"No More Secondhand Art"
Nik Maack
I've been reading a lot lately -- but then again, I'm always reading.
One book I have on order at the public library is on the topic of art
therapy called, "No More Secondhand Art". The title alone blew me away.
I suspect -- although I don't know for sure -- that the author's stance
is that ordinary people should express themselves, create their own art,
and not limit themselves to buying the art of others.
After all, if we take abstract and modern and post-modern art seriously,
anyone can create it, not just "professionals". So why buy their stuff,
when we can make stuff on our own?
Has anyone read this book? Does anyone have an opinion on this subject matter?
I'll probably post more on this topic once I have my hooks in the book.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
channel that decorates a room on a budget of $1000.00 and sometimes does
create modern art work from simple materials.
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D24B9A9...@sympatico.ca...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
numbers.
In the fall of 1952 a paint by number entitled 'Abstract No. One' won third
prize in a local San Francisco amateur art contest.
In 1954 it was said that more number paintings hung in American homes than
original works of art.
In 1963 Andy Warhol painted 'Do-It-Yourself (Seascape)' with numbers
prominently displayed in each coloured section.
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D24B9A9...@sympatico.ca...
>
Nik Maack
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" wrote:
> You might want to watch 'trading places' - a home decorating show on the HG
> channel that decorates a room on a budget of $1000.00 and sometimes does
> create modern art work from simple materials.
My girlfriend Michelle is obsessed with this show. When they make some
quick and sloppy modern art, Michell always turns to me and says, "That
must make you really mad!"
It doesn't, really. What's impressive is they can make GOOD modern art
rather easily. The designer has a budget of $1000, and they don't spend
the entire grand on that painting or sculpture they just made.
Impressive, given that so many frou-frou artists ask for that much cash
for their works.
What's bothersome is there doesn't seem to be a lot of depth and
expression to the art. But hell, they're doing it for design purposes,
and what's wrong with that? Nothing really. And who's to say there's
no depth?
I remember seeing one of the designers quickly slap together an abstract
"japanese-style" work, which hung prominently in the living room. It
was obvious, as she made it, that she had no idea what she was doing. A
line here, a line there, and -- "Oh gee, maybe one line here!" -- and it
was done.
And yet, when it hung on the wall -- it looked great! Strangely, this
did not shake the modern art movement to the ground like a massive
televised earthquake.
Leigh
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> >
>
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" wrote:
> > You might want to watch 'trading places' - a home decorating show on the
HG
> > channel that decorates a room on a budget of $1000.00 and sometimes does
> > create modern art work from simple materials.
>
> My girlfriend Michelle is obsessed with this show. When they make some
> quick and sloppy modern art, Michell always turns to me and says, "That
> must make you really mad!"
>
> It doesn't, really. What's impressive is they can make GOOD modern art
> rather easily. The designer has a budget of $1000, and they don't spend
> the entire grand on that painting or sculpture they just made.
> Impressive, given that so many frou-frou artists ask for that much cash
> for their works.
>
> What's bothersome is there doesn't seem to be a lot of depth and
> expression to the art. But hell, they're doing it for design purposes,
> and what's wrong with that? Nothing really. And who's to say there's
> no depth?
In another thread you also said:
"There is no confusion in my head between "entertainment" and "art" --
although I do believe the two overlap in places."
Maybe this is one of those places.
I've read the book (No Secondhand Art) and remember little of it... will
have to go see if I dogeared anything. I've see the Trading Places show a
couple of times... nerve wracking to say the least! The idea of allowing
someone else to have their way with my house is not only unlikely, but a
nightmare scenario! Maybe there's a payoff involved I don't know about.
>
> I remember seeing one of the designers quickly slap together an abstract
> "japanese-style" work, which hung prominently in the living room. It
> was obvious, as she made it, that she had no idea what she was doing. A
> line here, a line there, and -- "Oh gee, maybe one line here!" -- and it
> was done.
>
> And yet, when it hung on the wall -- it looked great! Strangely, this
> did not shake the modern art movement to the ground like a massive
> televised earthquake.
Strangely, indeed ;-) Isn't it amazing how art can lose it's magic and
become down right common place. Perhaps this is the proper evolution of art
in it's truest sense. Back to the common people, back to the grass roots,
back to the children (the child in all of us.) After all that book
learnin', degrees, CV's , sholder rubbing, correct exposure and God only
knows what else... common people can make art!
As Pogo might have said: "I've seen artists and they are us!"
Tis a gift to be simple...
L.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
Sometimes the episodes run one after the other for hours. They even watch
the reruns. They get ideas - ideas that I am supposed to implement. What
happened to soaps - we just had to listen to a rendition of the latest
episode - while we went about our business naturally we would bob our
heads and or grunt at the appropriate moment - but this - this is impacting
our leisure time - this is wrong - men must revolt.
Did you see the episode where the woman cried at seeing what they had done
to her bedroom ?
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D24D72F...@sympatico.ca...
Nik Maack
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" wrote:
> Did you see the episode where the woman cried at seeing what they had done
> to her bedroom ?
I live for those hysterical weeping "Trading Spaces" moments. But it's
far more creepy when they hold in all their bitter disappointment and say:
"Oh... I... Uh, wow. That's.... Yeah. It's, imaginative. I guess.
Yeah. Oh, sure, I... Yes, I'm somewhat forced to say I like it. Uh, hmm."
All that cheer is sickening. I love how the men grunt and roll their
eyes throughout the entire "Trading Spaces" process.
Your wife and daughter watch it for hours? My significant
whatchamacallit does too. Hour, after hour, after hour.
Thank goodness she occasionally will go through hour after hour of Star
Trek (every series) reruns too.
Nik Maack
Dan Fox wrote:
> Nik, you are absolutely right. I was going to listen to Mozart's 'Requiem'
> this afternoon, but instead I'll just plink around on the piano myself.
