not, in fact, art? Is there such a thing as painting totally
> bereft of art? Is that only a matter of it's author being deficient of
> skill (s), or can it be something else?
Painting totally bereft of art is called house-painting (ha-ha?)!
At one time I would have said that decisions about what is and is not art
was a matter of concensus. Now I believe there will no be a concensus on
this subject. I could be like Mani and insist "no skill-no art", but I would
be speaking from a personal viewpoint and not necessarily the same viewpoint
as Mani. I may have a broader sense of the work skill or not.
> These are interesting questions that beg discussion. It's possible
that
> art and skill may be linked, but I, for one, am not ready to stipulate
that
> without some discussion--discussion of the ideas, not of the holders of
the
> ideas.
I have always enjoyed viewing the paintings of VanGogh but I was not until I
saw a drawing of a pair of shoes he did that I became aware of what great
talent he possessed. I saw great care and patience in that work and a love
in the doing of it. I was very moved by a pair of shoes and saw more skill
in them than in his paintings.
I would not say that I have answers to your questions but I believe the very
word art presents even more questions. I do think the need to put all art
into some kink of category has helped to fuel the problem. If it doesn't fit
any other category it will be termed experimental art. This is for the
benefit of galleries and museums that must put a name on what they represent
and what they include must fit what they intend.
I believe that two or three hundred years from now work created by the
unskilled will still be called folk art and that some work created by the
skilled artist may get to be called fine art.
But what do I know?
William Engell
What do you know? Well, for one thing, that you're not certain of some
things. At the risk of sounding Eastern, that's a lot in these days of
extreme positions and omnipresent polemics.
I'd be interested in how you view the work of Frank Stella, for example.
Let's say, the earlier work, the paintings. Some writers have said this
work is decorative, more design than art. The implication being that it's
merely clever. There seems to be skill involved, in that the work, as it
is, seems well crafted. (Stella has claimed he has no skill at drawing,
referring to the representational. He certainly doesn't draw, as the act is
usually understood. Although, I saw a catalog of Morris Louis drawings once
which lead me to understand that for some the definition of drawing is more
inclusive than I had previously understood.) Apart from liking it or not,
what do you see there vis a vis skill and/or art?
WE
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39a40...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
Sharon Barcone
> Sharon,
> What do you know? Well, for one thing, that you're not certain of
some
> things. At the risk of sounding Eastern, that's a lot in these days of
> extreme positions and omnipresent polemics.
I made that statement because I know that the expression of an opinion made
here is an open invitation for someone to tell me how wrong I am. But the
fact of the matter is I have studied Art all my life, from my days in a
playpen watching my Dad paint and trips to the National Gallery in D.C. with
him untill he passed away when I was 16. From there I began reading his
books and magazines and absorbing art from anywhere I could find it. My
point being, I consider myself a student of art. After 40 years of painting
I am still learning and growing in my understanding of the process and
motivations of artists. I still question my own premise in creating art and
from time to time must adjust accordingly. I will be a student until I die.
> I'd be interested in how you view the work of Frank Stella, for
example.
> Let's say, the earlier work, the paintings. Some writers have said this
> work is decorative, more design than art. The implication being that it's
> merely clever. There seems to be skill involved, in that the work, as it
> is, seems well crafted.
Is it really well crafted or is it just a well balanced design?
>(Stella has claimed he has no skill at drawing,
> referring to the representational. He certainly doesn't draw, as the act
is
> usually understood. Although, I saw a catalog of Morris Louis drawings
once
> which lead me to understand that for some the definition of drawing is
more
> inclusive than I had previously understood.) Apart from liking it or not,
> what do you see there vis a vis skill and/or art?
>
> WE
>
Though my knowledge of the work of Frank Stella is somewhat limited I will
say this. I believe his very earliest works show neither skill or artist
achievement, A bit later he begins to show skill in design for example in
"York Factory" but I do not think this piece shows artistic skill per se. I
believe Stella's important work is his later works where he paints
representational pieces in a fresh, new and unexpected way and I believe
this is an indication that he achieved some artistic ability. I would rather
see art created by someone who "can't draw" done in an honest attempt than
one who uses rulers and compasses to create a design of straight and curved
lines. I also believe his work currently at Sotheby's will be drastically
overpriced. I know that there are people who buy art at enormous prices
because they can and because others can not. This in no way indicates the
true value of a piece as Art. Nor does it indicate their artist taste. This
is skill in marketing.
Again, this is only my own opinion and I know there may be those who
disagree. But, I look at it this way, I believe human beings are
evolutionary creatures. To me, flat space is a step backwards for artists
and it leaves me wishing for more depth and content. When I see a work of
art I want to jump in with both feet, to feel and experience the world
created there by the artist. Stella's early designs left no place for my
feet.
William Engell
of non-economic value. Do you limit skill, then, to those things which are
representational? Or is it necessary that work be complex? Do you agree
that a balance in design must indicate some type of skill? If so, even if
you agree only that the skill is limited or small, cannot that be done in
some way evidencing art? (By the way, I've no stake in Stella. I've never
particularly enjoyed his work. It's just a convenient example to mull
over.)
If representation is paramount, in your view, what would you say about
Farifield Porter, for example? His work is always representational. Yet
there are a multiplicity of techniques which are usually considered to be
typical of great skill which he rarely uses. I have to admit, I find some
of his work stunning, yet I'm not astonished by his skill, technically, but
by what he does with the skills he has. Or perhaps the art is in knowing
what to bring to the work, not being gratuitous in technical display.
