Isn't it Art?
Lauri Levanto
Isn't it art?
Erik Mattila once wrote, that art is
whatever we have learned to regard as art.
We do learn the meaning of terms from the way they are used.
When we speak of fine arts, it is not so simple.
Classical pieces are canonised. We know they are
fine art, whether or not we like them.
We know because they are gems of major museums, and reprinted
in all art history books. Modern art is classical in that sense.
Keith mentioned contemporary experimental art.
Can Fine art be experimental? I think not.
The question "is this art" sure is worth of artistic inquiry.
It has changed our notion of art, and the quality of our
artistic experience.
The question makes sense, however,
only as long as the answer CAN BE negative.
If some piece is presented in MOMA or Saatchi collection,
the answer must be "yes" because it is automatically institutionalized.
It is no longer experimental, it is playing safe.
I hear you say that before something enters MOMA or Saatchi
it has already proved to be Fine Art. The curators know their job [1].
Where was the proof? In respected "Almost Canonical Arts Galleries" and
in authorative critics. How did THEY make their choices. By following
trends and taking few risks. [2] There can be no experimental art in
establishments of experimental art. What is worse, they are bound
to display art that pretends experimental. The real experiments must
take place
elsewhere.
* * *
[1] Can we trust on curators? Does some curator have guts to
say no to anything some Tracey Emin brings in? He has his
credibility on stake. If a piece or installation
is done by a contemporary celebrity, it must be fine art.
"Art is what the artists do". Isn't it. Can semigods err?)
[2] One of the French intellectual gurus - I'm too lazy to check if
it was Lacon or Saussure or somebody else - said that revolutionary
art can be revolutionary only within the system.
Too timid and you are boring, too radical and you are rejected.
There is a silent agreement, how to break the rules.
-lauri
Unknown Artist
How to get into the Whitney:
Plant one foot recognizably in heroic modernist tradition, while dangling
the other precariously in obvious postmodern neotransavant-gardism.
Good luck.
Yours,
UA (Ironic, I know)
RBrac53660
Great now I have to stop useing that tired old word avant-garde to describe
work made in the past two days.
LOL
Marilyn
avant garde is old-fashioned, it's now "cutting-edge"
I guess it cuts both ways. <smirk>
MW
John Ng
The world seems to take it that just because something is displayed in
certified museums or arty books, that it is Art. I think that is
something people will have to un-learn. Curators are really simply
following fashion and trend and getting things which they think will
be crowd pullers -- shocking art for example. Art book critics simply
reproduce what they have seen in other books and walk the
well-threaded path. Just imagine a book on general art WITHOUT
Picasso or Kalinsky. Nonsense as they may be, they have to be
included in all "good" art book by necessity. If I am rich enough to
publish ten well promoted art books and include some new items that
are mediocre or nonsense, in a few years time, I can expect one of
them to be hailed as some Art... remember Dada?
John
View my paintings at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
RBrac53660
Peter H.M. Brooks
RBrac53660 <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> Contemporary !
>
Contemporary with what?
--
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at the outset - is
that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible.."
- Bertrand Russell
Marilyn
This is a preposterous statement by any standards, maybe Todd
could set you straight.
I liked your paintings though, portraits in the landscape,
happy people (which is difficult). Your colours are
subdued. Very good work ! The angel is a little
too corpulent for an angel, not aerodynamic.
MW
Todd Strickland
You know, nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to look
at Picasso (are they?). If you don't like Modern art, don't go to The
Guggenheim; take a taxi and visit The Met. Of course, a small portion
of there collection is also Modern art; if even the curators of The
Met are interested in Picasso and Kandinsky, maybe it's not just
"nonesense," as you believe.
By the way, in your ideal art book, which painters MUST be included?
I'm just curious to know...
Todd Strickland
John Ng
> happy people (which is difficult). Your colours are
> subdued. Very good work ! The angel is a little
> too corpulent for an angel, not aerodynamic.
Thanks Marilyn. OK, you convinced me to remove the Angel :-)
John Ng
> at Picasso (are they?). If you don't like Modern art, don't go to The
Yes, nobody's forcing me. And if you like Modern/Abstract art, you
are surely at the liberty to do so. I see no reason to "ban" any form
of "creativity" and surely it is stupid and impossible to try to
convince someone to hate the think he/she likes.
"Nonsense" is not a proper word choice but what I actually wanted to
suggest is that people's opinions have been altered by others (people
or institutions) who claim to know art. I am plain fed up of the
media expounding to us how great some of these riduculous pieces are
and not breathing a word about classic art. For example, ten out of
the last ten art programs that I saw talked about the this modern
genre art. Maybe something like 10% ever talk about art other then
this modern type and they are talk about the age-old tried and blue
masters. You almost never hear about Tissot, Bouguereau, Waterhouse,
Eugen de Blaas, Leighton, Hunt, Millais, Bastien-Lepage... I grew up
never having heard of these masters until now (thanks to ARC).
> By the way, in your ideal art book, which painters MUST be included?
> I'm just curious to know...
There is no MUST include painters, I have not seen a general Art book
not including Picasso.
John
RBrac53660
>suggest is that people's opinions have been altered by others (people
>or institutions) who claim to know art.
