SKILL
Mani Deli
>>: I never claimed skill was everything. I only said, no skill
>>: no art. Its like a car Greg, no gas no ride. Gas isn't
>>: everything but without it you get no further.
>
>Greg Scheckler answers
>I always wonder, when you talk about skill, do you mean
>hand-eye skills, or internal nearly ineffable skills like
>critical thinking or the ability to imagine new possibilities,
>or both?
>
I can speak of skill in the most general sense. It is the ability to make or
do something others can’t do and thus creating something that people want.
In the arts there are the learned skills namely those of which the basics can
be taught in a rote sense like drawing, color, painting technique etc. These
are essentially fundamental skills. It is these skills which one should expect
to acquire in school. It is these to which I refer to when I say, "no skill no
art."
Critical thinking can certainly be taught. Skeptical thinking can and should
also be taught. New possibilities can be taught to some degree as can
approaches to creativity. When someone claims that a teacher or a work of art
inspired him I presume he means that it affected his creativity.
To advance beyond the above mentioned skills one needs the gift of talent and
a desire to persevere. There are lots of talented people who don’t persevere
and don’t think critically. Often the far less talented get further.
After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create what is
regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to create something
people want and sometimes to creating something a great number of people
treasure for a long time (great art.)
I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if they
persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must learn a
degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the mysterious gift
necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists master technique.
To all those who believe that I advocate nothing more than learned skills I
can only say that they are mistaken. I do advocate that all art must rest on a
foundation of the fundamental skills and that anything which lacks this
foundation and is presently classed as great art will fail to withstand the
test of time.
I maintain that the vast majority of Modern Art which inhabits our museums
does not even possess a modicum of the fundamental skills. That is why I
predict that when the tide of fashion changes Modern Art will be reassessed
I do not believe that art must return to the realism or the subject matter of
the past. I do not even favor realism over abstraction. I do not advocate any
style of subject matter as necessarily being better than another.
However I see no merit whatever any work claiming to be great art which anyone
with a modicum of skill can imitate and even forge. I see no merit in a work’s
claim of being first when it exhibits nothing more than flat drips, stripes or
schmiers. I regard such work in spite of present day adulation to fall into
the category of what should be called STUPID ART.
And I regard anyone claiming to produce artwork whose product shows that he
lacks fundamental artistic skills (no matter how brilliant at other things)
as a STUPID ARTIST.
And I regard anyone who doesn’t possess fundamental skills and claims he
teaches art as a STUPID ART TEACHER.
Mani DeLi
If an artist hasn’t the skill to do something most others can’t do his only
alternative is Bullshit.
Andy Pearlman
>After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
>foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create what is
>regarded by others as artwork. This results in an ability to create something
>people want and sometimes to creating something a great number of people
>treasure for a long time (great art.)
>
>I offer a musical analogy. Anyone can be taught the scales and if they
>persevere they can learn to play the piano fairly well. All must learn a
>degree of rote. Few become great pianists. Few have the mysterious gift
>necessary to become great pianists. Yet all great pianists master technique.
This is a false analogy - of course great pianists have to master technique -
it is like a professional portraitist not mastering realism. But do all
great pianists master composition? music theory? various forms of technique,
such as jazz vs. classical? Not at all.
Now to extend your analogy, would any of these great pianists be even vaguely
employable without the help of composers, who in some cases are bad at even
directing their own pieces?(Stravinsky being a case in point)
Andy
--
Andy Pearlman - artwork at http://tsb.weschke.com/iiw/gallery/pearlman_a.html
apea...@panix.com
"I think I'm going ... to regret this ... in the morning...."
Kathy Casper
>it is like a professional portraitist not mastering realism. But do all
>great pianists master composition? music theory? various forms of <technique, such as jazz vs. classical? Not at all.
>Now to extend your analogy, would any of these great pianists be even >vaguely employable without the help of composers, who in som=
e cases are >bad at even directing their own pieces?(Stravinsky being a case in >point)
Andy,
You are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, musical art requires more than
just the performer - there must be also be a composer. This is not true
in the arts of painting, sculpting, literature, etc.
So let me support Mani's point by comparing the painter/artist with a
writer/artist. The writer/artist had better have a solid foundation in
sentence structure, effective character development, dialogue and
plotting, or the work, as Mani pointed out, will not stand the test of
time.
Sure, there are plenty of creative thinkers among the ranks of mankind
who have superb ideas, quite innovative, and revolutionary. Many of
those great thinkers may write books. However, it is not the ideas they
come up with that become great literature. Great literature requires the
mastery of writing *skills*, plus the talent for using those skills to
communicate superb ideas. The same is true for the painter/artist.
Bookstores are full of books that will fade from the scene within years,
if not months or weeks. This is because they are just books - not great
literature, just as many of the works in galleries today are not great
art. Expressive? Yes. Art? Perhaps. Masterpieces? Hardly.
Kathy Casper
-------------------------------------
HeART Beat "Site of the Week"
http://www.netline.net/novus/museum/heart.html
InfoQuest Web Design and Research
http://www.netline.net/~kathy/index.html
E-mail: ka...@netline.net
Date: @date@
Time: @time@
-------------------------------------
Andy Pearlman
>>This is a false analogy - of course great pianists have to master >technique -
>>it is like a professional portraitist not mastering realism. But do all
>>great pianists master composition? music theory? various forms of <technique, such as jazz vs. classical? Not at all.
>
>>Now to extend your analogy, would any of these great pianists be even >vaguely employable without the help of composers, who in som=
>e cases are >bad at even directing their own pieces?(Stravinsky being a case in >point)
>
>Andy,
>
>You are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, musical art requires more than
>just the performer - there must be also be a composer. This is not true
>in the arts of painting, sculpting, literature, etc.
Many composers though are competent performers. If a musical artist is free
to not know how to compose, why must a visual artist know realism if not
doing realism? Why must a visual artist convince viewers that he/she could
accomplish realism in a non-realistic painting?
>So let me support Mani's point by comparing the painter/artist with a
>writer/artist. The writer/artist had better have a solid foundation in
>sentence structure, effective character development, dialogue and
>plotting, or the work, as Mani pointed out, will not stand the test of
>time.
Gravity's Rainbow by Thomas Pynchon. Ulysses by James Joyce. The Last of
the Mohicans. Faulkner. Raymond Carver. Marquis De Sade. Raymond Chandler.
And I don't particularly like some of the ones on this list, but...
The writer/artist is in many ways a really poor choice - the master writers
almost *never* follow the rules. In many cases, it isn't even clear that
they had a solid foundation in sentence structure. It is the middle-grade
writers, who write to a mass audience, and will inevitably be forgotten. Or
does anyone actually think that people will read Danielle Steele a century
from now?
Greg Scheckler
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
and quoted me saying:
>>I always wonder, when u [Mani] talk about skill, do you mean
>>hand-eye skills, or internal nearly ineffable skills like
>>critical thinking or the ability to imagine new
>>
>I can speak of skill in the most general sense. It is the
>ability to make or do something others can’t do and thus
>creating something that people want.
and
>In the arts there are the learned skills namely those
>of which the basics can be taught in a rote sense like
>drawing, color, painting technique etc. These
>are essentially fundamental skills. It is these skills
>which one should expect to acquire in school. It is these to
>which I refer to when I say, "no skill no art."
I've made exact replicas of many masterworks. I draw
just like Leonardo. I draw just like Michelangelo. Therefore,
by your definition, neither L. or M. had much skill, because
I have shown that another person (me) can do just what they
do. They have not done what others can not do.
However I have attempted to copy Pollock with equal
precision. While I can create facsimiles, I have not as of yet
either seen or been able to create an exact copy. Therefore
by your definition I conclude that Pollock has great skill,
because he has done what no other artist can do.
Noting the above problems, in contradistinction to your
definition, i therefore assert that what skill is has
not much to do with what artists can do.
Skill has everything to do with what artists fail to do.
later, Mani Deli writes:
>After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one
>combines this foundation with ones talents and perseverance
>and attempts to create what is regarded by others as artwork.
step a, step b, then step c. write your introductory
paragraph first, then the body of the essay, and
a conclusion. how absolutely linear.
have you ever written the conclusion first? ever
known the answer before the question was asked?
ever made a great sentence only later to realize that
it best suits the fourth paragraph of some book?
I generally find that thinking in strict lineal sets
severely restricts my ability to function multidimensionally,
which visual or process-oriented artmaking requires.
Skill, then for me lies not in adopting the modi operandi
of any particular strategy, but rather in maintaining the
flexibility and openness to work among many levels
simultaneously.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Jim or Missy
I hate these arguments about skill and craft and anyone could do that or
you have to know the rules to break them
Art history can be taught and being an artist well a caring person who
questions why and what you are doing can be helpful in developing the
person who is an artist ...However I just think you are born an artist not
become an artist and art is a nonretinal phenomena ... a cognitive
phenomena that weirdos and genius who may or may not have gone to art
school create ... they leave a detritus of enigmatic signs that intrigue
my mind
--
--Fish the Mac
Jim---...@bayou.uh.edu
Missy-...@uh.edu
Bruce Attah
[clipped comparison of artists to musicians]
> I believe Andy's point was in reference to the *multiple talents*
> possessed by any painter, writer, composer, etc., specific to his or
> her art form--it wasn't about performance, per se. There are so many
> talents and skills involved in creativity, (to say nothing of
> psychological factors, good historical timing, etc.) that to just seize
> on one 'skill' (realistic rendering) and make it your holy grail seems
> a bit short-sighted.
>
To say that there are lots of talents involved in creating an art is not
the same thing as to say that any given one of those talents is
unimportant. The skill of drawing is vital in what is these days often
called "visual art", and has been underemphasised by many, leading to a
lot of poor-quality stuff being passed off as great art. Mani Deli is
therefore quite right to bang on about drawing.
> Mani Deli's thesis is that drawing skills are the sine qua non of all
> art--and this leads him to his absurd opinions: for example, that
> Norman Rockwell was a major artist, while ____________ (fill in
> the name of any great abstractionist) was an "idiot"--haven't you
> read any of Mani's harangues?
Did Mani Deli say that Norman Rockwell was a major artist? I don't
remember ever reading such from him.
Ross Green
> apea...@panix.com (Andy Pearlman) wrote:
>> This is a false analogy - of course great pianists have to master
>> technique - it is like a professional portraitist not mastering
>> realism. But do all great pianists master composition? music
>> theory? various forms of technique, such as jazz vs. classical?
>> Not at all.
>> Now to extend your analogy, would any of these great pianists
>> be even vaguely employable without the help of composers,
>> who in some cases are bad at even directing their own pieces?
>> (Stravinsky being a case in point)
> Andy,
> You are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, musical art requires
> more than just the performer - there must be also be a composer.
> This is not true in the arts of painting, sculpting, literature, etc.
I believe Andy's point was in reference to the *multiple talents*
possessed by any painter, writer, composer, etc., specific to his or
her art form--it wasn't about performance, per se. There are so many
talents and skills involved in creativity, (to say nothing of
psychological factors, good historical timing, etc.) that to just seize
on one 'skill' (realistic rendering) and make it your holy grail seems
a bit short-sighted.
Mani Deli's thesis is that drawing skills are the sine qua non of all
art--and this leads him to his absurd opinions: for example, that
Norman Rockwell was a major artist, while ____________ (fill in
the name of any great abstractionist) was an "idiot"--haven't you
read any of Mani's harangues?
> So let me support Mani's point by comparing the painter/artist
> with a writer/artist. The writer/artist had better have a solid
> foundation in sentence structure, effective character development,
> dialogue and plotting, or the work, as Mani pointed out, will not
> stand the test of time.
Generally true (with lots of exceptions though)--but would you then
conclude that those skills *comprise* great writing? (That's analogous
to Mani's basic views on art.)
It's also every creative person's right to *ignore* what they
instinctively feel will be harmful to their art. (This even applies
to philosophers: Wittgenstein was quite proud of never having read
Aristotle--but he was erudite in the specific areas of knowledge
he needed for his philosophy.)
Besides, regarding MODERN literature, the post-Joycean novelist
looks at your above-mentioned 'skills' with a wary eye--spend some
time reading Kathy Acker if you want to see a modern master
demolishing quaint notions of writing 'skills'---The problem with
eulogizing 'basic skills' is that they too often become the *substitute*
for really dynamic art.
> Great literature requires the mastery of writing *skills*, plus the
> talent for using those skills to communicate superb ideas.
> The same is true for the painter/artist. [clip]
"Writing skills" is a meaningless phrase. Almost all great modern
poetry makes a mockery of traditional poetic "writing skills"
(rhyming, strict meter, etc.)--so what? There are lots of ways to
draw 'well'--what do you mean by 'well'? (Bouguereau, Meissonier,
Norman Rockwell?) It doesn't mean the same thing now, in the
postmodern era, as it did back in the days of the French Academy
--and even then it was suspect.
-Ross
Bruce Attah
Scheckler) wrote:
> I've made exact replicas of many masterworks. I draw
> just like Leonardo. I draw just like Michelangelo. Therefore,
> by your definition, neither L. or M. had much skill, because
> I have shown that another person (me) can do just what they
> do. They have not done what others can not do.
>
> However I have attempted to copy Pollock with equal
> precision. While I can create facsimiles, I have not as of yet
> either seen or been able to create an exact copy. Therefore
> by your definition I conclude that Pollock has great skill,
> because he has done what no other artist can do.
>
> Noting the above problems, in contradistinction to your
> definition, i therefore assert that what skill is has
> not much to do with what artists can do.
>
Leonardo and Michelangelo used precise methods, while Pollock used
imprecise methods. It is therefore not very surprising that your precise
method of copying is well-suited to copying L. and M., but not to copying
Pollock.
There is randomness built in to Pollock's technique. This does not make
his work good, but it does have the consequence that while a skilled
copyist can reproduce the work of even the best painters by imitating
their method, no-one can copy Pollock using such an approach.
If I were to paint by spitting on a canvas, I would ensure that my art was
uncopyable (even by myself), but not that it was any good.
Does this make Mani's comments about skill essentially wrong? No, I don't
think so, because in order to produce convincing replicas of the works of
such artists as M. and L., one requires a very considerable amount of
skill oneself. I believe that a replica should resemble the original in
all *aesthetically significant* respects, and that for this to be achieved
when the original is, say, the Mona Lisa, precision is required, but for
the same to be achieved with respect to one of Pollock's "masterpieces",
the same degree of precision is not required, and therefore the same level
of skill is not needed to create the replica.
