PERIOD??
tutt...@bvu.edu
This is to conclude the post that I had posted on the subject of
which period of art we are in which had posed the question" WHAT RIGHT
DO WE AS ARTIST HAVE TO CALL ANYTHING CRAP? WHAT RIGHT DO WE HAVE TO
SAY WHAT PERIOD WE ARE IN?"
I have been caring on many different discussions with many
different people about just this on-line and off. I may have worded
this in the wrong way so that people could have taken this out of
context. I should have said--WHAT RIGHT DO WE AS ARTIST HAVE TO
"CLAIM AS A FACT" THAT ART THAT WE LOOK AT IS CRAP?
When I was looking at a post some time ago I read that someone
was calling all "NEW" art was/is crap. He did this in such a way that
it could have been written in a great book of the art gods! I think
that is wrong!!! He should have mentioned that it is merely an
opinion of his. I have been talking to one person in particular
lately about this and I would have to agree with him by saying "NO
SKILL--NO ART!" This is something that has been said for many years
but along with the saying "no knowledge no skill," but this seems to
be overlooked greatly.
Much of the art today such as the "GENERATION-X ART" is very
blunt in saying what it has to say. By using words, I think, can get
the point across to the "GENERATION-X" Different times call for
different measures.
This poses one more question--ARE THERE TOO MAY ARTIST IN THE
WORLD TODAY, AND IF SO HOW DO WE AS ARTIST HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM
TO GET OUT?? There may be a lot of artist in the world today but that
could just mean there is a lot of artist in the world. It could also
mean that there are a lot of posers in the art world. Such as people
getting in to the art world with out any skill at all, they just have
a good marketing strategy. This is brought up in the post of a
colleague of mine, when looking at this "so called artist" (just my
thoughts) in this "so called" prodigy girl's collection. The question
is, where did this girl come up with the money to get such a name for
herself. And to answer this----HER PARENTS!!! Rich parents go a long
way....... She on the other hand (now remember this is just my
opinion!!) could be a great artist if she was not so naive with the
approach and just look at her great picture book that her parents
bought her that has such great artists in it as Picasso, and just went
went to art school and recived some true education.
=============================================================
Jamie Tuttle
tutt...@bvu.edu
"KING TUTT"
Question the Obvious!!??
=============================================================
Charles Eicher
> This is to conclude the post that I had posted on the subject of
> which period of art we are in which had posed the question" WHAT RIGHT
> DO WE AS ARTIST HAVE TO CALL ANYTHING CRAP? WHAT RIGHT DO WE HAVE TO
> SAY WHAT PERIOD WE ARE IN?"
It may be that, as artists, this is the only right we have. Art is a mental
activity, of which the most fundamental is discrimination and discernment.
When we produce our own artworks, we must constantly evaluate our own
efforts. For example, I might be making a painting, and I decide that if I
make the line go to the right, the painting is crap, but if it goes to the
left, it works fine. And looking at artworks is no different.
However, the issue of artistic periods is a bit more interesting. Marshal
McLuhan once said that each new movement recapitulates the prior movement,
and fulfills the potential of the OLD movement, while failing at its own
goals. Perhaps this is why we spend such effort looking at 'artistic
movements'.. The assignment of categories of art is usually a historical
activity, however, for the people producing artworks, we need to keep a
handle on what it is we're doing TODAY, and that is usually only fixing the
problems of the last movement that came along, THEN moving into unknown
territory.
> When I was looking at a post some time ago I read that someone
> was calling all "NEW" art was/is crap. He did this in such a way that
> it could have been written in a great book of the art gods! I think
> that is wrong!!! He should have mentioned that it is merely an
> opinion of his. I have been talking to one person in particular
> lately about this and I would have to agree with him by saying "NO
> SKILL--NO ART!" This is something that has been said for many years
> but along with the saying "no knowledge no skill," but this seems to
> be overlooked greatly.
Please don't mistake anything Mani Deli says as actual relevant art
criticism. His writings are merely the embittered ravings of a failed
artist. It is easy to claim that something is crap when you don't know
anything about it, as is the case with this fellow. In order to offer valid
negative criticism, you must know the subject thoroughly, and support your
argument throughly, which he doesn't.
> This poses one more question--ARE THERE TOO MAY ARTIST IN THE
> WORLD TODAY, AND IF SO HOW DO WE AS ARTIST HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL THEM
> TO GET OUT?? There may be a lot of artist in the world today but that
> could just mean there is a lot of artist in the world. It could also
> mean that there are a lot of posers in the art world.
Huh? either you're rambling, or I don't get your point. Yeah, for many
years (and maybe even today), artists were considered degenerate or
otherwise negative lifestyles. For example, in my own community, there is a
large group of Mennonites and Amish people, which consider art as sinful
since it serves no practical purpose. But years of education have taught
many people that art is a legitimate form of expression, and it is often
(but not often enough) taught in elementary schools as part of a basic
curriculum. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean everyone is a great artist, it only
broadens the pool from which these artists might emerge. To use an
irrelevant automotive analogy, think about how many people drive cars, then
how many can fix their cars, how many design cars, and out of those, how
many design Ferrari or an F1 race car. But without a large group of people
interested in cars, a 'car culture', there would probably be no demand for
ferraris or F1 races. Its the same in art, not everyone is at the peak. But
we can all imagine we're Mario Andretti when we're tooling around a corner
a little too fast in our Ford Escort. I betcha that people are similarly
inspired when they're slapping the paint on a Bob Ross kit.