Like the garbage that is constantly pushed upon us by Hollywood, television,
billboards, magazines. I'm sorry but Tom Criuses latest macho sexual fanatasy
bores the me. And "Friends" stinks it is nothing like NYC.
>Maybe something like 10% ever talk about art other then
>this modern type and they are talk about the age-old tried and blue
>masters. You almost never hear about Tissot, Bouguereau, Waterhouse,
>Eugen de Blaas, Leight
The last big thing was Whistler as far as I recall.
Lauri Levanto
Marilyn wrote:
>
> The angel is a little
> too corpulent for an angel, not aerodynamic.
>
> MW
nice to hear someone else is worried about the aerodynamics of
an angel.
I have always trouble with those baroque angels with tiny wings
and plenty of folds in dress. They have to buzz like bees to get off
the ground and then they are carried away with the wind.
If an average size angel flaps the wings like a duck, it needs
some 10-15 sq. meters wing area. The dignity of a pigeon
demands about 20 sq meters. That is 6' wide and wingspan
over 40 feet!
If I could draw in classical style like Mani claims,
I would illutrate the Christmas scene where an Angel
appears to the shepherds. If you have seen how big birds like swans
land - or parachute jumpers you know what I mean.
And the nightgowns they wear. Landing feet first,an angel
must protect his modesty with both hands like Marilın in the famous photo.
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
<...>
> You almost never hear about Tissot, Bouguereau, Waterhouse,Eugen de Blaas,
> Leighton, Hunt, Millais, Bastien-Lepage... I grew up
> never having heard of these masters until now (thanks to ARC).
>
I do not know all the names you mention. Bouguereau works I have seen
live. What makes you pick the most empty illustration? Do you
see something deep in his works.
> There is no MUST include painters, I have not seen a general Art book
> not including Picasso.
>
> John
No MUST, whom you then prefer to include in your different general art book
(if you want to give a comprehensive picture of the art)?
-lauri
Todd Strickland
I admire some of the painters you mentioned, and names such as
Bouguereau, Millais, and Bastien-Lepage are already canonized in art
history, so I don't see the need to tear down Picasso in order to
raise them up (although classifying Eugene von Blaas as a "master"
while calling Picasso "ridiculous" begs the question of how you define
ridiculous! Please tell me that you meant Julius von Blass, painter
of equestrian scenes). As to general art books always including
Picasso, it's no mystery; he's simply the most important artist of the
20th Century. Even if you hate his work, I don't see how that fact
can be denied.
I completely disagree with you that the mass-media praise Modern and
contemporary art; on the contrary they generally ridicule and dismiss
it. Here are just a few examples off the top of my head:
When Duchamp's Futuruist masterpiece Nude Descending a Staircase
(1913) was shown in New York at the Armory Show, The New York Evening
Sun ran a story on it. Rather than reproduce the actual painting they
got their staff cartoonist to parody it; The Rude Descending the
Staircase (Rush Hour at the Subway) was the result. "Seeing New York
With a Cubist" was the title of the article.
Life magazine ran a couple of articles about Modern artists in New
York (mostly Abstract Expressionists) around 1950. In one article, a
group of artists had gathered to protest the conservative policies (at
that time) of The Whitney Museum. The title of the Life article was
"The Irascibles." With a title like that, you can guess which side
the magazine took. Shortly after, they ran a story and interview with
Pollock and called it "Jack, The Dripper."
In the early '60s, Norman Rockwell did a Saturday Evening Post cover
entitled Abstract and Concrete (the Connoisseur). It shows a balding
"intellectual" type appreciating an "abstract" painting, which is
nothing more than an ugly jumble of splashed paint, obviously in
reference to Pollock. To tell the truth, I admire the fact that
Rockwell was at least saying something in this painting (as opposed to
the sentimental drivel he usually turned out), but I disagree with his
assessment of Pollock. Anyway, the point is that The Saturday Evening
Post put this image, obviously hostile to Modern art, on its cover.
A 1964 New Yorker cartoon shows a couple relaxing on a beach, three
Rothko-esque rectangles suspended over the horizon. The husband says
to the wife, "Now, there's a nice contemporary sunset!"
Back in the late '80s there was a big controversy about National
Endowment for the Arts grants being used to produce "obscene" art.
Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe caught the most heat (I forget
the details; I'm not sure if Mapplethorpe had received any public
money or if it was just "guilt by association"). The mass-media went
ape-shit over this and every major publication denounced Mapplethorpe
as a degenerate; of course, few of them bothered to show any of his
work.
Just last night I watched Notting Hill, the Hugh Grant/Julia Roberts
movie, on TV. There was one scene, a "scene" from one of Anna's
films, in which a man and woman are walking through an art gallery.
On the walls are silly "abstract" paintings, and the man is trying to
impress the women by his appreciation of "art." The scene was
supposedly showing the emptiness of Modern art, and that the women
wasn't fooled by it (actually, I was reading a book and hardly paying
attention to the movie; if I've misrepresented it and offended any
Julia Roberts fans, I apologize).
I've never seen a serious explication of Modern art in the mass-media.
I've never seen a fair representation of it in the mass-media.