I am persuaded that an ordinary person would not need a lot of training to
be able to produce convincing "Jackson Pollocks", but a great deal of
training to produce even half-way decent "Lenonardo Da Vincis", and even
then, most people would fail completely. For evidence, let me point to
the large numbers of obscure and historically insignificant
abstractionists who exist whose paintings differ from those of Pollock
only to the extent these "artists" have deemed necessary to avoid the
label "derivative", and contrast this with the persistent attempts of many
artists following Da Vinci to mimic his style--attempts that in almost
every case that met with only partial success.
The skill required to replicate good art is by itself sufficient to create
good original art, I think on that we are agreed, but it goes a long way.
William DeRaymond
>....... After practicing and mastering fundamental skills one combines this
> foundation with ones talents and perseverance and attempts to create what is
> people want and sometimes to creating something a great number of people
but you must express yourself and hope that people are smart enough to
recognize your vision, but obviously if you follow the above you'll end up a
neo-classical fool instead of an artist. To attempt to create what others
regard as art is to give up your self. This kind of thinking makes me want
to puke. - Sincerely, William
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
WorldLightProductions
http://www.worldlightproductions.com/~draymond/
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'- William
Kathy Casper
>Generally true (with lots of exceptions though)--but would you then
>conclude that those skills *comprise* great writing? (That's analogous
>to Mani's basic views on art.)
No, the skills are only the foundation of great writing. Anyone can
string words together and call it "writing". It takes a level of skill
to string words together that convey a meaningful thought. That is "good
writing". It takes talent to string words together in such a manner as
to convey a new perspective of a pre-existing thought. It takes genius
to string words together in such a way as to convey a revolutionary new
thought. Art begins with skill and is expressed through talent. Great
art builds on skill and transcends talent to give birth to new thought.
The foundation is skill, the vehicle is talent, the fuel is genius.
Kathy Casper
>If I were to paint by spitting on a canvas, I would ensure that my art >was uncopyable (even by myself), but not that it was any good.
Bravo! Originality is *not* the soul of art!
Kathy Casper
know realism >if not doing realism? Why must a visual artist convince viewers that >he/she could accomplish realism in a non-realis=
tic painting?
Andy,
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a composer may or may
not be a competent performer. However, a visual artist must be *both*
composer and performer. Therein lies a significant difference. Explain
to me how a visual artist can "perform" a concept created by another -
without *knowing* the concept itself?
A musician can perform a piece artfully, though lacking the ability to
conceive it. Not so with a visual artist.
No one is requiring that the painter of a non-realistic painting
understand realism. My point is that art by definition must communicate
a message, and there are basic skills involved in accomplishing that
feat. It is not enough to simply have a brilliant idea - if it is not
crafted in such a way as to convey a message, it may as well be a tree
falling in an earless forest. So-called "art" that bears no message
would be best described as "paint"....rather than "painting".
Greg Scheckler
Kathy Casper <ka...@netline.net> wrote:
>Explain
>to me how a visual artist can "perform" a concept created by
>another - without *knowing* the concept itself?
it's called making an "old master copy" -- a drawing exercise
given to so many art students -- quite a few of us out
here can make really excellent copies of these old
performances, but I've found that very very few understand
the utter revolution that was required to make them in the
first place... the reasons why a Leonardo or a Michelangelo
or a Pontormo bothered to make them at all. You'll have to
read a lot of Michelangelo's poetry to even get close to
knowing what thoughts were driving the artist's motivation.
What's worse, is when after having done a number of such
old master copies, young artists conclude that the hand
skills they learned are what was necessary to make their
attempts at artmaking into art.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
Kathy Casper <ka...@netline.net> wrote:
>Ross writes: <gre...@uvsc.edu>
>
>>Generally true (with lots of exceptions though)--but would
>>you then conclude that those skills *comprise* great writing?
>>(That's analogous to Mani's basic views on art.)
>No, the skills are only the foundation of great writing.
>
>genius.
nicely stated, but I disagree. In my researches regarding art
made by children, I generally find that genius, often great
genius, precedes any modicum of anything that I might call
skill. So i might restate your phrase and say "the foundation
is genius mingled with the unknown desperately grabbing at
any available tools."
but still that seems to me too hierarchical, too unlike the
creative process as I know it. So i'd like to reword that:
the foundation is the mind, the vehicle is the putting
together of many various minds, and the fuel is the mind.
but that presupposes some sort of energetic drive to
create... what's the exhaust, what are the waste products
caused by the consumption of the fuel? ... ugh...
so I would simplify the entire phrase and say this:
the foundation is the mind.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
>In article <1996Jan3.2...@cc.usu.edu>,
sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
copyability of Pollock's art]
>Leonardo and Michelangelo used precise methods, while Pollock
>used imprecise methods. It is therefore not very surprising
>that your precise method of copying is well-suited to copying
>L. and M., but not to copying Pollock.
No Duh. Randomness, of course I can't copy it exactly.
I think maybe you've missed the larger implication
of what I said. The larger implication is that it's darn
ridiculous for me to assert that I have either no or any
skill based on the fact that either I can or cannot do
what any artist before me has done, and, that what skill
is has to do with the fact that somebody did what others
could not do.
>Does this make Mani's comments about skill essentially wrong?
Not really, but his emphasis on the historical as a
measure-for-quality points towards quite a few
strategic weaknesses and fails to develop a
forward-thinking strategy. His strategy must always
look backwards. I think it would be better if he could
develop some manner of looking more than one direction
at once, like Janus in a doorway. Or maybe he could
adopt a viewpoint of time that does not pigeonhole him
into linearity or the sense that events and therefore
theories of them must proceed as building blocks stacked
ever atop one another.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
>>Many composers though are competent performers. If a musical artist is >free to not know how to compose, why must a visual artist =
>know realism >if not doing realism? Why must a visual artist convince viewers that >he/she could accomplish realism in a non-realis=
>tic painting?
>
>Andy,
>
>Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. Yes, a composer may or may
>not be a competent performer. However, a visual artist must be *both*
>without *knowing* the concept itself?
There are many artists who do just that(most of whom work in the printmaking
fields) They may not understand the underlying concept of the other artist's
work, but they help translate the artist's vision into print. There are
other artists who translate concepts that they read about into visual terms,
often in just amazingly wrong fashion. There's some painter who works out
the design and color usage, then hires other people to make the paintings.
>A musician can perform a piece artfully, though lacking the ability to
>conceive it. Not so with a visual artist.
Sure they can. I set up a piece for a very talented, but uncreative artist.
He then paints a wonderful painting, using light and value.
>No one is requiring that the painter of a non-realistic painting
>understand realism. My point is that art by definition must communicate
Well then, you don't realize who you are defending. Mani Deli *is* requiring
just that. Of course art by definition should have some meaning beyond
mere material. That's a strawman.
Mani Deli
I'm really surpised at the opposition I get to my tagline "no skill no art."
Let me put this question to any art student here.
I know that all you geniuses go to art school for the great parties, the good
dope and getting laid.
However, doesn't anyone also go their in order to aquire some skills?
Someone set me straight.
I've always assumed that this is at least the forth reason. Am I wrong?
Mani DeLi
Mohamed Ahmed M. Atto
A while ago I think I read something like this somewhere:
"SKILL without IMAGINATION gave us the picnic basket (??)
and IMAGINATION without SKILL gave us the modern art "
(Can't remember the name of the person who said it..)
In Arts I think Imagination is more important than Skill, why am I saying
this ? because more than often its the more skilled but less imaginative
artists who tend to worry about the arrival of computers in the art
studios..
Reason: * a SKILL can be rendered absolete by a machine *
Less skilled but more imaginative artists tend to be less luddites when
it comes to computer *assisted* art making..
Reason: *Imagination can't be replaced by a machine*
Hence ART is `made' by the imagination and `assisted' by the skill..
--
C A V E A R T S etc.
Mani Deli
>> art--and this leads him to his absurd opinions: for example, that
>> Norman Rockwell was a major artist, while ____________ (fill in
>> the name of any great abstractionist) was an "idiot"--haven't you
> read any of Mani's harangues?
>
these are absent from fine work. Sure, an artist who can't draw is like a
plumber who can't join two pipes. But a plumber can also be lousy at fixing
toilets.
But to expect Ross to understand this is rather futile. I've explained it nine
times.
Yes Ross, Rockwell was an artist while Mondian was an idiot. At least you got
that right. Did I just read a harangue against Rockwell?
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art.
Mani Deli
>> I've made exact replicas of many masterworks. I draw
>> just like Leonardo. I draw just like Michelangelo.
Sure Schecker. I doubt that you even know how to prepare their paper.
>> Therefore, by your definition, neither L. or M. had much skill, because
>> I have shown that another person (me) can do just what they
>> do. They have not done what others can not do.
Great artists are inimatatable. That doesn't mean that one can't copy their
work. Even this requires fine skills which I doubt you have. However any
idiot with a minimum of knowledge especially you, can imitate Mondrian,
Pollock or Rothko etc.
>> However I have attempted to copy Pollock with equal precision.
Not even Pollock can do that. But you might just give your superb skill a
workout by using your Leonardesque expertise to copy a Mondrian.
>> While I can create facsimiles, I have not as of yet
>> either seen or been able to create an exact copy. Therefore by your
definition I conclude that Pollock has great skill, because he has done what
no other artist can do.
By this brilliant reasoning , since no one can make an EXACT COPY OF YOUR USED
TOILET PAPER the world must ALSO respect you as a great artist.
>> Noting the above problems, in contradistinction to your
>> definition, i therefore assert that what skill is has
>> not much to do with what artists can do.
Yes Scheckler skill is has not much to do with what Modern Academic Artists
can do. Therefore, you’ve convinced me that your supposed Classical skills
are of little use to you as an artist.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
Bruce Attah
Scheckler) wrote:
> In my researches regarding art made by children,
Tell us more!
> I generally find that genius, often great
> genius, precedes any modicum of anything that I might call
> skill.
Especially about this!
Bruce Attah
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> >In article <1996Jan3.2...@cc.usu.edu>,
> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
> [clipped copyability of "master artists" and copyability of Pollock's art]
>
> >Leonardo and Michelangelo used precise methods, while Pollock
> >used imprecise methods. It is therefore not very surprising
> >that your precise method of copying is well-suited to copying
> >L. and M., but not to copying Pollock.
>
> No Duh. Randomness, of course I can't copy it exactly.
> I think maybe you've missed the larger implication
> of what I said. The larger implication is that it's darn
> ridiculous for me to assert that I have either no or any
> skill based on the fact that either I can or cannot do
> what any artist before me has done, and, that what skill
> is has to do with the fact that somebody did what others
> could not do.
I fear you underestimate me. I have not missed your intention, I merely
do not agree with it. I believe considerable skill is required to
successfully mimic a genuine artist, such as Leonardo, and very little
skill is needed to mimic an incompetent such as Jackson Pollock or Emile
Nolde. I do not consider this a ridiculous idea; rather, I would consider
its contradiction ridiculous.
Now, I do not believe that the skill of mimicry is all that is required of
a great artist (that *would* be ridiculous), but I do believe that a great
artist will possess the skill of mimicry *as a matter of course*, and that
any artist who was the equal of Leonardo would be able, if so motivated,
to produce a very decent copy of any Leonardo painting.
Greg Scheckler
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
>>Scheckler) wrote:>
>>> I've made exact replicas of many masterworks. I draw
>>> just like Leonardo. I draw just like Michelangelo.
>
>Sure Schecker. I doubt that you even know how to prepare their
>paper.
Oh, you got me, I'm such a liar! Start learning how to read
between the lines. What you've failed to see, and what Bruce
Attah also failed to see -- well just read the post I wrote in
response to him.
>Therefore by your definition I conclude that Pollock has great
>skill, because he has done what no other artist can do.
>By this brilliant reasoning , since no one can make an EXACT
>COPY OF YOUR USED TOILET PAPER the world must ALSO respect you
>as a great artist.
And I am a great artist. But all posturing aside, let's not
forget that you asserted that skill "is the ability to make or
do something others can't do and thus create something that
people want."
I've just reversed and extended your illogic and pointed out
how utterly ridiculous the definition was. You picked up
on the fact that it was ridiculous as regards Leonardo, etc.
Attah picked up on the fact that it was ridiculous as regards
certain forms of Pollock's work. I personally had a really
good laugh while writing it and seeing both of your responses.
Another problem is that literally every artwork, whether
bad or good or inbetween, is, as you say, inimitatable.
If it's true that really great artworks cannot ever be
adequetly imitated (a point which I would actually agree on)
then it's somewhat futile to bother with either
imitation or subtler derivation of supposed "skills" from
great artworks, because the endeavor has been set to fail from
the beginning since the work cannot be imitated. No artwork
can ever be imitated so long as the historical context for
making it has ceased to exist. Oh I'm getting obvious:
You would be able to create a much stronger more coherent
argument and definition of skill if you first asserted
that great artworks or portions of them or the process of
making them could in fact be adequately imitated.
At which point you would easily be attacked for attempting
1) forgery 2) lack of originality 3) being a premodernist,
and so on. Probably the strongest argument would come from
asserting that the process of making great artworks can be
imitated.
>[clip] you’ve convinced me that your supposed Classical
>skills are of little use to you as an artist.
I would rather have you think I had no skill than have you
believe me to be as good as Rockwell.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andy Pearlman
>I'm really surpised at the opposition I get to my tagline "no skill no art."
>
>Someone set me straight.
>I've always assumed that this is at least the forth reason. Am I wrong?
Mani, it is your definition of skill that gets the attacks - you've narrowly
defined skill as being able to achieve realistic results. And regardless
of whether or not someone can do realism, you judge them on whether or not
they do it in the paintings you see.
Your tagline isn't the problem - I don't know of any artist that wouldn't
agree with that, until they hear your definition of skill.
Andy
Bruce Attah
(Mohamed Ahmed M. Atto) wrote:
> ...
> In Arts I think Imagination is more important than Skill, why am I saying
> this ? because more than often its the more skilled but less imaginative
> artists who tend to worry about the arrival of computers in the art
> studios..
>
> Reason: * a SKILL can be rendered absolete by a machine *
>
> Less skilled but more imaginative artists tend to be less luddites when
> it comes to computer *assisted* art making..
>
> Reason: *Imagination can't be replaced by a machine*
>
I happen to think that imagination is a skill, along with the others that
are necessary for the creation of art. I also happen to think that
imagining is one of the things that computers have the potential to do for
us.
But, going a little further, I have to say that I disagree with the
assertion that
> ART is `made' by the imagination and `assisted' by the skill..
