decline of painting
inadream
I had this thought , perhaps it's a stupid one, but how do you all think of
this.
the art of painting came into a crisis when the 'modern revolution' (which
importance i do not question) got to the art-academies their educational
program.
All the great modernist painters-most of them- Picasso, Monet, Mondriaan
etc. had a classical training.
Although they didn't paint according to the academic conventions, they had
learnt from tradition WHAT IT TAKES TO COMPOSE A GOOD PAINTING, and they
used this 'traditional' knowledge in their innovating and important works..
This traditional knowledge hasn't been thaught to art students after the
'modern revolution'..
peter
David Palnick
Iian Neill wrote in message <355C59DF...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>
>Perhaps this is "modern art"'s most profound achievement: it inaugurated
the
>Age of the Mediocrities.
>
And it's not going to get better, it's going to get worse. With the
miniscule amount of arts education in our school systems approaching the
vanishing point, the current and coming generations will have even less
appreciation for quality work. This also applies to the quality of education
received by art school students.
The typical citizen of western industrial society is now so inundated with
demands for visual attention that the only images that register on the radar
any more are those heavily promoted at great expense (corporate
advertising/entertainment) or those that rate high on the scale of shock
value or titillation. Anything visual that requires an investment of time
for observation and reflection is ignored. Since these skills are no longer
being taught to any but those who receive an elite education, quality art
will be appreciated by an ever tinier audience.
DFRussell
In article <6ji5i8$l1q$1...@wbnws01.ne.highway1.com>, "David Palnick" <dpal...@mediaone.net> writes:
|>
|> Iian Neill wrote in message <355C59DF...@student.uq.edu.au>...
|> >
|> >Perhaps this is "modern art"'s most profound achievement: it inaugurated
|> the
|> >Age of the Mediocrities.
|> >
|> And it's not going to get better, it's going to get worse. With the
|> miniscule amount of arts education in our school systems approaching the
|> vanishing point, the current and coming generations will have even less
|> appreciation for quality work.
When math/science/english are optional in public schools, why should "art"
survive? If you have an issue, take it up with the NEA & it's supporters.
(NEA in this case is National Education Assoc).
Anyone with any sense/money has removed their children from public school.
|> This also applies to the quality of education
|> received by art school students.
Even worse here... not that it makes much difference.
|>
|> The typical citizen of western industrial society is now so inundated with
|> demands for visual attention that the only images that register on the radar
|> any more are those heavily promoted at great expense (corporate
|> advertising/entertainment) or those that rate high on the scale of shock
|> value or titillation.
Attempting to displace the blame of lousy public schools onto corporations
is absurd. The problem lies solely with the "Education" establishment,
it's supporters, and indifferent parents.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Iian Neill
> I had this thought , perhaps it's a stupid one, but how do you all think of
> this.
Having read your post I would say that your question was far from being stupid
- in fact, it was a quite intelligent query.
> the art of painting came into a crisis when the 'modern revolution' (which
> importance i do not question) got to the art-academies their educational
> program.
Important in what way? The Spanish Inquisition was certainly important
historically, but it is something the world would have been a lot better
without. Yes, personal taste is a huge factor in quality judgements on art -
but I think that critics also need to agree on some kind of standard. In the
classical music word, musicologists can often agree on basic essentials a
performer or composer needs to be judged as 'good', or 'great'. This is not so
in the many objects created this century that parasite on the historical
reputation of the "fine arts". Leonardo and his contemporaries worked hard to
have Art distinguished from the work of the craftsman - and we now have the
"moderns" who instead sneer at craftsmanship as a sign of unoriginality, of
servile imitation. Well, perhaps they criticise what they can never hope to
achieve. But it is more than that - however, this will have to wait for future
discussions.
> All the great modernist painters-most of them- Picasso, Monet, Mondriaan
> etc. had a classical training.
So far as I know that is true.
> Although they didn't paint according to the academic conventions, they had
> learnt from tradition WHAT IT TAKES TO COMPOSE A GOOD PAINTING, and they
> used this 'traditional' knowledge in their innovating and important works..
More than not they used this knowledge to parody and cruelly satirize the
tradition from which they sprung from. Personally, I think they ended up with
egg on their faces - but that isn't so much of a joke today when a man with egg
on his face need only step into an art gallery to be acclaimed an artist.
> This traditional knowledge hasn't been thaught to art students after the
> 'modern revolution'..