Perhaps PBS or other publicly funded minor-media have programs about
art; here in Japan, NHK sometimes has art programs. But they have a
definite preference for "old" art; the last one I saw was on Giotto.
Before that, Fragonard, I believe.
Finally, I resent the idea that people's opinion (mine, as well, I
suppose) of Modern art is formed by "others (people or institutions)
who claim to know art." I think I have a mind of my own, and I
believe that I can appreciate Modern art on its merits. Furthermore,
the curators of prestigious museums such as The Whitney, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art, The National Gallery, The Louvre, The
Prado, The Hermitage (notice I didn't mention any museums dedicated
exclusively to Modern art) all find merit in Picasso. These men and
women certainly love art as much as you do, know as much about it as
you do, have dedicated their lives to it, and are surrounded by the
best art ever produced; they can find meaning and merit in Picasso,
but you say it's ridiculous? Try to be objective for a moment, and
consider that maybe, just maybe, these people might know what they're
talking about.
Todd Strickland
RBrac53660
>Endowment for the Arts grants being used to produce "obscene" art.
>Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe caught the most heat (I forget
>the details; I'm not sure if Mapplethorpe had received any public
>money or if it was just "guilt by association"). The mass-media went
>ape-shit over this and every major publication denounced Mapplethorpe
>as a degenerate; of course, few of them bothered to show any of his
>work.
Mapplethorpe was shown in the National Gallery and Jesse Helms went ape shit.
Mapplethorpe was dying from aids at the time. And also the work was, to say
the least, very homo erotic.
Marilyn
According to Dave Hickey that's what outraged the Helms' people -
that the content was offensive but the form was elegant. Hickey
writes that Mapplethorpe made these photographs for
a set audience earlier in his career because he needed some
quick cocaine money. They were not meant for the 'public.'
Wonder what Ashcroft would say about them today?
"anyone who exhibits these photographs is letting
the terrorists win." His scary puffy face is pretty hard
to look at.
RBrac53660
That sounds like a potetial secret tribunial these days in this country.
RBrac53660
>If you don't agree with me, you are letting the terrorists win.
>
I see the light now towards a more and or less civilized society free from the
restrictions of those peoples who would burden us from our civilized society
and manifest destiny.
RBrac53660
>RBrac53660 wrote:<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>
>>If you don't agree with me, you are letting the terrorists win.
>>
>restrictions of those peoples who would burden us from our civilizedsociety
>and manifest destiny.
>
>Yes, Ashcroft told those Senators on Thursday that the terrorists
>have written that they will exploit American liberties, therefore
>it is his job to remove those liberties from the American people.
You Canadians are soooooooo funny come on south of the border your more then
welcome here. But don't even dare spit on the damn sidewalk cause now we know
how to deal with forgien subversive elements. You don't even want to know the
penalty for jaywalking. We've been on a cocaine high for 20 yrs and now were
paranoid so watch out.
;)
John Ng
> live. What makes you pick the most empty illustration? Do you
> see something deep in his works.
That is the whole point. Why must Art seem to say something "deep"
where the "deep" means what dumb critics say they are. Bouguereau's
work is as intelligent as art gets. Have you noticed his poses? Have
you noticed the life his models have? Have you noticed the colour
that no camera can give? Have you noticed the profoundness of his
lines such that the result is more real then photograph will ever be?
Have you noticed how intelligent his composition is?
> No MUST, whom you then prefer to include in your different general art book
There is no MUST simply because no critic should include a painter
simply because some body else did... I think that is the problem with
Art critic today... plagiarism
John Ng
> Bouguereau, Millais, and Bastien-Lepage are already canonized in art
> history, so I don't see the need to tear down Picasso in order to
> raise them up (although classifying Eugene von Blaas as a "master"
> while calling Picasso "ridiculous" begs the question of how you define
> ridiculous!
Picasso has the rights to paint what he desires but it is not Picasso
that I am against. It is the "establishment", brain-washing people to
see art when they truly don't think it is. A good example is me. I
grew up thinking like what you do and what the critics said until I
realize how stupid I was to be conned.
> Please tell me that you meant Julius von Blass, painter
> of equestrian scenes).
Eugen von Blaas is Eugen von Blaas.
> As to general art books always including
> Picasso, it's no mystery; he's simply the most important artist of the
> 20th Century. Even if you hate his work, I don't see how that fact
> can be denied.
Picasso is the most important artist as far as the media is concerned
but he has done but to me, he has done NOTHING that is worth a hoot
except his Hollywood style histronics.
> When Duchamp's Futuruist masterpiece Nude Descending a Staircase
> (1913) was shown in New York at the Armory Show, The New York Evening
> Sun ran a story on it. Rather than reproduce the actual painting they
Don't even mention Duchamp. He is a con as much as Warhol is. He
started out ridiculing art until he found out that he could earn a lot
from producing junk. I don't blame him, I would do the same. These
people became famous first from the circle friends, then their fame
started creating more fame... sort of like an avalanche from nothing
significant.
John
Lauri Levanto
John Ng wrote:
> > Bouguereau works I have seen
> > live. What makes you pick the most empty illustration? Do you
> > see something deep in his works.
>
> That is the whole point. Why must Art seem to say something "deep"
> where the "deep" means what dumb critics say they are.