I am reminded of the man who said to a friend of his who was a prominent
poet that he had some great ideas for poems, but couldn't seem to find the
words. The poet pointed out to him that poems consist of words, not
ideas.
You can imagine as much art as you like, it does not become art until you
apply your skills of communication to create a work of art that can be
transmitted to others.
That's what I think, anyway.
Greg Scheckler
<Bruce.Attah-08...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.co
m>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>In article <1996Jan7.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
>sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
>> The larger implication is that it's darn
>> ridiculous for me to assert that I have either no or any
>> skill based on the fact that either I can or cannot do
>> what any artist before me has done, and, that what skill
>> is has to do with the fact that somebody did what others
>> could not do.
>
>
>I fear you underestimate me. I have not missed your
>intention, I merely do not agree with it. I believe
>considerable skill is required to successfully mimic a genuine
>artist, such as Leonardo, and very little skill is needed to
>mimic an incompetent such as Jackson Pollock or Emile
>Nolde. I do not consider this a ridiculous idea; rather, I
>would consider its contradiction ridiculous.
no underestimation intended. but then why underestimate
the achievements of a Pollock or a Nolde either? Why
ridicule what they did, and why use that as a measure of
quality? it's still the compare-contrast problem that
i spoke of earlier. That's the rut we keep getting into
in this newsgroup. Instead of seeing the "skills" that
Pollock needed to create his work as different than the
"skills" Leonardo needed to create his work, some people
go around trying to apply Leonardoesque ideas of skill to
the ideas a Pollock. or the reverse. The problem is that
there may not at all be any actual solid grounds for
comparing the two, and if so, then there are no grounds
for determining which is better.
>Now, I do not believe that the skill of mimicry is all that is
>required of a great artist (that *would* be ridiculous), but I
>do believe that a great artist will possess the skill of
>mimicry *as a matter of course*, and that any artist who was
>the equal of Leonardo would be able, if so motivated,
>to produce a very decent copy of any Leonardo painting.
this reminds me of a passage I wrote some time ago:
"On becoming other people: If it was possible for Michelangelo
to paint the Sistine Ceiling, and if his physiology was
generally similar to yours, then you can do things generally
as astounding as he did. Not that you'd want to, and that's
the problem. All that's missing is the mindset of motivation
to do it. And it had better be missing, because why would you
want to be somebody else?" (c)1995 Greg Scheckler
I disagree that the skill of mimicry is even remotely
required of any artist. It may at times be fascinating to
explore. It can become great artwork (as we all know),
and this can be quite poetic. Thousands of other methods
or strategies can also become great artwork, filled with
great poetry. The gift that recent art history gives us
is precisely that artists can explore extremely varied
and broadly intended methods. (see the Picasso quotation
that Ross posted).
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
>sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
>
>> In my researches regarding art made by children,
>Tell us more!
>> I generally find that genius, often great
>> genius, precedes any modicum of anything that I might call
>> skill.
>Especially about this!
Ok. I recently completed a number of studies of the artwork
that children made regarding their dreams. One student
made a drawing of a planet with rings and a bunch of tubes,
some people connected by "wires" etc., all with great
clumsiness. The student was about age 5.5 yrs. About the
drawing, he said this:
"A dream is looking up at a planet, with rings you can see
turning with a generator behind you, a tube going into you
and a tube going out of the generator into somebody else."
This sentiment clearly tells a remarkable story about
dreaming that has little or no connection with the common
constructs of american culture towards dreaming, such
as that it occurs within one's mind, that it's often
rather meaningless, etc. That's why I'd tend to call
the child's drawing and statement products of genius...
not simply b/c it as a statement seems to function outside
of the norms, but b/c in doing so, the child has provided
a completely new way of interpreting and looking at his
dreams that allows him to derive meaning from them that
he could not get by using the methods of the norm.
What's interesting about the child's drawing is that despite
it's clumsiness, it contains just enough hints of
information to describe the information that the child
voiced verbally: so we can see a clear set of thoughts
being transmitted to us in at least two ways, visual and
verbal, despite the clumsiness of how the tools were used.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Andrew Werby
>To say that there are lots of talents involved in creating an art is not
>the same thing as to say that any given one of those talents is
>unimportant. The skill of drawing is vital in what is these days often
>called "visual art", and has been underemphasised by many, leading to a
>lot of poor-quality stuff being passed off as great art. Mani Deli is
>therefore quite right to bang on about drawing.
>
>> Mani Deli's thesis is that drawing skills are the sine qua non of all
>> art--and this leads him to his absurd opinions: for example, that
>> Norman Rockwell was a major artist, while ____________ (fill in
>> the name of any great abstractionist) was an "idiot"--haven't you
>> read any of Mani's harangues?
[Art is certainly a product of skill, and different forms of art
require different types of skills. One of the best things the modern
art movement has done is to widen the range of skills , and (dare we
say) talents that may be used in creating art. While, in the past,
artistic talent exclusively manifested itself as an ability to
reproduce three-dimensional reality in two dimensions using graphic
tools, or in three using sculpture tools; now many more abilities may
be channelled into making art. Now, somebody need only have an idea,
and through the innovation of Conceptual Art, and presto- a work of art
has been created. This certainly involves some exercise of skill in
imagining things; the relative quality of the skill involved will vary
from artist to artist .
Even within the realm of art that still deals with concrete things, many more skills apply than before. One can be a machinist, fo=
r example, and even without any talent for freehand representation, make very good modern sculpture. Using computers, people who can=
't draw can nevertheless create animated characters.
With a talent for recognizing compositions he could never accurately portray by any other means, Ansel Adams became recognised as an=
artist-photographer- certainly he exercised a high degree of skill. I could go on, and enumerate a lot of painters and sculptors th=
at made excellent work that drew on other qualities than those which used to define an artist, but I won't- everybody make your own =
list, due on Friday, class dismissed...]
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
Mani Deli
>> Skill is the foundation of
>> any artwork in any style and all artwork is done in order to be seen . If
you
>> find that incorrect tell us why.
>Susan Humphrey writes:
>It depends entirely on the artist - some artists aren't bothered about their
>work being seen and some are.
This is correct. But most artwork is done in order to be seen by others.
>... However that something need not be meaningful to
>everyone - a work may have a limited audience.....
I agree. My statement does not address the size of the audience. It might even
be just one collector.
>> > To attempt to create what others
>> >regard as art is to give up your self. This kind of thinking makes me
want
>> >to puke. - Sincerely, William
>> >--
>>
>> Well if you produce art work which no one ever likes you might puke but
it
>> won’t help much.
>
>Help what much? You make assumptions about why other people would make work.
Sorry I’m joking here not being entirely serious.
>> I don't think expressing yourself is a fundamental necessity in art.
Exactly
>> what it is that most art expresses is more often than not a matter of hazy
>> conjecture.
>
>Of course - but anyone who creates an image/impression/representation of
>_anything_ be it a physical thing or a thought or idea cannot help but
express
>themselves. How can what the artist produces be anything other than an
>expression of how they see the world - it certainly can't be an expression of
>anyone-else's perceptions.
>
I assume that the term "expressing yourself," in the context in which I use it
means expressing something autobiographical. This is what I find rare in art.
Indeed you are correct if the term is used in your context. But I don't think
the term is used in this general context.
>> Did a Dutch 17th century still life painter express himself? Vermeer,
>> Canaletto, Norman Rockwell, Rothko, Matisse? If so how and where?
>>
>> Art often expresses something but rarely oneself. Take religious art or
>> portraiture, still life, landscape, pure abstraction or Egyptian funereal
art
>> and cubism. Rarely does any of this express anything much about the artist.
>
>You assume that expressing oneself and expressing something about ones
>personality or character are the same thing - not necessarily....
>
Well, the same question still applies. What did the above works express about
the character of its individual creators? As an example I doubt that anyone
can fathum anything much about Vermeer’s character by looking at the "Artist’s
Studio."
>> If people judged painting in terms of quality rather than by its signature
the
>> whole history of modern art would be quite different.
>
>Quite likely - however this has little to do with skill being seen as
>unimportant - it has more to do with people wanting to be told what is good
>- people like 'signature' art - they feel safe and don't have to worry about
>expressing their own opinions.
Agreed
> What is considered as great art changes with fashion anyway.
I can't quite agree with this. Fashion is an important factor for the short
run. However, great art is the stuff which is admired for the long period. It
is above considerations of fashion.
>Is 'great art' all that you are interested in?
Not at all. That is why I use the term artwork. Besides great art there are
mountains of superb work which is treasured and cared for and maintains a
value because people wish to own it. Many of us produce this sort of work.
My criticism centers around that Modern Art which is considered to be on a
level with that of past masters. Perhaps that is why I convey this impression.
I suggest that what history
>considers 'great' may not be what is considered good at the time of its
>production. A historical perspective is different to a current perspective.
>
I couldn't agree with you more. But let me add this. There is another
perspective beside the historical. This is a technical perspective. I’ll say
this in the shortest possible way. If we try to determine which qualities are
constant throughout the finest art we can try to use this infomation in
attempting to judge quality in present artwork.
>I agree with you that skill is important in creating art. However your
>arguments are blinkered and simplistic. There are more skills involved in
creating art than just an ability to draw. And this perceived lack of skill
>on your part is not the only cause of problems with current art.
I explained why I agree with you on this point in some recent messages.
However I make no qualms about dismissing work where the first thing that
hits you is inferior drawing. Where this is the case I feel that a work is of
almost no interest whatever. I might add that drawing does not only refer to
realism. The detail of all the finest painting is abstract in character. There
is also pattern making and caligraphy etc. which are abstract arts. These also
exhibit fine draftsmanship and lots more.
Mani Deli
>>>> I've made exact replicas of many masterworks. I draw
>>>> just like Leonardo. I draw just like Michelangelo.
>>
>>Sure Schecker. I doubt that you even know how to prepare their
>>paper.
>
>Oh, you got me, I'm such a liar! Start learning how to read
>between the lines.
Well there was no hint of anything between the lines. However, I attended an
art school where everyone was concidered a certified genius. I recall two
students who insisted that they could draw as well as Raphael. They assured me
that they just didn't want to draw that way. I looked at their drawing and
concluded they didn't want to draw well either.
>What you've failed to see, and what Bruce
>Attah also failed to see -- well just read the post I wrote in
>response to him.
>
Sorry I must have missed that post. My service is skipping messages and I'm
changing soon.
>>Therefore by your definition I conclude that Pollock has great
>>skill, because he has done what no other artist can do.
>
>>By this brilliant reasoning , since no one can make an EXACT
>>COPY OF YOUR USED TOILET PAPER the world must ALSO respect you
>>as a great artist.
>
>And I am a great artist. But all posturing aside, let's not
>forget that you asserted that skill "is the ability to make or
>do something others can't do and thus create something that
>people want."
>
>I've just reversed and extended your illogic and pointed out
>how utterly ridiculous the definition was. You picked up
>on the fact that it was ridiculous as regards Leonardo, etc.
>Attah picked up on the fact that it was ridiculous as regards
>certain forms of Pollock's work. I personally had a really
>good laugh while writing it and seeing both of your responses.
I still don't see your logic.
>
>Another problem is that literally every artwork, whether
>bad or good or inbetween, is, as you say, inimitatable.
I guess you suppose Rothko, Pollock, Mondrian are inimitable. I don't.
If it's true that really great artworks can>not ever be
>adequetly imitated (a point which I would actually agree on)
>then it's somewhat futile to bother with either
>imitation or subtler derivation of supposed "skills" from
>great artworks, because the endeavor has been set to fail from
>the beginning since the work cannot be imitated.
Illogical nonsense. "Supposed skills" as you call them are technique and
craft. This
is passed on through time and each artist modifies it in his own way. New
methods are also invented.
No artwork
>can ever be imitated so long as the historical context for
>making it has ceased to exist. Oh I'm getting obvious:
Mondrian, Pollock, Picasso, Miro, fifth rate impressionists etc? They are
constantly imitated.
>
>You would be able to create a much stronger more coherent
>argument and definition of skill if you first asserted
>that great artworks or portions of them or the process of
>making them could in fact be adequately imitated.
>
I used the term in an absolute sense.
All artists constantly imitate other artists to some degree or other. The
question is to what degree of sucess? Almost all artwork is more often than
not a fusion of imitations. Ingres claimed he was only an imitater of Raphael.
I think he surpassed him. Most artists evolve from imitation to creation. But
really great art is the most unique. It is in this sense that I say it is
inimatable.
>At which point you would easily be attacked for attempting
>1) forgery 2) lack of originality 3) being a premodernist,
>and so on. Probably the strongest argument would come from
>asserting that the process of making great artworks can be
>imitated.
>
The process is technique and craft. By this reasoning you are like Leonardo.
After all you both used a pen.
>>[clip] you’ve convinced me that your supposed Classical
>>skills are of little use to you as an artist.
>
>I would rather have you think I had no skill than have you
>believe me to be as good as Rockwell.
Neither thought has crossed my mind.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
>I wrote:
>> Skill is the foundation of any artwork in any style
>> and all artwork is done in order to be seen . If
>> you find that incorrect tell us why.
one of the artworks I've been working on for a very long time
involves standing still and breathing. I've mentioned it vaguely
here before in r.a.f.
It does not require skill to either just stand or
stand still. Instead, the ability is built-in, that is
genetically encoded or designed as a human capability. So
it requires no practice, etc., no training, etc. In fact,
I find that to stand still for a particularly long amount of
time requires more or less forgetting that you're standing
still and either just meditating or thinking about other things.
Furthermore, b/c i must breathe, heartbeat, etc., the stillness
is never perfect and instead becomes a paradoxical state, sort of
like "as still as possible." Within that paradoxical state I
have thoughts, ideas, imaginations that eventually fade away, and
they are the notable products of this artwork.
what thoughts and processes i engage while standing still are
essentially invisible to the onlooker, the meanings personal to me,
and so on. I do not speak of those things, for that would contradict
the attitude of stillness. I cannot see them, for they
function internal to me, not externally in the way that a
painting does. And clearly I can't "sell" standing still
per se, nor make great performances of it for the same reason --
without contradicting the purity of the conceptual basis for this
artwork.
So i'm mentioning this here to make two points: 1) I make artwork
that cannot outwardly be seen b/c it's constructions occur generally
internally to me, and 2) the artwork negates the conception or
enaction of "skill" or skill-related constructs.
