Guide to the Analysis of Works of Art
Charles Eicher
art history class. This document contained many useful points for a formal
analysis of artworks, although it is only a point of departure. Due to the
recent discussion of formal analysis, I thought it would be appropriate to
post it (not to mention, I only located it today!)
This document was a handout in a course taken mostly by freshmen and
non-art majors. Nobody knows where this document originated, my copy is a
blurry umpteenth-generation copy. It is known to have been used for over 10
years at my university, possibly much longer. The only clue to its origin
was the british spelling of "colour" which I edited out. If anyone has a
clue to the origin of this text, please let me know.
----------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@inav.net
----------------
GUIDE TO THE ANALYSIS OF WORKS OF ART
The analysis of a work of art should begin with a careful examination and
discussion of its formal qualities. A close visual analysis of a work can
then be used to elucidate its conceptual aspects.
The following is intended to offer the student a general guide to the
analysis of works of art. Obviously, not all the categories mentioned under
each heading will be applicable to every work, nor is the order in which
they are listed necessarily to be followed exactly. However, attention
should be given to a clear organization of observations and conclusions so
that your analysis is complete and not repetitious. Try to be precise in
verbalizing your visual impressions and ideas about a work of art, always
remembering that you must be able to support your opinions with objective
observations that can be checked by others. Be sure to distinguish between
what you are actually seeing, and your own subjective reactions and
associations.
I. IDENTIFICATION
1. Object: Artist (if known), title, date, medium, location.
2. Subject matter: Biblical, mythological, historical, genre, portrait,
etc. Give the source of the subject if known.
II. FORMAL ANALYSIS
1. General observations and description: What are the general shape, scale,
and proportions of the work?
2. Composition: What are the major elements of the composition, and how are
they related to each other? Is the composition compact and contained, or
are the elements loosely arranged? In a painting, how does the composition
relate to the size and shape of the canvas or panel?
3. Line: Line can be actual or implied. It can function as contour or be
implied by the composition. How is line used by the artist? Be aware of the
presence of line in sculpture-and architecture.
4. Color: Describe the colors used and how they are organized and related
to each other. Does the color unify parts of composition? Does it bring
planes of implied space together or help to suggest recession? Does the
color help to focus the viewer's attention on one or more important
elements in the composition? Is it natural or is it used objectively or is
it intended to evoke an emotional response in the viewer? Be aware of the
function of in sculpture as well as in painting.
5. Light and shadow: How are light and shadow used to define forms and
suggest plasticity, or their absence flatten them? Are light and shadow
used to heighten the expressive effect of the work, or do they have some
other effect in the work?
6. Space: What kind of pictorial space impression is created--deep
recession, shallow, or not at all? What devices are used to suggest
pictorial space? Consider linear and aerial perspective, overlapping of
forms, foreshortening, figure-ground and color relationships. In sculpture,
consider the way the sculpture's forms are organized, and the way they
relate to the surrounding space. Is there a primary view intended? Now does
the profile of the sculpture change from different points of view?
7. Technique: Every medium has certain characteristics and properties. How
does the medium affect the formal qualities of the work? Consider the
texture or quality of the surface revealed by light. Is it shiny, dull,
hard, soft, rough or smooth? How do the artist's choice of medium and his
technique directly affect the total effect of the work?
8. Style: In representational art:
a. Consider whether the forms are natural in appearance. Are the figures
portrayed realistically, or are they idealized according to a fixed idea of
physical beauty?
b. Are the forms abstracted from nature and stylized? What is the
expressive effect of the stylization of natural forms in the work?
(Note that these considerations may be a part of your general observations.
See no. 1.).
III. ICONGRAPHY
The iconography of a work is its intended meaning or content. The content
of an individual work of art can be understood as the artist's particular
interpretation of a given subject or concept through a selective
combination of formal elements. These can be conventional formulas common
to a particular time and place, or can be personal forms invented by the
artist to express his feelings and ideas about a certain subject. In the
former case, the artist must still be seen as giving form to ideas through
own adaptation of accepted formulas. Symbols and attributes can identify
figures and carry meaning to the viewer. If the source of a given subject
is known, we may ask why it was chosen and how the artist has interpreted
it. Has he stressed a particular aspect of the subject? Has he given a
conventional or personal representation of it? What kind of emotional
response has he tried to elicit from the viewer?