Not so long ago Todd described his Rothko experience. I do not share it,
but it is an example of a deep experience. It is something real.
I do admire Bouguereau, though he leaves me cold. Wasn't all modernism
a reaction to empty academism - before there was any conspiracy of critics.
As young, Cesanne wanted to burm Louvre.
We have had discussion on the impact of photography. I blaim more the
printing press and advertising. There was a time 1300->1700 when a
realistic depiction was a rarity and therefore a strong experience.
I do see a difference between Velasques and Bouguereau. In1800's
an image as such was no longer a rare experience. So Ingres and
Bouguereau turned from content to virtuosity.
I opened this thread, to discuss the possibility of experimental art
(not my genre). When people say 'art is what an artist does and calls art'
that means anything goes. It is no longer experimental as the answer
cannot be 'no'. I still have a feeling that there is something to do
inside the domain of Art, not only on the fringes of it.
-lauri
I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
of art.
Chris
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.01120...@posting.google.com...
[...]
> There is no MUST simply because no critic should include a painter
> simply because some body else did... I think that is the problem with
> Art critic today... plagiarism
No, not plagiarism, but groupthink.
BTW, for those who are interested in the future of postmodernism, and what
happens when the philosophy "it's all art" reigns, take a look at the latest
Turner Prize, at:
http://nationalpost.com/search/story.html?f=/stories/20011210/833219.html
Cheers;
Chris
Chris
> The reaction of the National Post (talk about bias)
> is similar to the reaction I have when I hear the
> government
> has given many millions to the genome project at UBC, or
> the millions spent on cloning.
In the case of the Turner Prize, I think the more
appropriate word is amusement, not outrage Save outrage for
n anywayimportant issues - Osama bin Laden is worth getting
outraged about, the Turner Prize isn't. Anyway,it's British
money, not ours, and as the British seem to have managed
their affairs well enough to carry out their other
obligations (like defense), then they should feel free to
blow off a few bucks however they like. The same doesn't
hold here in Canada.
As for the millions given to the genome project at UBC, if
our government is actually doing that, well, I'd be pissed -
not because the project is wrong, but federal funding for
this sort of thing is usually the most inefficient way to
go.
As for bias, there's nothing wrong with bias, unless it is
unreasoned. The Post is certainly one of the most biased
papers I read, but as the bias stems from reasoned analysis,
I have no problems with it.
>
>
> This prize is for contemporary art, not Vermeer wannabees.
>
> I have no comment on the work since one REALLY would
> have to be there, to breathe it in as it were. But I like
> the outrage it has engendered.
>
All art created in the same time frame is contemporary. If
you mean that some people's work should be considered
non-contemporary because it uses a different aesthetic, then
you are simply mangling the language.
Cheers;
Chris
Todd Strickland
> > live. What makes you pick the most empty illustration? Do you
> > see something deep in his works.
>
> That is the whole point. Why must Art seem to say something "deep"
> where the "deep" means what dumb critics say they are. Bouguereau's
> work is as intelligent as art gets. Have you noticed his poses? Have
> you noticed the life his models have? Have you noticed the colour
> that no camera can give? Have you noticed the profoundness of his
> lines such that the result is more real then photograph will ever be?
> Have you noticed how intelligent his composition is?
Yes, Bouguereau's art is intelligent in SOME ways; in composition?
Yes, the epitome of the 19th Century French ideal of classical grace;
in color and light effects? absolutely; subtle, subdued, soft, yet
utterly convincing; in drawing and painterly touch? a master; in
taste? impeccable.
Is Bouguereau intelligent in subject matter? Not a chance; his
allegorical scenes are conventional and conservative Salon art fare;
he doesn't seem to have given any particular thought to his subjects,
beyond making sure that they were acceptable to the Salon. His
treatment of religious themes is completely unoriginal and, frankly,
banal. He is at his best (in terms of subject) doing peasant scenes
or simple genre style portraits, but his utterly uncritical approach
to "deep" subjects could only be appreciated by a Salon jurist; it
couldn't touch the hearts of the common people of his day, nor the
minds of his fellow artists (beyond his own students or the Salon
circle). One look at his paintings and Modernism's inevitability is
confirmed.
130 years after the fact it's easy to look at Bouguereau and see only
the painting, not the suffocating effect of the Salon system and the
French beaux-arts tradition. It's easy to think of him as a master of
painting, and not as a staunch practitioner of a particularly elitist
and conformist artistic ethic. But place his art in the context of
his time and it's easy to understand why Cezanne wanted to burn down
the Louvre.
Now the battle is over; there's no need for me to take Cezanne's side
against painters like Bouguereau. Even Cezanne has come and gone, and
ironically hangs in the Louvre. With historical distance, I feel no
more need to choose a side than I would if we were discussing
Neo-Classicism vs Romanticism. But by taking up Bouguereau's banner
in a reactionary fight against Modernism you; 1) fight a quixotic
loosing battle; 2) turn people off to what good qualities can be found
in Bouguereau's art; 3) show your ignorance about not only Modernism,
but the true complexity of what Bouguereau's art was really about.