I understand that few of you out there will understand why I make
such artwork, or the importance of it in today's environment. I tend
to use it as a way to balance out my product-oriented artworks with a
lack of production.
anyway, hopefully in light of some of this one can see that manideli's
statement was highly overgeneralized, and probably even somewhat
lacking in imagination.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
Scheckler) wrote:
What would the child's drawing have been, without the verbal script
appended to it? Nowt, that's what. With the narrative, what? An
amusingly eccentric notion (in that respect, typical of children's notions
of many things), crudely diagrammed.
If it were art, we would (a) read the intended meaning from the picture
itself, without needing an explanation from the artist, and (b) admire the
picture for its formal charms.
Providing "just enough hints of information to describe the information"
sounds very much like what illustrators do in textbooks. Art does not
merely provide information, but does so with such panache that we are
delighted by the *way* the information is provided.
Perhaps it is good that the child can imagine something that strikes our
Greg as novel -- this can be seen as a start. What the child now needs to
do is learn how to convey his imaginings more effectively in his chosen
medium.
Bruce Attah
<dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
> [Art is certainly a product of skill, and different forms of art
> require different types of skills.
I concur.
> One of the best things the modern
> art movement has done is to widen the range of skills , and (dare we
> say) talents that may be used in creating art.
I have my doubts.
> While, in the past,
> artistic talent exclusively manifested itself as an ability to
> reproduce three-dimensional reality in two dimensions using graphic
> tools, or in three using sculpture tools;
I disagree.
> now many more abilities may
> be channelled into making art. Now, somebody need only have an idea,
> and through the innovation of Conceptual Art, and presto- a work of art
> has been created. This certainly involves some exercise of skill in
> imagining things; the relative quality of the skill involved will vary
> from artist to artist .
Long before the term "conceptual art" was coined, a conceptual art
existed. It was practised by the likes of Hume and Descartes. Then, as
now, the art of having, and articulating ideas, was called philosophy.
The practice now known as "conceptual art" is a debased caricature of
philosophy. The ideas that conceptualists trade in are typically
caricatures of long-discredited notions that philosophers have already
analysed to death. The typical conceptualist is about one century behind
modern philosophy, two weeks behind the newspapers, and half an hour
behind the bloke at the end of the bar who will bore you to death with
extentialism for the price of a pint. Very often, the conceptualist *was*
that man, half an hour ago.
At its very, very best, conceptualism creates mildly amusing Sophistical
jokes. Most of the rest of the time, it generates crude illustrations of
that po-faced polemicism so beloved of the politically inept. Come to
think of it, "sophistical art" would be a much preferrable label for this
silly and expensive practice, or better still "sophistical artlessness".
Personally, I will stick to philosophy. Many happy hours can be had
reading the thoughts of people who actually have some notion of what a
concept is. Let the sophists rot.
[...]
> Using computers, people who can't draw can nevertheless create animated
> characters.
Some years ago, a certain company specializing in computer animation
employed a Disney-trained animator who had no computing background. There
was an immediate improvement in the look of that company's short animated
films. The long-term outcome has been the first ever feature-length
computer-animated film, and a huge box-office hit. Is there a moral to
this tale? You figure it out.
[...]
> Ansel Adams became recognised as an artist-photographer
[...]
*Mis*-recognised. He was a craftsman.
Bruce Attah
<Bruce.Attah-10...@support-neptune.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> I do not say that the skill of mimicry is *required*,
What am I saying? Of course it is required!!
Bruce Attah
> one of the artworks I've been working on for a very long time
> involves standing still and breathing...
You AND WHO believe that this is art? Don't bother to answer that one, I
do not want to read a list of fool's names. Rather, answer this more
important question: WHY do you believe it is art?
> So i'm mentioning this here to make two points: 1) I make artwork
> that cannot outwardly be seen b/c it's constructions occur generally
> internally to me, and 2) the artwork negates the conception or
> enaction of "skill" or skill-related constructs.
You are deluding yourself (or you are kidding us).
> Greg Scheckler
> SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah.
Mani Deli
>>I wrote:
>>> Skill is the foundation of any artwork in any style
>>> and all artwork is done in order to be seen . If
>>> you find that incorrect tell us why.
If anyone thinks that Scheckler has answered my quiry please tell me about it.
Scheckler states:
>one of the artworks I've been working on for a very long time
>involves standing still and breathing. I've mentioned it vaguely
>here before in r.a.f.
>
Try to stop breathing for about an hour while not standing still. It would be
even more artistic.
>So i'm mentioning this here to make two points: 1) I make artwork
>that cannot outwardly be seen b/c it's constructions occur generally
>internally to me, and 2) the artwork negates the conception or
>enaction of "skill" or skill-related constructs.
That really answers the question Scheckler. Now I understand why catatonicism
is destined to be the next hot art movement.
>I understand that few of you out there will understand why I make
>such artwork, or the importance of it in today's environment.
Gee I wonder why?
> I tend to use it as a way to balance out my product-oriented artworks with a
>lack of production.
Your reasoning needs a touch of balance.
>
>anyway, hopefully in light of some of this one can see that manideli's
>statement was highly overgeneralized, and probably even somewhat
>lacking in imagination.
>
Scheckler the light at the end of your tunnel is definatly out of order.
Mani DeLi
Greg Scheckler
>>between the lines.
>
>Well there was no hint of anything between the lines.
oh well.
>However, I attended an art school where everyone was
>concidered a certified genius.
ugh... i know exactly *that* kind of school. been there,
done that.
>I recall two students who insisted that they could draw as
>well as Raphael. They assured me that they just didn't want to
>draw that way. I looked at their drawing and
>concluded they didn't want to draw well either.
when I was at the Academy in New York there were quite
a few students who had overinflated egos (and even some
teachers too)... who despite their interest and motivations
to "draw well" certainly weren't drawing well in the
classical tradition. I do not believe that this
was b/c they were incapable or unmotivated, just
inexperienced, like young fra Bartollomeo drawings.
>>What you've failed to see, and what Bruce
>>Attah also failed to see -- well just read the post I wrote
>>in response to him.
>>
>Sorry I must have missed that post. My service is skipping
>messages and I'm changing soon.
i just wrote that it was silly to assert that I either
have no or have much skill based on whether I can or cannot
do what any artist before me has done. To me it's silly to say
that what skill is has to do with the fact that somebody did
what others could not do. B/c if we are measuring skill by
looking at the abilities that these older works required,
and then stating that to have skill is to do what others
(including those older artists) could not do, we are doomed
to create artwork that never fits our definition of skill as
gleaned from the past, or we are forced to give up on
ideas of skill as we knew them. I think that's defeatist.
I think it's possible to make artwork that not only suits
the ideas of technique or skill or craft that past artists
have used, but also create truly great art at the same time.
In the same way the reverse could be possible, that truly
great art could be made without any skills that we have
defined based on the past.
>>No artwork can ever be imitated so long as the historical
>>context for making it has ceased to exist.
>Mondrian, Pollock, Picasso, Miro, fifth rate impressionists
>etc? They are constantly imitated.
I don't think so. I think too many people just make bad
forgeries while having forgotten that the era for
Mondrian is up, the time for Miro is over, etc. I'm
sure you'll agree that the worst forgeries are bad
forgeries of bad art.
>[clip] All artists constantly imitate other artists to
>some degree or other. The question is to what degree
>of success? Almost all artwork is more often than not
>a fusion of imitations.
Mind if I reword that? I'd prefer:
Frequently many artists use the same tools as other artists,
to some degree or another. ... Almost all artwork is more
often than not a fusion of abilities that artists may share.
the rewritten statement's probably a bit too levelheaded,
and i meant "tool" in a broader sense than the paintbrush
alone. Thoughts are tools.
>>I would rather have you think I had no skill than have
>>you believe me to be as good as Rockwell.
>Neither thought has crossed my mind.
good answer :)
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
>>>I wrote:
>>>> Skill is the foundation of any artwork in any style
>>>> you find that incorrect tell us why.
>
Stop beating around the bush.
I told you why I thought it was incorrect, based on the fact
that sometimes i make art that neither requires skill nor even
objecthood, etc. For me, the same time, the art is intelligent
and profound. I provided here a brief account of one kind of
art that derails Mani Deli's generalization.
It appears the Mani Deli cannot stand the fact the he
has not got enough imagination to wriggle his way out of
his self-imposed overgeneralized brain-lock.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Mani Deli
>To attempt
>needs to be true to their own vision, regardless of whether others regard it
>as art or not. Historically artists like Cezanne, Van Gogh, and Monet are
>good examples of this.
>
Are you suggesting that if I paint something that someone else likes an artist
is somehow dishonest?
>> >I think this is the essence of Bullshit. As an artist you must not
pander,
I wrote:
>> Pander? Do you create artwork which people DON"T want? If you do I will
>> remind you that this is a rare occurrence.
>
> We are talking about basic motives and in the producing of art the basic
>motive needs to be The expression of yourself as the priority not as some
>incidental event.
I’m not interested in an artist’s priority. People judge work on the basis of
quality. The motive is of secondary interest. If an artist does fine work to
match some rich ladies couch or to satisfy some cranky Pope, it is the quality
of the work that counts.
>> You and lots of others consider art "expressing yourself."
>> Why don’t you state exactly what the term "expressing yourself "means. I
>> suspect that you will end up with lots of platitudes.
>The moment you touch your brush to the canvas you are expressing yourself.
>You express yourself in the choice of colors you use and your ability to
>harmonize those tones, and what you actually say with regards to those
>harmonies. You express yourself with regards to how you express the brush,
>whether you understand the inherent psychological nuances of the brush. You
>express yourself with regards to how you compose, your choice of motifs and
>whether or not you are slavish with regards to copying or are concerned with
>aessthetic issues that involve all of the above. I could go on, but I'm
>stopping here. If you aren't clear on the enormous potential for self
>expression in the above and the neccessity of the same you should find a
>proper teacher and get to work.
>
If you are expressing yourself the moment you start to the moment you finish,
then the use of art materials is by your definition expressing yourself. Fine,
but your statement doesn’t contain any information.
>> Exactly what it is that most art expresses is more often than not a matter
of >>hazy conjecture.
>You are just expressing your lack of knowledge here and all the conceptual
>hang ups of your training and background. This is typical and widespread.
>YOU are full of hazy conjecture. In this statement you say 'I don't know
>shit, and no one else does or can know anything either.' Oh yeah, except we
>sure can rely on the fact that skill is neccessary, Duh.
>>
I’m referring to the term "expressing yourself." I’m not clear on what it
means and in reading your statement I certainly don’t think you are either.
>> Did a Dutch 17th century still life painter express himself? Vermeer,
>> Canaletto, Norman Rockwell, Rothko, Matisse? If so how and where?
> Yes they all did in every work they did. Each one reveals the consciousness
>with which they work and their motivations.
FINE TAKE A PARTICULAR WORK AND TELL ME WHAT EXACTLY VERMEER EXPRESSED ABOUT
HIS CONSCIOUSNESS AND MOTIVATION. No one has achieved this as far as I know.
What is known about Vermeer can fill about two pages. All the rest is vacuous
conjecture.
It is quite clear to me from
>your comments all you see is some conceptual bullshit no matter what you look
>at.
When I look at a painting I see exactly what you see. Our perceptions are
different.
>> Art often expresses something but rarely oneself. Take religious art or
>> portraiture, still life, landscape, pure abstraction or Egyptian funereal
art
>> and cubism. Rarely does any of this express anything much about the artist.
>
>These absolutely reveal the nature and psychology of the artist who did it.
> It is impossible to hide who you are and what you know as an arist. You
>either express your consciousness or lack thereof>.
Psychology? What do you know about the psychology of an ancient Egyptian
artist. Nothing?
> Quite simply, I consider your judgement to be as faulty as the moderns you
>rail against.
>
I consider your logic somewhat defective.
>> Mani DeLi
Mani Deli
Greg Scheckler
>In article <1996Jan9.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
>
>> Ok. I recently completed a number of studies of the artwork
clipped]
>What would the child's drawing have been, without the verbal
>script appended to it? Nowt, that's what. With the
>narrative, what? An amusingly eccentric notion (in that
>respect, typical of children's notions of many things),
>crudely diagrammed.
>If it were art, we would (a) read the intended meaning from
>the picture itself, without needing an explanation from the
>artist, and (b) admire the picture for its formal charms.
False on both counts. To find out why, read Derrida, Eco,
Aristotle, and Wittgenstein. For simpler text try out
Rudolf Arnheim or Rhoda Kellog on the roles of context. Maybe
Dissanayake for a societal/anthropological viewpoint. If you
want to learn why blindness afflicts the mind on a variety
of occasions, try E.T. Hall.
Besides that, you're invoking a Modernist argument.
>Providing "just enough hints of information to describe the
>information" sounds very much like what illustrators do in
>textbooks.
it also sounds like the utter simplicity and economy
evidenced by the works of the many "great masters." No
unnecessary bits. No floundering. No wasted motion.
Unfettered exploration. Simplicity of means. Just enough,
not less, not more.
>Art does not merely provide information, but do so with
>such panache that we are delighted by the *way* the
>information is provided.
you shoulda seen the drawing!
>Perhaps it is good that the child can imagine something that
>strikes our Greg as novel -- this can be seen as a start.
Actually I wrote a highly detailed research
on the subject of cultural constructions of the unknown,
some of the data for which came from a sample of
drawings by many children, all of whom upon
close inspection made many remarkable insights.
Anybody who wants a copy can either contact me
via e-mail (sorry, you'll have to pay for the
shipping and xeroxing) or wait for publication.
>What the child now needs to do is learn how to convey his
>imaginings more effectively in his chosen medium.
Don't bore us with a prescription for child-development.
Children are far more resourceful than to be pigeon-holed
into your one-track, microdecked view of progress.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
>In article <1996Jan10.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
>> time involves standing still and breathing...
>
>important question: WHY do you believe it is art?
I am an artist. I say it is art. Therefore it is.
Beyond that I would point you to a variety of traditions
in ancient China, Japan, and India. I would also point
you to the development of conceptual art and performance
art today. Yet b/c the artwork occurs internal to me,
and because I make it without intention for others, you can
never dissuade me from my assertion that it is art, because
you never get to experience the artwork directly as a
viewer of it. The viewer has no pertinent role as regards
the discussion of whether it is art or not.
The only critiques you may give are of
my words, of pictures of me standing still, etc., all
secondhand evidence. Thus the only way you will be able to
understand it as art is if you decide for yourself that
it is art, be open to the concept, and try it out.