IV. CONTEXT
Once we have analyzed the formal qualities of a work of art, and have
understood its iconography, we can relate the work to the context in which
it was created. In other words, we may consider what the significance of
the object was in its original social, political, religious, or historical
context, and how its relates both stylistically and iconographically to
other works of the same period nationality, artist or group of artists,
patron, etc. Considering the work in this way gives us an objective
understanding of it in the history of-art as a whole.
V. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR ARCHITECTURE
While some of the above categories are applicable to the analysis of
architecture, some additional points may be suggested.
When analyzing an architectural work, primary formal consideration should
be given to its scale and proportions, and to the architect's articulation
of space and mass. These are expressed graphically in the plan of the
building (essentially a map of the floor), the section (a vertical plan),
and the elevation (a head-on view of an external or internal wall).
Other considerations may be:
1. Are there any special characteristics that are the direct result of the
particular structural system used?
2. Is an emphasis given to the viewer's experience of the exterior or the
interior of a structure, or are they of equal importance?
3. Are the proportional relationships of the parts of the structure based
on a certain module (a dimension of which the various parts of the building
are fractions or multiples)?
4. A building can be seen to have a certain program or significance which
is directly related to its function in a given society. How does the design
of the structure reflect its function? How does it express certain general
concepts that are characteristic of the period and the culture in which it
was built?
mark webber
Thanks for posting this. I take it you find it to be a useful tool, and I
would too. Anyone else have opinions of it?
Mark
jax...@my-dejanews.com
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
> Several years ago (!) I promised to post a document used as a handout in an
> art history class. This document contained many useful points for a formal
> analysis of artworks, although it is only a point of departure. Due to the
> recent discussion of formal analysis, I thought it would be appropriate to
> post it (not to mention, I only located it today!)
Thanks Charles for going to that trouble. It is a rather
timeless -- or is it time-tested -- approach from what
I read. J. S.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Philip Ayers
Stop it already,.. StoP IT!
If a person can't feel it, can see it, with what they have already, then
they don't need it, don't get it, and we sure as hell don't need them! the
work an -artist- does, doesn't need this canned analysis crap.
...life is too short,
...........get a life.
yer talk'n yerselves to death.
Hell... any idiot can understand a Richard Serra as well as they can
understand a Rembrant, .... they may not like it as much or at all...fair
enough.
People with "an Eye" will understand art intuitively, the rest will never
get it no matter what...and In many years I've never seen an exception.
This is the problem with art education on all levels today.
We artist don't need "phonies" lik'n our stuff.
: > In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
: > cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
: >
: > > Several years ago (!) I promised to post a document used as a
handout in an
: > > art history class. This document contained many useful points for a formal
: > > analysis of artworks, although it is only a point of departure. Due to the
: > > recent discussion of formal analysis, I thought it would be appropriate to
: > > post it (not to mention, I only located it today!)
: >
: > Thanks Charles for going to that trouble. It is a rather
: > timeless -- or is it time-tested -- approach from what
: > I read. J. S.
: >
: > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
: > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Philip Ayers
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
: > In article <70krh3$rvu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jax...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: >
: > Stop it already,.. StoP IT!
: > If a person can't feel it, can see it, with what they have already, then
: > they don't need it, don't get it, and we sure as hell don't need them! the
: > work an -artist- does, doesn't need this canned analysis crap.
: > ...life is too short,
: > ...........get a life.
: > yer talk'n yerselves to death.
: >
: > Hell... any idiot can understand a Richard Serra as well as they can
: > understand a Rembrant, .... they may not like it as much or at all...fair
: > enough.
: > People with "an Eye" will understand art intuitively, the rest will never
: > get it no matter what...and In many years I've never seen an exception.
: > This is the problem with art education on all levels today.
: > We artist don't need "phonies" lik'n our stuff.