This traditional knowledge, as you say, was indeed abandoned in successive
generations. This was in large part due to the poor teaching practises of the
early Modernists and Post-Impressionists. While they had benefited from
academic instruction, most of them had barely a clue as to how to transmit
their teaching - and to be blunt, they probably did not wish to. This was the
kind of art against which they were 'rebelling' - they had 'thrown off the
shackles of realism' (sounds to me like saying a pianist threw off the shackles
of technique and started hammering the keys like an infant), and had no wish to
return to the 'bad old days'. Their students grew up in a world of
increasingly decadent aesthetic philosophy where nothing was real or tangible,
where obscurity was fashionable, narrative passe, and historical genre painting
... quite fossilized.
The students themselves were understandably eager to avoid anything
resembling hard work, and thus the incompetent amongst them were happy to hear
that their emotionless scrawls were now to be appraised as "fine art". Henri
Matisse was actually kicked out of Bouguereau's studio - and declared a
"dangerous man" by another instructor at the Ecole; too bad Matisse did not
stop there.
Anyway, the critical climate at the time was hostile to art that followed
19th century principles of epistemology and ethics. The Anti-Artist was king -
the Anti-Bourgeois movement was born. Its effects extend to the present day,
and if possible, could be said to have degenerated further into the putrescent
slime that it is. This isn't to say that there haven't been good paintings
produced this century - for there certainly have been. But speaking broadly,
speaking of the trends and aesthetic tendencies of our era, it seems that our
intelligentsia are eminently hostile to anything that vaguely resembles true or
noble art; anything that tells a story, glorifies in beauty, or uplifts our
minds from the drudgery of the every day, of the mundane, of the mediocre.
Perhaps this is "modern art"'s most profound achievement: it inaugurated the
Age of the Mediocrities.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Petra Rawlence
In article <6ji5i8$l1q$1...@wbnws01.ne.highway1.com>, David Palnick
<dpal...@mediaone.net> writes
>
>Iian Neill wrote in message <355C59DF...@student.uq.edu.au>...
>>
>the
>>Age of the Mediocrities.
>>
> This also applies to the quality of education
>received by art school students.
Hello David,
But it is no good blaming the tutors. They are merely the ones
who deliver school policy. Art school policy, wherever one looks,
is concerned with two aims: to make money and to make a name for
itself. The former is achieved by reducing tutor hours and
material supplies, the latter by instilling in students the
perception that they are "good" students only if they are *leading
edge*, ie. produce material of ever increasing shock value regardless
of quality.
(snip)
>Anything visual that requires an investment of time
>for observation and reflection is ignored. Since these skills are no longer
>being taught to any but those who receive an elite education, quality art
>will be appreciated by an ever tinier audience.
I quite agree. May I ask a question which leads from the general
to the more particular?
Whatever happened to the skill of Life Drawing? I graduated, as a
mature student, from art school 3 years ago. Life Drawing was not
offered on the course, and none of my tutors (in their late twenties)
had themselves ever received instruction. Recently I heard that a
fashion drawing course offered by a private (and expensive) art
school does not deem it necessary to instruct students in Life
Drawing!!!
Am I right in concluding that Life Drawing, since it is by its very
nature illustrative, and since illustration is regarded as *BAD* by
art critics, is doomed to die out in art instruction? And, if that
is so, is it right that the brotherhood of art critics should wield
such profound influence?
I should be very interested to read your comments.
Greetings,
Petra
TheStu...@webtv.net
>
> Whatever happened to the skill of Life Drawing? I graduated, as a
> mature student, from art school 3 years ago. Life Drawing was not
> offered on the course, and none of my tutors (in their late twenties)
> had themselves ever received instruction. Recently I heard that a
> fashion drawing course offered by a private (and expensive) art
> school does not deem it necessary to instruct students in Life
> Drawing!!!
>
> Am I right in concluding that Life Drawing, since it is by its very
> nature illustrative, and since illustration is regarded as *BAD* by
> art critics, is doomed to die out in art instruction? And, if that
> is so, is it right that the brotherhood of art critics should wield
> such profound influence?
>
> I should be very interested to read your comments.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Petra
>
The art school I attended not only offered life drawing but it was a required
subject. At least a full year whether you planned to major in Photography,
Graphic Art or Illustration or Painting. Along with a gruelling year of
fundamentals, which covered composition, color, design, perspective. No one
could take anyother course until this was successfully completed. I took 4
years of life drawing and still drop in for life studios to keep my hand and
eye sharp.