Since In article <Bruce.Attah-1101961848370001@support-neptune.
isltd.insignia.com> you wrote:
>What am I saying? Of course it [mimicry] is required!!
then I expect you to to attempt mimicking my art of
standing still. As is the case with all mimicry, you
will fail until you suddenly find that you've
internalized the ideas behind the work, at which point
if you continue with the idea of mimicking, then
you will be able to make a convincing forgery. If you
give up on the idea of mimicking, you will be making
art completely internally to your self.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
Gwenn Knapp <mott...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> However, doesn't anyone also go their in order to aquire
>>some skills?
>For example -- assuming each artist has an aesthetic and a
>vision, obviously these will be expressed most effectively and
>consistently when combined with both well-developed eye-hand
>coordination and also control over their chosen media
>achieved though practice and knowledge.
assuming that artists have aesthetics or vision is
assuming a lot. A lot of artists have no concern for
matters of aesthetic, appearances, control or lack of it,
vision, etc. A lot of artwork is not directed towards
the eye, nor made by hand.
Considering that some 95% of the known mass of the universe
is not available to our limited human senses, that artwork
may work outside the range of immediate perception should
not be surprising. Stodgy perceptualists never understand
this point, and always try to look at non-perception
art with their senses, which invariably must lead them awry.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Gwenn Knapp
>
> I'm really surpised at the opposition I get to my tagline "no skill no art."
>
>
> I know that all you geniuses go to art school for the great parties, the good
> dope and getting laid.
>
> However, doesn't anyone also go their in order to aquire some skills?
>
> I've always assumed that this is at least the forth reason. Am I wrong?
Well, there sure are a lot of posts on this subject of skill!
Isn't there some common sense common ground?
For example -- assuming each artist has an aesthetic and a vision,
obviously these will be expressed most effectively and consistently
when combined with both well-developed eye-hand coordination and
also control over their chosen media achieved though practice and
knowledge.
I feel like a perpetual student, and I am always striving for
greater refinement of all of these. My contant goal, or ideal, is to
approach a canvas with a sense of what result would please me, and
be able to achieve it. The constant thrill is the ongoing
development (of vision, aesthetic, coordination and control) towards
that goal. So far I always feel I want to do better -- the vision
drives the acquisition of "skills", the "skills" support the
expression of the vision. Consistent quality suffers when any of
these is lacking.
Boy, this discussion does lend itself to long-winded responses...
Gwenn
--
MOTTASIA
Mother Of Three Teens Achieving Success in Art
Art that liberates the spirit.
Portraits in Oil. Website design.
http://www.adze.com/mottasia/
Ken Labuskes
Distribution:
This arguement about which is more important, skill or creativity reminds
me of two guys arguing about which is more important on a bicycle, the
wheels or the handlebars.
ken
Gwenn Knapp
> assuming that artists have aesthetics or vision is
> assuming a lot. A lot of artists have no concern for
> matters of aesthetic, appearances, control or lack of it,
> vision, etc. A lot of artwork is not directed towards
> the eye, nor made by hand.
Can you be more specific?
> Considering that some 95% of the known mass of the universe
> is not available to our limited human senses, that artwork
> may work outside the range of immediate perception should
> not be surprising. Stodgy perceptualists never understand
> this point, and always try to look at non-perception
> art with their senses, which invariably must lead them awry.
I am not 100% clear about what you are saying here, but it is pretty
intriguing. I certainly believe that part of the value of any art
object is the impact it makes directly on the subconscious, apart
from any analysis or criticism or aware experience.
Ken Labuskes
: Bruce says: (Bruce...@insignia.co.uk)
: >If I were to paint by spitting on a canvas, I would ensure that my art >was uncopyable (even by myself), but not that it was any good.
: Bravo! Originality is *not* the soul of art!
I recently read about a guy who gave himself enemas of egg tempra paint
and then created abstract paintings by squatting on the canvas. Part of
his show was a video of him creating his work.
ken
Greg Scheckler
<gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>>[clipped stuff on standing standing still as art,
lack of skill, etc.]
>==================================================
>
> The greatest skill appears clumsy.
> The greatest eloquence sounds like stammering.
>
> -- Lao Tzu --
>==================================================
to which I'd like to add:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Without stirring abroad
One can know the whole world;
Without looking out of the window
One can see the way of heaven.
The further one goes
The less one knows.
Therefore the sage knows without having to stir,
Identifies without having to see,
Accomplishes without having to act.
-- XLVII, Tao te Ching
(Lao Tzu)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ross Green
>
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> >In article <1996Jan10.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
> sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> >
> >> one of the artworks I've been working on for a very long
> >> time involves standing still and breathing...
> >
> >important question: WHY do you believe it is art?
>
>
> I am an artist. I say it is art. Therefore it is.
> Beyond that I would point you to a variety of traditions
> in ancient China, Japan, and India.
Greg Scheckler
Gwenn Knapp <mott...@voicenet.com> wrote:
>Greg Scheckler wrote:
>
>> [clip]... A lot of artwork is not directed towards
>> the eye, nor made by hand.
>
>Can you be more specific?
I'm thinking of artists like Robert Cummings. Or
Sol Lewitt's series where he sent directions
for how to draw a large square on the wall. Then there's
those technology-artists using primarily computers,
equations, etc. Besides that there's all the Fluxus
people and their "happenings," which were directed
largely towards interaction and participation.
>> Considering that some 95% of the known mass of the universe
>> is not available to our limited human senses, that artwork
>> may work outside... [clip]
>I am not 100% clear about what you are saying here, but it is
>pretty intriguing.
back when i was studying physics... oh man that's almost
ten years ago now! eeeek!... we studied all the stuff
that's out there. Tools like telescopes, microscopes,
infrared sensistive film, x-ray sensistive film, etc.,
reveal important information that we cannot see with the
naked eye. Then there's things that move too fast or too
slow, stuff dogs hear or smell that we don't. Muons,
quarks (yay fermilab), mesons, the outer rim of the
Orion Nebula. And more down to earth stuff, like that
we cannot see how green leaves photosynthesize light
into sugars. etc. etc. I think if artists want to they
can speak to any of these processes, and at times doing
so could include visual metaphors. It might also be more
direct to make other sorts of art, non-visual, or art
that has as of yet never before been thought of.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Bruce Attah
>
> Yet b/c the artwork occurs internal to me,
> and because I make it without intention for others, you can
Are you familiar with the word "solipsism"?
Roland Altfuldisch
really know how to go about it. But this is what I want to say. I have
a friend who is a handy guy in repairing photographical equipment.
No not the intricate insides of Japanese cameras, but the little plastic
things that often break off. Such as slide shoes for flashes, broken
buttons and the like. All that annoying stuff you can't buy. If you got
a headache like that please give him a call at 228-3154 and ask for
Bob Hannon, he is a genius and it's not going to cost you an arm and
a leg. Roland a Friend of Bob Hannon.
By the way if you could tell me a better place to post this I would be
very grateful.
Bruce Attah
>
> In article <110196.224...@frontier.canrem.com>,
> Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
> >>>I wrote:
> >>>> Skill is the foundation of any artwork in any style
> >>>> and all artwork is done in order to be seen. If
> >>>> you find that incorrect tell us why.
> >
>
> Stop beating around the bush.
>
> I told you why I thought it was incorrect, based on the fact
> that sometimes i make art that neither requires skill nor even
> objecthood, etc.
Correction: based on the *premise* that you sometimes etc.
> I provided here a brief account of one kind of
> art that derails Mani Deli's generalization.
Your argument would "derail" Mani Deli's position if, and only if,
the premise (that you sometimes make art that requires no skill) is
true. I do not accept that it is true (as my posts elsewhere
indicate). Far be it from me to speak for Mani Deli, but I would be
surprised if he accepted your premise, either. If it the premise is
not true, the conclusion does not follow, and your argument fails.
Therefore, your next rhetorical task is to prove that the work you
claim to be art (standing still and breathing, for those who missed
the thread) *is* indeed art. When you have done that, you will have
made your case.
Bruce Attah
>
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
> >In article <1996Jan10.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
> sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
> >
> >> one of the artworks I've been working on for a very long
> >> time involves standing still and breathing...
> >
> >important question: WHY do you believe it is art?
>
> I am an artist. I say it is art. Therefore it is.
Why do you think you are an artist? Why do you think that if an artist
asserts that something is art, it is art?
I put it to you that you are not an artist, and also that you cannot make
something art by merely declaring it such (and could not, even if you were
an artist). I challenge you to prove me wrong.
BTW, I am a scientist. This post is science. It is.
Bruce Attah
>
> The viewer has no pertinent role as regards
> the discussion of whether it is art or not.
That which has no potential audience is not art. Art is social, and
*requires* an audience to exist as such.
> The only critiques you may give are of
> my words, of pictures of me standing still, etc., all
> secondhand evidence.
That which cannot in principle be criticised is not art. Not only
must a thing have some possible and intended to an audience in order
to be art, it must also have some qualities which might, possessed
in the right degree, make it *good* art.
You seem to have a solipsistic, sophistical notion of what art is.
You appear to believe, like Humpty Dumpty, that a word means what
you say it means, and never mind usage. Clive Bell has a response
to that: namely, that if we do not recognize that there are
essential properties that all works of art have in common, then when
we speak of art, "we gibber".
> Thus the only way you will be able to
> understand it as art is if you decide for yourself that
> it is art, be open to the concept, and try it out.
+++++++++++++
> Since In article <Bruce.Attah-1101961848370001@support-neptune.
> isltd.insignia.com> you wrote:
> >What am I saying? Of course it [mimicry] is required!!
>
> then I expect you to to attempt mimicking my art of
> standing still.
What a silly thing to say! Even if I had said that mimicry is
required of artist (in fact, I said the *skill* of mimicry is
required), it would not imply that the mimicry of any *particular*
work of art was required, still less that the mimicry of your
*supposed* work of art is required.
Bruce Attah
> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
> >
> >> Ok. I recently completed a number of studies of the artwork
> >> that children made regarding their dreams. [explanation
> clipped]
>
> >What would the child's drawing have been, without the verbal
> >script appended to it? Nowt, that's what. With the
> >narrative, what? An amusingly eccentric notion (in that
> >respect, typical of children's notions of many things),
> >crudely diagrammed.
>
> >If it were art, we would (a) read the intended meaning from
> >the picture itself, without needing an explanation from the
> >artist, and (b) admire the picture for its formal charms.
>
> False on both counts. To find out why, read Derrida, Eco,
> Aristotle, and Wittgenstein.
That's a fine suggestion. Perhaps, given that all of these authors
have been fairly prolific, you could point me to the particular
chapters of works that you feel to be most pertinent?
> Besides that, you're invoking a Modernist argument.
Am I? What particular Modernist argument am I invoking? Also, ould
you care to tell me, do you consider it a good or a bad thing that I
am "invoking a Modernist argument"? To what "ism" do your arguments
belong?
> >Providing "just enough hints of information to describe the
> >information" sounds very much like what illustrators do in
> >textbooks.
>
> it also sounds like the utter simplicity and economy
> evidenced by the works of the many "great masters." No
> unnecessary bits. No floundering. No wasted motion.
> Unfettered exploration. Simplicity of means. Just enough,
> not less, not more.
I dearly wish you were joking. Mere realism, however, compels me to
accept that you wish seriously to compare the crude minimalism of a
child's scribble to the brilliance of Frans Hals and Tintoretto.
All the evidence of your postings so far suggest that you do not see
pictures at all, only the fog of words that surrounds them. This
is why you see the "simplicity" of juvenilia as no different from
the "simplicity" Chardin. There is a great difference, I assure you
between "no wasted motion" and not *enough* motion. A picture must
be more than a mere diagram in order to be art, because the artist
must take command. If we make an analogy with writing: a one-page
plot summary may show great "simplicity of means", but it is no
equal to the novel it summarises; if it were, the novel is a poor
work of art, and was not worth writing. Bring the analogy back to
painting: had, say, Chardin so desired, he could have swiftly
sketched out an outline of his intended subject matter and left it
to the viewer to compose the remainder. He did not. He went on to
complete the paintings that are now rightly seen as masterpieces.
In this he was typical. No artist was satisfied to present crude
diagrams until well into the twentieth century. Perhaps you think
that all these painters were misguided? Perhaps you imagine that
Velasquez and Caravaggio wasted their time? Perhaps you think that
the works they produced were no more worthwhile than the simple
diagrams they might have produced instead? In which case, why apply
the phrase "simplicity of means" to any of their work? In which
case, why consider them great artists rather than great fools?
Wake up, rub the words out of your eyes and LOOK.
> >What the child now needs to do is learn how to convey his
> >imaginings more effectively in his chosen medium.
>
> Don't bore us with a prescription for child-development.
> Children are far more resourceful than to be pigeon-holed
> into your one-track, microdecked view of progress.
Fine, I won't. And while we're up to all this liberating stuff,
let's shut down all the schools!
Bruce Attah
The way I read it, it's not an argument about whether one is more
important than the other. Its about whether one of them (skill) is
important at all.
Jim or Missy
labu...@oberon.pps.pgh.pa.us (Ken Labuskes) wrote:
> com>:
> Distribution:
>
> This arguement about which is more important, skill or creativity reminds
> me of two guys arguing about which is more important on a bicycle, the
> wheels or the handlebars.
> ken
ken next time you take the Penn Turnpike to Philadelphia look at Duchamp's
work especially the stool and the bicycle wheel
Duchamp played chess not much skill to move the pieces alot to figure out
where construct the series of moves and form strong relationships not
physically but conceptually as if you were so inclined you could play
chess without the pieces or the board but it gets rather difficult so we
keep the objects to represent the thoughts and well others can see what's
on the board
They used to play chess out on lawns and sevants would move the pieces but
the mover of the pieces is told what to do and not the artist of the
game and a really beatiful move pregnant with
possibilities and doing many things at once and the whole system
interelated its efficiency and subtleness makes for great chess/art so
skill in the mind and creativity in the mind make art and even if you get
a assistant to stretch your canvas or pour your bronze so what
--
--Fish the Mac
Jim---...@bayou.uh.edu
Missy-...@uh.edu
Pierre B Reynolds
labu...@oberon.pps.pgh.pa.us (Ken Labuskes) wrote:
This one's pretty good. I wish I'd seen it. A couple of months ago I
went to an opening where many of the guests were men who sported penis
sculptures. In other words, these young gentlemen were basiclly nude,
except for the ingenious metal sculptures that acted as vaginas for their
erect penises. I was quite amused! What I found even more amazing is the
fact they they were able to keep an erection throughout the entire
opening; or at least it seemed. My wife and I didn't stay for the climax
of the show. Lucky for us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's not as important what you do for a living, but who you do it for."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pierre B Reynolds
Pacific Rim Art Exchange
201 Wawona Street
San Francisco, CA 94127-0467
PacR...@aol.com
pie...@sirius.com
pie...@PRAE.com
+1 (415) 566-7272
+1 (800) 887-7272
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED (C) 1996 Pierre B Reynolds
all rights reserved Pacific Rim Art Exchange (PRAE)
Ima Dillo
> The greatest skill appears clumsy.