I think I'm poking around at the notion that there seems to be something
very, very different about work that includes the smallest suggestion of
representation, from work which does not. Or that there cannot be art in
something which uses similar techniques, skillfully applied, but not
representational drawing. I'm hard pressed to say unequivocally that the
difference between the non-representational and the representational is
merely the application of skill. Or that skill is only displayed by or
present in representation.
Okay, so here's a "thought experiment", the kind of things physicists
love. You have a highly talented artist who has developed a vast range of
skills including the ability to represent absolutely anything she wants in
any way the medium permits. One day she sees something, say a view of a
busy expessway on a sunlit day, or the geometrical pattern of agricultural
plantings, as seen from the windowseat of a commuter jet. She is fascinated
by certain elements of something she sees. When she next arrives at the
studio she begins to put the formal elements together on canvas. She
decides to subordinate the identity of the actual objects. When she's done
what she has is brightly colored or more subtle, loaded with movement of
shapes and colors or filled with fixity boardering on stillness, and
elicits, from some, a reaction based on what elements she's added, but not
the identity of the items which were the source of what ultimately became
her plastic forms. Is it not possible to consider that there is more here
than an application of paint, more than simple craft, but something aspiring
to, or attaining, a state of art?
Maybe I'm worrying this to death, so forgive me if that's what's
happening. I'm actually trying to understand more clearly what it is that
is missing in non-representational work that renders it, in the view of so
many here, invalid as art.
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39a66...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
>
>"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
>news:sq91l2...@corp.supernews.com...
>> Sharon,
>> What do you know? Well, for one thing, that you're not certain of
>some
>> things. At the risk of sounding Eastern, that's a lot in these days of
>> extreme positions and omnipresent polemics.
>
>I made that statement because I know that the expression of an opinion made
>here is an open invitation for someone to tell me how wrong I am. But the
>fact of the matter is I have studied Art all my life, from my days in a
>playpen watching my Dad paint and trips to the National Gallery in D.C.
with
>him untill he passed away when I was 16. From there I began reading his
>books and magazines and absorbing art from anywhere I could find it. My
>point being, I consider myself a student of art. After 40 years of painting
>I am still learning and growing in my understanding of the process and
>motivations of artists. I still question my own premise in creating art and
>from time to time must adjust accordingly. I will be a student until I die.
>
>> I'd be interested in how you view the work of Frank Stella, for
>example.
>> Let's say, the earlier work, the paintings. Some writers have said this
>> work is decorative, more design than art. The implication being that
it's
>> merely clever. There seems to be skill involved, in that the work, as it
>> is, seems well crafted.
>
>Is it really well crafted or is it just a well balanced design?
>
> >(Stella has claimed he has no skill at drawing,
>> referring to the representational. He certainly doesn't draw, as the act
>is
>> usually understood. Although, I saw a catalog of Morris Louis drawings
>once
>> which lead me to understand that for some the definition of drawing is
>more
>> inclusive than I had previously understood.) Apart from liking it or
not,
>> what do you see there vis a vis skill and/or art?
>>
>> WE
>>
>
>Though my knowledge of the work of Frank Stella is somewhat limited I will
>say this. I believe his very earliest works show neither skill or artist
>achievement, A bit later he begins to show skill in design for example in
>"York Factory" but I do not think this piece shows artistic skill per se. I
>believe Stella's important work is his later works where he paints
>representational pieces in a fresh, new and unexpected way and I believe
>this is an indication that he achieved some artistic ability. I would
rather
>see art created by someone who "can't draw" done in an honest attempt than
>one who uses rulers and compasses to create a design of straight and curved
>lines. I also believe his work currently at Sotheby's will be drastically
>overpriced. I know that there are people who buy art at enormous prices
>because they can and because others can not. This in no way indicates the
>true value of a piece as Art. Nor does it indicate their artist taste. This
>is skill in marketing.
>
>Again, this is only my own opinion and I know there may be those who
>disagree. But, I look at it this way, I believe human beings are
>evolutionary creatures. To me, flat space is a step backwards for artists
>and it leaves me wishing for more depth and content. When I see a work of
>art I want to jump in with both feet, to feel and experience the world
>created there by the artist. Stella's early designs left no place for my
>feet.
>
Sharon Barcone
> I certainly agree with your statement about the market not being a gage
> of non-economic value. Do you limit skill, then, to those things which
are
> representational?
No. I would define skill in relation to art as a specialized ability gained
by training or experience.
>Or is it necessary that work be complex? Do you agree
> that a balance in design must indicate some type of skill? If so, even if
> you agree only that the skill is limited or small, cannot that be done in
> some way evidencing art? (By the way, I've no stake in Stella. I've
never
> particularly enjoyed his work. It's just a convenient example to mull
> over.)
If you draw a square with a diagonal line running from one corned to the
opposit corner, you would create a balanced design but I do not think it
would show that you have particular skill. If all the lines met perfectly at
the corners one might say it was well crafted but does this mean it is fine
art. I think not. Allthough there are those who say "I could never be an
artist, I can't draw a straight line without a pencil".
If on the other hand you fill that same square with a complex pattern you
will provide the viewer with more to judge your skills.
> If representation is paramount, in your view, what would you say about
> Farifield Porter, for example? His work is always representational. Yet
> there are a multiplicity of techniques which are usually considered to be
> typical of great skill which he rarely uses. I have to admit, I find some
> of his work stunning, yet I'm not astonished by his skill, technically,
but
> by what he does with the skills he has. Or perhaps the art is in knowing
> what to bring to the work, not being gratuitous in technical display.