> ..Such as people
> getting in to the art world with out any skill at all, they just have
> a good marketing strategy.
And who is to say this is not an art? Do the names Warhol, Koons, and
Kostabi mean anything to you?
> ..This is brought up in the post of a
> colleague of mine, when looking at this "so called artist" (just my
> thoughts) in this "so called" prodigy girl's collection. The question
> is, where did this girl come up with the money to get such a name for
> herself. And to answer this----HER PARENTS!!! Rich parents go a long
> way....... She on the other hand (now remember this is just my
> opinion!!) could be a great artist if she was not so naive with the
> approach and just look at her great picture book that her parents
> bought her that has such great artists in it as Picasso, and just went
> went to art school and recived some true education.
Ah.. now you're just griping about money, which is perfectly
understandable, if you never had any. When I hear lame griping like this, I
am often reminded of an interview with a famous psychologist. The
interviewer asked whether she would rather treat rich or poor patients. She
said she'd rather treat the rich, because they already know that money
won't solve all their problems, or make them happy. The poor haven't
figured that out yet.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Mdeli
tutt...@bvu.edu wrote:
>---I would have to agree with him by saying "NO
>> SKILL--NO ART!" This is something that has been said for many years
>> but along with the saying "no knowledge no skill," but this seems to
>> be overlooked greatly.
Charles Eicher writes:
>Please don't mistake anything Mani Deli says as actual relevant art
>criticism. His writings are merely the of a failed
>artist. It is easy to claim that something is crap when you don't know
>anything about it, as is the case with this fellow. In order to offer valid
>negative criticism, you must know the subject thoroughly, and support your
>argument throughly, which he doesn't.
Apparently his holiness Mr. Eicher gets annoyed when
someone dares to agree with me. The above reasoning
is that the statement "no skill no art" is to be
dismissed as "embittered ravings," because I said it.
Apparently anyone who dares to take a position opposite
to Eicher’s dogmas is a failed artist. Never say
something that Eicher likes is crap lest he accuse you
of knowing nothing.
Eicher’s logical abilities are readily apparent. I’m
sure he is brimming with artistic knowledge. However,
it makes me wonder why his short fuse gets lit when
skill is mentioned. I know as little about his work as
he does of mine. However his statements lead me to
suspect that his level of skill just might leave
something to be desired.
Mani DeLi
-no skill no art
Charles Eicher
In article <57tecd$a...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com (Mdeli) wrote:
> Apparently his holiness Mr. Eicher gets annoyed when
> someone dares to agree with me.
Perhaps you should point out where he agrees with you. I missed it somehow.
> Eicherís logical abilities are readily apparent. Iím
> sure he is brimming with artistic knowledge. However,
> it makes me wonder why his short fuse gets lit when
> skill is mentioned. I know as little about his work as
> he does of mine.
That's not true at all. By your own admission, your prior work has included
making forgeries of 'old master drawings' which you were well aware would
be sold fraudulently. This makes you an exploiter of the art world, not a
participant. However, I will allow that YOU don't know anything about MY
work.
However his statements lead me to
> suspect that his level of skill just might leave
> something to be desired.
Suffice to say, I am highly skilled, and have kept alive certain lost
techniques that were rarely practiced within this century. All of this adds
up to exactly nothing.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Brother Alphabet
On 29 Nov 1996 tutt...@bvu.edu wrote:
> This is to conclude that there are a lot of posers in the art world.
Excellent point! I agree!
Hutto
Boudicca
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.95.96120...@Ra.MsState.Edu>...
The Art of Posing as an Artiste was a required course in Art school, the
less talent you had, the stronger the BS needed to pass!
Boudicca
Harrison Williams
On 4 Dec 1996, Boudicca wrote:
>
> >
> The Art of Posing as an Artiste was a required course in Art school, the
> less talent you had, the stronger the BS needed to pass!
>
> Boudicca
>
You seem to be implying that no skill is required to be a 'poser'. One
could consider being a poser a form of 'Art' in itself. It requires a
particular level of planning, improvisation, environmental awareness,
among other 'talents'. Balancing those skills in the proper proportion
makes a succesful poser, and this person gets their foot in the door. On
the other hand, one who is not a good poser makes an ass of him/herself,
and maybe learns from experience.
I myself am adequately skilled as a visual artist, but lately I have been
frustrated with the emphasis on 'skill' that is pushed. Yeah, i think that
it is important to acheive a certain level of skill in order to be able to
present ideas and expressions effectivly in a visual format, but I hardly
consider this the atribute that makes or breaks an 'artist'. I prefer to
believe that it is knowledge that makes one an effective artist, since
other abilities,like drawing for instance, are merely techincal.
What makes art interesting, IMO, is the intuitive and instinctive and
personal aspects that cannot always be effectivley expressed through skill
or technique alone. i mean, what does a Sunday painter posess but skill?
'Good Art' requires more than just skill, or possibly anything BUT skill.
Peace...