It is no coincidence that so many people are unable to draw well if so many
schools are no longer teaching life drawing. I studied in 1972-1976. I have
recently seen a brochure for the school I attendeed with samples of the
student's work. Clearly Life Drawing is alive and well still, at that school
anyway.
I would recomend anyone to view the student gallery before enrolling into an
art school. If you see evidence of strong draftmanship in their work and
life studies, you're in the right place.
The Art Academy schools seem to teach by traditional methods, very
disciplined. Poor drawing and technique is never excused as "My style" from
their students. At least this was the case at the school I attended
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
keith nuttle
> mature student, from art school 3 years ago. Life Drawing was not
> offered on the course, and none of my tutors (in their late twenties)
> had themselves ever received instruction. Recently I heard that a
> fashion drawing course offered by a private (and expensive) art
> school does not deem it necessary to instruct students in Life
> Drawing!!!
>
> Am I right in concluding that Life Drawing, since it is by its very
> nature illustrative, and since illustration is regarded as *BAD* by
> art critics, is doomed to die out in art instruction? And, if that
> is so, is it right that the brotherhood of art critics should wield
> such profound influence?
>
> I should be very interested to read your comments.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Petra
When I was a student at the Cleveland (Ohio) Institute of Art 30 years
ago, life drawing was required for ALL students- this was at the height
of the Op-Pop-Action Painting-Whatever era and they caught flak for it,
but none of us would be anywhere today without it. Last year I dropped
in on their web page and saw that they still emphasize it. At the time
when I was there they also had evening life drawing classes for adult
students and Saturday classes for kids.
David Palnick
Petra Rawlence wrote in message ...
>Art school policy, wherever one looks,
>is concerned with two aims: to make money and to make a name >for itself.
The former is achieved by reducing tutor hours and
>material supplies, the latter by instilling in students the
>perception that they are "good" students only if they are *leading
>edge*, ie. produce material of ever increasing shock value >regardless of
quality.
>
>Am I right in concluding that Life Drawing, since it is by its very
>nature illustrative, and since illustration is regarded as *BAD* by
>art critics, is doomed to die out in art instruction? And, if that
>is so, is it right that the brotherhood of art critics should wield
>such profound influence?
>
Let me answer your question in a roundabout way:
So much of human endeavour today seems to come down to the simple decision
of "Do I do it the hard way, and invest the work required to make something
of true added value, or do I simply do what is most expedient, producing
something that I can slide through the minimum requirements, lubricated by a
large dose of self-justifying verbiage?" Unfortunately, we can see around us
every day in all aspects of life countless examples of decisions to take the
easy way.
As you have noted, art schools (like all institutions of higher education)
are no different from any other commercial enterprise -- their primary goal
is to extract money from as many consumers as feasibly possible. In order to
acomplish this, they must provide a "product" (a degree/certificate) which
is perceived by their target market as (1) desirable, (2) beneficial, and
(3) obtainable with the lowest possible expenditure of money, effort, and
time.
Thus the challenge for the educational institution is to convince the
conumer that the "degree" will (1) enhance their status, (2) assure them of
greater income and, (3) require the minimum amount of effort at a
competitive price.
In order to acomplish this, *two major compromises* must be made:
First, the institution has to compromise the quality of education provided.
It does this in numerous ways, such as increasing the student/teacher ratio
or providing inferior studio/laboratory equipment. The end result is that
instead of providing a thorough grounding in the basic principles required
to master a particular discipline, a substitution is made. This substitution
is a delusion fed to the student body that in fact the older, more rigorous
techniques are now outmoded, having been displaced by newer
approaches/processes/technologies. And that since these newer approaches
require much less investment in the basics of education, the institution can
sell its "degree product" more profitably.
The second major compromise is provided by the student who, unwittingly or
not, buys into this premise. If students perceives that the degree, in and
of itself, is the actual goal, then the path of least resistence is the one
the vast majority will opt for. However, there will always be those students
who, through the diligence of their own research and/or the guidance of
those further along in life, will realize that the "degree product" is
virtually meaningless, in and of itself. And that only the actual investment
of their own blood, sweat, and tears will result in an acomplishment of true
value. These students will seek out those educational opportunities which
offer this path.