> Just as good.
Please, please, PLEASE tell me that you're not comparing your art to
what Mozart could do. I'm gonna go scratch me some lines in white paint
and call it "Jesus' Bar Mitzvah" just to spite you.
(Did you ever post that thing about your art we talked about? I don't
recall seeing it.)
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
will line up (or should I say sit on the ground for hours) waiting to get
into the Star Wars series at the theatres - then come out and do it again
numerous times. - she has the figures models and the light sabre. Quite a
combination Trading Spaces and Star Wars - she is almost twenty - In
fairness I should add that aside from working full time: in her spare time
analyses classic movies; writes and is currently designing and writing her
own comic book.
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D260DF0...@sympatico.ca...
Nik Maack
Dan Fox wrote:
> Nik - I still haven't even had time to look for my notes, but haven't
> forgotten about you. keep bugging me about it.
This is me bugging you about it. Post the notes. Post them.
> Please do scratch some lines in white paint and post the result. It will
> definitely be worthy - 'Jesus's Bar Mitzvah..." Damn! why couldn't I have
> thought of that. I'll make a link from my place to yours for it. (come to
> think of it - may I make a link to your website?)
Please put a link from your website to mine.
I may not be scratching lines in white paint, but I am working on that
abstract raised fist I mentioned the other day. I have no idea where
it's going. It's going to an interesting place, but I have no idea
where that place is. All the more reason to go there, I suppose. It
might be a breakthrough piece, it might just be me scratching white
lines on purple paint.
> No, *sigh*, I was not comparing my work to anyone's. Just making a little
> joke on the idea that the art anyone can make by fooling around is just as
> good as that produced by someone who has invested a lifetime of education
> and effort to create something of worth.
Some art, you must admit, looks the same whether you have a lifetime of
education or just picked up brushes for the first time yesterday. In
any case, I don't mean to suggest that an amateur can suddenly decide
one morning to paint a MASTERPIECE in the sense of highly realistic,
intricate, art-skill-demanding works. On the other hand, given the
state of the Art world, most "lifetime educated" artists aren't keen on
doing that either.
My point is, I don't see art as something open only to the over-educated
and hyper-trained. ANYONE can make art. Anyone can make art worth
looking at. Anyone can make art worth hanging on their walls. I like
to encourage people who have never made art before, and who would like
to, to start today. For me, (having a psych background and liking all
things psych) I see art as therapeutic and playful.
I'm arranging to buy "Silent Screams and Hidden Cries", a book about
children's drawings, where the children come from violent and abusive
homes. The drawings are studied and dissected for meaning --
determining what kind of mental trauma the child has, and how extensive
their mental problems are. I am eager to study this book on so many
different levels (as a student of psychology, as an artist, as someone
interested in art therapy, as a curiousity seeker) I'm practically drooling.
PS.
I sold a painting yesterday. This one:
http://www.nikart.com/newer/44.html
Probably not as big a deal as you selling a painting, as I only charge
CAN$75 (or US$50) for my smaller stuff.
Mon Sune
>ANYONE can make art. Anyone can make art worth
>looking at. Anyone can make art worth hanging on their walls.
You sound just like some pre-schooler's
mother. Refrigerator doors seem to be
the preferred spot in the house for their
burgeoning artists - and the walls can become
impromptu murals if the kids are left alone
for too long - as this parent well recalls...
Nik Maack
Mon Sune wrote:
> You sound just like some pre-schooler's
> mother. Refrigerator doors seem to be
> the preferred spot in the house for their
> burgeoning artists - and the walls can become
> impromptu murals if the kids are left alone
> for too long - as this parent well recalls...
The National Gallery in Ottawa regularly hangs children's drawings along
a narrow hallway. The drawings are done at the gallery, by visiting
children. Some of the works were absolutely gorgeous -- far better than
the material made by "professional" artists hanging elsewhere in the building.
For that matter, didn't a lot of Picasso's stuff look like it could have
been done by a child? Didn't he himself say something to that effect --
that he was striving to unlearn all he'd been taught, to get back to the
basic, pure art?
I agree that there is a place for highly-skilled artists, who spend
their lives learning intricate technique. But I also feel that
ordinary, run-of-the-mill human beings have voices worth hearing.
They're different, and sure, they have to be judged by different
standards, but the works they create are definitely worthwhile.
I don't think that's an extremely radical thing to say. Only a lunatic
would dare to suggest that some people should not be allowed to make art.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
relationship between children's drawing and their world. From my readings on
the subject of drawing like a child, the idea seems to relate to the
conviction that the child has for the action of drawing the lines. "That is
a sun" - there is no doubt in the child's mind that his or her drawing is
anything other than a sun. As adults we say it represents a sun - it is not
a sun. We then proceed to spin off a list of reasons why it is not a sun.
Through out my readings I have found some artists commenting upon the
ability to create the convincing line - draw with conviction.
There is a strong tendency on the part of adults to think that drawing like
a child means that it should look like the drawing of a child. The key is
not in what is being drawn but how it is being drawn. Much of our
communication is in metaphorical terms not literal terms, but many people
have a strong tendency to interpret literally.
The old saying: 'it's not what you do but how you do it ' , always returns
to my mind.
The child knows how to do it (draws the line with conviction) - we have
forgotten how to do it.
keith
Nik Maack <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3D27AA39...@sympatico.ca...
Lauri Levanto
Nik Maack wrote:
> ...
> I agree that there is a place for highly-skilled artists, who spendtheir lives
> learning intricate technique. But I also feel that
> ordinary, run-of-the-mill human beings have voices worth hearing.
> They're different, and sure, they have to be judged by different
> standards, but the works they create are definitely worthwhile.