> The greatest eloquence sounds like stammering.
> -- Lao Tzu --
And I'm a dillo that looks like a pig and bleats (baaaaaa...).
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Sticks and stones may break YOUR bones
But getting run over is MY worry.
< Ima Dillo. >
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Greg Scheckler
Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> wrote:
>Greg Scheckler wrote:
>>
>> The viewer has no pertinent role as regards
>> the discussion of whether it is art or not.
>
>That which has no potential audience is not art. Art is
>social, and *requires* an audience to exist as such.
some art is social, some is not. some art is political
some is not. some art is satirical. some is not. almond
joy got nuts, mounds don't.
*viewers* and *participants* are different things.
i simply meant to imply that in terms of criticism of
and the assertion that standing still could be art, that
you have no plausible say in the matter. You have no
plausible say b/c the art occurs internal to the artist,
and there is no audience. There is, however, a participant,
(the artist) who as a member of a culture necessarily
evokes all sorts of cultural matter simply by having made
the decision to stand still.
>> The only critiques you may give are of
>> my words, of pictures of me standing still, etc., all
>> secondhand evidence.
>
>That which cannot in principle be criticised is not art.
you may have to change your principles. So long as you
don't, you may conclude that this art is either not art
or is bad art. In both cases you'd be in error b/c your
information would be based on inadequate sources of data.
(not ever knowing enough about standing still).
> Not only must a thing have some possible and intended to an
>audience in order to be art, it must also have some qualities
>which might, possessed in the right degree, make it *good*
>art.
That could be one definition of art, and no doubt works
for some artists. However, I find it far too limiting for
my own explorations and workings as an artist.
>You seem to have a solipsistic, sophistical notion of what art
>is. You appear to believe, like Humpty Dumpty, that a word
>means what you say it means, and never mind usage.
I have not defined art anywhere here. My favorite
definition involves calculus and recognizes from the
start that art is a dynamical system of intertwined
variables. And if I were the great
Humpty, if I fell and if I believed that shmucks like
you were all the king's men, I wouldn't at all be surprised
that you couldn't put me back together, b/c like you
the king's men are all serfs and wannabes not experts.
>Clive Bell has a response to that: namely, that if we do not
>recognize that there are essential properties that all works
>of art have in common, then when we speak of art, "we gibber".
Clive Bell was a hack. He lacks the imagination to consider
that "essential properties" could be dynamic and changeable
within a certain range, or even no range at all. He lacks
the imagination to see that such dynamic essences do not
necessarily undermine language's ability to communicate.
>> Thus the only way you will be able to
>> understand it as art is if you decide for yourself that
>> it is art, be open to the concept, and try it out.
>
>> Since In article
<Bruce.Attah-1101961848370001@support-neptune.
>> isltd.insignia.com> you wrote:
>> >What am I saying? Of course it [mimicry] is required!!
>>
>> then I expect you to to attempt mimicking my art of
>> standing still.
>
>What a silly thing to say!
yes how absolutely silly you are! Let's all go mimic
Bruce Attah and be just like him. Let's start a troupe
of circus stars. I'll be the juggler.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
CAT
>I recently read about a guy who gave himself enemas of egg tempra paint
>and then created abstract paintings by squatting on the canvas. Part of
>his show was a video of him creating his work.
>
> ken
bleh!
I read that too. I believe it was in the newspaper column "News Of The
Weird".
I doubt if BlockBuster carries that video.
CAT
Mani Deli
>I recently read about a guy who gave himself enemas of egg tempra paint
>and then created abstract paintings by squatting on the canvas. Part of
>his show was a video of him creating his work.
>
> ken
I heard he's switched to sculpture. He's now into hot lead enemas.
Mani DeLi
..no skill no art>
Mani Deli
>>
>> Yet b/c the artwork occurs internal to me,
>> and because I make it without intention for others, you can
>> never dissuade me from my assertion that it is art...
The nuthouse is filled with guys who insist the are Jesus Christ.
Mani DeLi
Jesus is coming. Look Busy
Greg Scheckler
>> >In article <1996Jan9.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
>> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
>> >If it were art, we would (a) read the intended meaning from
>> >the picture itself, without needing an explanation from the
>> >artist, and (b) admire the picture for its formal charms.
>>
>> False on both counts. To find out why, read Derrida, Eco,
>> Aristotle, and Wittgenstein.
>
>That's a fine suggestion. Perhaps, given that all of these
>authors have been fairly prolific, you could point me to the
>particular chapters of works that you feel to be most
>pertinent?
Distillation won't help. Besides
>> Besides that, you're invoking a Modernist argument.
>
>Am I? What particular Modernist argument am I invoking?
>Also, ould you care to tell me, do you consider it a good or a
>bad thing that I am "invoking a Modernist argument"?
I don't think it was good or bad. But it was awfully
funny I'd say, given that your previous argumentation
was tritely neoclassical. With that kind of wanton picking and
choosing among traditions you're going to be a postmodernist
very soon.
>To what "ism" do your arguments belong?
I'll let the art historians figure that out.
[clip, stuff about hints of information]
[clip, stuff about Attah's brand of mere realism]
>No artist was satisfied to present crude
>diagrams until well into the twentieth century. Perhaps
>you think that all these painters were misguided? Perhaps
>you imagine that Velasquez and Caravaggio wasted their
>time?
Of course not. But they didn't live in the 20th century
did they? They didn't have to contend with the history of
art brut, the expressionists, and the abstractionists
did they? They didn't have dada flying in their face at
every turn did they? They didn't have to react to for or
against theorists like Roland Barthes did they? If Velazquez
were living today, and if he were doing exactly what he
did when he was alive, I would accuse him of making art
that is not relevant to today's arena. I would not accuse
him of such in his own time-frame.
>Perhaps you think that the works they
>produced were no more worthwhile than the simple diagrams
>they might have produced instead?
Unknown. However, with regards to the many simple drawings
and schemata or studies that they did make, I find many of
them equally as insightful as any finished painting.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
>>
>> com>:
>> Distribution:
>>
>>This arguement about which is more important, skill or
>>creativity reminds me of two guys arguing about
>>which is more important on a bicycle, the
>>wheels or the handlebars.
>> ken
What about unicyclists? What about circus sideshow freaks?
What about clowns and elephants? What about Mr. Ott and his
amazing counting donkey?
>The way I read it, it's not an argument about whether one is
>more important than the other. Its about whether one of them
>(skill) is important at all.
this is why Attahboy is having such a snit. Nobody is saying
that skill is unimportant within certain constructs for art-
making. Some of us have been saying that within certain other
ideas about art, skill is not all that important or is
unimportant.
This does not contradict those constructs that require certain
kinds of skill. But it does mean that the crowd of artists
who try to apply certain skills to all forms of art are going
to have a big problem. In my experience, exactly this sort
of artist is the one who is too quick to dismiss a great
variety of forms of art too quickly as bad art. Why? Because
they *think* it lacks skill, skill that they either have
defined themselves or have thought of as defined by
historical tradition. They hold those "skills" holy, leaving
those they see as "unskilled" to be blind heathens.
Whereas people like Mani Deli can invoke praise
for Rockwell and get all the flaming contemporary
"fine artists" upset, the contemporary "fine artists"
can turn the tables, invoke traditions that
require no skill, and undermine the authority of the
"skills only" crowd's generalizations,
getting them all upset.
What's goofier than when artists fight among themselves?
When artists' think they are right.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Ross Green
> sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
>> Yet b/c the artwork occurs internal to me, and because I make
>> it without intention for others, you can never dissuade me from
>> my assertion that it is art...
> Are you familiar with the word "solipsism"?
The word "solipsism" derives from the Latin words for 'alone' (solus)
and 'self' (ipse), and has two general meanings in philosophy:
epistemologically, it is a doctrine of methodology which views 'the
self' as the starting point of all philosophical speculation; and
metaphysically, it is the view that the self (of the solipsist) is the
sole reality - that the world beyond the self has no real existence
independent of that self - that the world is simply a projected
representation of the self.
In a more general sense, solipsism means egoistic self-absorption.
Bruce, your postings to r.a.f. are basically nothing but exercises
in solipsism. Your statement that "photography is not an art form"
is just one example of the type of idiotic conclusions to which
solipsistic thinking usually leads.
-Ross
Gwenn Knapp
> direct to make other sorts of art, non-visual, or art
> that has as of yet never before been thought of.
I am much too accepting and curious a person to be at all
argumentative...
My only point had been that, generally speaking, I would think that
people inspired or interested enough to want to create artwork in
any form, probably want to get better and better at whatever it is
they are driven to do. The process of creation, as I have
experienced it, involves activities directed at manifesting
something, and skill relates to being able to get that manifestation
to match the intention. So I don't really get the whole thread
pitting skill against whatever. It just seems to be so much
semantics.
I really appreciate your contributions to the discussion here, and
thank you for being more explicit with your points. You have some
pretty fascinating info to share. I am convinced, BTW, that one
reason we don't come into contact with aliens is that many of them
exist outside of the narrow bands of the spectrum that we perceive.
I fully agree that many things happen outside of our conscious
perceptions, including some of the effects of our perceivable
creations. Isn't there way more to the impact of the Mona Lisa than
we can explain? So, I am fascinated by the findings of physics -- my
favorite science, and am perfectly willing to explore art in these
other dimensions. Currently, I only know how to explore them through
my work in the perceived universe. Tell me more?
Mani Deli
>This arguement about which is more important, skill or creativity reminds
>me of two guys arguing about which is more important on a bicycle, the
>wheels or the handlebars.
> ken
>
you can have creativity without skill.
Bruce Attah
>
> In article <30FAA5...@insignia.co.uk>,
> Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> ...read Derrida, Eco, Aristotle, and Wittgenstein.
> >
> >That's a fine suggestion. Perhaps, given that all of these
> >authors have been fairly prolific, you could point me to the
> >particular chapters of works that you feel to be most
> >pertinent?
>
> Distillation won't help.
Distillation has more of a chance of helping than random
name-dropping has. I'd dearly love to see you bring Aristotle to
the defence of your cause.
> given that your previous argumentation
> was tritely neoclassical.
When has my "argumentation" (as you so judiciously call it) been
neoclassical, whether tritely or not?
>
> >To what "ism" do your arguments belong?
>
> I'll let the art historians figure that out.
>
Cop out.
> [clip, stuff about hints of information]
> [clip, stuff about Attah's brand of mere realism]
I am no "mere realist".
> >No artist was satisfied to present crude
> >diagrams until well into the twentieth century. Perhaps
> >you think that all these painters were misguided? Perhaps
> >you imagine that Velasquez and Caravaggio wasted their
> >time?
>
> Of course not. But they didn't live in the 20th century
> did they? They didn't have to contend with the history of
> art brut, the expressionists, and the abstractionists
> did they? They didn't have dada flying in their face at
> every turn did they? They didn't have to react to for or
> against theorists like Roland Barthes did they?
I contend that art would be a far better response to all of these
than crude diagrams could ever be.
> If Velazquez were living today,
...he'd be very old.
> and if he were doing exactly what he did when he was alive,
What exactly *did* he do when he was alive? Did he (a) paint the
mid-seventeenth century, or (b) paint his own time? Because, if he
continued to do (a) today, we would praise his historical accuracy
while sympathising (somewhat ambivalently) with his nostalgia, while
if he continued to do (b) today, we would marvel at how he had kept
up with the centuries as they passed. If Velasquez's paintings
retain their value today, the values that created those paintings
also retain their value.
> I would accuse him of making art that is not relevant to today's arena.
We are not in an arena.
> I would not accuse him of such in his own time-frame.
If he were alive to day, he would be in his own "time-frame".
> >Perhaps you think that the works they
> >produced were no more worthwhile than the simple diagrams
> >they might have produced instead?
>
> Unknown. However, with regards to the many simple drawings
> and schemata or studies that they did make, I find many of
> them equally as insightful as any finished painting.
So, perhaps they shouldn't have bothered?
Greg Scheckler
Gwenn Knapp <mott...@voicenet.com> wrote:
[clip, physics, skill, stuff beyond the eye, etc.]
>I am much too accepting and curious a person to be at all
>argumentative...
don't worry. i'm only argumentative when it's fun.
>My only point had been that, generally speaking, I would think
>that people inspired or interested enough to want to create
>artwork in any form, probably want to get better and better at
>whatever it is they are driven to do.
funny... i don't really care about getting better,
improvement over time, etc. i'm more interested by
creating meaning.
>The process of creation,
>as I have experienced it, involves activities directed at
>manifesting something, and skill relates to being able to get
>that manifestation to match the intention.
that sounds good.
>So I don't really get the whole thread
>pitting skill against whatever. It just seems to be so much
>semantics.
yeah, that happens when everything out here is so text-based.
but it's good to bicker over words sometimes, b/c whether
any of us agrees or not sometimes we learn how to
say things better as regards our intentions.
>I really appreciate your contributions to the discussion here,
>and thank you for being more explicit with your points. You
>have some pretty fascinating info to share.
whew! if you keep up that kinda talk my head's gonna
get all outta shape! :) (thanks)
[clip]
>Isn't there way more to the impact of the Mona Lisa
>than we can explain? So, I am fascinated by the findings of
>physics -- my favorite science, and am perfectly willing to
>explore art in these other dimensions. Currently, I only know
>how to explore them through my work in the perceived universe.
>Tell me more?
i think the human mind can be a kind of sense. e.g. sometimes
i feel like i'm thinking. by decreasing the level of thinking
it's possible to raise awareness of other things. As a matter
of degree doing this maybe can tip the scales in other
directions sometimes, but once there's a thought, there's
a perception of the world. perceptions aren't bad.
the main problem i run into is equating what i see with
what the world is. so for a long time i used to draw
blindfolded. I'd recommend it as a good exercise for those
people who want to learn about the mechanisms of drawing
that have to do with sound, motion, and idea.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
>> Mani Deli <md...@frontier.canrem.com> wrote:
>> >>>I wrote:
>> >>>> Skill is the foundation of any artwork in any style
>> >>>> and all artwork is done in order to be seen. If
>> >>>> you find that incorrect tell us why.
>> >
>>
>> Stop beating around the bush.
