January picks

[hu...@earthlink.net]

Hugh O'Mara, artworks. Symbolism and surrealism meets folk art
and a few other things. Happy New Year! I have this month's
pick of pictures up for viewing. Come by and see at
http://home.earthlink.net/~hugho
Leave me a message telling me what you think. These images
will remain until February 1 when new ones will go up.
Stay healthy and happy this new year!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet

[Mdeli]

I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which
inhabits our museums does not possess a modicum of
the fundamental skills. That is why I predict that when
the tide of fashion changes Modern Art will be
reassessed.

I do not believe that art must return to the realism or
the subject matter of the past. I do not even favor
realism over abstraction. I do not advocate any one
style of subject matter as necessarily being better
than another.

However I see no merit whatever in work claiming to be
great art which anyone with a little skill can
imitate and even forge. I see no merit in a work's
claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more than
flat drips, stripes or schmiers etc. I regard such work
in spite of present day adulation to fall into a
category of which should be called STUPID ART.

And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork which
shows that he lacks fundamental artistic skills
(no matter how brilliant at other things) as a STUPID
ARTIST.

And I regard anyone who doesn't possess fundamental
skills and claims he teaches art as a STUPID ART
TEACHER.

Mani DeLi
If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most
others can't do his only alternative is Bullshit.

[Stanley Beck]

Mdeli wrote:
>
> I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which
> inhabits our museums does not possess a modicum of
> the fundamental skills. That is why I predict that when
> the tide of fashion changes Modern Art will be
> reassessed.
>

> ...

>
> Mani DeLi
> If an artist hasn't the skill to do something most
> others can't do his only alternative is Bullshit.

History will determine the worth of art and artists. What is popular
today (often because of good PR and lots of hype) may not stand the test
of time.

Bach was in the shadows of many of his contempories, and even became
obscure as a composer after his death, but now is regarded as one of the
true musical greats. So will be the case for many visual artists.

I, for my part, will continue to work, and not worry about it.
--
Stanley Beck

Empty Buckets make the most noise !

mailto:sbec...@aol.com, mailto:sbec...@earthlink.net
Online Gallery --> http://members.aol.com/sbeckart/index.htm

[S.T.V.C.]

For the most part, I agree, I think. If the same class of imagery you
refer to in painting etc. is produced in sculpture with a great deal
more technical skill and craft involved in its production, is it any
less stupid? Or is it just stupid art that took a lot of craft and
skill to produce? Is it not the stupid idea that leads to stupid art,
regardless of the skill/craft involved in its production? Related to
this issue, what do you think of art that seems to require text, or
verbal explanations linked to it in order to gain acceptance? Is it not
simply illustration of an intellectual notion, rather than of a sensual
experience? I know, I know, these things won't be pinned down any time
soon. Just more kindling for the fire.

Steve

[Satterlee]

S.T.V.C. wrote:
>
> For the most part, I agree, I think. If the same class of imagery you
> refer to in painting etc. is produced in sculpture with a great deal
> more technical skill and craft involved in its production, is it any
> less stupid? Or is it just stupid art that took a lot of craft and
> skill to produce? Is it not the stupid idea that leads to stupid art,
> regardless of the skill/craft involved in its production?

very Duchampian.

> Related to this issue, what do you think of art that seems to require text, or
> verbal explanations linked to it in order to gain acceptance? Is it not
> simply illustration of an intellectual notion, rather than of a sensual
> experience?

No matter what style, art HAS to be about a whole lot more than sensual
experience. If sensual experience is the only criterion, then Playboy
is art, right?

[Mdeli]

"S.T.V.C." <ST...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>For the most part, I agree, I think. If the same class of imagery you
>refer to in painting etc. is produced in sculpture with a great deal
>more technical skill and craft involved in its production, is it any
>less stupid? Or is it just stupid art that took a lot of craft and
>skill to produce? Is it not the stupid idea that leads to stupid art,
>regardless of the skill/craft involved in its
production?

I regard the ideas behind most great religious art
pretty stupid, others do not. Many times we do not know
what the idea behind a work is. Sometimes a work has no
particular idea. All artwork is eventually judged in
terms of its quality.

The "idea" behind an artwork is mainly of importance to
critics. They are required to struggle for something
seemingly profound to say about insoluble mysteries.
Their conclusions a usually a display of vanity
designed to give you the impression that they know more
about the unknown meaning of an artwork than you do. It
is much like the thousands of written books centering
on a few particular pages in some holy scripture.

I recall when Picasso did his "dove of peace,." the
critics raved and it even appeared on postage stamps.
There is nothing wrong with the idea behind it and I
suppose one can tell long well documented "stories"
about it. However, since it has about as much technical
finesse as a high grade bathroom scrawl critics now say
very little about it. Its lack of quality is apparent.
Its only redeeming quality is that its signed Picasso.
If it was found to be signed Norman Rockwell even
critics would concede that it was a fifth rate fake.

As time passes fashion slips away as a factor of
judgment. Then the qualities that are constant in all
great art weigh on peoples conclusions.