I'm ready to name a few phonies.
1. Roberta Smith
Charles Eicher
p.a...@mindspring.com says...
>
>In article <70krh3$rvu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jax...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
>Stop it already,.. StoP IT!
>If a person can't feel it, can see it, with what they have already, then
>they don't need it, don't get it, and we sure as hell don't need them! the
>work an -artist- does, doesn't need this canned analysis crap.
>...life is too short,
>...........get a life.
>yer talk'n yerselves to death.
You obviously didn't read the document very closely, it says:
"...you must be able to support your opinions with objective
observations that can be checked by others. Be sure to distinguish between
what you are actually seeing, and your own subjective reactions and
associations."
Everyone has an opinion, and they are all equally valid (and equally invalid).
But if you don't bother to even look at the artwork objectively, your opinions
are based on some vague idea you've cooked up that are completely unrelated to
the artwork.
The viewing of an artwork requires a few more skills than one's innate ability
to "feel it."
Philip Ayers
<cei...@inav.net> wrote:
: > In article <p.ayers-2110...@ip178.princeton.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
: > p.a...@mindspring.com says...
: > >
: > >In article <70krh3$rvu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jax...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
: > >
: > >Stop it already,.. StoP IT!
: > >If a person can't feel it, can see it, with what they have already, then
: > >they don't need it, don't get it, and we sure as hell don't need them! the
: > >work an -artist- does, doesn't need this canned analysis crap.
: > >...life is too short,
: > >...........get a life.
: > >yer talk'n yerselves to death.
: > You obviously didn't read the document very closely, it says:
: > "...you must be able to support your opinions with objective
: > observations that can be checked by others.
MAN YOU ARE IN THE WRONG AREA OF THE BUILDING! TRY SCIENCE 101, THIS IS
ART WE BE DISCUSSING!!!
: > Be sure to distinguish between
: > what you are actually seeing, and your own subjective reactions and
: > associations."
: >
: > Everyone has an opinion, and they are all equally valid (and equally
invalid).
FOOLS upon fools.
I know what I see ..and it looks like more bull. What does this mean?
I know how to look at writing objectively and this here is a Bullcookie.
Sheeesh...when I look at art I see it with my heart and my gut.....I don't
know objective from nuthin, what's this human race coming to ..automatons,
I still know when I got Bull and this is Bull.
: > But if you don't bother to even look at the artwork objectively, your
opinions
: > are based on some vague idea you've cooked up that are completely
unrelated to
: > the artwork.
: > The viewing of an artwork requires a few more skills than one's innate
ability
: > to "feel it."
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
TJLitt
<gems on either side of this>
>Sheeesh...when I look at art I see it with my heart and my gut.....I don't
>know objective from nuthin, what's this human race coming to ..automatons,
Ok, Philip(never Phil)! This gets to a point
about art that seems frequently missed hereabouts. You read enough freaking
rule mongers and eventually it gets to you,
well put!
Tom(never Phil,either)Littleton
Charles Eicher
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> In article <70l2qr$o...@edrn.newsguy.com>, Charles Eicher
> <cei...@inav.net> wrote:
> : > You obviously didn't read the document very closely, it says:
>
> : > "...you must be able to support your opinions with objective
> : > observations that can be checked by others.
> MAN YOU ARE IN THE WRONG AREA OF THE BUILDING! TRY SCIENCE 101, THIS IS
> ART WE BE DISCUSSING!!!
No, this is Art History. This isn't intended to be a guide for an artist
analysing the painting he's MAKING, its designed to give people with no
knowledge of Art a way to begin to approach a work. Art History does have
its objective aspects. And note that the document DOES suggest including
one's subjective impressions, however, writing one's opinion of a work
without a close examination of the objective reality of what is on the
canvas is just plain ridiculous. Its like looking at clouds and saying, "I
see a horsie" when its just a bunch of irregularly shaped water vapor. This
says nothing about the subject, but much about the mind of the viewer.
Viewing painting is not a Rohrschach Inkblot test. The artist has a
specific message, and has used specific technical means to convey it. To
ignore this is to ignore the artist and the work itself.