First,
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
elio_cope...@hotmail.com
<wen...@erie.net> wrote:
>Maybe I'm worrying this to death, so forgive me if that's what's
>happening. I'm actually trying to understand more clearly what it is that
>is missing in non-representational work that renders it, in the view of so
>many here, invalid as art.
Excuse the intrusion, but the matter is intriguing. I have no direct
answers to your question, but I live it every time in my artistic
activity. I often start working with a non-representational stuff,
creating a sort of more or less structured chaos. But although
sometimes I'm tempted to do so, in very rare cases I stop the process
at this stage. I don't feel satisfied if, from this matrix of
possibilities, does not emerge, coagulate, a more restricted field of
possible meanings. This usually happens with the determination (that
is projecting and working to let it emerge) of some figurative stuff.
This process is oscillatory, weak figures tend be destroyed and
stronger new emerge until I reach a certain degree of equilibrium.
This only to tell you that altough I like abstract,
non-representational art (in some states of mood I accept only
this kind of stuff) in general I find this field of expression
somewhat limited. After all, I find my strongest aesthetical
experiences in dreams, thus is the (sometimes diabolically expressive)
"language" of the dreams that I usually try to (without doubts poorly)
emulate. But this is only my current situation, that could change in
the course of my artistic development.
Regards
Elio Copetti
http://web.tiscalinet.it/elio_copetti
Sharon Barcone
"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
news:sqg9qm...@corp.supernews.com...
> I certainly agree with your statement about the market not being a gage
> of non-economic value. Do you limit skill, then, to those things which
are
> representational? Or is it necessary that work be complex? Do you agree
> that a balance in design must indicate some type of skill? If so, even if
> you agree only that the skill is limited or small, cannot that be done in
> some way evidencing art? (By the way, I've no stake in Stella. I've
never
> particularly enjoyed his work. It's just a convenient example to mull
> over.)
> If representation is paramount, in your view, what would you say about
> Farifield Porter, for example? His work is always representational. Yet
> there are a multiplicity of techniques which are usually considered to be
> typical of great skill which he rarely uses. I have to admit, I find some
> of his work stunning, yet I'm not astonished by his skill, technically,
but
> by what he does with the skills he has. Or perhaps the art is in knowing
> what to bring to the work, not being gratuitous in technical display.
I especially like the interiors of Porter. His representational work there
is intimate and conveys emotion to me. I do believe his work shows skill but
I do not believe that an artist is required to work in a manner that
glorifies technique. Technique is a means to an end. The important thing is
the ability to convey your message, idea, or feeling. Porter accomplishes
this. His use of color and value suggest that he is knowledgable of the
techniques involved in those aspects of his paintings.
Most readers here know that I believe the study of classical techniques will
benefit all artists regardless to their style, even the purely abstract
painter can benefit. Why, because the more you know about manipulating
paint, the broader your understanding of creating an image, the deeper you
study and more knowledge you gain the better your imagination will provide
you with inspiration. With unlimited knowledge you increase the possibility
of unlimited potential.
> I think I'm poking around at the notion that there seems to be
something
> very, very different about work that includes the smallest suggestion of
> representation, from work which does not.
Can you define what this quality is?
> Or that there cannot be art in
> something which uses similar techniques, skillfully applied, but not
> representational drawing. I'm hard pressed to say unequivocally that the
> difference between the non-representational and the representational is
> merely the application of skill. Or that skill is only displayed by or
> present in representation.
I think skill is easier to judge in representational art because there is a
basis for judging what has been painted with what is being represented.
Works that are totally abstract must be judged for skill on a different
basis, such as use of color, elements of the design and emotional response
to name a few. Yes I admit to the possibility that an abstract painter may
have skill. I just feel most abstract work falls short of the mark.
> Okay, so here's a "thought experiment", the kind of things physicists
> love. You have a highly talented artist who has developed a vast range of
> skills including the ability to represent absolutely anything she wants in
> any way the medium permits. One day she sees something, say a view of a
> busy expessway on a sunlit day, or the geometrical pattern of agricultural
> plantings, as seen from the windowseat of a commuter jet. She is
fascinated
> by certain elements of something she sees. When she next arrives at the
> studio she begins to put the formal elements together on canvas. She
> decides to subordinate the identity of the actual objects. When she's
done
> what she has is brightly colored or more subtle, loaded with movement of
> shapes and colors or filled with fixity boardering on stillness, and
> elicits, from some, a reaction based on what elements she's added, but not
> the identity of the items which were the source of what ultimately became
> her plastic forms. Is it not possible to consider that there is more here
> than an application of paint, more than simple craft, but something
aspiring
> to, or attaining, a state of art?
Of course it is possible, especially since you qualify the artist as being
highly skilled as an artist to begin with. It is not what you paint or how
you paint it but as you said before, it is what you bring to the playing
field. Also important to note that for the most part we have been discussing
the skills involved and not defining art.
> Maybe I'm worrying this to death, so forgive me if that's what's
> happening. I'm actually trying to understand more clearly what it is that
> is missing in non-representational work that renders it, in the view of so
> many here, invalid as art.
>
I do not feel that totally non-representational work is invalid as an art
form, only that it is not the great movement some claim. I do not believe it
is the best direction for all modern art to head for. Think about this...
through out the world there is a system of holding great works of art in
museums, and many people travel the work to view them. There are people who
steal art perceiving a value there. Many demand that some of their tax
dollars go to funding the protection and creation of art. Why? Why is the
product of imagination so important. It may be easy to appreciate an
artist's technical skill but that alone may not produce great art. To what
standards do we require that an artist be responsible? Some say artists
should be responsive to no standards. I personally hold artists to very high
standards. I expect more from art in the future not less. The techniques for
creating art and developing skill are not hard to learn, it is perfecting
these techniques to create great art that takes a lifetime.