Harrison Williams IV
email: hwi...@icarus.uic.edu
the web: http://www2.uic.edu/~hwilli1
Bruce Attah
In article <Pine.SOL.3.93.96120...@icarus.cc.uic.edu>,
Harrison Williams <hwi...@uic.edu> wrote:
> ...i mean, what does a Sunday painter posess but skill?
Until about half a century ago, Sunday painters were distinguished from
the full-time variety by their having less skill than the latter. Now,
despite a visible decline in the level of skill in amateur painting, it is
possible to accuse Sunday painters of possessing "nothing but skill".
What a pretty pass we have come to! Professional artists are rarely more
skilled than good amateurs, and often less so, and this is seen as a good
thing!
> I prefer to
> believe that it is knowledge that makes one an effective artist, since
> other abilities,like drawing for instance, are merely techincal.
What if the medical profession were to decide that, since a pleasant
manner on the part of the doctor is often crucial to patient recovery,
that the training of doctors should concentrate on this, and the study of
hygene, pharmacology, physiology etc. be set aside as "merely technical".
Would clinical practice be improved?
What is merely technical is, in art as elsewhere, merely necessary.
Bruce Attah.
Katy Odell
Harrison Williams <hwi...@uic.edu> wrote:
>I myself am adequately skilled as a visual artist, but lately I have been
>frustrated with the emphasis on 'skill' that is pushed. Yeah, i think that
>it is important to acheive a certain level of skill in order to be able to
>present ideas and expressions effectivly in a visual format, but I hardly
>believe that it is knowledge that makes one an effective artist, since
>other abilities,like drawing for instance, are merely techincal.
>personal aspects that cannot always be effectivley expressed through skill
>or technique alone. i mean, what does a Sunday painter posess but skill?
>'Good Art' requires more than just skill, or possibly anything BUT skill.
Well, I think that's fine. If you have intuitive and instinctive aspects that you want to express via some medium like paint or scul=
pture, but not a lot of skill, then go for it. However, don't expect me to notice what you've done. I always thought that the point =
of art was HAVING the skill to express the "intuitive and instinctive" in some concrete way. That's what makes it so damned special.=
Maybe you're talking about the constant drilling and training that an art student is expected to go through, and perhaps you're rig=
ht - some artists might "lose" something vital in the process. Unfortunately the end result is the same as it is for someone who nev=
er had any talent but liked to paint anyway - the art fails to convey anything. If your skills are too weak to express what you have=
to say, that's the same as your intuition being too weak to survive rigorous training.
There are as many technicians ("Sunday Painters" you called them) as there are unskilled but inspired artists - they both serve to c=
lutter up the world with uninspiring art. Luckily what happens sometimes is that someone with a lot of inspiration and intuition mas=
ters the medium so thoroughly that they really can crank out "the good stuff." They get all the kudos, and rightly so.
But, that's MY taste in art. I have abysmal taste in wine, and I'm GLAD someone makes white zinfandel!:-)
-katy
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 5 Dec 1996, Harrison Williams wrote:
> What makes art interesting, IMO, is the intuitive and instinctive and
> personal aspects that cannot always be effectivley expressed through skill
> or technique alone. i mean, what does a Sunday painter posess but skill?
> 'Good Art' requires more than just skill, or possibly anything BUT skill.
I think it is a combination of inborn aristic talent, excellent technical
skills (which ARE important), AND knowledge.
Without some of all 3, inborn ability being the most vital ingredient,
your work is just a waste of space and time.
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 6 Dec 1996, * wrote:
> oh, stop whining. -----> Physicists regularly make pretty theories
and force mathematicians to figure everything
out all the time.
Sounds like a whine to me.
> That art should be different is a stupid expectation
As soon as artists are as widely employed/paid as mathemeticians, maybe
this won't be such a sore point for us. In the meantime the charlatans put
a dent in our livelihoods and our credibilities.
Hutto
wsparker
Care to define "inborn ability" or "talent?" I don't know how this "most
vital ingredient" could be known or identified. Sounds suspiciously
vague; I don't like the word "talent" for this reason.
Brother Alphabet
On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, wsparker wrote:
> Care to define "inborn ability" or "talent?" I don't know how this "most
> vital ingredient" could be known or identified. Sounds suspiciously
> vague; I don't like the word "talent" for this reason.
Do you really not comprehend the definition of 'inborn'?
It means, something that you were born with.
Aka: Gifts, Talents....
The root of the term talent comes from a biblical parable I believe...
Used to be a form of currency...In the parable the master gives talents to
his servants and commands that they go out and use their talents wisely
and return them to the master at a later date. Then the master returns to
inspect what the servants have done with the talents, one servant has
invested the talents and made a nice profit, and another had buried the
talents in fear of losing them and having to bare the master's
disapproval. The master then favors the one who used the talents to do
well over the one who hid them away out of fear.
All of this is a roundabout explanation of the term implying that the gift
was given by the master to be used in His service, or in other words
Talents are God given abilities...
But, out of respect for those who might not practice the same religion as
myself, I use the humanistic and neutral term 'inborn abilities' to imply
the same condition, which would exist in the presence of non-believers
regardless, due to the absolute truth of the existence of the Divine.
Certain people have certain abilities which are far superior to the same
abilities in others. Even if two seemingly like people are given the exact
same training, the one with the talent will perform at a much higher
level. Explain please if all are equal?