>
> I don't think that's an extremely radical thing to say. Only a lunatic
> would dare to suggest that some people should not be allowed to make art.
>
> Nik
Skill is one aspect of art. Some fields of art have a dual structure
Classical vs modern ballet
Opera vs Jazz singing.
The first emphasizing control over the media, the second the message
transmitted by the media.
In modern art world the latter is dominating.
-lauri
Lissa
Lauri Levanto wrote:
I dare you to qualify the above with real life comparisons. How can you assume
modern ballet takes less skill than classical? Do you actually know anything about
dance? Perhaps each takes a different kind of skill. Opera is simply one type of
singing that is also VERY dependent on a singer's natural vocal capabilities
(physiological structure they were born with). It is pretty likely that someone who
sings opera might be crappy at singing Jazz. Oh, and while you're at it, please
define 'skill' since that can be applied to so many things that it really does
render such (and others here) statements as ridiculous.
Lissa
>
>
> -lauri
--
"You become what you think about most of the time." Ralph Waldo Emerson
Leigh
"Nik Maack" <nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote
>
> I agree that there is a place for highly-skilled artists, who spend
> their lives learning intricate technique. But I also feel that
> ordinary, run-of-the-mill human beings have voices worth hearing.
> They're different, and sure, they have to be judged by different
> standards, but the works they create are definitely worthwhile.
The current issue of Time magazine featuring Lewis and Clark, shows their
drawing skills in journals as they (both contributed to the drawings)
documented, in amazind detail, newly discovered flora and fauna, natives and
maps of the country they crossed.
http://www.time.com/time/2002/lewis_clark/#
follow the journal links.
I am not a student of these men, but I don't think their resumes included
'artist'. They, like many of their era, just did it.
L.
Nik Maack
Lauri Levanto wrote:
> Skill is one aspect of art. Some fields of art have a dual structure
> Classical vs modern ballet
> Opera vs Jazz singing.
> The first emphasizing control over the media, the second the message
> transmitted by the media.
>
> In modern art world the latter is dominating.
This is true, but that world is still in the hands of so-called
"experts", and it doesn't have to be. Ordinary shmoes can paint modern
art. Power to the people and all that. I'd like to see the Jazz world
stormed by "philistines" singing off-key (but with a superhuman passion)
at the top of their lungs.
Mon Sune
>Only a lunatic
>would dare to suggest that some people should not be allowed to make art.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I might add though, that only a lunatic would
dare suggest to others how they should compose
replies in this forum!
Mon Sune
>Opera is simply one type of
>singing that is also VERY dependent on a singer's natural vocal capabilities
You overlook the intensive vocal "training" that
great singers endure, same for great musicians, and
I would suggest "same for great artists of every ilk." And then
there are the great tennis players, ice skaters, etc etc etc...
mdeli
>The current issue of Time magazine featuring Lewis and Clark, shows their
>drawing skills in journals as they (both contributed to the drawings)
>documented, in amazind detail, newly discovered flora and fauna, natives and
>maps of the country they crossed.
>
Did you ever wonder where they learned these skill?
At one time schools taught the basics of drawing just like they taught
writing. Today they teach a creed instead of a craft.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
mdeli
wrote:
>Skill is one aspect of art. Some fields of art have a dual structure
>Classical vs modern ballet
>Opera vs Jazz singing.
>The first emphasizing control over the media, the second the message
>transmitted by the media.
>
>In modern art world the latter is dominating.
>
Do tell us about the "message transmitted," by say, Pollock, Rothko,
Mondrian, Fox etc. ?
mdeli
>Arnheim's, 'Art and Visual Perception', contains some ideas on the
>relationship between children's drawing and their world. From my readings on
>the subject of drawing like a child, the idea seems to relate to the
>conviction that the child has for the action of drawing the lines. "That is
>a sun" - there is no doubt in the child's mind that his or her drawing is
>anything other than a sun. As adults we say it represents a sun - it is not
>a sun. We then proceed to spin off a list of reasons why it is not a sun.
>Through out my readings I have found some artists commenting upon the
>ability to create the convincing line - draw with conviction.
?
>There is a strong tendency on the part of adults to think that drawing like
>a child means that it should look like the drawing of a child.
Really!
> The key is
>not in what is being drawn but how it is being drawn.
?
> Much of our
>communication is in metaphorical terms not literal terms, but many people
>have a strong tendency to interpret literally.
>The old saying: 'it's not what you do but how you do it ' , always returns
>to my mind.
>
>The child knows how to do it (draws the line with conviction) - we have
>forgotten how to do it.
Does that mean that o'connor who doesn't draw well also has no
"conviction?" Whatever that means.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
to my mentor Mani: (in garbage town - formally hog town)
Thank you for giving me your "artspeak of the day" award.
It is an honour to receive this award from one such as yourself. One who
prides himself on his ability to write artspeak for others and receive a
hefty remuneration for his efforts. I am looking forward to receiving your
award graphic which I will proudly display with my previous awards.
I will be happy to contract out to you my artspeak abilities - naturally I
would expect to pay you the usual 40% commission.
take care: keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d288e37...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
Lissa
Mon Sune wrote:
I'm not overlooking the training at all you twit. If it was merely training we
would all be great opera singers, figure skaters, etc. etc.
Lissa
Andrew D
+ "keith o'connor wrote:
[snip]
+
+>There is a strong tendency on the part of adults to think that drawing like
+>a child means that it should look like the drawing of a child.
+Really!
I suspect what keith meant was "look like a child's drawing", rather than
"like a drawing of a child" which can have an entirely different and
possibly more obvious meaning (ie. portrait).
Of course, I could be wrong for a change and Keith may well believe that
most adults tend to think that "drawing like a child" does mean - portrait
resembling a child.