> I know what I see ..and it looks like more bull. What does this mean?
> I know how to look at writing objectively and this here is a Bullcookie.
> Sheeesh...when I look at art I see it with my heart and my gut.....I don't
> know objective from nuthin, what's this human race coming to ..automatons,
> I still know when I got Bull and this is Bull.
And you're full of it, for sure.
I refuse to debate with someone so inarticulate as yourself.
Philip Ayers
: > And you're full of it, for sure.
: >
: > I refuse to debate with someone so inarticulate as yourself.
: >
: > ----------------
: > Charles Eicher
: > cei...@inav.net
: > ----------------
Eicher-
I don't know what kind of dido you got stuck up your butt but if I were
you I 'd try a little respect cowboy, before I have to take the gloves
off.
Charles Eicher
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
> cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>
>
> : > And you're full of it, for sure.
> : >
> : > I refuse to debate with someone so inarticulate as yourself.
> : >
> : > ----------------
> : > Charles Eicher
> : > cei...@inav.net
> : > ----------------
> Eicher-
> I don't know what kind of dido you got stuck up your butt but if I were
> you I 'd try a little respect cowboy, before I have to take the gloves
> off.
I was going to make a joke about Dido, Queen of ancient Carthage, but it
would go right over your head. I doubt you ever heard of The Aeneid, much
less read anything by Virgil.
Respect is earned. You've done nothing to earn anything except contempt. If
this is the best you can do, to scream BULLSHIT over and over, and
metaphorically fling your feces at people, then you aren't even in my
league. In a battle of wits, I refuse to fight with an unarmed person. Go
ahead, take off the gloves, take your best shot. But don't expect me to
bother to reply. You can have the last word.
lanc...@hotmail.com
> p.a...@mindspring.com says...
> >
> >In article <70krh3$rvu$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jax...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> >Stop it already,.. StoP IT!
> >If a person can't feel it, can see it, with what they have already, then
> >they don't need it, don't get it, and we sure as hell don't need them! the
> >work an -artist- does, doesn't need this canned analysis crap.
> >...life is too short,
> >...........get a life.
> >yer talk'n yerselves to death.
>
>
> observations that can be checked by others. Be sure to distinguish between
> what you are actually seeing, and your own subjective reactions and
> associations."
>
Opinions on what, your own work, someone elses? If it's your own why do you
need it to be checked by others? If it's someone else's, wouldn't it be just
you parotting what your art history professor said?
What about conceptual art that's opened to interpretation. If I ever take
the abstract road, that's what I'll be. My work will allow you to get in
touch with your own feelings and emotions. Can't go wrong there. If you ever
see a Wilkens abstract, you now know how to veiw it.
> Everyone has an opinion, and they are all equally valid (and equally invalid).
All opinions are equal but they can be both valid and invalid? If one opinion
is valid and another invalid, how can they be equal?
> But if you don't bother to even look at the artwork objectively, your opinions
> are based on some vague idea you've cooked up that are completely unrelated to
> the artwork.
> The viewing of an artwork requires a few more skills than one's innate ability
> to "feel it."
IMO, one's artwork should stand or fall on it's own merit. If some don't get
it, why should they be branded as barbarians needing to be taught to
appreciate it? But if they like it and want to learn more, that's different.
To me, this just seems too convenient for those who don't posess any skills
to "get into the game". There's only a certain amount of gallery space out
there. And by artificially creating a market to works that doesn't deserve
any attention much less a market, you've done a disservice to other deserving
artists who needed that gallery space.
This just a couple opinions of an abstract-ignorant observer. Take it for
what it's worth.
lance
DFRussell
>In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
>cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>
>
>: > And you're full of it, for sure.
>: >
>: > I refuse to debate with someone so inarticulate as yourself.
>: >
>: > ----------------
>: > Charles Eicher
>: > cei...@inav.net
>: > ----------------
>Eicher-
>I don't know what kind of dido you got stuck up your butt but if I were
>you I 'd try a little respect cowboy, before I have to take the gloves
>off.