Call it vague if you wish, but I call your attitude a blatant denial of
the facts of life.
If there were no such thing as inborn talent I would be making millions as
a pro athlete right now.
A talent is not KNOWN just like you dont KNOW who you will marry when you
grow up or any other similar circumstance. We realize our talents as we
are given the opportunity to use them. For example...As a child I was able
to draw at a very unlikely age and I was still able and interested in
drawing etc past the age when most children generally stop doing so in
favor of other activities, I was able to comprehend and utilize the
written word at a similarly young, but not AS young age and was writing
poetry and stories around age nine...These are my talents...I have never
taken english classes beyond what was required in the curriculum...yet I
have been told I am good at writing blah blah blah...I dont know about
that...I just do it because I like it...I have a compelling passion for
both writing and creating imagery...Other people can't do it. They
seriously can't...It goes beyond a lack of training, they just plain are
hideously bad at it. Others who have the aptitude to do well if trained
are still not as good as those who were born to do the task. PLUS, those
without the talent will STILL not do as well as someone who has the talent
but has no training...The one without talent will have only the knowledge
gained from the training and perhaps the skill that goes along with that,
while the nontrained one will have the skill and talent naturally and will
be superior to the talentless one based on that alone.
Having talent is not an evil or unfair notion, and to say that others do
not have certain talents does not imply that they are COMPLETELY
talentless...It isn't as though there are a select group of people who
have talents while the rest of the universe is a bunch of waste matter.
Everyone is born with talents... Our lives are spent either
using and developing them or wishing that we were able to use them
productively.
I really do not understand how it is possible to dispute the existence of
talent. Are you jealous of those who have been said to have talent, or
have you been told you have none and are resentful? Judging from the
energy in most of the posts you have written I would be amazed that you
were not fully aware of what your own talents were.
People have often referred to the phenomenon of 'having discovered their
purpose in life' This is the same notion, they have discovered what they
are good at, and the revelation is as though they realize what they are on
the planet to do.
Some of us are here to create, some are here to heal, some are here to
minister, some are here to design buildings, and some are here to drive
garbage trucks. (I have met people who are quite happy doing the jobs
people sometimes think of as menial.) Everybody is good at something.
Anyway, this turned into a rant, another of my seeming talents.
I wish more of my talents were less annoying to others.
Hutto
Michael Gerard Maranda
>On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, wsparker wrote:
>> Care to define "inborn ability" or "talent?" I don't know how this "most
>> vital ingredient" could be known or identified. Sounds suspiciously
>> vague; I don't like the word "talent" for this reason.
>Do you really not comprehend the definition of 'inborn'?
>It means, something that you were born with.
>Aka: Gifts, Talents....
>The root of the term talent comes from a biblical parable I believe...
>Used to be a form of currency...
Actually, it is a weight, balance, and only indirectly a sum of money (vis,
a talent of gold). A talent -- although variable with the culture and period
in mind, is somewhere around 26 to 40 kilograms. In middle english it refers
to will, desire, lust, or appetite, and only figuratively as what you
describe as natural ability. Before natural ability, however, it refers to
an evil inclination. It can also refer to the attractiveness and sexual
promise of a localities women (collectively) or, more rarely, men. It also
refers to the good qualities of a horse. Talent, colloq., is a derogatory
name for actors used by film directors and their technical crews (usually in
desperation, such as when asking aloud where the actors are when one needs
them ....) It can also mean to fill with desire.
So, seeing very few infants are born weighing 26kg or higher, I would wonder
about the possibility of talent being anything other than an aquired
disposition -- unless one is talking about a horse, in which case it is a
conditioned state. Perhaps you were referring to the natural inclination to
the state of evil??? Or were you making a sly innuendo concerning the sexual
promise of artists? I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with child
prodigies ... most of whom grow up to be rather boring if not boorish.
mm
--
"If you can't use your delete key, get offa the internet."
Michael Maranda___...@uhura.cc.rochester.edu_________________
wsparker
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Sun, 8 Dec 1996, wsparker wrote:
>
> > Care to define "inborn ability" or "talent?" I don't know how this "most
> > vital ingredient" could be known or identified. Sounds suspiciously
> > vague; I don't like the word "talent" for this reason.
>
>
> was given by the master to be used in His service, or in other words
> Talents are God given abilities...
"Talents are God-given abilities," now if that weren't suspiciously
vague! I mention this because I just learned the origin of the word
here, and am even more impressed by how abusive the use of the word may
be in certain contexts!
>
> I use the humanistic and neutral term 'inborn abilities' to imply
> the same condition, which would exist in the presence of non-believers
> regardless, due to the absolute truth of the existence of the Divine.
>
> Certain people have certain abilities which are far superior to the same
> abilities in others. Even if two seemingly like people are given the exact
> same training, the one with the talent will perform at a much higher
> level. Explain please if all are equal?
Have you a reference to this presumably scientific study? Or are you
speculating?
"seemingly like" "exact same training" "the one with the talent" sounds
a little vague for science.
I know what you are trying to say and I agree with it, though to a small
extent.
>
> Call it vague if you wish, but I call your attitude a blatant denial of
> the facts of life.