[snip]
+>The child knows how to do it (draws the line with conviction) - we have
+>forgotten how to do it.
The child also knows how to speak, read, drive, spell, walk, run, throw,
catch and tell jokes - and all are carried out with similar "conviction".
How unfortunate that adults have a tendency to tell them where they're
"wrong". I'm the roads would be a much safer place if we all drove like
children and I would queue to buy a book of jokes written with the
conviction and experience (and spelling and grammar) of a two year old.
Imagine watching adults play a game of football where there were no rules
because as Keith tells us, rules hinder "conviction". What a much better
place it would be if we could cure all ills by just playing doctor instead
of visiting a real one whose approach to medicine lacks "conviction".
Sure Keith, kids are the real holders of truth and knowledge. Evolution
(or God) really screwed up by allowing *forgetful* adults to dominate.
I might talk my wife into having another baby just so we can can the kid
to scrawl out a bestselling novel before s/he's hindered by the
forgetfulness that comes with learning. You'd buy it wouldn't you Keith?
...Keith???
Sheeesh!
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
[snip]
+There is a strong tendency on the part of adults to think that drawing like
+a child means that it should look like the drawing of a child. The key is
+not in what is being drawn but how it is being drawn. Much of our
+communication is in metaphorical terms not literal terms, but many people
+have a strong tendency to interpret literally.
+The old saying: 'it's not what you do but how you do it ' , always returns
+to my mind.
+The child knows how to do it (draws the line with conviction) - we have
+forgotten how to do it.
At what point do you think the child's artistic ability peaks? Is it just
after they are born and happen to smear breakfast on the wall? Or is it
when they crawl and manage to grab a biro and some important papers that
shouldn't have been left lying around?
Perhaps it's as toddlers, when they begin to speak and better understand
what's going on around them. Or maybe this is the point at which learning
hinders their progress as great artists?
Your summary "seems" to suggest that the child has their conviction taught
out of them - or at least that the creative brain cells naturally wither
at an early age. Could it be that the child's own yearning to improve is
what leads them to abandon their natural ignorance and "improve" their
drawings?
Who decides that ignorant conviction is "better" than skillful conviction
and do you apply this same test to creativity in writing? For example,
does the learning of spelling and grammar hinder your ability to write
properly as it causes you to forget "how to do it"?
Discussion
can be taught?
An expert with a brush, and a fine draughtsman too, -
will almost certainly have been trained. However, this does
not make fine artwork, in itself. These are some of the skills
required, but a knowledge of the history art and of the current
trends is optional, in my opinion.
Take for example the Oriental artists acclaimed as great painters
and artists who knew nothing of what was taught by Western art
schools. Their works inspired Western artists too.
The creative part of each individual is not necessarily dependant
upon training. I have used the word "essence" and I feel it was
misunderstood. I think the ideas about the work of children is
a struggle to make some rigid minds open up to other ideas in
this subject. I also feel that some in the academic world feel
threatened by an idea that what they teach is not as important
than they would like. A qualification is no passport to anything in
itself, although may well mean that more artists come from that
world.
N.H
"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-08070...@i204-187.nv.iinet.net.au...
Mon Sune
>> You overlook the intensive vocal "training" that
>> great singers endure, same for great musicians, and
>> I would suggest "same for great artists of every ilk." And then
>> there are the great tennis players, ice skaters, etc etc etc...
>
>I'm not overlooking the training at all you twit.
Well, since you failed to mention that "small matter"
I thought I'd complete the thought for you. If it's
not mentioned, then to me it's been "overlooked" in
your post...twit for twat!
Mon Sune
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>For example,
>does the learning of spelling and grammar hinder your ability to write
>properly as it causes you to forget "how to do it"?
Very good post that poses some interesting
questions. I've long been interested in the
fact that there have been no true child prodigies
in the visual arts - unlike those who we know of
in the performing arts. I think critical analysis
begins to stifle spontaneous playfullness as the
child grows and thinking matures. And of course
there's always some damned adult around to tell
the poor kid to "color within the lines."
Andrew D
<go...@away.dot.for.good.dotcom> wrote:
+"Andrew D" <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
[snip]
+> +The child knows how to do it (draws the line with conviction) - we have
+> +forgotten how to do it.
+> At what point do you think the child's artistic ability peaks? Is it just
+> after they are born and happen to smear breakfast on the wall? Or is it
+> when they crawl and manage to grab a biro and some important papers that
+> shouldn't have been left lying around?
+> Perhaps it's as toddlers, when they begin to speak and better understand
+> what's going on around them. Or maybe this is the point at which learning
+> hinders their progress as great artists?
+> Your summary "seems" to suggest that the child has their conviction taught
+> out of them - or at least that the creative brain cells naturally wither
+> at an early age. Could it be that the child's own yearning to improve is
+> what leads them to abandon their natural ignorance and "improve" their
+> drawings?
+> Who decides that ignorant conviction is "better" than skillful conviction
+> and do you apply this same test to creativity in writing? For example,
+> does the learning of spelling and grammar hinder your ability to write
+> properly as it causes you to forget "how to do it"?
+Would you accept that art contains more than that which
+can be taught?
Often. Just as one can learn the fundamentals of golf or football but
never become particularly good at either. We are all different. But we
don't go around saying the world's best golfers are useless because they
learnt techniques instead of remaining at the level of a two year old.
+An expert with a brush, and a fine draughtsman too, -
+will almost certainly have been trained. However, this does
+not make fine artwork, in itself. These are some of the skills
+required, but a knowledge of the history art and of the current
+trends is optional, in my opinion.
Agreed. Art history is for those with a bent for history. One thing that
often surprises me is that more often than not, it is those who say "there
are no rules" and claim that "children are the best artists" who also
dwell on art history and tell others they should get educated if they want
to improve their own art or understand that produced by others.