Mani DeLi
...no skill no art

[Bruce Attah]

In article <32CEE8...@earthlink.net>, Stanley Beck
<sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote:

> History will determine the worth of art and artists. What is popular
> today (often because of good PR and lots of hype) may not stand the test
> of time.

> true musical greats. So will be the case for many visual artists.

I don't think we can rely on history. If we are wrong now, who's to say
we won't be wrong in an entirely different way 100 years from now, and
again 200 years hence?

> Bach was in the shadows of many of his contempories, and even became
> obscure as a composer after his death, but now is regarded as one of the
> true musical greats. So will be the case for many visual artists.

I wonder if there are contemporaries of Bach who were more famous than he
at the time, but obscure now, whom I would prefer to Bach, if only I knew
their music?

What if Bach's contemporaries were right, and we are wrong?

If we ask ourselves _what_makes_good_art_, which we have to do as artists,
anyway, I think we can be more confident that our judgements make sense
than if we simply wait for time to sort out reputations for us.

> I, for my part, will continue to work, and not worry about it.

The best approach.

Bruce Attah.

[jkea...@aol.com]

In article
<Bruce.Attah-06...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:

>
>I don't think we can rely on history. If we are wrong now, who's to say
>we won't be wrong in an entirely different way 100 years from now, and
>again 200 years hence?
>
>
>

True, we can't be totally certain, but time gives us the advantage of
context, and often also removes the psychological barriers. For example,
in the future, Mapplethorpe's photographs may be viewed more
dispassionately (I hope not!).

[peter james kashur]

Bruce Attah wrote:
>
> In article <32CEE8...@earthlink.net>, Stanley Beck
> <sbec...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > History will determine the worth of art and artists. What is popular
> > today (often because of good PR and lots of hype) may not stand the test
> > of time.
> > true musical greats. So will be the case for many visual artists.
>

> I don't think we can rely on history. If we are wrong now, who's to say
> we won't be wrong in an entirely different way 100 years from now, and
> again 200 years hence?
>

> > Bach was in the shadows of many of his contempories, and even became
> > obscure as a composer after his death, but now is regarded as one of the
> > true musical greats. So will be the case for many visual artists.
>
> I wonder if there are contemporaries of Bach who were more famous than he
> at the time, but obscure now, whom I would prefer to Bach, if only I knew
> their music?
>
> What if Bach's contemporaries were right, and we are wrong?
>
> If we ask ourselves _what_makes_good_art_, which we have to do as artists,
> anyway, I think we can be more confident that our judgements make sense
> than if we simply wait for time to sort out reputations for us.
>
> > I, for my part, will continue to work, and not worry about it.
>
> The best approach.
>
> Bruce Attah.

Bruce:
Curious, I was thinking in the same direction as I walked through the
recent Corot exhibit in Ottawa; was he really that good... certainly not
when compared to some of today's painters. Perhaps the fact that he was
so prolific made him difficult to ignore; oh no, maybe Corot was the
William Alexander of the 1850's; maybe the better artists have long been
forgotten; maybe Duchamp and Andre, Close and Wyeth will not be held in
the same esteem historically as they are now; maybe history will revere
Alexander instead; then again, maybe Corot was good. Not to worry.

In reality as heated as discussing art seems to get at times, there is
nothing in the discussion as worrisome as taking a loaded brush to a
nearly finished painting.

I hope your work goes well!

pjk

[ath...@hotmail.com]

> >
> > What if Bach's contemporaries were right, and we are wrong?

Matters of right and wrong, good and bad aren't factual matters - they're
matters of opinion. In art, as in everything else, it's best to buy low,
promote like crazy to promote a fad, and sell high. The only question is:
will they buy it?

[Bruce Attah]

In article <athena-ya0231800...@news.frontiernet.net>,
ath...@hotmail.com wrote:

> Matters of right and wrong, good and bad aren't factual matters - they're
> matters of opinion.

Is that a fact?

[Bruce Attah]

In article <32D755...@accent.net>, peter james kashur
<pka...@accent.net> wrote:

> Bruce:
> Curious, I was thinking in the same direction as I walked through the
> recent Corot exhibit in Ottawa; was he really that good... certainly not
> when compared to some of today's painters. Perhaps the fact that he was
> so prolific made him difficult to ignore; oh no, maybe Corot was the
> William Alexander of the 1850's; maybe the better artists have long been
> forgotten; maybe Duchamp and Andre, Close and Wyeth will not be held in
> the same esteem historically as they are now; maybe history will revere
> Alexander instead; then again, maybe Corot was good. Not to worry.
>

I think Corot's reputation may well be inflated, in which case I would
attribute it to two factors: (1) he's seen as a forerunner of
Impressionism, and (2) realism was associated with radicalism when he was
working.

> In reality as heated as discussing art seems to get at times, there is
> nothing in the discussion as worrisome as taking a loaded brush to a
> nearly finished painting.
>
> I hope your work goes well!
>
> pjk

Same to you.
Cheers.

[peter james kashur]

Bruce Attah wrote:
>
(1) he's seen as a forerunner of
> Impressionism,

He may be seen as such, but that would be wrong; you know and I know
that contrary to the myth of French art, the forefather of French
impressionism was English; and still the best impressionist of them all.

pjk