Sharon Barcone
<elio_cope...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:akehqsccb2l1jrru0...@4ax.com...
> >happening. I'm actually trying to understand more clearly what it is
that
> >is missing in non-representational work that renders it, in the view of
so
> >many here, invalid as art.
>
> answers to your question, but I live it every time in my artistic
> activity. I often start working with a non-representational stuff,
> creating a sort of more or less structured chaos. But although
> sometimes I'm tempted to do so, in very rare cases I stop the process
> at this stage. I don't feel satisfied if, from this matrix of
> possibilities, does not emerge, coagulate, a more restricted field of
> possible meanings. This usually happens with the determination (that
> is projecting and working to let it emerge) of some figurative stuff.
> This process is oscillatory, weak figures tend be destroyed and
> stronger new emerge until I reach a certain degree of equilibrium.
> This only to tell you that altough I like abstract,
> non-representational art (in some states of mood I accept only
> this kind of stuff) in general I find this field of expression
> somewhat limited. After all, I find my strongest aesthetical
> experiences in dreams, thus is the (sometimes diabolically expressive)
> "language" of the dreams that I usually try to (without doubts poorly)
> emulate. But this is only my current situation, that could change in
> the course of my artistic development.
>
> Regards
> Elio Copetti
> http://web.tiscalinet.it/elio_copetti
>
>
appreciated. I viewed your work on your nicely designed website and was
impressed with some of it. I personally like a mix of abstract and
representational. A touch of the representational in art gives the viewer a
grounding, a place to relate to in the chaos that surrounds it. It is a
thought of reality on a plane of imagination. Having something to relate to
involves the viewer in a way that allows emotional response to that in a
painting which the viewer cannot relate to.
Marilyn Welch
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
> "William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
> news:sqg9qm...@corp.supernews.com...
> > I certainly agree with your statement about the market not being a gage
> > of non-economic value. Do you limit skill, then, to those things which
> are
> > representational?
>
> No. I would define skill in relation to art as a specialized ability gained
> by training or experience.
>
Hey Sharon,
Allow me to interject here and bring to your attention that there are many
natural skills. People who just have IT, without much effort. So I can't
accept your narrow definition. It seems here as if you will try to develop
a definition of skill which will relate to the genre describing your own
work. Therefore, I observe a political skill in your attempt to define
skill in art. Are you using your term "skill" as a means of exclusion?
Marilyn
William Engell
When you write about skill it seems you are referring to something
innate, a potential or talent, naturally derived from the organism.
Skill, in the sense that it is generally used, indicates the development of
potential into specific capability. There are fertile grounds for growth.
One person may be more adept at developing skills than another. If all the
"nurture" or training elements are equal--which, of course they never
are--there will be individuals who ultmately demonstrate a greater degree of
(learned) skill. We tend to consider that these people are naturally
talented, but have developed skill. We usually only recognize the talent,
or whatever you would call the natural endowment, until there is some
learning (or training). Then we find it relected in whatever skill has been
developed.
[As an aside: We often see that there are indiviuals who work very hard
at learning (training) in almost any discipline. These are not necessarily
the people with the greatest natural endowments toward those disciplines.
There are also skills to be learned in areas such as work habits--
persistance and tenacity, in particular-- which can enable those with lesser
natural endowments in a specific dsicipline to be successful.]
WE
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
>
>On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
>>
>> "William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
>> news:sqg9qm...@corp.supernews.com...
>> > I certainly agree with your statement about the market not being a
gage
>> > of non-economic value. Do you limit skill, then, to those things which
>> are
>> > representational?
>>
>> No. I would define skill in relation to art as a specialized ability
gained
>> by training or experience.
>>
>Hey Sharon,
>
>Allow me to interject here and bring to your attention that there are many
>natural skills. People who just have IT, without much effort. So I can't
>accept your narrow definition. It seems here as if you will try to develop
>a definition of skill which will relate to the genre describing your own
>work. Therefore, I observe a political skill in your attempt to define
>skill in art. Are you using your term "skill" as a means of exclusion?
>
>Marilyn
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
William Engell
You may be correct in asserting that much abstraction "falls short." Yet
you don't say all. (Nor, certainly, would I.) Can you name an artist
working in a non-figurative mode in which you find skill? Better yet, in
whose production you see art?
I would love to know what the quality of the difference between
representational and abstract art is. I'm not sure it isn't bound up with
semiotics and the very specific nature of the artistic "communication" that
makes one of us make a work and the other appreciate it. Iconography is
funny business. Difficult to pin down in words. Listening to the
discussions of aestheticians can be wrenching. (I may be evidencing
cowardice here.)
Bill Engell
Sharon Barcone
> >> > I certainly agree with your statement about the market not being a
> gage
> >> > of non-economic value. Do you limit skill, then, to those things
which
> >> are
> >> > representational?
> >>
> gained
> >> by training or experience.
> >>
> >Hey Sharon,
> >
> >Allow me to interject here and bring to your attention that there are
many
> >natural skills. People who just have IT, without much effort. So I can't
> >accept your narrow definition.
Marilyn,
My definition of skill comes from the dictionary. Skill: A specific art,
craft, trade or job: also such an art, craft, etc, in which one has a
learned competence. My dictionary also has, talent: a person's natural
abilities.
>>It seems here as if you will try to develop
> >a definition of skill which will relate to the genre describing your own
> >work.