So, to return again to your original question -- drawing and illustration
are held in disregard by most art critics because mastering these techniques
smacks of craftsmanship. And craftsmanship is synonymous with the "old
school" of tedious practice, rigorous lessons, and applied skills. Since
most art critics come from the very same academic institutions who have
successfully conned students into accepting the proposition that "less is
more", and lack understanding and/or respect for "old school" methods, they
naturally denigrate them.
As for your own situation, there may be some courses at an institution in
your locale which may still provide what you want. However, my suggestion
would be to try and find an artist of mature years who would be willing to
spend some time teaching you what you want to learn . . . and you'll end up
learning a lot more besides. Good luck.
Marilyn
Getting back to the subject of teaching visual art skills.
In a small town on the west coast of Canada, White Rock, a public school
introduced a Fine Arts Program for elementary students, K - 7.
There were only 150 seats in the program. Parents and children
camped out in front of the school a week in advance. Young parents
were eager to enroll their children in this exciting program.
Didn't anyone tell them, there might not be a job for their kids at the
end? If so, they didn't care, they wanted their children to enjoy
life and going to school, to get satisfaction from school.
One hopes it portends a change for education in the future. The
pendulum may be swinging back from optional art education/
zero art education in public schools, to full programs. Am I dreaming?
Marilyn
mdeli
On 15 May 1998 20:20:14 GMT, d...@nospam.com (DFRussell) wrote:
>Attempting to displace the blame of lousy public schools onto corporations
>is absurd. The problem lies solely with the "Education" establishment,
>it's supporters, and indifferent parents.
>
And the religious right whose aim is to destroy the public school
system by stealth and subterfuge and Pomo fuzz brains who promote
culty asceticism. Then there is a curriculum which excludes child
care, economics, rationality, logic and the scientific method.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
>In article <6ji5i8$l1q$1...@wbnws01.ne.highway1.com>, David Palnick
><dpal...@mediaone.net> writes
>>
>>Iian Neill wrote...
>>>
>>>Perhaps this is "modern art"'s most profound achievement: it inaugurated
>>>the Age of the Mediocrities.
>>>
>(snip)
>> This also applies to the quality of education
>>received by art school students.
>
>Hello David,
>
>But it is no good blaming the tutors.
Most art school teachers are total incompetents. Indeed, they are a
result of four generations of progressive incompetence.
>They are merely the ones
>who deliver school policy. Art school policy, wherever one looks,
>is concerned with two aims: to make money and to make a name for
>itself.
Making money and a name isn't the problem.
Art schools have been taken over by incompetents who get their friends
into open positions. Its like the academies of the 19th century that
they complain about.
>>Anything visual that requires an investment of time
>>for observation and reflection is ignored.
As I said so often here, Modern Academic Art is designed for a fifteen
second glance by a man in a rush.
>> Since these skills are no longer
>>being taught to any but those who receive an elite education, quality art
>>will be appreciated by an ever tinier audience.
Skill can't really be taught. What can be taught is craft technique
and the science of art. Skill is gained by practicing what is learned.
>Whatever happened to the skill of Life Drawing? I graduated, as a
>mature student, from art school 3 years ago. Life Drawing was not
>offered on the course, and none of my tutors (in their late twenties)
>had themselves ever received instruction.
Life drawing is useless unless on attains the fundamentals of
perspective and light and shade. Sitting around and trying to copy
amorphus and geometrical forms is useless unless these fundamentals
are understood. Figure drawing comes later.
> Recently I heard that a
>fashion drawing course offered by a private (and expensive) art
>school does not deem it necessary to instruct students in Life
>Drawing!!!
The figure, fashion, cartoons, etc., anything which teachs one how to
draw any solid is governed by the science of drawing not the subject
matter of drawing.
>Am I right in concluding that Life Drawing, since it is by its very
>nature illustrative, and since illustration is regarded as *BAD* by
>art critics, is doomed to die out in art instruction?
Well, I've seen classes labeled life drawing where everyone sits
around a nude model and produces little more than dirty paper while
the instructor, who knows nothing more than anyone else in the place
including the janitor of the building, assures everyone that all is
well.
How else can he and the art school survive? Most who are competent
don't have to waste time teaching.
>And, if that
>is so, is it right that the brotherhood of art critics should wield
>such profound influence?
Actually they don't.
Most people are totally uninterested in the crap that hangs in modern
museums. Watch them as they pass by, listen to their comments. Most
attend these place because its an in thing to do and a good place to
watch each other. And of course there usually is good cake and coffee
and its far less boring then going to church.