Seems to me that if children are ther best artists, they should also be
the best art critics. So why go to university when the local kindergarten
houses the best artistic minds?
+Take for example the Oriental artists acclaimed as great painters
+and artists who knew nothing of what was taught by Western art
+schools. Their works inspired Western artists too.
+The creative part of each individual is not necessarily dependant
+upon training. I have used the word "essence" and I feel it was
+misunderstood. I think the ideas about the work of children is
+a struggle to make some rigid minds open up to other ideas in
+this subject.
It's a poor argument. Children are children. If they were the yardstick
for all that's good, then the world would be a sad place indeed.
In the main, it seems the people who insist that children are the world's
greatest artists are those who choose to copy their style and call it art
(either by choice or due to a lack of genuine artistic ability). If
conviction is all that's required to make good art, then children are also
the best musicians, sculptors --- and writers. This would mean that those
who write lengthy and verbose critiques of modern art are in fact
self-confessed failures at writing because they usually apply adult
concepts of good writing rather than drwaing on their childhood conviction
of just getting the story out there - and "bugger the rules!"
If the verbose critics who spin this "kids are the best" line were good
writers they'd surely be scrawling unreadable "words" across the page,
with no concerns for adult concepts like grammar, syntax, semantics or
spelling. If people find themselves unable to read the final work, then
surely that is proof of their own adult failings and maybe they'd need to
better educate themselves so as to rekindle their own childhood
conviction. I look forward to Keith having a go at some real writing
instead of his usual work which is clearly impeded by somewhat outdated
concepts and severely handicapped by traditional rules.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
If I may return to the actual act of drawing for a moment. The relationship
between the drawing implement (brush pencil etc.,) the drawing surface and
the biological entity form a dance like relationship. It is the conviction
of a great dancer that I am thinking of and it does include colouring
outside the lines as mentioned by M.S It is the dance that is the essence
any intellectualised boundary is only a guide - not a constraint.
It was your response that told me that I had not communicated the dance
concept.
If you still disagree then you disagree with my argument for the
relationship between drawing and dance.
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-08070...@i204-187.nv.iinet.net.au...
Andrew D
Sune) wrote:
+In article <right-08070...@i204-187.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+>For example,
+>does the learning of spelling and grammar hinder your ability to write
+>properly as it causes you to forget "how to do it"?
+
+Very good post that poses some interesting
+questions. I've long been interested in the
+fact that there have been no true child prodigies
+in the visual arts - unlike those who we know of
+in the performing arts. I think critical analysis
+begins to stifle spontaneous playfullness as the
+child grows and thinking matures. And of course
+there's always some damned adult around to tell
+the poor kid to "color within the lines."
But why is that bad? Why do we accpept that in order to write well, the
child has to learn to spell and apply syntax and grammar properly - but to
paint well they should be given no advice or education. Could it be that
children WANT to learn why their attempts "fail"? Imagine being a child
who just drew a horse for the first time. They know it's a horse and they
happily show you - but don't tell you what it is.
Now, you might say, "wonderful, what is it?" - possibly to the annoyance
of the child who might doubt your ability to see. Or, you might say
"that's beautiful dear" but not comment on the subject matter (because you
have no idea what it is). Either way, the child might suddenly doubt
their own ability - because you can't see their horse and they drew it for
you.
If the child asks why their horse looks wrong, do you tell them it's
fantastic and not to worry or do you offer useful advice about proportions
and numbers of legs?
To conclude that education stifles artistic creativity, you'd first have
to belive there are no rules in art. And once you conclude that, you blow
your own argument.
Lauri Levanto
Lissa wrote:
Lissa,
I was careless with a foreiggn language.
By dual structure in really ment there are different skills.
My rel life example is Kiri Te Kanawa. Great singer who in vain tries to sing pop.
Modern dance is demanding - call it skill.
Classaical ballet requires prefect control within given rules
- like classical 18th century painting.
Modern dance flexes with toe positions, but requires something else
-like Henry Moore sculptures
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
Nik Maack wrote:
In 60's early 70's there was a Prog movement in Scandinavian
pop music with exactly that agenda.
They even insisted that the artists should not take paid,
to keep them away from professional elite.
I did not like listening them
-lauri
Lauri Levanto
mdeli wrote:
Try yourown medicin, Mani
Tell me about the "message transmitted" by David, Botticello, Bouguereau.
-lauri
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
analysis' which you translate to mean education. The implication being that
education is the development of critical analysis which is an intellectual
function.
Traditionally the intellectual element in education has been separated and
valued higher than the play element. This imbalance eventually resulted in
the imposing of structures on the play element to the detriment of the
child. This resulted in a yin-yang like imbalance in the child's overall
development.
Colouring inside the lines is a good example from M.S.post. Lines symbolise
rules and obedience. My daughter lost many geography marks for not colouring
exactly inside the lines. Knowing her geography was not as important as
colouring exactly inside the lines. At art school students lost marks if
they painted the edge of their stretched canvas even though it was the
painting itself that was to be judged.
No one as far as I can tell is against learning the rules which encourage
clarity of communication between people. Yet you have made that jump. M.S.
has not said that learning to spell is not important. You are the one who
has made that jump.
Stick your hands in a batch of bread dough - kneed it - focus on how it
feels - that is also education.
You may pride yourself on being a great speller and hopeless typist but that
is a very limiting image.
My recommendation is that you learn to play.
I think M.S. would say that I have had too much play time but that's life.
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-09070...@i204-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
mdeli
>Lauri - anybody who puts my work on a level with Pollock, Rothko, and
>Mondrian has to be a knowledgeable person of impeccable taste. Mani
>obviously knows his art and artists (smile).
However your problem is that hardly anyone with power in the art world
thinks so.