>>
>> I told you why I thought it was incorrect, based on the fact
>> that sometimes i make art that neither requires skill nor
>> even objecthood, etc.
>
>Correction: based on the *premise* that you sometimes etc.
i could have used any number of examples from
the traditions of conceptual art or other forms
such as performance, installation, etc. But I'm sure
none of those art forms meet your requirements
for artfulness either.
>> I provided here a brief account of one kind of
>> art that derails Mani Deli's generalization.
>
>Your argument would "derail" Mani Deli's position if, and only
>if, the premise (that you sometimes make art that requires no
>skill) is true. I do not accept that it is true (as my posts
>elsewhere indicate).
You know what's really cool about stupid people? When
confronted with art and honest statements about it, they
always think someone's pulling the wool over their eyes.
>Far be it from me to speak for Mani
>Deli, but I would be surprised if he accepted your premise,
>either. If it the premise is not true, the conclusion does
>not follow, and your argument fails.
"Art is no more true or false than statements are red or
blue" -- E.H. Gombrich, _Art and Illusion_ The premises
about art, the written statements, etc., can get real
messy real fast if one confuses the statements for the
art.
>Therefore, your next rhetorical task is to prove that the work
>you claim to be art (standing still and breathing, for those
>who missed the thread) *is* indeed art. When you have done
>that, you will have made your case.
My next rhetorical task is to make fun of you and your
insistence upon using logic despite that it's just about
the worst tool to use in this case.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
Arm...@shell.com (Ima Dillo) wrote:
>In article <4dbbi9$e...@park.uvsc.edu>, gre...@uvsc.edu
says...
>
>> The greatest skill appears clumsy.
>> The greatest eloquence sounds like stammering.
>> -- Lao Tzu --
>
>And I'm a dillo that looks like a pig and bleats (baaaaaa...).
snnnurrrg blooey h-h-h-phwanbo freezoid!
:)
Bruce Attah
>
> some art is social, some is not. some art is political
> some is not. some art is satirical. some is not. almond
> joy got nuts, mounds don't.
It is my firm belief that there is no such thing as art that is not
social. Art exists for its audience. This is part of its essential
nature. As I said earlier, if something does not have an intended
audience, it is not art. Political or satirical intent on the part of
the artist are quite different: they are not essential to art. The
intent that there shall be an audience *is*, however, essential.
> *viewers* and *participants* are different things.
I disagree. The authors of a work of art may also be its audience, as
happens at a "jam session", for instance.
> i simply meant to imply that in terms of criticism of
> and the assertion that standing still could be art, that
> you have no plausible say in the matter. You have no
> plausible say b/c the art occurs internal to the artist,
> and there is no audience.
I *do* have a say, and I say that your claim is nonsense. You are
proposing, I think (correct me if I am wrong) that I cannot say
whether or not you have created a work of art because I have no access
to the evidence. If you had asserted that you had a great
unpublished novel in your desk drawer or a masterful painting in your
attic, I would have to agree: I have no access to your drawer, nor to
your attic. If you asserted that you performed a wonderful dance many
years ago, but all your audience are now deceased, I would again have
to concede that your claim might be true. But when you assert that
you created a work of art by standing still and breathing, I have
instant access to the relevant evidence: the meaning of the word
"art". By similar token, if I were to claim that I shared a flat with
a man whose mother was a giraffe, you would know at once that I was
lying -- without having to visit my flat -- because the meaning of the
word "man" includes "does not have a mother who is a giraffe". It
would be as absurd for me to claim that you do not have the evidence
with which to decide as it is for you to claim that I have no
"plausible say" as to whether you created this audience-less,
skill-less art of yours.
>...
> That could be one definition of art, and no doubt works
> for some artists. However, I find it far too limiting for
> my own explorations and workings as an artist.
There is no reason why you should not carry out whatever explorations
and workings you wish. There are very good reasons, however, why you
should not call such explorations and workings art if art is what they
are not.
Bruce Attah
> So I don't really get the whole thread pitting skill against whatever.
I, for one, am not pitting skill against anything except its
absence. I am not arguing, for instance, that if one has painterly
skills, one does not need, say, creative energy to produce good art.
> It just seems to be so much semantics.
People often use this objection to arguments that they do not
perceive to be important, but I do not understand it. If we are to
communicate, the terms we use must have meanings that are agreed and
understood -- approximately, at any rate -- by all the participants
in the communicative act. The process of finding these meanings and
the meanings found are both called "semantics". It is fundamental
to any discussion of art that the semantics of the word "art" are
appreciated. In other words, semantics are important.
Susan Eshelman
>> And I'm a dillo that looks like a pig and bleats (baaaaaa...).
>
>I have always pictured you that way.
>
>- Lao Tzu
>
Saucer of milk for Ross...
Gwenn Knapp
>
> Gwenn Knapp wrote:
> > It just seems to be so much semantics.
>
> People often use this objection to arguments that they do not
> perceive to be important, but I do not understand it. If we are to
> communicate, the terms we use must have meanings that are agreed and
> understood -- approximately, at any rate -- by all the participants
> in the communicative act. The process of finding these meanings and
> the meanings found are both called "semantics". It is fundamental
> to any discussion of art that the semantics of the word "art" are
> appreciated. In other words, semantics are important.
Exactly. So much of this discussion, however, consists of arguments
about concepts that are futile because there is no agreement about
the semantics. Arguing about whether something is art, and whether
skill is important to it reads like the story of the blind men and
the elephant when the basic definitions of "art" and "skill" differ.
Either a certain level of attainment in any area of experience is
Art, or only attainment in a specific field of endeavor such as
"application of a colored material onto a two dimensional material
surface for visual effect." Which is it? Is Skill the level of
control and sensitivity it takes to achieve a specific result in a
specific endeavor, or is it any success at reaching any desired
outcome? Is it either?
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> wrong with my arguments, solipsism is not it. If you object to my
> ideas, then it would be nice if you could try to articulate your
> objections clearly or keep quiet. Perhaps you would like to accuse
> me of essentialism? You would be wrong, of course, but at least you
> could say I had a case to answer.
Boyz y'all better hope I don't shut up
or stop willing you into existence.
If I'm a solpsist, then without
me what would you do?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> Greg Scheckler wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >That's a fine suggestion. Perhaps, given that all of these
>> >authors have been fairly prolific, you could point me to the
>> >particular chapters of works that you feel to be most
>> >pertinent?
>>
>> Distillation won't help.
>
> Distillation has more of a chance of helping than random
> name-dropping has. I'd dearly love to see you bring Aristotle to
> the defence of your cause.
as i recall you had previously disregarded any list of scholars
as a list of fools, and a list of readings as useless. you'll need
to be a bit more clever than that.
>> >To what "ism" do your arguments belong?
>>
>> I'll let the art historians figure that out.
>>
> Cop out.
there's no nameable -ism for my arguments because
i'm working in the present. you have been working in the
past, echoing the past, rehashing history.
>> [clip, stuff about hints of information]
>> [clip, stuff about Attah's brand of mere realism]
>
> I am no "mere realist".
that was your phrase, you used it, I stole it.
>> >No artist was satisfied to present crude
>> >diagrams until well into the twentieth century. Perhaps
>> >you think that all these painters were misguided? Perhaps
>> >you imagine that Velasquez and Caravaggio wasted their
>> >time?
>>
>> Of course not. But they didn't live in the 20th century
>> did they? They didn't have to contend with the history of
>> art brut, the expressionists, and the abstractionists
>> did they? They didn't have dada flying in their face at
>> every turn did they? They didn't have to react to for or
>> against theorists like Roland Barthes did they?
[clip]
>> I would accuse him of making art that is not relevant to today's arena.
>
> We are not in an arena.
earth internet era: a billion ring circus, seventeen thousand feature
shows, elephant stunts, clowns and thirty thousand trapeze artists.
plus freak shows on the side. There's more absolute silliness
today than there has ever been in the entire history of man,
except for those early days in the garden. we even have hydrogen
bombs now.
>
>> >Perhaps you think that the works they
>> >produced were no more worthwhile than the simple diagrams
>> >they might have produced instead?
>>
>> Unknown. However, with regards to the many simple drawings
>> and schemata or studies that they did make, I find many of
>> them equally as insightful as any finished painting.
>
> So, perhaps they shouldn't have bothered?
Perhaps.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> Greg Scheckler wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1996Jan10.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
>> sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>> >
>> >> one of the artworks I've been working on for a very long
>> >> time involves standing still and breathing...
>> >
>> >important question: WHY do you believe it is art?
>>
>> I am an artist. I say it is art. Therefore it is.
>
> Why do you think you are an artist?
because i am.
> Why do you think that if an artist
> asserts that something is art, it is art?
It's just one of those useful tautologies, that's all.
> I put it to you that you are not an artist, and also that you cannot make
> something art by merely declaring it such (and could not, even if you were
> an artist). I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Okay, I am now not an artist. Oh well. Whoops, I slipped.
Now I'm an artist again. Now I'm an artist who is not
making art. Now I'm making art. Now I'm not. Now I'm an artist
who's making art that nobody before has thought of, so the others
don't think it's art, eventhough they all agree I'm an artist.
Oh phooey, now I'm not an artist again. Now I'm making art.
Oh well, since it was art from a non-artist, it wasn't very
artistic. Hey, now I'm an artist again. Whew. Glad to be back.
You see? I'm not *asserting* that I am an artist. I am an artist.
There is no qualifying set of criteria that makes me an
artist, no proof, no certification, no social sanction,
no license, no need for a minimum set of art objects
that I made, no degrees. Surprisingly, I have all of
those things anyway, from institutional naysayers who
require papers or objects that they think add up to proof.
But really, I neither have proofs nor need any.
> BTW, I am a scientist. This post is science. It is.
I'm happy you're a scientist. Good luck in your
explorations. However, I don't intend to be
a human subject for any of your experiments.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Ross Green
> Ross Green <gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>> In a more general sense, solipsism means egoistic self-absorption.
>> Bruce, your postings to r.a.f. are basically nothing but exercises
>> in solipsism. Your statement that "photography is not an art
>> form" is just one example of the type of idiotic conclusions to
>> which solipsistic thinking usually leads.
> This is nothing more than a casual insult.
So sorry - I thought it was a fairly sophisticated insult - thank you
for reminding me to try harder.
> If there is something wrong with my arguments, solipsism is not it.
Your views are very solipsistic (=self-referential), but there are also
major problems with your logic - basically, you lack common sense.
Let's put it this way: The Western world (minus Bruce Attah)
considers 'artistic photography' to be among the fine arts. Your
simplistic, ridiculous assertion directly contradicts your own stated
position regarding art as a societal phenomenon. (The burden of proof
remains with you.)
> If you object to my ideas, then it would be nice if you could try
> to articulate your objections clearly or keep quiet.
Keep quiet? - But Bruce, I was just getting warmed up. Where are
your ideas? I haven't seen any *rational* ideas.
-Ross
=========================================
"Of what use are lens and light
To those who lack in mind and sight?"
=========================================
Bruce Attah
> In article <30FE85...@insignia.co.uk>, Bruce Attah
<Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> writes:
> > So, perhaps they shouldn't have bothered?
>
> Perhaps.
Wow. This is a remarkable position to take! Perhaps the masterpieces of
the past were a big waste of time! Perhaps the simplest sketches would
have sufficed!
To me, your view of art makes all artistic practice pointless. Because,
you see, to me, there can be no such thing as a work of art that was not
worth doing.
Bruce Attah
> > BTW, I am a scientist. This post is science. It is.
>
> I'm happy you're a scientist. Good luck in your
> explorations. However, I don't intend to be
> a human subject for any of your experiments.
I have often been told that New Yorkers have no ear for irony. Can you
perhaps tell me perhaps if this is true?
Bruce Attah
> Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Let's put it this way: The Western world (minus Bruce Attah)
> considers 'artistic photography' to be among the fine arts. Your
> simplistic, ridiculous assertion directly contradicts your own stated
> position regarding art as a societal phenomenon. (The burden of proof
> remains with you.)
>
Aha! Thank you for making yourself clear. I have a position to disagree
with now. But first, I need to clear up a misunderstanding.
You rightly recall that I have said that art is a social phenomenon.
However, you appear to misread this, thinking my intention is to suggest
that art is a "social construct", or some such Po-Mo invention. That is
not my intention.
I do not mean by my assertion of the socialness of art that the answer to
the question of whether a given phenomenon is art is merely a matter of
social consensus. Rather, I mean that when works of art are created, they
are created with social intent, and that there is no such thing as a work
of art that is not created with social intent (the intent being that there
should be an audience). I believe that the "artisticness" of a thing is a
matter of objective reality, and does not change if the consensus
changes. In this, I lay myself open to charges of essentialism, to which
I happily plead guilty. I am no post-modernist.
My essentialist position is entirely consistent with my claim that a
practice (namely, photography) widely agreed to qualify as fine art is in
fact not fine art. You believe I have been solipsistic because I have
chosen to disagree with a (fairly) broad consensus. But it is precisely
because I believe that art is "out there" in the world, rather than "in
here" in my subjective perceptions, that I am able to adopt such a
position. Quite the opposite of solipsism, I think.
Bruce Attah
> In article <30FE85...@insignia.co.uk>, Bruce Attah
<Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> writes:
> > Greg Scheckler wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <30FAA5...@insignia.co.uk>,
> >> Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >Greg Scheckler wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> ...read Derrida, Eco, Aristotle, and Wittgenstein.
> >> >
> >> >That's a fine suggestion. Perhaps, given that all of these
> >> >authors have been fairly prolific, you could point me to the
> >> >particular chapters of works that you feel to be most
> >> >pertinent?
> >>
> >> Distillation won't help.
> >
> > Distillation has more of a chance of helping than random
> > name-dropping has. I'd dearly love to see you bring Aristotle to
> > the defence of your cause.
>
> as i recall you had previously disregarded any list of scholars
> as a list of fools, and a list of readings as useless. you'll need
> to be a bit more clever than that.
>
Another cop out. As to the accusation that I have "disregarded any list
of scholars as a list of fools", I deny that.
> >> [clip, stuff about Attah's brand of mere realism]
> >
> > I am no "mere realist".
>
> that was your phrase, you used it, I stole it.
In reference to what did I use it? As I recall, Mani Deli used a phrase
like that to refer (critically) to a view about painting. Personally, I
would not advocate any artistic practice that I would be tempted to call
"mere realism".
Gwenn Knapp
>
> In article <30FD49...@voicenet.com>,
> Gwenn Knapp <mott...@voicenet.com> wrote:
> >My only point had been that, generally speaking, I would think
> >that people inspired or interested enough to want to create
> >artwork in any form, probably want to get better and better at
> >whatever it is they are driven to do.