N
In article <355F27...@island.net>, Marilyn <anti...@island.net> wrote:
There is a decline in the interests and enthusiasms around the activity of
painting (if one judges this upon the centrality of the medium to overall
visual cultural production). Painting if one goes back into history, was
not always central. It became very popular during a certain period, then
became even more popular within modernism, providing the clearest and most
ductile examples of the culture. Within postmodern practice, painting is
no longer the central activity of visual culture. It would make sense that
other mediums will gain more education dollars, exposure, etc, than
painting. This is an expression of our culture's current visual/aesthetic
needs. Just because an activity once enjoyed being a cultural's favorite,
does not mean that it is quaranteed to always remain so, or to ever once
again regain its central importance for the culture as a whole. 'Painting
is dead,' has been repeatedly voiced by numerous parties for a hundred
years. Perhaps it is dead: but that doesn't mean no one paints or will
paint, but rather that painting as visual culture will not make much of a
difference to the culture at large.
I believe painting is in a perpetual state of death, but one that never
quite occurs. It is a zombie that is renewed continually. But painting
remains aware of these discourses of death and incorporates them to forge
its cultural and pictorial strategies.
-N
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Mark Vinsel
In article <redirect-190...@1cust242.tnt6.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (N) wrote:
> In article <355F27...@island.net>, Marilyn <anti...@island.net> wrote:
>
> There is a decline in the interests and enthusiasms around the activity of
> painting (if one judges this upon the centrality of the medium to overall
> visual cultural production).
I don't think it makes sense to judge painting as in decline by the
centrality of the medium to overall cultural production. Occasionally
there is art to be found in our overal cultural production but the raison
d'etre is business.
Sure to some extent these media reflect our culture, but with a giant
misleading skew. People invest in what they think will make them money and
that is why we see what we do in the popular media. For instance, people
like to watch police brutality videos, and advertisers know that an
underlying feeling of fear helps promote people's reception to
advertisements, so this stuff is always on one or two channels. On TV
you'd think violence pervasive but the truth is that violent crime is
down.
It seems to me that there are more people painting now than ever - more
workshops, painting trips, supplies being sold, web sites, any way you
want to measure it.
It has nothing to do with TV and we should not look there for affirmation.
Mark Vinsel
www.vinsel.com
DFRussell
In article <356086a...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
|> On 15 May 1998 20:20:14 GMT, d...@nospam.com (DFRussell) wrote:
|>
|> >Attempting to displace the blame of lousy public schools onto corporations
|> >is absurd. The problem lies solely with the "Education" establishment,
|> >it's supporters, and indifferent parents.
|> >
|> And the religious right whose aim is to destroy the public school
|> system by stealth and subterfuge and Pomo fuzz brains who promote
|> culty asceticism.
|> Then there is a curriculum which excludes child
|> care, economics, rationality, logic and the scientific method.
While I would agree that some of the ideas promoted by the
"religious right" are rather troubling, the decline of the
public schools cannot be attributed to them: many/most of
them have removed their children from public schools and their
requests are [almost] never granted by the public schools.
Also, I would also point out that catholic schools constantly
produce students who much score higher on standardized tests
than do public schools.
Child care isn't a function of either the state or federal
government.
The [obvious] decline of our public school systems falls
directly upon policies instituted by the National Education
Assoc [NEA], the DOE, and their supporters in congress.
As a society, we would be much better off if the groups
above were defunded/eliminated.
However, since I'm one of the people who has sent their children
to a good private school, it's in my children's interest
let the public schools continue to produce illiterate
students.
Marilyn
N wrote:
>
> In article <355F27...@island.net>, Marilyn <anti...@island.net> wrote:
>
> There is a decline in the interests and enthusiasms around the activity of
> painting (if one judges this upon the centrality of the medium to overall
> not always central. It became very popular during a certain period, then
> became even more popular within modernism, providing the clearest and most
> ductile examples of the culture. Within postmodern practice, painting is
> no longer the central activity of visual culture. It would make sense that
> other mediums will gain more education dollars, exposure, etc, than
> painting. This is an expression of our culture's current visual/aesthetic
> needs. Just because an activity once enjoyed being a cultural's favorite,
> does not mean that it is quaranteed to always remain so, or to ever once
> again regain its central importance for the culture as a whole. 'Painting
> is dead,' has been repeatedly voiced by numerous parties for a hundred
> years. Perhaps it is dead: but that doesn't mean no one paints or will
> paint, but rather that painting as visual culture will not make much of a
> difference to the culture at large.