As consequence, unlike equally talentless Modern Academic Art lottery
winners you and those millions have to become traveling salesmen and
professional AKs, or disgruntled recluses who can rarely even get on a
waiting list in some curator's mind.
mdeli
wrote:
Your the one who spoke about transmitted messages not me.
I don't think most art work has any message whatever, transmitted or
otherwise.
So, do tell us about the "message transmitted," by say, Pollock,
Rothko Mondrian, Fox etc. ?
Perhaps you can also tell us how David, Botticello and Bouguereau,
non- members of the modern art world, fail at this persuit?
Andrew D
+Interesting response.
+
+If I may return to the actual act of drawing for a moment. The relationship
+between the drawing implement (brush pencil etc.,) the drawing surface and
+the biological entity form a dance like relationship. It is the conviction
+of a great dancer that I am thinking of and it does include colouring
+outside the lines as mentioned by M.S It is the dance that is the essence
+any intellectualised boundary is only a guide - not a constraint.
+
+It was your response that told me that I had not communicated the dance
+concept.
+
+If you still disagree then you disagree with my argument for the
+relationship between drawing and dance.
So you're now arguing that children dance better than adults as well I take it?
I'll note that you never addressed my other questions about at what age
you feel we forget how to draw with conviction or whether other forms of
creativity, such as writing, also suffer from this education-induced
amnesia.
I could ask it is that on one hand you argue that young kids are the best
artists because they have no rules but on the other hand you advise a
fellow artist that he should learn more about composition. The two
arguments appear diametrically opposed.
Andrew D
+I think the phrase you may be hinging this argument on is 'critical
+analysis' which you translate to mean education. The implication being that
+education is the development of critical analysis which is an intellectual
+function.
+
+Traditionally the intellectual element in education has been separated and
+valued higher than the play element. This imbalance eventually resulted in
+the imposing of structures on the play element to the detriment of the
+child. This resulted in a yin-yang like imbalance in the child's overall
+development.
+
+Colouring inside the lines is a good example from M.S.post. Lines symbolise
+rules and obedience. My daughter lost many geography marks for not colouring
+exactly inside the lines. Knowing her geography was not as important as
+colouring exactly inside the lines. At art school students lost marks if
+they painted the edge of their stretched canvas even though it was the
+painting itself that was to be judged.
+No one as far as I can tell is against learning the rules which encourage
+clarity of communication between people. Yet you have made that jump. M.S.
+has not said that learning to spell is not important. You are the one who
+has made that jump.
Yes I have, because it is the logical conclusion drawn from your initial
suggestion that by learning rules, adults forget how to be creative with
conviction. I asked, and I'll do so again, whether you would also argue
that creative writing is fundamentally flawed if it continues with the
traditions of spelling, syntax, semantics etc...? I have noted a lot of
obfuscation and circum-locution - but no one has yet answered the
question.
+Stick your hands in a batch of bread dough - kneed it - focus on how it
+feels - that is also education.
+You may pride yourself on being a great speller and hopeless typist but that
+is a very limiting image.
+My recommendation is that you learn to play.
+I think M.S. would say that I have had too much play time but that's life.
I tried it in another post. I hope to see a comment from you there.
Andy D.
(When did this top-posting plague hit??!!! Oh sorry, another rule)
Lissa
Andrew D wrote:
> In article <EKrW8.14455$FH6...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> +Interesting response.
> +
> +If I may return to the actual act of drawing for a moment. The relationship
> +between the drawing implement (brush pencil etc.,) the drawing surface and
> +the biological entity form a dance like relationship. It is the conviction
> +of a great dancer that I am thinking of and it does include colouring
> +outside the lines as mentioned by M.S It is the dance that is the essence
> +any intellectualised boundary is only a guide - not a constraint.
> +
> +It was your response that told me that I had not communicated the dance
> +concept.
> +
> +If you still disagree then you disagree with my argument for the
> +relationship between drawing and dance.
>
> So you're now arguing that children dance better than adults as well I take it?
>
> I'll note that you never addressed my other questions about at what age
> you feel we forget how to draw with conviction or whether other forms of
> creativity, such as writing, also suffer from this education-induced
> amnesia.
>
The irony of what you are suggesting is that most children *stop* making art
because their freedom of expression is stifled by an education that demands
children to draw realistically rather than follow their intuition. So much for
your theory, eh?
Lissa
>
> I could ask it is that on one hand you argue that young kids are the best
> artists because they have no rules but on the other hand you advise a
> fellow artist that he should learn more about composition. The two
> arguments appear diametrically opposed.
>
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
--
Mon Sune
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>I could ask it is that on one hand you argue that young kids are the best
>artists because they have no rules but on the other hand you advise a
>fellow artist that he should learn more about composition. The two
>arguments appear diametrically opposed.
Your argument brings back memories of when I
first learned that two of my granddaughters were
learning to "rite" by spelling words any old
way they pleased as long as it "sownded rite."
I was flabbergasted that a system that promoted
"creative spelling" was being tested on MY g'kids.
Of corse those 2 still can't spel wirth spit!
But since that time the school system where they
live has returned to the ages-old tried and
tested method of teaching spelling.
Mon Sune
>The irony of what you are suggesting is that most children *stop* making art
>because their freedom of expression is stifled by an education that demands
>children to draw realistically rather than follow their intuition. So much for
>your theory, eh?
Ummmm - where I live children stop making art
because there are no funds for art classes
beyond 1st grade level. Of course there are
funds available for football, band and etc all the
way through 12th grade! And art is again offered
as an "elective" to grades 11 and 12.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
and dance. There is no more to discuss.
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-10070...@i172-053.nv.iinet.net.au...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
you wish.
keith
Mon Sune <mo...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3d2c3...@oracle.zianet.com...
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
you wish.
keith
Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
news:right-09070...@i204-123.nv.iinet.net.au...