I have been trying point out that the word is very much abused. At an
early age some adult comes along and separates the "talented" kids from
the "untalented" ones. Then the ones judged to "have it" are treated
differently than the ones who "don't have it"
My "blatent denial of the facts of life" must be encompassed by my
insistence on asking, "what the hell is 'IT?'"
I think it is an arrogant thing for adults to do to kids when it seems
to be essentially a highly subjective (vague) ascription that might
significantly alter kid's development.
>
> If there were no such thing as inborn talent I would be making millions as
> a pro athlete right now.
You make a strong point here: there MAY be a way to measure who's got it
at least in athletics! I'd have to think about this a little more.
>
> A talent is not KNOWN just like you dont KNOW who you will marry when you
> grow up or any other similar circumstance. We realize our talents as we
> are given the opportunity to use them.
Good, so you agree, more opportunity must be given to those with
"talent." What good does that do in counterbalance to the unmeasurable
damage it MAY do because it a powerful word which seems so easy to
misuse? I mean since very few people are called "talented" more
opportunity is given to those FEW of whom that have it. What happens to
everybody else? Sounds backward to me! What probably rests on vague
mumbojumbo is done to kids by unknowing adults at an early age!! BAD
THING!
> I really do not understand how it is possible to dispute the existence of
> talent.
I don't dispute the existence of a powerful word that needs definition!
I thank you for helping me with that.
Harrison Williams
I know I may bruise a few egos when I say this, but there does seem to be
a lot of closed/narrow-mindedness infesting these waters.
I can speculate all that I want on the 'ingredients' of a good artist and
good art, but it is something that is always shifting,never stationary,
and subject to personal taste.
Everyone knows a good visual technichian when we see one. That kind of
work has been done, and it will continue to be. I have been through that,
but don't get me wrong, it is a useful skill to have. I would never
put down an artist for being skilled, but I would question
any artist or 'aspiring' artist who have already set in their minds what
an artist is supposed to be and do and have no desire to learn more
outside of what they already know and take chances to acquire new results
and make personal discoveries. I want to explore all of the variables of
creativity, because it shows me more of myself and my options, and it
reveals that none of us knows as much as we would like to think that we
do. That means that there is that much more out there for us to learn! All
that I do know is where I have been, where I stand presently, and where I
want to go. Not where anyone else may stand, but where I stand. To that
end, I believe that an artist is one who lets nothing get in the way of
their desire to move in that direction and to grow creatively, and that
sometimes requires throwing away all that you have learned and starting
anew.
So, what if I were to change my perspective and view the process of
'making art' without skill in the equation, what would I learn from that?
I have learned that there are too many ingredients to attempt to count,I
have learned thus far that intuition can be far more revealing than just
skill, that emphasizing the process more than the result can be more
liberating and energizing and inspiring than any completely preconcieved
composition based on skill. Only another artist can truly appreciate this,
not a distant observer, and for that reason I would only wish that
everyone could at least participate in it even if only as a hobby, because
it can be a powerful tool for growth if only we could view it as such.
I have witnessed on several occasions where a painting, sculpture, or even
photography class has a number of unskilled (aspiring?) artists, but they
would often produce work so powerful that it could not be denied. I don't
believe in accidents, and while others may attribute this to 'luck' or
'chance', these works were direct reflections of the authors and would
spark their curiosity to the point where they would grasp the technical
aspects much quicker than one who is uninspired or shuns their intuition,
which I believe leads one to discover their true attractions( or talents,
as was explained in another post). If the work those people create moves
others, than that is all good. Everyone won't be moved by it and that is
not the point.
I think that I shall end this right here because I have
been going on long enough, and I get the feeling that I may be talking to
the wrong crowd.;>
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 9 Dec 1996, Harrison Williams wrote:
> I know I may bruise a few egos when I say this, but there does seem to be
> a lot of closed/narrow-mindedness infesting these waters.
Why is it that every time a stern opinion is offered, it is labelled as
'closed-mindedness'...There are such things as absolutes. Some things just
don't have grey areas...Don't be so wishy washy...accept the facts and
move on. And as to egos being harmed, I hardly think it is a matter of ego
to regard things as important whether they be art-related or anything
else.
> I can speculate all that I want on the 'ingredients' of a good artist and
> good art, but it is something that is always shifting,never stationary,
> and subject to personal taste.
Not really. The feel-goody-two-shoes have tried to make everyone think
that way so that no one will get their feelings hurt. If you can't tell
good art from bad, and make a judgement as to the validity of either, then
maybe the postmodern brainwashing has done too much damage to save you.
> Everyone knows a good visual technichian when we see one. That kind of
> work has been done, and it will continue to be. I have been through that,
> but don't get me wrong, it is a useful skill to have.
You have been through that?
What does that mean? You seem apologetic here...are you saying that you
have surpassed the need for technical skill or what?
> I would never
> put down an artist for being skilled,
Well...maybe I missed something somewhere...but when did being good become
bad? Why would anyone put someone down for being skilled?
> but I would question
> any artist or 'aspiring' artist who have already set in their minds what
> an artist is supposed to be and do and have no desire to learn more
> outside of what they already know and take chances to acquire new results
> and make personal discoveries.