> I believe painting is in a perpetual state of death, but one that never
> quite occurs. It is a zombie that is renewed continually. But painting
> remains aware of these discourses of death and incorporates them to forge
> its cultural and pictorial strategies.
>
> -N
Interesting.
Have you observed that the best possible paint in the world is
automotive paint? We live in a car culture, no doubt about it.
Compare that fact with Rembrandt in his studio, grinding pigments.
Time moves on...
N
In article <356220...@island.net>, Marilyn <anti...@island.net> wrote:
(snip my brief painting is/is not dead, cental /marginal visual culture
location)
>
> Interesting.
>
> Have you observed that the best possible paint in the world is
> automotive paint? We live in a car culture, no doubt about it.
>
> Compare that fact with Rembrandt in his studio, grinding pigments.
>
> Time moves on...
Sparkle, candy, and other automotive epoxies are rich paint surfaces.
Judd, decades ago for example, painted many of his sculptures with them.
Harley gas tanks.
About their being the 'best' possible paint, that is something I will not
venture to contest or support...but such materials have their place and
have certain effects/evocations not rivaled by other means.
Not long ago I read Dave Hickey where he critiques autmobile culture and
visual culture in the USA, including Hispanic lowrider custom cars on the
streets of Juarez and El Paso...recognizing the "visual language of the
Baroque in these magical automobiles, in the way the smooth folds of steel
and the hundreds of coats of transparent lacquer caught the light and held
it as the cars slipped through the bright streets like liquid color--like
Caravagio meets Bernini, on wheels."
-N
P.S. the essay deals mainly with the birth of what he calls 'the big,
beautiful art market'. "American industry found itself facing the
challange that has confronted every artist since Watteau, that of a
finite, demanding market for a necessarily overabundant supply of
speculative products," whereupn he writes on the USA automobile industry
developing strategies to get a limited field of buyers to aquire more than
one, and then to get them to continue buying...a hierarchy of automibile
'lines', planning visual obsolesence into their products by
institutionalized style change, shifting emphasis from their value or
utility to their extrinsic "currency", later by ceasing to advertise the
autos for what they were or could do, their utility, and beginning to
advertise them for what they meant- as sign systems within a broader
culture, "embodied ideology for a finite audience at a particular
moment--objects that created desire rather than fulfilling needs. This is
nothing more or less than an art market." Also he dives into critical
debates over the commodification of art, "once again we drove the money
changers from the Temple of Art, which was not a temple, nor ever had
been, not in America, where it had always been a secular discourse in the
form of a market."
Marilyn
Yes N,
Recently I drove past a lime green car parked on the street,
brand new, gleaming in the sun. It was so beautiful I almost
fell off my bike!
I couldn't remember ever seeing such a green colour, so intense.
NB {it was stopped therefore not spewing out that ugly stuff)
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> > In article <355F27...@island.net>, Marilyn <anti...@island.net> wrote:
> >
> > There is a decline in the interests and enthusiasms around the activity of
> > painting (if one judges this upon the centrality of the medium to overall
> > visual cultural production).
>
> centrality of the medium to overall cultural production. Occasionally
> there is art to be found in our overal cultural production but the raison
> d'etre is business.
> Sure to some extent these media reflect our culture, but with a giant
> misleading skew. People invest in what they think will make them money and
> that is why we see what we do in the popular media. For instance, people
> like to watch police brutality videos, and advertisers know that an
> underlying feeling of fear helps promote people's reception to
> advertisements, so this stuff is always on one or two channels. On TV
> you'd think violence pervasive but the truth is that violent crime is
> down.
>
> It seems to me that there are more people painting now than ever - more
> workshops, painting trips, supplies being sold, web sites, any way you
> want to measure it.
> It has nothing to do with TV and we should not look there for affirmation.
>
> Mark Vinsel
> www.vinsel.com
>
Art supplies is a booming industry. People don't want to buy
paintings they want to make paintings. There are millions
of amateurs out there enjoying themselves. That does not
weaken the argument that painting in our culture is near death.
Marilyn
mark webber
I don't think painting is any more dead than anything else - Jazz,
sculpture, literature, cinema, poetry, etc....