Did you ever wonder why so few people "respect" you, Phil?
Charles Eicher
> This just a couple opinions of an abstract-ignorant observer. Take it for
>what it's worth.
Believe me, I've given your remarks far more attention than they were worth. I
wrote a lengthy reply, and I threw it out. I'm talking about methods to analyze
artworks, and you counter with methods to analyze works that you haven't created
yet and don't even know how to create. I am apparently not living on the same
planet as you are.
Let me just say that you and Ayers are the reason this document on Analysis was
written, to save poor Art History professors from having to read another lame,
disjointed essay full of fuzzy subjective thinking.
Philip Ayers
: > p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
: >
: > >In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
: > >cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
: > >
: > >
: > >: > And you're full of it, for sure.
: > >: >
: > >: > I refuse to debate with someone so inarticulate as yourself.
: > >: >
: > >: > ----------------
: > >: > Charles Eicher
: > >: > cei...@inav.net
: > >: > ----------------
: > >Eicher-
: > >I don't know what kind of dido you got stuck up your butt but if I were
: > >you I 'd try a little respect cowboy, before I have to take the gloves
: > >off.
: >
: > Did you ever wonder why so few people "respect" you, Phil?
Why because I had a typo....dildo!
Philip Ayers
: > In article <p.ayers-2110...@ip145.princeton3.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
: > p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
: >
: > > In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
: > > cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
: > >
: > >
: > > : > And you're full of it, for sure.
: > > : >
: > > : > I refuse to debate with someone so inarticulate as yourself.
: > > : >
: > > : > ----------------
: > > : > Charles Eicher
: > > : > cei...@inav.net
: > > : > ----------------
: > > Eicher-
: > > I don't know what kind of dido you got stuck up your butt but if I were
: > > you I 'd try a little respect cowboy, before I have to take the gloves
: > > off.
: >
: > I was going to make a joke about Dido, Queen of ancient Carthage, but it
: > would go right over your head. I doubt you ever heard of The Aeneid, much
: > less read anything by Virgil.
: >
: > Respect is earned. You've done nothing to earn anything except contempt. If
: > this is the best you can do, to scream BULLSHIT over and over, and
: > metaphorically fling your feces at people, then you aren't even in my
: > league. In a battle of wits, I refuse to fight with an unarmed person. Go
: > ahead, take off the gloves, take your best shot. But don't expect me to
: > bother to reply. You can have the last word.
: >
: > ----------------
: > Charles Eicher
: > cei...@inav.net
So I had a typo ...should have been dildo.....and this is what you
attack? You have no imagination. Stiff people irritate me, but you
arent' even in the park charlie if you're trying to "get my goat."
What have you done lately besides blow hot air?..............to me this is
just a good place to get a little laugh, that's about it. And yes it is
metaphorical shit.....would you rather have the literal stuff? Metaphors'
my bidness bud!
DFRussell
>: > Did you ever wonder why so few people "respect" you, Phil?
>
>Why because I had a typo....dildo!
Um, no. That's not it.
TJLitt
>Go
>ahead, take off the gloves, take your best shot. But don't expect me to
>bother to reply. You can have the last word.
>
I thought a read a similar promise in your
prior post to P.Ayers...and to move backwards
through this literary gem....
> I doubt you ever heard of The Aeneid, much
>less read anything by Virgil.
>
Well, I agree Philip has gotten a bit out of
control at times(although, as stated, I see his
point and perhaps a bit of shouting is good for
the soul). However, this piece of character
definition comes off sounding like you are indeed the arrogant,elitist jerk he
seems to
insinuate you are.
>Respect is earned.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say....
Tom Littleton
lanc...@hotmail.com
Your refusal to respond in an articulate manner could be interpretated by
some that you didn't have anything to say. And your snobbish attempt to cover
it up seems obvious with the way you deemed me "unworthy" for any response
from you. IMO, no response would have been much more appropiate then the one
you posted. But, unfortunately, my opinion doesn't matter.