Have you ever considered the possibility that both of these conditions may
exist at the same time? I know what an artist is and what an artist
should do and I also continually try new things and learn from new
sources. What's the big deal? Trying new things and learning from new
sources is one of the things an artist should do!
> I want to explore all of the variables of
> creativity, because it shows me more of myself and my options, and it
> reveals that none of us knows as much as we would like to think that we
> do.
I know exactly as much as I think I know, and sometimes more than that.
However, that doesnt mean I know everything. Being aware of your own
knowledge is also not a bad trait. If you don't know what you know and
prove it, how will you ever know what you need to know - and how will you
learn that what you thought you knew was wrong?
> That means that there is that much more out there for us to learn!
Well, yeah...This isn't miraculous. This is the way things always are.
> All
> that I do know is where I have been, where I stand presently, and where I
> want to go.
According to you, knowing where you want to go is wrong.
You should constantly remain in a state of empty-headedness in case a new
way of doing things comes along for you to quickly forget.
> Not where anyone else may stand, but where I stand.
It isn't so difficult to discover where someone else stands.
Ask them and if they are in the mood, they will tell you. Odds are they
will be the same the next day. People dont walk around having cosmic
revelations every day which change everything by the time they wake the
next morning.
> To that
> end, I believe that an artist is one who lets nothing get in the way of
> their desire to move in that direction and to grow creatively, and that
> sometimes requires throwing away all that you have learned and starting
> anew.
This doesn't make sense, nor does it apply to reality.
You continue to defy even yourself here in stating what an artist is or
should do and you further retract your own words in saying now that you
dont even know 'where you have been'...or at least that you will end up
that way the next time some new fangled trend comes along for you to
follow.
It isn't realistic to expect someone to drop their entire previous
experience in favor of something new. Instead, we assimilate new knowledge
and apply that to what we already knew.
As far as desire is concerned, most of us have the desire to go, but drive
is more important than whimsy. Letting nothing stand in the way of desire
is easy, letting nothing stop you from attaining the goal is the hard
part.
> So, what if I were to change my perspective and view the process of
> 'making art' without skill in the equation, what would I learn from that?
That art-making without skill is impossible, most likely.
Anyone who makes art successfully has a degree of skill, whether formally
acquired or otherwise...Trial and error is as much or more an education
than Oil Painting 101.
> I have learned that there are too many ingredients to attempt to count,I
> have learned thus far that intuition can be far more revealing than just
> skill, that emphasizing the process more than the result can be more
> liberating and energizing and inspiring than any completely preconcieved
> composition based on skill.
Intuition cannot be revealed in a work without skillful execution.
How can you tell if a work is intuitive if it's just gibberish? In that
case, any intuitive traits were pasted into the work by you and not
created by the artist.
Emphasizing process still takes consideration of the end result.
It is far more difficult to create a successful composition without a plan
than with, so even more knowledge and skill must be utilized in that
endeavor. Plus, why separate the two methods? That isnt really a valid way
to determine quality anyway.
> Only another artist can truly appreciate this,
> not a distant observer, and for that reason I would only wish that
> everyone could at least participate in it even if only as a hobby, because
> it can be a powerful tool for growth if only we could view it as such.
Thats a load of hooey. Anyone can appreciate anything regardless of
vocation. I might look at a work like that and think it to be stupid (odds
are I would if it was just some fruitcake dancing about with a wild brush,
pretending to be exploring the media and the process) Other artists can
see right through that crap, if they are worth their collective salt. Art
rarely ever strikes a viewer with its theory on its shoulder. The image
always comes first, and that is what the general non-art society responds
to.
> I have witnessed on several occasions where a painting, sculpture, or even
> photography class has a number of unskilled (aspiring?) artists, but they
> would often produce work so powerful that it could not be denied.
Then either they had skill and you didnt know it, or you are
similarly moved to tears by wallpaper.
> I don't
> believe in accidents,
? ? ? ? ? Who not? Half the power in the very ideal you promote above
comes from accidental discovery.
> and while others may attribute this to 'luck' or
> 'chance', these works were direct reflections of the authors and would
> spark their curiosity to the point where they would grasp the technical
> aspects much quicker than one who is uninspired or shuns their intuition,
I dont understand how you are surprised that any of this occurred...
The people were taking classes in the subject...this implies (if the
instruction was at least decent) that they had indeed gained some sort of
technical know-how to be able to complete the assignment...And now that
they have done so, and done so well, this is supposed to be profound?
I wish I went to school when just showing up was good for an A.
> which I believe leads one to discover their true attractions( or
> talents,
> as was explained in another post).
Obviously. Say for example that a person had never had any experience in
photography, but was able to take a course at some point...if this person
had the knack for it, that person would do very well and as a result
discover the he or she was good at photography...This is the way it
usually happens.
> If the work those people create moves
> others, than that is all good. Everyone won't be moved by it and that is
> not the point.
Of course it isnt the point.
The point is, is it art or not. Art doesnt have to necessarily inspire
the world to be art. But it does have to meet certain criteria.
> I think that I shall end this right here because I have
> been going on long enough, and I get the feeling that I may be talking to
> the wrong crowd.;>
I don't think so :P
You made some good statements mixed in with the ones that I found a little
hazy or flatly wrong...(I can say that because I am closed/narrow minded.)