The proportion of appreciators to non-appreciators is just getting worse,
that's all. And there's a proliferation of nonsense that makes sorting it
all out harder.
Stating that Painting is dead on the usenet is just a troll, to my mind.
But this is not to say I don't admire your contributions to the thread,
and besides, don't we all love a troll now and then? It gives us a chance
to flex our artspeak.
Mark
J. J. Novotny
Marilyn wrote:
> Of course there are more people painting than ever.
> Art supplies is a booming industry. People don't want to buy
> paintings they want to make paintings. There are millions
> of amateurs out there enjoying themselves. That does not
> weaken the argument that painting in our culture is near death.
Right. Painting is getting to be what's called a "hobby art". That is,
the only people involved with it and enjoying it are the ones doing it.
The main audience for paintings is other painters. Poetry is another
example of this -- poets are the only people reading poetry. I think
that comics are going that way as well.
There are too many options nowadays, I guess. The general audience is
too splintered. Unless you really love something, you'll just have your
attention diverted away, usually to some mass market media thing like
"Godzilla".
Cheers;
J. J.
N
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805201...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
If this was in response to me:
> I don't think painting is any more dead than anything else - Jazz,
> sculpture, literature, cinema, poetry, etc....
Painting in relation to paintings own past cultural role and practice.
> The proportion of appreciators to non-appreciators is just getting worse,
> that's all. And there's a proliferation of nonsense that makes sorting it
> all out harder.
??
> Stating that Painting is dead on the usenet is just a troll, to my mind.
> But this is not to say I don't admire your contributions to the thread,
> and besides, don't we all love a troll now and then? It gives us a chance
> to flex our artspeak.
I didn't say dead.
Read my post more carefully. I have no time to troll. But if you have a
take on paintings current role and meaning vis-a-vis its past or vis-a-vis
other elements of visual culture please do contribute.
I firmly believe that painting once held a hegemony on visual culture. I
think that hegemony has unequivically come to an end. Hollywood's visual
culture is far more central than anything painting can ever honestly even
dream of ever coming close to.
Cheers,
-N
P.S.If yur post was not in respnse to mine, than simply disregard the above.
N
In article <mv-190598...@163.176.32.53>, m...@vinsel.com (Mark
Vinsel) wrote:
(-N)
> > There is a decline in the interests and enthusiasms around the activity of
> > painting (if one judges this upon the centrality of the medium to overall
> > visual cultural production).
(Mark Vinsel)
> I don't think it makes sense to judge painting as in decline by the
> centrality of the medium to overall cultural production.
How then would you judge when painting is ascendant or in decline?
Occasionally
> there is art to be found in our overal cultural production but the raison
> d'etre is business.
Art has always been secular commodification in America. Business and art
are not, and never have been at odds in this country.
> Sure to some extent these media reflect our culture, but with a giant
> misleading skew. People invest in what they think will make them money and
> that is why we see what we do in the popular media.
Why do they think cetain things will make money where others will not?
Painting is a very small culture. even in NYC, it is a very small culture.
The art that interests me the most, contemporary painting is even smaller.
Go to your local Post Office and ask the customers if they have ever heard
of any of the artists say, in last years Whitney Bi-Annual (or any
painters form the last 6 years of Bi-Annuals).
I rest my case.
For instance, people
> like to watch police brutality videos, and advertisers know that an
> underlying feeling of fear helps promote people's reception to
> advertisements, so this stuff is always on one or two channels. On TV
> you'd think violence pervasive but the truth is that violent crime is
> down.
The economy is up, so violent crime is is down.
But what does the crime level have to do with a decline of painting? This
decline occured long before "COPS".
???
Cheers,
-N
mark webber
On Thu, 21 May 1998, N wrote:
> If this was in response to me:
>
> > I don't think painting is any more dead than anything else - Jazz,
> > sculpture, literature, cinema, poetry, etc....
My remarks were not directed at any individual.
>
> Painting in relation to paintings own past cultural role and practice.
>
> > The proportion of appreciators to non-appreciators is just getting worse,
> > that's all. And there's a proliferation of nonsense that makes sorting it
> > all out harder.
>
> ??
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'll sum up below.
>
> > Stating that Painting is dead on the usenet is just a troll, to my mind.
> > But this is not to say I don't admire your contributions to the thread,
> > and besides, don't we all love a troll now and then? It gives us a chance
> > to flex our artspeak.
>
> I didn't say dead.