Shouldn't you be more understanding to those who don't comprehend the
abstract style? If it's something of a required or learned taste, then at one
time almost all fans of abstract had to be taught how to appreciate it.
Is this analysis document somewhere online?
Charles Eicher
> Your refusal to respond in an articulate manner could be interpretated by
> some that you didn't have anything to say.
Believe me, my response was quite articulate, but as I progressed through
your message, it was clear that there we were not talking about the same
subject. I could have worked it around, and maybe made some dialogue, but
I'm short on time, just checking my email one last time even now, on my way
to the airport.
BUT... your comment (which I will quote out of order)
> Is this analysis document somewhere online?
..explains much. You are responding to a thread where Ayers changed the
topic and apparently you didn't see the original message.
> Shouldn't you be more understanding to those who don't comprehend the
> abstract style? If it's something of a required or learned taste, then at one
> time almost all fans of abstract had to be taught how to appreciate it.
Which is why I posted the document in the first place. I suggest you locate
and read the original document, in the thread entitled "Guide to the
Analysis of Works of Art" rather than this thread where the subject starts
with "B.S." And then perhaps you will be somewhat attuned to what this is
all about, rather than reacting to Ayers reaction to this document that you
haven't read.
Read it, and then we'll talk. If you can't locate the document, I'll
repost, but I don't have time right now. Gotta catch a plane. Back in a few
days..
Philip Ayers
I haven't read the "document " either, it's the premise I disagree with,
that an artificial (canned) instrument for -meaningful- interpretation,
can be constructed for those seriously interested in the arts! It's
laughable to even suggest this and I have to assume you are full of BS or
a bad historian! to believe that it can be done. It has gone down in the
history of ideas that superimposing an artificial structure over the vast
complex of human activity & behavior will -always fails- and never is it a
substitute for keen observation and record keeping. And furthermore if I
prefer to speak to Eicher like I do it's because I detect a lot of
pretention in his tone, along with this theory shit. As for any one here
who cares to take issue with my style ..it changes all the time so don't
get too sure that you know where I'm going because I haven't even figured
it out yet....this is the first premise that an artist should have....I
don't know where I'm going but as long as it feels right, I'll keep moving
in that DIRECTION. No rational, no matter how sharp will out do the
heart, they work together, but the heart is apriori in most humans and all
true artist. Feelings...yes! Intellectual snobbery is no substitute for
intelligences! Art Historians have turned to statistics and ex-ray
technology only because too many are looking for an academic gimmick to
further their unlikely future reputations. Maybe the statistical analysis
of stone blocks has a purpose, for detecting stylistic changes in masonry
techniques, but it does very little for the business of looking at a
Cathedral.
In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
: > ..explains much. You are responding to a thread where Ayers changed the
: > topic and apparently you didn't see the original message.
: >
: > > Shouldn't you be more understanding to those who don't comprehend the
: > > abstract style? If it's something of a required or learned taste,
then at one
: > > time almost all fans of abstract had to be taught how to appreciate it.
: >
: > Which is why I posted the document in the first place. I suggest you locate
: > and read the original document, in the thread entitled "Guide to the
: > Analysis of Works of Art" rather than this thread where the subject starts
: > with "B.S." And then perhaps you will be somewhat attuned to what this is
: > all about, rather than reacting to Ayers reaction to this document that you
: > haven't read.
: >
: > Read it, and then we'll talk. If you can't locate the document, I'll
: > repost, but I don't have time right now. Gotta catch a plane. Back in a few
: > days..
: >
: > ----------------
: > Charles Eicher
: > cei...@inav.net
: > ----------------
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
On Fri, 23 Oct 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
> ...don't know where I'm going but as long as it feels right, I'll keep
> moving in that DIRECTION. No rational, no matter how sharp will out do the
> heart, they work together, but the heart is apriori in most humans and all
> true artist. Feelings...yes! Intellectual snobbery is no substitute for
> intelligences!
Philip, while I don't always agree with the level of aggression you use, I
have to agree with the above. (Although I'm fully aware of the possibility
that you don't give a flat fuck what I think, I wanted to give some
support where I can, because in spite of the obnoxious tone of some of
your posts, there have been, ever since your first appearance here, great
points that you've made.)