Think about it; if Modernism hadn't happened (and created museums and
galleries by "popularizing" art) you would rarely have the opportunity
to see art of any kind, and you wouldn't have a snow ball's chance in
hell of ever becoming a professional artist (unless you are a
completely conservative, ass-kissing automaton).
Todd Strickland
Chris
>
> Yes, Bouguereau's art is intelligent in SOME ways; in composition?
> Yes, the epitome of the 19th Century French ideal of classical grace;
> in color and light effects? absolutely; subtle, subdued, soft, yet
> utterly convincing; in drawing and painterly touch? a master; in
> taste? impeccable.
>
> Is Bouguereau intelligent in subject matter? Not a chance; his
> allegorical scenes are conventional and conservative Salon art fare;
> he doesn't seem to have given any particular thought to his subjects,
> beyond making sure that they were acceptable to the Salon.
I'm not too sure why one would say this; after all, he was well established early in in his career, and didn't
need the Salon in any particular way. His paintings were quite popular with the public, and well respected by
the Salon for his technique (and was consistently elected to the jury). He didn't receive much appreciation
from critics - even conservative one - but never changed his style to accommodate them.
> His
> treatment of religious themes is completely unoriginal and, frankly,
> banal. He is at his best (in terms of subject) doing peasant scenes
> or simple genre style portraits, but his utterly uncritical approach
> to "deep" subjects could only be appreciated by a Salon jurist; it
> couldn't touch the hearts of the common people of his day, nor the
> minds of his fellow artists (beyond his own students or the Salon
> circle). One look at his paintings and Modernism's inevitability is
> confirmed.
>
Au contraire, if you examine the common religious cards of the day (which were a popular art of the people)
his style was well received. Ditto if you look at the careers of his students.
>
> 130 years after the fact it's easy to look at Bouguereau and see only
> the painting, not the suffocating effect of the Salon system and the
> French beaux-arts tradition. It's easy to think of him as a master of
> painting, and not as a staunch practitioner of a particularly elitist
> and conformist artistic ethic. But place his art in the context of
> his time and it's easy to understand why Cezanne wanted to burn down
> the Louvre.
>
Elitism? I'm curious to how you mean this. If you mean elitism in terms of unwarranted snobbery, hardly.
Bouguereau was a strong force in the opening of artistic education to many more than (say) the impressionists
were. Most of his teaching career was spent at the Academie Julian, which was the most open of the art schools
of the day (no entrance exams, low fees, and it admitted women, a rarity for that period). He also spent a
good deal of effort on the association to help struggling young artists.
OTOH, if you mean elitism based on the recognition of merit, well, certainly. Anyone who takes pride in what
they do is guilty of that "sin". But he applied his elitism generously, after all, he even gave even Matisse a
good mark for one drawing, taught him how to use a plomb line, but later kicked him out. And if he really was
such a curmudgeon, do you think the Nabis would have chosen to study under him?
As for Cezanne, well, he had more than a few problems dealing with other people and their work, and to judge
anyone else on the basis of his opinions is a precarious position indeed. If you are going to apply Cezanne's
reasoning to Academic art, then it's only fair to apply it to the impressionists and post impressionists as
well, in which case there would be little left :)
>
> Now the battle is over; there's no need for me to take Cezanne's side
> against painters like Bouguereau. Even Cezanne has come and gone, and
> ironically hangs in the Louvre. With historical distance, I feel no
> more need to choose a side than I would if we were discussing
> Neo-Classicism vs Romanticism. But by taking up Bouguereau's banner
> in a reactionary fight against Modernism you; 1) fight a quixotic
> loosing battle; 2) turn people off to what good qualities can be found
> in Bouguereau's art; 3) show your ignorance about not only Modernism,
> but the true complexity of what Bouguereau's art was really about.
>
Nothing like a good ad hominem argument on usenet...But, skipping over the attractions of that, why don't you
fill us in as to what you see as the "true complexity of Bouguereau's art" ?
>
> Think about it; if Modernism hadn't happened (and created museums and
> galleries by "popularizing" art) you would rarely have the opportunity
> to see art of any kind, and you wouldn't have a snow ball's chance in
> hell of ever becoming a professional artist (unless you are a
> completely conservative, ass-kissing automaton).
>
Hunh? Art had been popularized long before "Modernism" (however you define it) - you might want to check out
popular art in 16th and 17th Century Holland (and onward). That it wasn't as readily available in France
shouldn't be any wonder - neither was food, education, or even clothing. This has much more to do with the
fundamental economic problems of statism, than anything else.
Cheers;
Chris
John Ng
John Ng
If too-clever intelligence (ie the critic's definition) is sought
after, then there is no reason why should it be painting art (not that
it can't be clever). Leave intelligence to photo-journalism or maybe
a different branch of art call “Intelligent Art” or
something (that is why I said art is of two distinct categories).
In my opinion, painting art should be like a flower. A flower doesn't
say much, just a simple, "Come". So likewise, a painting should just
grip you and you fall in love. In my own paintings, I could come up
with lots of very intelligent stuff but I try very hard not to
include such things which I consider not in the domain of art.
Bouguereau’s paintings are heterosexual male orientated that why
different persuasion of people perceive them differently. However,
his paintings have, in my opinion, a profoundness that is unequalled
to the analytical mind. Look at how he composes his paintings using
simple shapes… a culmination of the art principles that has been
developed since the Renaissance. I believe people like Mondrain (or
however you spell his name), is simply taking Renaissance principles
and work backwards until they come up with squares. Eureka, a
farcical result… great invention!