We have not discussed my own work at all. We are discussing skill/art and
rep/ab. I have merely expressed arguements in defense of my position. I have
admitted the possibility that a purely abstract work could be done
skillfully. I have said here that I have seen skillfull work that contains a
mix of the abstract with a bit of reality thrown in. That is not what I
paint.
>>Therefore, I observe a political skill in your attempt to define
> >skill in art.
Not at all political, I have no desire to govern the opinions of others. I
have stated emphatically that my comments are my own opinions and that I
know others may disagree. I also know that there are those who agree. And I
will also say that some of the premise for my opinions has been influenced
by Salvador Dali. I might also add that we have not been discussing this
based on what I like or dislike.
Are you using your term "skill" as a means of exclusion?
> >
> >Marilyn
> >
In using the term skill, I mean only to exclude the unskilled.
No one in this thread has been asked to accept anyone else's definition for
anything, but since you express a different opinion, please provide your
definition of skill and explain why you hold your opinion of that
definition.
Sharon Barcone
> Sharon,
> You may be correct in asserting that much abstraction "falls short."
Yet
> you don't say all. (Nor, certainly, would I.) Can you name an artist
> working in a non-figurative mode in which you find skill? Better yet, in
> whose production you see art?
No.
Well ok, there are a few I could name that I would call skilled artists that
mat fall into the criteria you set. I would name Kupka, Miro, Tanguy and
possibily Balla. I also have a new found respect for Paul Klee.
> I would love to know what the quality of the difference between
> representational and abstract art is.
I believe this quality would have as many opinions as the number of people
asked.
>I'm not sure it isn't bound up with
> semiotics and the very specific nature of the artistic "communication"
that
> makes one of us make a work and the other appreciate it. Iconography is
> funny business. Difficult to pin down in words. Listening to the
> discussions of aestheticians can be wrenching. (I may be evidencing
> cowardice here.)
>
> Bill Engell
>
I will say this. I have ofter heard, when viewing abstract work in museums,
the comment "Well, I could have done that." I believe that there are people
who believe that a work by a skilled artist, hanging in a museum should be a
work that they the unskilled could have never done.
So, let me ask this, do you think we can agree that a skilled person is one
who is able to do that which an unskilled person would not be able to do
attempting the same task. And if so, do you think that some abstract work
falls into the range of the abilities of the unskilled.
Chris
I thought I'd toss in a few comments!
Re politics - one definition of "politics" that is probably apropos your
"political skill" is derived from the two secondary definitions of
"politics" a la Webster (though similar elsewhere):
"competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power
and leadership (as in a government)"
and
"political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest
practices"
Now to see how that latter applies to your argument, one notes that in
the post to which Marilyn responded, you defined skill w/r art as
> I would define skill in relation to art as a specialized ability gained
> by training or experience.
Note that though later you say you are using a dictionary definition,
you have slipped in the qualification that is acquired. But your
dictionary definition of skill does not require that restriction, it
only says that such a qualifier can also apply. Isn't that an artful
practice? Taken in light of the (occasionally) friendly competition
between representational and abstract painters it can easily be seen as
political LOL....
The problem with trying to define art in terms of skill is that skill is
generally measured in terms of ability to achieve a goal, and unless you
predefine the validity of those goals then there is no point in talking
about skill. A painter who is interested in self-expression may create
something that means nothing to you and a good deal to me. Is that lack
of resonance a reflection of an unskilled artist or an unskilled viewer?
Does it matter?
Like you point out, phrases like "I (or my kid/dog/turtle) could do
that" are occasionally applied. But how honest (or well informed) they?
Most AE work (in particular) contains many "signature" elements that are
highly individualized and very difficult to repeat - in the same way
that most people's own signature is. Look how much work Rockwell put
into the his splatter work that forms the basis of "The Connoisseur";
and even so, it is hardly likely that anyone would ever mistake that
part of the painting for something by Pollock, for example.
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
elio_cope...@hotmail.com
your considerations but it would be interesting to deepen about what
really changes in our perception when a non-representational image
becomes figurative. Are the psychic activations in front of the
artwork essentially different? I think that the prominent
activity here is made of psychic projections and the associations
(both emotive and rational) they trigger. A game of connotations
that appears to me very personal and idiosyncrasic, depending
on thousands of factors. And this aspect seems drown much further
in the non-figurative stuff, where the meanings are so weakly
constrained to appear arbitrary and the sharable area seem to
reduce to almost nothing.
This is not a blame, this opening has its own advantages,
especially in being so receptive to our interpretations, to
the questions and feelings we really care of. Personally
speaking, I sometimes find liberating the absence of connections,
perhaps better compromises, with some oppressive aspects of our
humanity, or animality, even with some carnivals of unconscious.
But this leads to such personal interpretations that I would never
conceive to impose them anyone (often neither to mention).
I remember that years ago, when my English was even worse than
today, I often misunderstand some sentences of Springsteen's
songs. Every time I ascertained this, I found that the real
meaning was disappointingly banal compared to that I had
projected on the vagueness, maybe because the latter was deriving
from the hottest corners of my heart. This taught me something about
the whole mechanism, I believe.
The issue I really don't understand is the common pretension that
a sequence of abstracts works can establish a new "language",
wich we should be enough smart or subtle, or sensible, to
understand. Although I could be able to grasp a rudimentary
visual "grammar" from a sequence of abstract works, the
implicit connection between "syntax" and "semantics" seems
to me absolutely arbitrary and thus I never would use, out
of metaphors, the term "language". But I imagine this can be
an intellectually funny game (in this view I have nothing to
object) and also it can act as mean for producing a lot of
(less or more interesting, depending on the literary skills)
writings. So I'm happy to read creative interpretations of abstract
work. But I'm annoyed when they are presented as revelations of one
"truth" or a "language" behind the artwork, instead as fruitful
inventions. It's more often a question of tone than substance.