Neil Maxwell
>
>Ummmm - where I live children stop making art
>because there are no funds for art classes
>beyond 1st grade level. Of course there are
>funds available for football, band and etc all the
>way through 12th grade! And art is again offered
>as an "elective" to grades 11 and 12.
This may be heresy to Mani, but if they have art at home, they can
make it as long as they want. We make sure the science projects have
art as well as craft. It may not be professional, trained, realistic
art, but it's sure as heck creative expression.
It takes parents filling in the gaps that the schools can't or won't.
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Mon Sune
scot...@rogers.com says...
>
>As I said in a previous post: you may interpret what I say in whatever way
>you wish.
I wasn't addressing YOU. So why do you
butt in with this obtuse response?
Why don't you pay more attention to
who is replying to whom in these threads?
You who are so bent on imposing "rules"
for participating in these forums...
Andrew D
<ljro...@cadvision.com> wrote:
+Andrew D wrote:
+
+> In article <EKrW8.14455$FH6...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
+> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
+>
+> +Interesting response.
+> +
+> +If I may return to the actual act of drawing for a moment. The relationship
+> +between the drawing implement (brush pencil etc.,) the drawing surface and
+> +the biological entity form a dance like relationship. It is the conviction
+> +of a great dancer that I am thinking of and it does include colouring
+> +outside the lines as mentioned by M.S It is the dance that is the essence
+> +any intellectualised boundary is only a guide - not a constraint.
+> +
+> +It was your response that told me that I had not communicated the dance
+> +concept.
+> +If you still disagree then you disagree with my argument for the
+> +relationship between drawing and dance.
+> So you're now arguing that children dance better than adults as well I
take it?
+> I'll note that you never addressed my other questions about at what age
+> you feel we forget how to draw with conviction or whether other forms of
+> creativity, such as writing, also suffer from this education-induced
+> amnesia.
+The irony of what you are suggesting is that most children *stop* making art
+because their freedom of expression is stifled by an education that demands
+children to draw realistically rather than follow their intuition. So much for
+your theory, eh?
I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. Keith was the one who
insisted adults have forgotten how to be genuinly creative (with
conviction!), apparently because they learn rules (like colouring within
the lines). I am simply asking for him (or anyone who agrees with him) to
expand on this by explaining whether this syndrome applies across the
creative spectrum or whether it is limited only to drawing.
Keith has now compared drawing to dance so I assume he at least includes
dance in the problem he's identified. I "assume" that because there's no
adequate explanation of what he really means - it's all words and no
substance. So I have to guess that Keith believes ballet or ballroom
dancing (or other forms of choreographed dance) to be less than genuinely
creative since the adults involved have learnt rules and don't dance like
children.
There's no irony in what I suggest because I'm not suggesting anything -
I'm asking questions about Keith's suggestion. I don't have a problem with
kids learning to draw realistically or learning to colour within the
lines. Unlike Keith, I don't see this as a flaw.
I also don't have a problem with people who think that breaking the rules
is a creative avenue - unless they then attack skillful artists and label
them as some sort of artistic failure because they made the effort to
learn their craft and not mimic pre-school children. To me, that sounds
like just another rule.
Andrew D
Sune) wrote:
+In article <right-10070...@i172-053.nv.iinet.net.au>,
+right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
+
+>I could ask it is that on one hand you argue that young kids are the best
+>artists because they have no rules but on the other hand you advise a
+>fellow artist that he should learn more about composition. The two
+>arguments appear diametrically opposed.
+
+Your argument brings back memories of when I
+first learned that two of my granddaughters were
+learning to "rite" by spelling words any old
+way they pleased as long as it "sownded rite."
+I was flabbergasted that a system that promoted
+"creative spelling" was being tested on MY g'kids.
+Of corse those 2 still can't spel wirth spit!
+But since that time the school system where they
+live has returned to the ages-old tried and
+tested method of teaching spelling.
Unfortunately, there are still teachers within the system who don't think
spelling or grammar are important (here at least). Having said that, I
must sincerely apologise for my paragraph quoted above - I blame this new
keyboard and mouse combination! It should of course have read "It is odd
that on one hand you argue that ..."
Andrew D
+Andrew D <right@the_end.of.my_tether> wrote in message
+news:right-10070...@i172-053.nv.iinet.net.au...
+> In article <EKrW8.14455$FH6...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
+> "keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
+> +Interesting response.
+> +
+> +If I may return to the actual act of drawing for a moment. The
+relationship
+> +between the drawing implement (brush pencil etc.,) the drawing surface
+and
+> +the biological entity form a dance like relationship. It is the
+conviction
+> +of a great dancer that I am thinking of and it does include colouring
+> +outside the lines as mentioned by M.S It is the dance that is the
+essence
+> +any intellectualised boundary is only a guide - not a constraint.
+> +
+> +It was your response that told me that I had not communicated the dance
+> +concept.
+> +
+> +If you still disagree then you disagree with my argument for the
+> +relationship between drawing and dance.
+>
+> So you're now arguing that children dance better than adults as well I
+take it?
+>
+> I'll note that you never addressed my other questions about at what age
+> you feel we forget how to draw with conviction or whether other forms of
+> creativity, such as writing, also suffer from this education-induced
+> amnesia.
+>
+>[snip] on one hand you argue that young kids are the best
+> artists because they have no rules but on the other hand you advise a
+> fellow artist that he should learn more about composition. The two
+> arguments appear diametrically opposed.
+You disagree with the premise that there is a relationship between drawing
+and dance. There is no more to discuss.
Not if you refuse to read what I write there isn't. Nowhere did I deny
your link. I merely asked you to expand on it for my benefit and that of
others following this thread. Clearly you are unwilling or unable to do so
since I've asked several times and to date there's been no answers
forthcoming, just obfuscation like that above.