>
> funny... i don't really care about getting better,
> improvement over time, etc. i'm more interested by
> creating meaning.
This is precisely where I get stuck in your discussions. If meaning
is what you are drawn to, then... Are there sometimes which have
meaning and others not? Is there some time or activity which yeilds
more or clearer or deeper meaning? Would this not be "better"? And
wouldn't you like to explore and refine your ability to achieve this
"better" experience of meaning?
Bruce Attah
> Okay, I am now not an artist.
[etc., none of which deserves comment]
> Greg Scheckler
> SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
<Bruce.Attah-22...@support-neptune.isltd.
insignia.com>, Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>In article <1996Jan20.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
>sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>> > BTW, I am a scientist. This post is science. It is.
>>
>> I'm happy you're a scientist. Good luck in your
>> explorations. However, I don't intend to be
>> a human subject for any of your experiments.
>
>I have often been told that New Yorkers have no ear for irony.
>Can you perhaps tell me perhaps if this is true?
:) True, New Yorkers have no ear for irony, and Old Yorkers
just try too hard to be ironic, but Newyakkers, however, are
walking pillars of irony, and as such, respond in kind.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
insignia.com>, Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>In article <1996Jan20.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
>sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>> >> [clip, stuff about Attah's brand of mere realism]
>> >
>> > I am no "mere realist".
>>
>> that was your phrase, you used it, I stole it.
>
>In reference to what did I use it? As I recall, Mani Deli
>used a phrase like that to refer (critically) to a view about
>painting. Personally, I would not advocate any artistic
>practice that I would be tempted to call "mere realism".
Well, I can't be blamed for getting you two lovebirds
mixed up, you and Mani. I mean if 1 a u's not there, the
other is, parroting each other. Go figure?
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
<Bruce.Attah-22...@support-neptune.isltd.
insignia.com>,Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>In article <1996Jan20.1...@cc.usu.edu>,
sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>
>Wow. This is a remarkable position to take! Perhaps the
>masterpieces of the past were a big waste of time! Perhaps
>the simplest sketches would have sufficed!
>To me, your view of art makes all artistic practice pointless.
>Because, you see, to me, there can be no such thing as a work
>of art that was not worth doing.
I don't make art that has a point.
Or art that starts with those things in mind.
Surprisingly the art nevertheless becomes pointnant
by the time I've finished creating it, and worthwhile.
Pointless doesn't mean meaningless
any more than stillness implies a
lack of content.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <1996Jan20.1...@cc.usu.edu>, sl...@cc.usu.edu wrote:
>
>
> [etc., none of which deserves comment]
But now I am an artist.
The decision is mine, not yours, not society's, not some critic's, etc.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Ken Labuskes
: Considering that some 95% of the known mass of the universe
: is not available to our limited human senses, that artwork
: may work outside the range of immediate perception should
: not be surprising. Stodgy perceptualists never understand
: this point, and always try to look at non-perception
: art with their senses, which invariably must lead them awry.
Is it possible that there is room in the universe for both perceptual and
non-perceptual art? I think it is likely that both will continue to find
practitioners and afficionados.
ken
Bruce Attah
> But now I am an artist.
> The decision is mine, not yours, not society's, not some critic's, etc.
A farmer is a person who farms.
A driver is a person who drives.
A swimmer is a person who swims.
An artist is a person who claims to be an artist.
Society decides who is a medical doctor.
Society decides who is a police officer.
Society decides who is a lawyer.
An artist decides who is an artist.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
us, who do both and things that can't really be classified as
either. :)
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Greg Scheckler
Bruce Attah <Bruce...@insignia.co.uk> wrote:
>sl...@cc.usu.edu (Greg Scheckler) wrote:
>
>> But now I am an artist.
>> The decision is mine, not yours, not society's, not some
>>critic's, etc.
>
>A farmer is a person who farms.
>A driver is a person who drives.
>A swimmer is a person who swims.
>An artist is a person who claims to be an artist.
tautology songs, redundancy shnippet poem
redundancy shnippet poem.
the only thing society did was make up the
word artist. That's my sanction.
>Society decides who is a medical doctor.
Some dudes give doctors' licenses
but not to chiropractors or acupuncturists
>Society decides who is a police officer.
Some dudes give the police badges.
but police still beat people up
>Society decides who is a lawyer.
Some dudes hand out the bar exam
and some lawyers don't pass the test
>An artist decides who is an artist.
and
Speaking as Secretary General of the International
Licensing Board of Artists, I declare Bruce Attah
poet in residence of rec.arts.fine. I also declare
Mattison Fitzgerald poet in residence, in charge
of truncation and equals signs. Other artists seeking
license-to-practice-art, may contact me via email
for forms and procedures and application fee
requirements.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu
Mani Deli
>Nevertheless, the value of art (and of individual art forms) is
>ultimately a matter of social consensus (-not in the short term,
>of course, but over time).
Gee Ross we agree here. That's why I predict that the masters of Modern Art
who inhabit our museums at the moment will for the most part not outlast the
moment.
>Mani Deli believes that Norman Rockwell was a great genius, and
>that Picasso and Matisse were incompetent fools - His views are
>irrational: your attack on artistic photography is just as preposterous.
Now now Citizen Ross is putting words in my mouth again.I never said Rockwell
was a genius.
But its interesting you say that. Its a symptom of Artrhitus (that disease you
got from over exposure to the Modern Art section of the museum.) Every time
someone mentions Rockwell to a victim of this disease his temperature drops
and he becomes terminally irrational.
As to Matisse and Picasso. Picasso was neither incompetent nor a fool. He just
doesn’t have much drawing skill. He was very clever. Matisse wasn’t a fool
he sure knew how to make money. He was just rather stupid. I have to admit you
are right in one respect . Matisse was definitely incompetent. Neither will
stand the test of time.
Mani DeLi
…no skill no art
Bruce Attah
> Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> > Ross Green <gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Let's put it this way: The Western world (minus Bruce Attah)
> >> considers 'artistic photography' to be among the fine arts.
>
> > I do not mean by my assertion of the socialness of art that the
> > answer to the question of whether a given phenomenon is art
> > is merely a matter of social consensus. [clipped]
>
> Nevertheless, the value of art (and of individual art forms) is
> ultimately a matter of social consensus (-not in the short term,
> of course, but over time).
>
> > You believe I have been solipsistic because I have chosen to
> > disagree with a (fairly) broad consensus.
>
> *Fairly* broad?? (What planet are you from?) Your eccentric 'belief'
> doesn't constitute a valid argument. You define simple words like
> 'art' in a highly personal, solipsistic manner - but you never present
> a good case for your positions.
At no point do I claim that my beliefs are an argument for anything. I
argue from commonly held beliefs to unusual conclusions. There is nothing
wrong with this, nor is my reasoning at any stage solipsistic. If it is
an error to arrive at a surprising conclusion, then every significant new
idea in history has been an error. Consider Einstein: he reasoned from
the widely recognised limitations of Newtonian physics to a set of
conclusions that that were rejected by many of his colleagues at first,
and continue to baffle almost anyone who comes across them. I am confident
that my use of the word 'art' conforms far better to common usage than
does that of, say, Greg Scheckler, who you do not accuse of solipsism,
despite the wild absurdity of his claims about making art whose existence
is undetectable to anyone but himself.
> Mani Deli believes that Norman Rockwell was a great genius, and
> that Picasso and Matisse were incompetent fools - His views are
> irrational: your attack on artistic photography is just as preposterous.
That someone does not agree with you, or with the ideas you are most used
to, does not imply that the person is irrational. The fact is, Mani Deli
has a point, and a reasonable one, too.
If we restrict ourselves to consideration of Matisse, there are plenty of
good reasons for skepticism about his competence. Inspection of his work
reveals crude, lazy, inaccurate drawing, as well as poor handling of paint
and insensitive, unbalanced use of colour. Subject matter is
unimaginative and unintelligent: endless odalisques (got up in oriental
fancy dress), figures meaninglessly composed, and conventional still-life
or portrait arrangements.
Many artists show talent at the beginning of their career, and then fall
off into laziness and self-parody, their place in art history assured by
their early work. It is fairly common to hear in defence of an artist
'Yes, *this* work looks incompetent, but look at those previous works --
obviously the apparent incompetence is a deliberate illusion'. This sort
of justification is not available when Matisse is the subject. There was
no early, deft work that could reassure doubters. Matisse's standard of
work remained uniform from his student days (when his masters considered
him distinctly unpromising) until he became incapacitated by arthritis.
It is quite rational to suspect that an artist whose work *consistently*
looks a lot like the work of someone who can neither draw nor paint,
probably cannot draw or paint.
Now, it may be that somewhere some modernist critic has a convincing
justification for Matisse's high esteem, but I have never come across it.
His work remains popular among those who do not have the patience to look
at pictures for long, as a quick glance is sure to provide an anodyne dose
of pastels or a cheering boost of red, before the ugliness of the picture
itself settles upon the consciousness. Most people count elegance,
flair, intelligence and keen observation as important aesthetic values.
If one brings such values to bear in judging painting, there is nothing
irrational about placing Matisse's work beyond the pale.
Another good reason for doubting Matisse's competence as an artist comes
from his utterances: He justified his disregard for the visual in art
with such quotables as 'When you've seen one lemon, you've seen them all,'
the kind of assertion that reveals an insensitivity to visual experience
characteristic of philistines rather than of serious painters. My own
contact with artists and art students has led me to observe that those who
express the greatest disdain for painterly and draughtsmanlike skills are
usually those the ones with the least talent.
The most rational assessment of Matisse is that he was nothing more than a
parodist, aping the conventions of his time (those of academic and of
impressionist painting, as well as the symbolist tradition), caricaturing
them and exploiting the new bourgeois market for art that was somehow
'modern' -- a market that had been created, to a large extent, by the
impressionists. As for originality, Matisse had only one trick: garish
colour.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
> In article <4eiudi$i...@park.uvsc.edu>, Ross Green <gre...@uvsc.edu> wrote:
>
>> > You believe I have been solipsistic because I have chosen to
>> > disagree with a (fairly) broad consensus.
>>
I heard he was from Bunionohs, which has a population of one
real person and billions of imaginary ones. It's hard to tell
whether he's the real one or an imaginary one, b/c they all look
the same and aren't really all that imaginative anyway. Oh, there's
nothing quite as dull as a boring solipsist, I suppose.
>> Your eccentric 'belief'
>> doesn't constitute a valid argument. You define simple words like
>> 'art' in a highly personal, solipsistic manner - but you never present
>> a good case for your positions.
>
> At no point do I claim that my beliefs are an argument for anything. I
> argue from commonly held beliefs to unusual conclusions.
No you don't. You parrot the same damn things that most unsophisticated
"master artist" wannabe's say. You have said nothing more than the
vitriolic fake acidspit of a celluloid latex alien special effect,
B-movies, fluff, nothing. Your conclusions are as unusual as a number
2 pencil. What you think are "commonly held beliefs" are actually
little more than hearsay mingled with your own fussy earwax and
cottonball trailings.
> [clip...] If it is
> an error to arrive at a surprising conclusion, then every significant new
> idea in history has been an error.
you'll have to rewrite that if you want it to make logical sense,
as you've just jumped off a cliff of generalizations into
void of boiling brain pus. Try: "If it can be an error to arrive
at surprising conclusions, then some significant
surprising ideas in history may have been made in error."
But anyway, if you try that, it'll still be stupid,
b/c you misunderstood what Ross said.
> Consider Einstein: he reasoned from
> the widely recognised limitations of Newtonian physics to a set of
> conclusions that that were rejected by many of his colleagues at first,
> and continue to baffle almost anyone who comes across them.
Yeah Einstein was cool! But you're no Einstein, Bruce-boy. Not even
near. You're not even as brilliant as a Barbie doll. Einstein made
sense, you don't. And Einstein doesn't baffle anymore. We're
all being baffled by complexity theory and the fact that Bach concertos
follow the same 1/f brownian motion formula as country western music
and "random" static, and, we're not baffled because we don't understand
it, we're baffled because the ideas are so utterly amazing.
> I am confident
> that my use of the word 'art' conforms far better to common usage than
> does that of, say, Greg Scheckler, who you do not accuse of solipsism,
> despite the wild absurdity of his claims about making art whose existence
> is undetectable to anyone but himself.
well somehow I couldn't just let slander pass into nothingness without
getting some little squeak in here...sssssqueeeeeak!
[clip]
> If we restrict ourselves to consideration of Matisse, there are plenty of
> good reasons for skepticism about his competence. Inspection of his work
> reveals crude, lazy, inaccurate drawing, as well as poor handling of paint
> and insensitive, unbalanced use of colour. Subject matter is
> unimaginative and unintelligent: endless odalisques (got up in oriental
> fancy dress), figures meaninglessly composed...
Matisse's work seems meaning-laden enough to diametrically oppose
what you consider as "good." It's so meaning-laden, so absolutely
different than what you hold dear that the only stance left to
you in your lack of wit is a defensive posture of poorly
worded stupefaction coupled with negation.
> Many artists show talent at the beginning of their career, and then fall
> off into laziness and self-parody, their place in art history assured by
> their early work. It is fairly common to hear in defence of an artist
> 'Yes, *this* work looks incompetent, but look at those previous works --
> obviously the apparent incompetence is a deliberate illusion'. This sort
> of justification is not available when Matisse is the subject. There was
> no early, deft work that could reassure doubters. Matisse's standard of
> work remained uniform from his student days (when his masters considered
> him distinctly unpromising) until he became incapacitated by arthritis.
> It is quite rational to suspect that an artist whose work *consistently*
> looks a lot like the work of someone who can neither draw nor paint,
> probably cannot draw or paint.
case in point: the above paragraph is the common bluster of people
who require proof that an artist can "draw well" before he or she can
possibly have an excuse for drawing some other way. This is stupid
and not worth much effort arguing about. And it is common... I've heard
it hundreds and hundreds of times, usually from bitter underachievers or
naive underfed students. I've even heard it from a few really
awful university professors. It's boring boring boring.
The proof that Matisse could draw and paint is that he did. He took
some charcoal and scratched out a wretched hag, or a dancer, or an
arthritic signature. It was so fascinating to him that he did it for a
lifetime. That took more raw guts than any of the
bluster Attah has written here.
To me Einstein and Matisse both have a lot in common. Both
failed school and never got high marks. Both captured the
attention of the world. Both thrived into their old age.
Greg Scheckler
SL...@cc.usu.edu