But I suspect "the difference is power."
William Engell
I'm a Klee fan. (For what ever that's worth.)
I believe that few of the people who quip that they, or their
two-year-old, or their pet monkey, could produce much of what is on the
walls of our institutions as abstract art, are correct. I believe that they
generally would not be able to distinquish good abstract work from bad,
technically or any other way. I would have to agree that
non-representational work can be done by the unskilled, but that usually it
will fail to satisfy experienced viewers. I don't think it would be
difficult at all for me to tell the difference between a collage by
Motherwell and a collage by such a person. I'd be willing to guess I might
be fooled by someone with skills who didn't usually do abstract work, but,
honestly, I'd believe that it probably wouldn't be as convincing either.
On the other hand, if I was faced with a Clyfford Still I would very
likely reject it. I'd have to say that I could not determine his level of
skill from his work. But actually I'd reject it on the basis that I didn't
like it! I'm not really competent to talk about the stuff because it leaves
me cold. Again, it wouldn't have much to do with his skill, being more a
matter of taste. On the other hand, I'd love to have an Adolph Gottlieb or
a Nicholas DeStael on my wall. Right next to the Sargent watercolor. I
don't think I'd spend much time thinking about relative skill levels. It
would be as difficult to imagine Sargent working in the manner of either of
the former two as vice versa. Different disciplines altogether.
I've seen local shows (here, where I am, in a small working class city)
where there are abstract works. Many are unconvincing. A few make the
grade. Most of the work is representational (actually, watercolor still
life and landscape). Much of it is unconvincing. It seems to me that in
both cases there is some level of skill involved in creating the convincing
works of both.
Is it easier to scam with an abstract work? Possibly, but not
certainly. For every first rate painter there are (many, many) second rate
painters. That's true in both camps. I'd like to believe that Still was
for real. If he wasn't, if his work doesn't really cut it, then the
Albright Knox has a roomful of wasted canvases the size of my driveway. I'm
going to leave that for someone else to decide. I've seen a lot of genre
painting that, while obviously competent reportage, leaves me just as cold.
Yet museums all over the country are loaded with the stuff. Enough to pave
the driveway if I can't get one of the Stills. But I'm not certain that
technical skill is the problem. Or if it is, it's got nothing to do with
anything as obvious as drawing per se.
Bill
Sharon Barcone wrote in message <39aaa19e$1...@corp.newsfeeds.com>...
>
>"William Engell" <wen...@erie.net> wrote in message
William Engell
music is abstract. Certainly, in any case, instrumental, non-programmatic
music is abstract. Yet the validity of the work is never questioned on that
basis. No one ever requires that there be lyrics of lost love or lost dogs.
Some like it better that way, but it's never a criteria for validity.
On the other hand, we, the audience, can be very demanding of highly
skilled performance. We hear so much technically correct music that if an
amateur pianist sits to play at a party, after a few bars people begin to
wander off. Still, many who listen to the Cleveland Symphony also listen to
the Louis Armstrong Hot Five and Hot Seven recordings. Some who listen to
those also listen Robert Johnson. There is a vast skill difference, but
each have some hold over us.
Bill
Marilyn Welch
Hi Sharon,
No, I don't think I expressed a different opinion on the definition of
skill. I just made a comment to make trouble. I don't wish to define skill
because the word here has been used to death to berate and exclude great
masters like Cezanne, would you believe.
Let's kill the word skill
Let's kill the word skill
Let's kill the word skill
Personally few people can be described as unskilled. Almost eveyone has
some thing, big or little which they are good at. My grandson, 8 can walk
up to a hoop, and put the basketball in with no effort, no dribbling, no
practice. He dived into the local pool at age 2 and began to swim before
anyone had time to teach him anything. Are these not skills because he is
a natural? Ever read "The Competence of Babies?"
Fairfield Porter had many weaknesses in his art but when they were all
combined on a canvas, each element he was using was arranged so well that
the paintings were great! So he was a skilled arranger more than a skilled
painter. Not to mention he was also an art critic who knew what he was
doing. There is the skill of hiding one's flaws too. Most of us are good
at that.
Let's kill the word skill.
Marilyn
Marilyn Welch
Look again. Clyfford Still was very skilled in his edges.
He was an original, inimitable, unforgetable.
Still had skill.
Marilyn
Sharon Barcone
abstract. But I am having trouble putting words to the why of it. I admit to
some gray area here. Be that as it may, your points on validity are good.
So, what do we judge music by? Is not the same concepts as painting or other
arts. Technical ability, the ability to communicate an idea, the ability to
evoke an emotional response?
I have never denied the validity of abstract art however I do not believe it
will go down in history as great, important art. But any artist dedicated to
the abstract in art, committed to the idea of advancing his art and
improving with experience, should not feel threatened by my opinion. I am
only one person out of millions and others do not agree with me. If we all
agreed, what would we discuss?
I like representational art. I like many styles in rep art. But that is not
to say I like all representational art. Nor do I dislike all that contains
the abstract in art. Now to really throw you a curve, what I like about a
painting is not always based on what skills the artist may or may not have
employed to create it. We haven't really been focusing on this topic based
on what we like per se but sometimes I like a painting (or piece of music)
because of what it communicates to me regardless of the other skills
involved. And maybe I feel that for me abstract artists just don't have
anything to say. Maybe the communication aspect is my problem. And maybe the
communication aspect in art is something that should receive more focus in
this discussion.