Back to Bouguereau… look at the way he crosses the hands, the
way he poses the fingers, the light in his model’s eyes, the
depth in his paintings, the colour he uses. There is even cleverness
in this paintings… as every artist knows, it is difficult to
paint something that looks as if you can feel it… very feel
photograph is able to do that without lots of artistic intervention.
> Wasn't all modernism
> a reaction to empty academism - before there was any conspiracy of critics.
Yes, that is so. The time has come for academism to react against
the empty modernism.
I am so tired of all this modern art and the amount of commercial
trash that has come along with it. Look into any shopping centre and
public places, and you see lots of “modernised” statues,
“modernised” posters, “modernised”
shapes… It is just so tiring. Give me a 19C styled object and
I can stand in front of it for a long time… alas very hard to
find.
> We have had discussion on the impact of photography. I blaim more the
> printing press and advertising. There was a time 1300->1700 when a
 realistic depiction was a rarity and therefore a strong
experience.
Look, it really is very easy to produce those things call modern art
especially these days with computers. Yet, until today, there are
very feel, if any, photos or prints that could take the place of good
academic painting such as Bouguereau… if so I wouldn’t
like to pay lots of money for excellent paintings when I could buy
prints (not considering investment).
> I do see a difference between Velasques and Bouguereau. In1800's
> an image as such was no longer a rare experience. So Ingres and
 Bouguereau turned from content to virtuosity.
I actually don’t see any difference except that Bouguereau could
look at Ingres and make a better result, and likewise, Ingres better
Velasques,
> I opened this thread, to discuss the possibility of experimental art
> (not my genre). When people say 'art is what an artist does and calls art'
> that means anything goes. It is no longer experimental as the answer
> cannot be 'no'. I still have a feeling that there is something to do
 inside the domain of Art, not only on the fringes of it.
If someone argues that typing on this keyboard now is a
“sport” as it exercises my fingers, how could I say
otherwise?
> I cannot resist rephrasing the question. Are there ANY 20th century
> artists, you would like to include in the comprehensive treatise
> of art.
It is hard, Art has died the last 100 years. In my opinion, there are
very few real artists because most concentrate on worthless art. I am
really not acquainted with enough 20C artists except those that the
so-call art books tell me.
However some are Rockwell, Wyeth, and Morgan Weistling. (Pardon if I
get some of these guy’s century wrong as I am simply basing on
the type of art I believe to be 20C)
Looking around the web, I see there are some very good artists today -
Stephen Gjertson, Allan Banks, Kamille Corry (my favourite), Paul
McCormack, Han Wu Shen but I can’t consider them masters like
some of the 19C people are.
Strange isn’t it, these artist paint the same subject as
Bouguereau but they could never come close to his kind of punch. That
is what really makes Bouguereau one of the best all time artist!
RBrac53660
>say much, just a simple, "Come".
What kind of flower? A red rose? A black rose? A lily? a dandlion? Is the
flower asexual or sexual? Do the bees have anything to do with it?
RBrac53660
>
>RBrac53660 wrote:<blockquote TYPE=CITE>>In my opinion, painting art should be
>www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html</blockquote>LOL
>No, for you Winston, I see a carnivorous FLY CATCHER
>because you always have an edge.
>For the former poster maybe a foetid Dragon Lily, they are very large,
>almost black, they say "stay away."
>MW
Todd Strickland
> Todd Strickland wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes, Bouguereau's art is intelligent in SOME ways; in composition?
> > Yes, the epitome of the 19th Century French ideal of classical grace;
> > in color and light effects? absolutely; subtle, subdued, soft, yet
> > utterly convincing; in drawing and painterly touch? a master; in
> > taste? impeccable.
> >
> > Is Bouguereau intelligent in subject matter? Not a chance; his
> > allegorical scenes are conventional and conservative Salon art fare;
> > he doesn't seem to have given any particular thought to his subjects,
> > beyond making sure that they were acceptable to the Salon.
>
> I'm not too sure why one would say this; after all, he was well established early in in his career, and didn't
> need the Salon in any particular way.
You're putting the cart before the horse. He was well established and
financially successful BECAUSE he attended the Ecole de Beaux-Arts and
showed at the Salon. If he hadn't, no amount of skill, talent, or
training would have made him successful in the circles in which he
sought renown (then maybe he would have turned to the various new
avenues opened up by Courbet, Monet, et al. to show his work).
> His paintings were quite popular with the public,
Popular... It's a tricky word sometimes, isn't it? Anyway, since
when has popularity been proof of depth? TV sitcoms are popular in a
way that 19th Century people could never have imagined, but they're
still banal and inane.
> and well respected by
> the Salon for his technique (and was consistently elected to the jury).
I believe you're proving my point here. He was an insider in the
beaux-arts world and his success was intimately tied to his position.
> He didn't receive much appreciation
> from critics - even conservative one - but never changed his style to accommodate them.