I am not really the most objective source for opinions, but the again, I
never said i was, nor would I really like myself if i was a swinging
mental door. I believe in absolutes - Always or never over maybe.
There are certain things that can rightfully be called art, and then there
is the crap.
Hutto
wsparker
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> Why is it that every time a stern opinion is offered, it is labelled as
> 'closed-mindedness'...There are such things as absolutes.
Then again "maybe" not... . Stern opinions come from authoritarians!
Yeeechh!!
> If you can't tell
> good art from bad, and make a judgement as to the validity of either, then
> maybe the postmodern brainwashing has done too much damage to save you.
Oh, jeez. Is it him or is it me?? It's him right?
Sounds like you've been brainwashed against the prevailing intellectual
revolution of our time.
> I know what an artist is and what an artist
> should do and I also continually try new things and learn from new
> sources. What's the big deal? Trying new things and learning from new
> sources is one of the things an artist should do!
"I _KNOW_ what an artist _SHOULD_ do..." hey, I'm gonna listen to you!
Sure, but keep in mind the new things, new sources are only NEW TO YOU!
Sure, artists should be open minded and courageous enough to consider
new (to them ) ideas! It is all recycled! new to you new to you! new to
you!
>
> I know exactly as much as I think I know, and sometimes more than that.
No you don't! Not at all, for the simple reason that merely declaring
something to exist _rarely_ makes it exist!
> However, that doesnt mean I know everything. Being aware of your own
> knowledge is also not a bad trait.
So the tremendous mental energies, spent by other minds much finer than
our own over many years and in many fields whose summary is available in
any decent essays on the postmodern are what you call "brainwashing?"
You should be more aware of the limits of your own knowledge. Maybe you
"think you know exactly."
> If you don't know what you know and
> prove it, how will you ever know what you need to know - and how will you
> learn that what you thought you knew was wrong?
So, you concede to yourself (nevermind us) that postmodern thinking
might not be brainwashing? Or maybe you overstated a little bit that it
is brainwashing.
> It isn't so difficult to discover where someone else stands.
> Ask them and if they are in the mood, they will tell you. Odds are they
> will be the same the next day. People dont walk around having cosmic
> revelations every day which change everything by the time they wake the
> next morning.
How about *ordinary* revelations once a year? What have yours been this
past year? Are you in the mood?
> Of course it isnt the point.
> The point is, is it art or not. Art doesnt have to necessarily inspire
> the world to be art. But it does have to meet certain criteria.
Oh jeez: those wouldn't be *modernist* criteria, would they? Please
recite them so we don't leave any of them out.
> I am not really the most objective source for opinions, but the again, I
> never said i was, nor would I really like myself if i was a swinging
> mental door.
We'd love you anyway.
> I believe in absolutes - Always or never over maybe.
> There are certain things that can rightfully be called art, and then there
> is the crap.
I get your humor, "maybe" as an absolute. So "maybe" your statement
about crap is an absolute maybe? You've said nothing new in an old way.
You haven't quoted in a new way.
You haven't given yourself any space!
Brother Alphabet
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, * wrote:
> for example, I saw some early Cezannes and Van Goghs, which were *awful*.
> Especially Cezanne's stuff, which looked like bad teen satanic art. The
> stuff was initially talent-less, but later works are invested with this
> aura of talent. What do you think of that?
Here is where we can draw the line between 'talent-less' and 'skill-less'.
In the case of Van Gogh, he drew some horrible things...and he also said
as much about them. He KNEW they were bad...they were excersizes...He
placed restrictions upon himself, not allowing himself to paint until he
felt he was worthy...He would sketch all day long, using even the tiniest
of charcoal chunks - day in and day out...he studied master prints and
tried to replicate them, over and over...
This is not a habit of a talentless person...The drawings of his early
development were his self-education and building of skills...his early
drawings came from a time when he was serving as a missionary preacher
in a coal mining village...later in paris he went to 'classes' and later
still was a 'pupil' of gaugin...He went through most of his career
thinking of himself as a student-level painter, while at the same time he
stuck to his core beliefs regarding the way art should be done...as well
as his own definitions of beauty and etc etc...
I dont know much about Cezanne's roots..but I imagine his development was
similar to that.
The prodigy in art is not as astutely or outwardly talented as one who is
musical or otherwise intellectually advanced. While a child who is given
the proper environment might exhibit advances artistic talent, an adult
applying the same talent for the first time as an adult wil have
significant manual adjustments to make. Van Gogh didnt create until his
mid 20s or so, or am I mistaken?
Just imagine what he would have produced if he had been encouraged from
age 6 or 12...
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, wsparker wrote:
> Then again "maybe" not... . Stern opinions come from authoritarians!
> Yeeechh!!
What's wrong with being authoritative?
> Oh, jeez. Is it him or is it me?? It's him right?
Definitely.
> Sounds like you've been brainwashed against the prevailing intellectual
> revolution of our time.
And why is it the prevailing way of thinking?
Because it's easy. Why not embrace it? Being postmodern allows people the
freedom of not having to make any actual artwork to be artists. You can
pretend to have a concept and there you have an art career.
> Sure, but keep in mind the new things, new sources are only NEW TO YOU!