Sharon Barcone
"Marilyn Welch" <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1000828194437.12686B-100000@vtn1...
> Hi Sharon,
>
> No, I don't think I expressed a different opinion on the definition of
> skill. I just made a comment to make trouble.
Marilyn,
I have no trouble with anyone playing devil's advocate but believe our time
can be better spent,.
> I don't wish to define skill
> because the word here has been used to death to berate and exclude great
> masters like Cezanne, would you believe.
I think skill is a valid term in our discussions. But talking of skill alone
is not enough. If one expressed why they believe an artist is skilled or
unskilled we will have a better idea of the premise from which they are
expressing the view. There is no requirement to agree or disagree.
But there may be a basis for discussion and the free exchange of ideas. And
isn't that what this group is all about?
>
> Let's kill the word skill
> Let's kill the word skill
> Let's kill the word skill
No, no, no!
>
> Personally few people can be described as unskilled. Almost eveyone has
> some thing, big or little which they are good at. My grandson, 8 can walk
> up to a hoop, and put the basketball in with no effort, no dribbling, no
> practice. He dived into the local pool at age 2 and began to swim before
> anyone had time to teach him anything. Are these not skills because he is
> a natural? Ever read "The Competence of Babies?"
I assume my comment "I believe in two or three hundered years from now the
work of the unskilled will still be called folk art." has hit a sour note
with you. Ok, I will accept to your notion that one born with the natural
ability to create art may be called skilled. But one with natural abilities
often needs guidence to develop them and may also improve on their ability
with experience.
> Fairfield Porter had many weaknesses in his art but when they were all
> combined on a canvas, each element he was using was arranged so well that
> the paintings were great! So he was a skilled arranger more than a skilled
> painter.
"Skilled arranger" I thought you were doing away with that term...
Your point was also my point. There are many different skills that come into
play in the creation of art. Rather than limit the words we use, we should
elaborate on the meaning of what we have to say.
>Not to mention he was also an art critic who knew what he was
> doing. There is the skill of hiding one's flaws too. Most of us are good
> at that.
>
> Let's kill the word skill.
>
> Marilyn
>
One more thought on natural ability. My oldest son was in the talented and
gifted programs all through his schooling. He could read when he got to
kindergarten, why? Yes he had natural abilities and is very intellent but he
watched "Sesame Street" daily from the time he was about six months old. He
also picked up spanish and math there. He was read to nightly from about one
year on. My point natural ability needs to be developed. Education,
experience and opportunity all come into play with our natural abilities. A
two year old who can swin first time in the water may actually be showing
natural insticts of survival.
Sharon Barcone
"Chris" <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:39AABC36...@ns.sympatico.ca...
> Hi Sharon;
>
> I thought I'd toss in a few comments!
>
> Re politics - one definition of "politics" that is probably apropos your
> "political skill" is derived from the two secondary definitions of
> "politics" a la Webster (though similar elsewhere):
>
> "competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power
> and leadership (as in a government)"
> and
> "political activities characterized by artful and often dishonest
> practices"
>
> Now to see how that latter applies to your argument, one notes that in
> the post to which Marilyn responded, you defined skill w/r art as
>
> > I would define skill in relation to art as a specialized ability gained
> > by training or experience.
Ok, my slip. "My" defininaton above was derived from the adjective skilled:
having or requiring a specialized ability, as in a particular occupation,
gained by training or experience.
>
> Note that though later you say you are using a dictionary definition,
> you have slipped in the qualification that is acquired. But your
> dictionary definition of skill does not require that restriction, it
> only says that such a qualifier can also apply. Isn't that an artful
> practice?
The quote I provided from the dictionary later was from the noun form. There
lies the difference.
That quote shows two ways to use the term i.e 1. A secretary may have the
skill of typing or shorthand. 2. A secretary with skill may type 120 words
per minute. My original definition was an effort to show how I was using the
term, with regard to the ability gained by training or experience. It was
not some sly effort to manipulate.
> Taken in light of the (occasionally) friendly competition
> between representational and abstract painters it can easily be seen as
> political LOL....
> The problem with trying to define art in terms of skill is that skill is
> generally measured in terms of ability to achieve a goal, and unless you
> predefine the validity of those goals then there is no point in talking
> about skill.
I disagree here. I believe skill and ability are valid terms in the
discussion of art.
A painter who is interested in self-expression may create
> something that means nothing to you and a good deal to me. Is that lack
> of resonance a reflection of an unskilled artist or an unskilled viewer?
> Does it matter?
I have never implied that because I do not understand or find meaning a work
that it was created by someone who was unskilled. In the case you site a
better dialogue would occur if I said "I just don't get that painting" and
you said "Here, let me tell you what I get from it." From there we might
find a common ground to discuss all the skills that may have come into play
in the creation of the work. Skills that might include technical ability,
ability to communicate an idea, etc.
>
> Like you point out, phrases like "I (or my kid/dog/turtle) could do
> that" are occasionally applied. But how honest (or well informed) they?
> Most AE work (in particular) contains many "signature" elements that are
> highly individualized and very difficult to repeat - in the same way
> that most people's own signature is. Look how much work Rockwell put
> into the his splatter work that forms the basis of "The Connoisseur";
> and even so, it is hardly likely that anyone would ever mistake that
> part of the painting for something by Pollock, for example.