I don't know if he did or didn't receive appreciation from the critics
of his day, but that doesn't make him as noble as you imply; as a
Salon regular it didn't matter what anybody (other than the Salon)
said; his status and success were guaranteed. Contrast this with
Manet, who also desperately sought Salon success. Manet was rejected
by the Salon not because of any supposed "lack of skill," as so many
in this newsgroup assume (his work was technically superior, even by
academic standards, to much of the work that was accepted), but
because he didn't show the proper regard for "taste," as defined by
the Salon. This fact was pointed out to him, and acknowledged by him,
in his lifetime. But he refused to compromise and was denied the
official success that he dearly hoped for.
> > His
> > treatment of religious themes is completely unoriginal and, frankly,
> > banal. He is at his best (in terms of subject) doing peasant scenes
> > or simple genre style portraits, but his utterly uncritical approach
> > to "deep" subjects could only be appreciated by a Salon jurist; it
> > couldn't touch the hearts of the common people of his day, nor the
> > minds of his fellow artists (beyond his own students or the Salon
> > circle). One look at his paintings and Modernism's inevitability is
> > confirmed.
> >
>
> Au contraire, if you examine the common religious cards of the day (which were a popular art of the people)
> his style was well received. Ditto if you look at the careers of his students.
Again, popularity here is, if anything, evidence OF banality, not
AGAINST it. Mass-produced devotional images (The 12 Apostles Trading
Cards Set, for example) are the essence of banality. The fact that
makers of such images copied Bougeureau's paintings, while not proving
anything, certainly doesn't bode well. Popular mass-produced
religious art is banal by definition; the banal tends toward
simplicity, sentimentality, lack of depth or irony (although it tends,
ultimately, to be ironic itself); the fact that card manufacturers
would copy the works or style of Bougeureau means that THEY SAW HIS
WORK AS SIMPLE, SENTIMENTAL, AND LACKING IN DEPTH. I tend to agree
with their assessment.
> >
> > 130 years after the fact it's easy to look at Bouguereau and see only
> > the painting, not the suffocating effect of the Salon system and the
> > French beaux-arts tradition. It's easy to think of him as a master of
> > painting, and not as a staunch practitioner of a particularly elitist
> > and conformist artistic ethic. But place his art in the context of
> > his time and it's easy to understand why Cezanne wanted to burn down
> > the Louvre.
> >
>
> Elitism? I'm curious to how you mean this. If you mean elitism in terms of unwarranted snobbery, hardly.
The easy answer here is to say that I meant the Salon system was
elitist, and that Bougeureau was a follower and supporter of that
system (which wouldn't necessarily make him elitist or conformist, on
a personal level). In fact, that's the idea I had in mind. But, now
that you mention it, he was an art snob of the highest order; his
disdain for the Impressionists and other "-isms" was open and
vehement. That he believed deeply in the correctness of his views
doesn't change the fact that those views were inherently elitist.
> Bouguereau was a strong force in the opening of artistic education to many more than (say) the impressionists
> were. Most of his teaching career was spent at the Academie Julian, which was the most open of the art schools
> of the day (no entrance exams, low fees, and it admitted women, a rarity for that period). He also spent a
> good deal of effort on the association to help struggling young artists.
He had his good points, too.
> OTOH, if you mean elitism based on the recognition of merit, well, certainly. Anyone who takes pride in what
> they do is guilty of that "sin". But he applied his elitism generously, after all, he even gave even Matisse a
> good mark for one drawing, taught him how to use a plomb line, but later kicked him out. And if he really was
> such a curmudgeon, do you think the Nabis would have chosen to study under him?
I have quite a different take on the Matisse situation. The fact that
Bougeureau kicked him out, I think, outweighs the "generosity" of one
good mark and showing how to use a plomb line! This event shows
Bougeureau's latent conservatism, not the generosity of his character.
And as to the Nabis and others choosing to study under him, my point
was that his art is conservative and lacking in depth, not that he was
a bad teacher...
> As for Cezanne, well, he had more than a few problems dealing with other people and their work, and to judge
> anyone else on the basis of his opinions is a precarious position indeed. If you are going to apply Cezanne's
> reasoning to Academic art, then it's only fair to apply it to the impressionists and post impressionists as
> well, in which case there would be little left :)
The point about Cezanne wanting to burn down the Louvre was meant
simply to be indicative of Modernism's justified rejection of the
beaux-arts tradition. You accuse me of ad hominem attacks? You're
pretty handy with shifty rhetorical arguments yourself!
>
> >
> > Now the battle is over; there's no need for me to take Cezanne's side
> > against painters like Bouguereau. Even Cezanne has come and gone, and
> > ironically hangs in the Louvre. With historical distance, I feel no
> > more need to choose a side than I would if we were discussing
> > Neoclassicism vs Romanticism. But by taking up Bouguereau's banner
> > in a reactionary fight against Modernism you; 1) fight a quixotic
> > loosing battle; 2) turn people off to what good qualities can be found
> > in Bouguereau's art; 3) show your ignorance about not only Modernism,
> > but the true complexity of what Bouguereau's art was really about.
> >
>
> Nothing like a good ad hominem argument on usenet...But, skipping over the attractions of that, why don't you
> fill us in as to what you see as the "true complexity of Bouguereau's art" ?