> Art Historians have turned to statistics and ex-ray
> technology only because too many are looking for an academic gimmick to
> further their unlikely future reputations. Maybe the statistical analysis
> of stone blocks has a purpose, for detecting stylistic changes in masonry
> techniques, but it does very little for the business of looking at a
> Cathedral.
And this is another example, to my mind, of you hitting it on the head.
I don't think you could be more right.
I have to say, I'd like to see your work. Are you showing anywhere these
days?
Mark
A. B. Sieze
webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU says...
>Philip, while I don't always agree with the level of aggression you use, I
>have to agree with the above.
I think what both of you are doing is suggesting that the
'guidelines' published by Eicher are lacking. But they
evidently are intended only as guidelines for someone
who is perhaps lacking in art education. And for that reason
I think that guidelines are a necessary evil. For those
people this guidepost was intended for -- first year art
students or maybe even non-art majors who were taking
art history courses as electives, something simplistic
is needed to spur interest in the topic. Deep philosophical
dialogues only scare the un-initiated off, IMO. Abby.
PS And many of the circumlocutious critics scare me off.
mark webber
Hi Abby,
Actually, because of the way you snipped, it does look as though I agree
with everything Philip wrote, and that's not the case; in fact, I think
the day before, I posted a reply to Charles' original post which included
the outline of formalist ideas, thanking him, and saying that I thought it
might be a useful tool. To be more specific, I would see it as a helpful
departure point.
However, I am a teacher, and Philip is not.
What I was agreeing with Philip about was a set of remarks about passion
and instinct, and further down, an expression of dissapointment about
critics such as Roberta Smith.
Sorry about the confusion.
Mark
Charles Eicher
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> To whomever
> I haven't read the "document " either, it's the premise I disagree with,
> that an artificial (canned) instrument for -meaningful- interpretation,
> can be constructed for those seriously interested in the arts!
Only an idiot would condemn something without reading it. Try READING the
document. You might be surprised that it is not a "canned instrument for
interpretation" but instead, it is a framework with open-ended questions.
It is intended to get you to make DIRECT OBSERVATIONS which you are then
free to INTERPRET to your own.
Maybe I should do a formal analysis of one of YOUR paintings, and show you
how far it can be taken. I was thinking of that landscape with the walking
figures, where the houses in the background cast a shadow in one direction,
the foreground figures in another, and the middleground objects casts
shadows in another direction entirely. And don't tell me that you did this
deliberately, I can see from your other works that you never even mastered
1-point perspective. I can't imagine how anyone could get an MFA without
learning this, and other minor technical tricks like how the sun (a point
source of light) only casts shadows in one direction.
I can see why you'd be opposed to someone doing a formal analysis of
paintings, since yours would fall apart in the face of objective scrutiny.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: >
: > Hi Abby,
: >
: > Actually, because of the way you snipped, it does look as though I agree
: > with everything Philip wrote, and that's not the case; in fact, I think
: > the day before, I posted a reply to Charles' original post which included
: > the outline of formalist ideas, thanking him, and saying that I thought it
: > might be a useful tool. To be more specific, I would see it as a helpful
: > departure point.
: >
: > However, I am a teacher, and Philip is not.
: > Mark
Mark-
My last teaching position was at Indiana University. One of the best
programs in the country. Where does the university of Scranton rate? I've
also taught or have been a visiting artists at many art schools and art
departments.
I won't go into my lifes story here but I could still be teaching, with
tenure, if I had wanted too. I have strong opinions about art education in
this country and I've worked with some of the best people around and
thought about the subject more than you might imagine.
Mark you're silly to offering facts concerning stuff you don't know much about.
Just because right now "I don't like splan'n shit to people" doesn't mean
I'm -NOT- a teacher, there are pokers my man..there are pokers in the
fire.
Philip Ayers
I find this criticism below laughable. It's evidents enough of your
complete ignorance!
If I were concerned about what you suggest ,I would be stupid too, and you
are stupid to apply such BS and call it "objective" criticism to my work.