>
> Chris
When that phrase is used by someone viewing a painting I believe they are
expressing an honest opinion. I will also agree with you that they may
indeed be not well informed or even just plain ignorant about art. But does
that invalidate the opinion they hold to themselves. Does it even matter
what they think? Maybe not. But if art communicates self-expression is it
meant only as a form of communication with the well informed? I think not.
William Engell
at those Still paintings that I'm beginning to think I'm a masochist. To be
fair, I actually go for other reasons, but I make the trek up the stairs to
stare at the Stills. I'm just not on board here.
Now, I didn't say he was unskilled. I was saying that I didn't like
them. I don't think I'm qualified to comment on his skills. There were
edges all right. They did the things edges do. I'm going to leave it there
before I tell an anecdote about my grandfather the house painter and his
edges. Next thing you know I'll be falling right into it, telling you my
Lhasa Apso could paint those edges. Uh-uh. Not me. I'm not in any way
qualified to discuss the skills found in the Stills which still stare back
at me and find...the abyss, that great big empty place where my appreciation
is supposed to be.
Marilyn Welch wrote in message ...
William Engell
Perhaps the qualitative elements from which we derive our enjoyment of
music are similar to those of successful abstract painting. In music there
are sonority and timbre, dynamics, melody and harmony. Sounds are single
and unison, follow quickly or slowly, are held or abbreviated. All the
plastic elements of music composed in such a way as to provide some specific
arrangement (unless you're a John Cage) which provides a panoply of effects
in such a way as we find evocative. In abstraction there are marks and
color and form and contrast, etc., arranged similarly to provide an artifact
which evokes visually, instead of aurally.
Evocative is really the operative word. If it evokes a reaction, it's
probably successful. Still was an curmudgeon. Maybe my reaction would have
satisfied him. I doubt it. It doesn't work for me, it evokes absolutly
nothing. Not even loathing. Mostly I'm curious as to why it's there and I
don't get it. Apparently Marilyn does. But I don't.
If there are no sympathetic evocations, is it not art? Is it only
successful when there is concensus? Or, as with Eliot's "Wasteland" is it
enough to be most successful with a "hip" segment of the audience. (To get
the most of that poem one needs either to have a near-classical education or
be a really industrious reader with a talent for reference work.) Does it
take an art historian or a sophisticate to appreciate a some painting?
Probably. Can those people be deluded? Probably. Are they often?
I've heard that in his day Bach was beginning to be eclipsed by one of
his sons in the popular imagination. They, the intelligensia, sometimes
refered to him as "Old Bach." I think they may have considered him last
years news, and his son the wave of the present and the promise of the
future. Boy, were they ever wrong.
I find the notion of Pollack as a folk artist amusing. I thing,
however, it's possible that Eric Fischl might eventually be considered that
way. Perhaps it's good we don't know.
I certainly think that the "crazy writers" that were adopted by the high
art culture of NYC, Haring and Basquiat come to mind, will very likely be
relegated to some folk art chapter in Janson's "History of Art" published a
century from now. Look how ambivalent the art world has been toward Klimt
and Shiele. I've heard the latter described as a folk artist, an intriguing
character illustrating his inner landscape, and the former a decorative
artist , damnation intended. Frankly, I think we have more sheer numbers of
artists to marginalize these days.
But, ultimately, regardless of the academy, the critical establishment,
the endowments, the sponsors or the galleries, where the rubber really hits
the road is the transaction that's completed when an artist releases a work
for public consideration and someone in an audience regards it. Evocative.
If you can say that about it, it's probably a success. I'd agree that skill
is required to create evocative work. The trouble is, I'm not sure that the
skill is what evokes. I think it may be what makes the things that evoke.
Or have I an extra step in there?
Bill
mdeli
>Bill,
>
>Look again. Clyfford Still was very skilled in his edges.
?
>He was an original, inimitable, unforgetable.
>Still had skill.
He is unoriginal, totally forgettable, and already a has-been.
Thousands of art students are trained to produce similar nothings.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
>I have never denied the validity of abstract art however I do not believe it
>will go down in history as great, important art.
Always remember that artzy fartzies think of abstract art as modern
abstract art. They are really unfamiliar with the best of abstract
art. They rarely look at the abstraction in fine paintings.
The implication here is that all critics of modern Academic Art
dislike all abstract art. The fact is that abstraction is the older
form of art. My criticism here pertains to the crap which inhabits the
modern sections of museums. This stuff happens to fall into two
categories, abstraction and no skill realism.
Realism and abstraction as categories are manifestations of subject
matter and subject matter of itself is not a criterion of merit.
Abstraction is always present in all fine art. But without getting
into details for the moment as an example, I contend that anyone who
considers Mondrian a great abstract artist hasn't compared it to a
great abstract towel design or a skillfully designed bed sheet.
Sharon Barcone
> But, ultimately, regardless of the academy, the critical
establishment,
> the endowments, the sponsors or the galleries, where the rubber really
hits
> the road is the transaction that's completed when an artist releases a
work
> for public consideration and someone in an audience regards it.
Evocative.
> If you can say that about it, it's probably a success. I'd agree that
skill
> is required to create evocative work. The trouble is, I'm not sure that
the
> skill is what evokes. I think it may be what makes the things that evoke.
> Or have I an extra step in there?
>
> Bill
>
>
No, I don't think you have an extra step but I do think what is evoked is to
be considered also.For example: I have often been moved literally to tears
by some music (especially Sousa marches...)
by some books and movies. However, I can think of no painting that has ever
moved me to tears. It seems maybe I am affected by paintings on a different
level then. They appeal to me more on a thought-provoking level and the
others on a level of feeling certain emotions. And sometimes can success be
judged on a consensus of one. (An oxy-moron to be sure.)