I didn't open the can Keith, you did. If you want the worms back in there,
you're going to have to try harder.
So what's it to be? Will you answer the following or not:
At what age do kids forget to be creative with conviction?
Does this forced amnesia extend to the written word (and dance) or
anything else?
Should an adult artist be concerned about composition rules?
Andrew D
Andy wrote:
+> It's a poor argument. Children are children. If they were the yardstick
+> for all that's good, then the world would be a sad place indeed.
+>
+> In the main, it seems the people who insist that children are the world's
+> greatest artists are those who choose to copy their style and call it art
+> (either by choice or due to a lack of genuine artistic ability). If
+> conviction is all that's required to make good art, then children are also
+> the best musicians, sculptors --- and writers. This would mean that those
+> who write lengthy and verbose critiques of modern art are in fact
+> self-confessed failures at writing because they usually apply adult
+> concepts of good writing rather than drwaing on their childhood conviction
+> of just getting the story out there - and "bugger the rules!"
+>
+> If the verbose critics who spin this "kids are the best" line were good
+> writers they'd surely be scrawling unreadable "words" across the page,
+> with no concerns for adult concepts like grammar, syntax, semantics or
+> spelling. If people find themselves unable to read the final work, then
+> surely that is proof of their own adult failings and maybe they'd need to
+> better educate themselves so as to rekindle their own childhood
+> conviction. I look forward to Keith having a go at some real writing
+> instead of his usual work which is clearly impeded by somewhat outdated
+> concepts and severely handicapped by traditional rules.
+As I said in a previous post: you may interpret what I say in whatever way
+you wish.
We really have little option since you're unwilling/unable to assist.
But it's difficult to apply my own interpretation to your writing because
you seem to be captive to traditional writing techniques which leaves
little to the imagination, much like that boring, dead-end realist art I
guess. When you write that children know how to draw with conviction and
adults have forgotten how, I see little scope for interpretation. It's "in
your face, what you see is what you get" writing. It becomes even clearer
when you agree that colouring within the lines is just one method of
destroying childhood creativity.
Had you mangled your sentences and messed up your spelling (written more
like a child that is) then perhaps I'd be in a better position to freely
interpret your work.. although I doubt I'd bother trying.
Since you've made the point here on a number of occasions that your
writing is sought after, I can only guess you don't believe pre-school
children are the also most creative writers. Since you won't answer any of
my questions, I have to conclude for myself that you honestly believe in
the value of the skills you've learnt as a writer and that you're very
glad someone took the time to teach you and not leave you 'creatively'
spelling and writing as you did when you were two years old (or three or
four or wherever you scribble the creative line).
Mind you, if I'm going to draw conclusions (not with conviction of course)
then I'd also have to consider your occasional suggestions to people in
this group that they accept some training or follow some rules...
including classics like:
"You should spend the next 35 years studying art - start now before it's
too late." and the more recent "Your knowledge of composition is weak.
Composition is used to insure the eye movement is kept within the visual
format." Both sound like restrictive, non-creative, adult-based rules to
me.
From that I'd have to conclude that you do think there are rules worth
learning although "colouring within the lines" clearly isn't one of them.
Andrew D
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com (Neil Maxwell) wrote:
+On 10 Jul 2002 07:19:49 -0700, mo...@noemailever.com (Mon Sune) wrote:
+>
+>Ummmm - where I live children stop making art
+>because there are no funds for art classes
+>beyond 1st grade level. Of course there are
+>funds available for football, band and etc all the
+>way through 12th grade! And art is again offered
+>as an "elective" to grades 11 and 12.
+This may be heresy to Mani, but if they have art at home, they can
+make it as long as they want.
+ We make sure the science projects have
+art as well as craft. It may not be professional, trained, realistic
+art, but it's sure as heck creative expression.
If they aren't to learn any real skills or techniques, then they could
also do a fair bit of sport at home too (and writing and maths) - and
they'd be more creative at the end. No one would pick them for their
football team, but at least they'd be individual and unhindered by a
stifling education ;)
+It takes parents filling in the gaps that the schools can't or won't.
And if the parents aren't artistically inclined, the child is on his/her
own. It's not good enough.
The problem (in my very humble opinion) is that the more that adult
scribble or coloured squares is advertised as "great art" the more
disenchanted the wider community becomes with art in general. This then
leads to parents not really giving a damn if their school doesn't support
art because they know their kids can already do that stuff (often on the
walls or on Dad's favourite book).
Parents can understand football and brass bands - even if they don't like
them - so they have no problem with their schools spending money on these
pursuits. But who wants to fundraise in order for kids to "learn" how to
spill paint on paper?
Andrew D
Sune) wrote:
+In article <LE0X8.6241$6DW1...@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>,
+scot...@rogers.com says...
+>
+>As I said in a previous post: you may interpret what I say in whatever way
+>you wish.
+
+I wasn't addressing YOU. So why do you
+butt in with this obtuse response?
+Why don't you pay more attention to
+who is replying to whom in these threads?
+You who are so bent on imposing "rules"
+for participating in these forums...
:)
Bloody Philistines the lot of them!!!
nDay d (I'm working on more creative ways to write my name!)
mdeli
>Lauri - anybody who puts my work on a level with Pollock, Rothko, and
>Mondrian has to be a knowledgeable person of impeccable taste. Mani
>obviously knows his art and artists (smile).
However your problem is that hardly anyone with power in the art world
thinks so.
As consequence, unlike equally talentless Modern Academic Art lottery
winners you and those millions have to become traveling salesmen and
professional AKs, or disgruntled recluses who can rarely even get on a
waiting list in some curator's mind.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
keith
mdeli <n...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3d31c213...@news1.on.sympatico.ca...