> Read my post more carefully. I have no time to troll.
Somewhere in the thread, there's a notion being expressed that painting
is dead, and art education in decline. I think what some folks are
saying is a little different than what you say in the next paragraph....
> But if you have a
> take on paintings current role and meaning vis-a-vis its past or vis-a-vis
> other elements of visual culture please do contribute.
> I firmly believe that painting once held a hegemony on visual culture. I
> think that hegemony has unequivically come to an end. Hollywood's visual
> culture is far more central than anything painting can ever honestly even
> dream of ever coming close to.
>
> Cheers,
> -N
>
Your point, that Painting was once the leading force in visual art, can't
be denied - certainly prior to cinema, video etc. And your point that
Painting now no longer holds this central sway over the general public, in
part due to the predominance of Hollywood, is also solid.
I don't think this is the line of thinking in much of this thread. I'm
reading a few remarks that are saying Modern Art killed painting because
it requires no skill (meaning, I presume, skill to render accurately, not
skill to compose or choose color.)
I'm reading that some people find Painting to be irrelevant, uninventive,
exhausted.
I don't disagree that art education may be in decline - it looks to me
like on the whole, all education is in decline.
I also don't disagree that the role of Painting in our culture is a
smaller one. I don't think this means there is any less good painting
being made. There's a difference between the level of interest in Painting
between a postal worker and that of a painter, collector or critic, and
this doesn't reflect the quality of art, just the number of people who
care.
So it isn't Painting that is in decline, its the Cultural Role Of
Painting.
Am I distressed that people would rather go get entertainment than art?
A little, I guess. But it doesn't prevent my enjoyment of paintings.
Mark
N
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9805210...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
<<snip>>
> Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'll sum up below.
> I also don't disagree that the role of Painting in our culture is a
> smaller one. I don't think this means there is any less good painting
> being made. There's a difference between the level of interest in Painting
> between a postal worker and that of a painter, collector or critic, and
> this doesn't reflect the quality of art, just the number of people who
> care.
> So it isn't Painting that is in decline, its the Cultural Role Of
> Painting.
Agreed.
This shift in cultural prominence, particularly after painting's assention
to the top/forefront of cultural development during Modernism, has had its
impact on many artists of this generation and the previous generation, and
has altered their approach to making and thinking about painting.
-N.
kag...@ecr.net
>Marilyn wrote:
>
>> Of course there are more people painting than ever.
>> Art supplies is a booming industry. People don't want to buy
>> paintings they want to make paintings. There are millions
>> of amateurs out there enjoying themselves. That does not
>> weaken the argument that painting in our culture is near death.
>
>Right. Painting is getting to be what's called a "hobby art". That is,
>the only people involved with it and enjoying it are the ones doing it.
>The main audience for paintings is other painters. Poetry is another
>example of this -- poets are the only people reading poetry. I think
>that comics are going that way as well.
I believe this was true in the past as well . . . painters buying the
works of others, having large collections of certain types of works by
other artists, etc. . . like the impressionists, for example. An
artist has a different appreciation for another artist's works -- they
understand what is/was involved to get the end result. While a
non-artist can appreciate a painting, for example, they do not
understand the steps involved to bring that painting to being.
I am not as qualified in art history, etc. as most of you, but as an
artist, I have experienced this difference in appreciation in the
people around me -- and not with just art.
k : )
e & s
Sure, there are more artists than ever now. There are also more people than
ever. We are often approached by and admired by non-artists. In general,
they seem to appreciate looking and discovering.
jha...@om.com.au
In article <356D7169...@iws.net>,
considered as they considered these masters could never be matched. They
thought art was dead. That lasted a hundred years....
John Hagan
mark webber
On Sun, 31 May 1998 jha...@om.com.au wrote:
> >
> After Leonardo, Raphael and Michelangelo many artists were discouraged as they
> considered as they considered these masters could never be matched. They
> thought art was dead. That lasted a hundred years....
> John Hagan
>
May I respectfully point out that within one hundred years of the
Florentine masters you name above, the following artists emerged:
(Among others)
Titian
Tintoretto
Veronese
El Greco
Cranach
Holbein
Breugel
Caravaggio
Bernini
de la Tour
Poussin
It would seem unlikely to me that these artists felt art was dead.
In fact the variety of styles, issues and sensibilities present in this
period make a pretty strong case for a lively interest.
Hope this is helpful.
Mark