You provide all the evidents I need to show that you are ignorant of the
subject you profess to be an expert in.
Please artists if any are out there what do you think.
I shouldn't even reply any more than the above but I will and it will be
short... First I -wasn't- trying to confine my painting to a rigid single
point perspective & i have never since drawinf 101.. Single point
perspective isn't a club to beat ones self over the head with, it a
reference, a tool and device for defining space,both illusionistic and
poetic.. At Indiana University I taught perspective, 3 point perspective,
as well as 2 point and single point persp. as part of a drawing 101
course. I'm completely familiar with all aspects of perspective, it a
hobby of mine! It's a tool for drwing which is best best forgotten in it
most dogmatic form!
I can assure you that perspective is a limited tool in painting but one
which an art student should be familiar with.
As far as it's use in my painting.....I couldn't use persective in it
rigid scientific form, anymore than Paulo Uccello or De Chirico did! It's
a device for visual poetry more than scientic description in painting and
always has been, even as Mantagna used it. He often "cheated" using it for
his own purposes, as did every other artist worthy of being called an
artist.
Son, there is much for you have to learn! I was going to read your little
writings but now I don't feel so inclined as you made an incredibly stupid
argument and what little credibility( i didn't read it) is gone.
Good day sir.
In article <ceicher-ya0240800...@enews.newsguy.com>,
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
: > In article <p.ayers-2310...@ip22.princeton.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
mark webber
On Mon, 26 Oct 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9810241...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
(snip)
> : >
> : > However, I am a teacher, and Philip is not.
>
> : > Mark
>
> Mark-
> My last teaching position was at Indiana University. One of the best
> programs in the country. Where does the university of Scranton rate?
I don't teach at the University of Scranton. I do a Jazz program for their
radio station and find their PINE program to be the best I have access to
for reading usenet.
I currently teach at Keystone College and Marywood University. These two
schools, and every other one I know of, all rate their art programs to be
"one of the best in the country."
When I lived in New York, I taught at Parsons School of Design, another
school with a high opinion of itself. To my mind, a school is, regardless
of what its P.R. says, only as good as its faculty. A valuable faculty, to
me, would consist of people who like to, as you put it, "'splan shit."
(snip)
> I have strong opinions about art education in
> this country and I've worked with some of the best people around and
> thought about the subject more than you might imagine.
Philip, in the context of the dialogue I was having with the other poster,
it shouldn't be hard to see that I was simply saying that as a
current teacher, I might have more use for such a document than a former
teacher. There is no need to get defensive. I wasn't saying "Look at at
stupid Philip! He's not a teacher! Nah Nah!"
I was saying "I'm a teacher, I might find it more useful than Philip who
is not."
> Mark you're silly to offering facts concerning stuff you don't know much about.
You've said you're not currently a teacher, so why should you need to
concern yourself with an outline of formalist approaches? And why does it
make me silly to point this out?
> Just because right now "I don't like splan'n shit to people" doesn't mean
> I'm -NOT- a teacher, there are pokers my man..there are pokers in the
> fire.
>
Ok, so now you're a teacher. Do all the teachers at "one of the best
schools in the country" prefer not to "splan shit?"
Why so defensive, if you're such a success?
If you don't like to talk about art, why do keep coming here?
with warmth,
Mark
Philip Ayers
field-?. Nobody's saying this is absolute, but it does indicate -more than
just PR-! I happen to think Yale and Indiana for painting, are better than
most...Kansas City art institute is good too! There is a difference of
course depending on what you think a good program does. I know these
schools and they have excellent undergraduate programs for painters. I'm
totally interested in undergraduate curiculum, Pratt is going down
hill...as for Parsons...not painting, I don't think..Visual Arts is
better. Don pearlis isn't my idea of a power teacher.Other schools may be
good but but ask most painters in the field and they will tell you. Some
like BU..I don't think so based on what Ladermans says, and I was on MFA
selection commitees @ IU and I'm not lik'n what I see....too academic.
Teaching ain't "explan'n shit" but this is!
In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9810261...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.