>
What do you think my entire post was about? John views Bougeureau as
just a good painter without any consideration for the social or
institutional context of his art. Such an attitude is, at best,
ignorant; at worst, dishonest. To John, Bougeureau represents skill
in painting. To me, Bougeureau represents that, but also a host of
other messy issues. I think I've touched on some of those issues in
my post (and this one, as well).
An ad hominem argument is one in which a personal attack is used IN
LIEU of reasoned argument. I think my post was, for the most part,
well reasoned. But if you want a true ad hominem, I'll give you one;
most of the people who attack Modernism around here do so because they
have humungoid chips on their shoulders...
> >
> > Think about it; if Modernism hadn't happened (and created museums and
> > galleries by "popularizing" art) you would rarely have the opportunity
> > to see art of any kind, and you wouldn't have a snow ball's chance in
> > hell of ever becoming a professional artist (unless you are a
> > completely conservative, ass-kissing automaton).
> >
>
> Hunh? Art had been popularized long before "Modernism" (however you define it) - you might want to check out
> popular art in 16th and 17th Century Holland (and onward). That it wasn't as readily available in France
> shouldn't be any wonder - neither was food, education, or even clothing. This has much more to do with the
> fundamental economic problems of statism, than anything else.
>
There's that word "popular" again. At the risk of using yet another
difficult to define word, let me change "popularized" to
"democratized." Fine Art (as opposed to Naive, Folk, Outsider, or
other age-old forms of "popular" art) had been the domain of the
upper-class, the ruling class, the priestly class, the noble-class
(i.e. "elite" and narrowly restricted groups) for most of the history
of Western art; yes, no doubt you can find the occasional rare
exception to my generalization (and I've no doubt, Chris, that you are
just the guy who would). But by the mid-19th Century (in France, at
least) fine art had reached new heights of elitism. What we call
Modernism was really the breaking down of these stratified,
class-conscious assumptions of fine art. Fine art became accessible to
the common people like never before; accessible for viewing (in the
wave of new museums and galleries that were built); accessible as a
profession (to more than just the privileged few, that is); open to
"lower" art forms, such as Naive and Folk art (today we consider these
fine art because Modernism allows them to be considered as such; this
was generally not true before, and DEFINITELY not true in the Salon
system). A reasoned argument could be made that this democratization
has hurt fine art's worth; I don't think so, but the argument COULD be
made. The irony, however, is that the people around here who try to
make that argument are generally the very people who have most
benefited from Modernism' democratic attitude.
Todd Strickland
William Barkin
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"RBrac53660" <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011210215510...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Marilyn
Chris wrote:
> As for bias, there's nothing wrong with bias, unless it is
> unreasoned. The Post is certainly one of the most biased
> papers I read, but as the bias stems from reasoned analysis,
> I have no problems with it.
In your opinion it is "reasoned analysis" because it echos your
politics(?)
> > This prize is for contemporary art, not Vermeer wannabees.
> >
> > I have no comment on the work since one REALLY would
> > have to be there, to breathe it in as it were. But I like
> > the outrage it has engendered.
> >
>
> All art created in the same time frame is contemporary. If
> you mean that some people's work should be considered
> non-contemporary because it uses a different aesthetic, then
> you are simply mangling the language.
>
> Cheers;
>
> Chris
Mangling the language?
You are using the word "contemporary"
in a literal sense only, not in the way it
is used by most curators and artists.
Every profession has its jargon.
As present day jargon in the art milieu
'contemporary' would mean "not
traditional," not copied from another century
AND having a 21st century context.
Otherwise why would there be
traditional museums of art and
contemporary museums of art.
If a present day artist paints in
the manner of Gainsborough
he is painting contemporaneously
with Gerhardt Richter but his work
is not contemporary because the
style would have no 21st
century reference other than the
biography of the artist.
This artist that you would term
"contemporary" painting 19th
century style landscapes would
have a difficult time getting shown
in a contemporary gallery. His
work would however be welcomed
in all the traditional galleries.
Marilyn
Chris
Sorry for the delay - it wsn't the html code but sheer laziness
that has prevented me from completing responses to both your post
and Todd's, I'm still working on them.
Procrastinatingly yours;
Chris
Marilyn wrote:
> Re-post in plain text
>
John Ng
> As present day jargon in the art milieu
> 'contemporary' would mean "not
> traditional," not copied from another century
> AND having a 21st century context.
No..no...
Your argument about two categories of art related by content, is
agreeable… call it Contemporary vs Traditional where
Contemporary (as you have defined) includes Matisse, Picasso like art.
However, Contemporary is passe. It is not 21C (20C yes but 21C no).
21C shouldn’t be that boring Contemporary stuff… it will
be an extension of Traditional (still too young to say).
In your definition, Traditional art goes from 19C back (probably 15C).
Do you understand why you came up with 5 centuries vs 1 century?
Therefore is Contemporary the same art form as the Art we always know?
Or is it just a whole new branch — ie Contemporary is not art.
Is 15C art the same as 19C art? Somewhat… but 19C art is not a
copy of 15C art but the result of 600 years of improvement. The 21C
art (ie Traditional) is not a copy of 19C but will be an improvement.
We are building upwards from the tower that was being built for 600
years!