Nothing is new in the general sense...Individual perception of experience
is more important than whether or not it has already been done in terms of
creative ideas being generated in a person's mind. (This does not apply to
the blatant duplication of previously established events or methods.)
> Sure, artists should be open minded and courageous enough to consider
> new (to them ) ideas! It is all recycled! new to you new to you! new to
> you!
Making ink drawings is a centuries old artistic practice.
My ink drawings are 'new'...
The same applies to subject matter.
> No you don't! Not at all, for the simple reason that merely declaring
> something to exist _rarely_ makes it exist!
Not in so many words...I can't conjure something from thin air, but
looking at something before you and then denying that it exists is a bit
dim, don't you think? It can't be proven that anything is real...Some
things just require no proof. The burden of proof conversely lies on those
who wish to dispute the existence of said item/condition.
> So the tremendous mental energies, spent by other minds much finer than
> our own over many years and in many fields whose summary is available in
> any decent essays on the postmodern are what you call "brainwashing?"
Tremednous mental energies spent do not guarantee us positive or
productive output. Just because a bunch of people get together and think
and write doesnt mean we are required to buy what they sell.
Fascism had the same attention paid to it. Should we also be fascists?
Many 'great political minds' as well as painters and authors of various
calibers contributed to the mindset and its outline...Was it good?
> You should be more aware of the limits of your own knowledge. Maybe you
> "think you know exactly."
I am aware of my 'limits'...I don't really think I have any limits as in
barriers...If I don't know something I'll learn about it...I'm not one of
those people who think that it isnt worth knowing if I dont know it
already...Of course, that also doesnt mean Im going to be enrolling in any
linear algebra classes anytime soon.
> So, you concede to yourself (nevermind us) that postmodern thinking
> might not be brainwashing? Or maybe you overstated a little bit that it
> is brainwashing.
Of course I overstated that it was brainwashing.
But it's still bull.
> How about *ordinary* revelations once a year? What have yours been this
> past year? Are you in the mood?
I'm always in the mood.
But, I'm not in the mood to discuss them on a newsgroup.
If you're really interested and not just failing to corner me in an
argument (:)) send me some email and I'll 'share'.
> Oh jeez: those wouldn't be *modernist* criteria, would they? Please
> recite them so we don't leave any of them out.
Argh.
I should really type these up for easy mail-out. I have stated these many
times. Any artist worth 2 bits knows the makings of a good work of art.
They do not apply to any set school of thought. They are universal,
absolute and the point of any and all of my statements against so called
artforms.
> We'd love you anyway.
Thank you, thank you, buy my book.
> I get your humor, "maybe" as an absolute.
Er, no...read more carefully.
I said 'Always or never -over- maybe'
Which meant that more often than not there is no grey area.
> So "maybe" your statement
> about crap is an absolute maybe? You've said nothing new in an old way.
> You haven't quoted in a new way.
No, there is definite crap to be found worldwide.
Hutto
G*rd*n
| ...
w...@olympus.net:
| Please try to consider the fact that modernism is dead!
| ...
"'Dead' is dead." There's a lot of Modernism around.
It's lost its revolutionary edge, but that doesn't
make it dead. It may make a lot of it decor, which
is perhaps a worse fate from certain points of view.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ gcf @ panix.com }"{
wsparker
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 1996, wsparker wrote:
>
> > Then again "maybe" not... . Stern opinions come from authoritarians!
>
> What's wrong with being authoritative?
Nothing wrong with knowing the subject well. But I think authoritarian
is very bad in my book.
> > Sounds like you've been brainwashed against the prevailing intellectual
> > revolution of our time.
>
> And why is it the prevailing way of thinking?
> Because it's easy. Why not embrace it?
It wasn't easy for me to read the first "doomsaying" essays on it in
1989! Also, I don't think it is easy to embrace, you kinda live with it
day by day.
>Being postmodern allows people the
> freedom of not having to make any actual artwork to be artists. You can
> pretend to have a concept and there you have an art career.
Keep in mind there are always some jerks out there who will try to make
a career out of anything (Jeff Koons). But, they are outnumbered.
Also I feel it is a good thing to have the whole field "rototilled." I
am slightly happy that my old university art professors have been blown
out of the water!
Please try to consider the fact that modernism is dead!
Your terms "actual art work" and "artist" might be a little
questionable.
>
> Nothing is new in the general sense...Individual perception of experience
> is more important than whether or not it has already been done in terms of
> creative ideas being generated in a person's mind. (This does not apply to
> the blatant duplication of previously established events or methods.)
In virtually every damn case "it has already been done." I wrote
elsewhere that I think priests, monks, shamanism are better models for
making art today. Art should have a more private following today.
Pomo-ists will argue you are doing nothing today as an artist but
quoting, restating, pastiching things that have already occurred in the
past. The concept of "original art work" has been shown to be impossible
now.
>
> > Sure, artists should be open minded and courageous enough to consider
> > new (to them ) ideas! It is all recycled! new to you new to you! new to
> > you!
>
> Making ink drawings is a centuries old artistic practice.
> My ink drawings are 'new'...
> The same applies to subject matter.
Yes they are new, new to you. You did different subject matter and it is
new ink drawing, you change the technique a little and the subject
matter is newly informed by it. But they are new to you. They are not
nearly now nor will they _ever_ be of culture-wide significance.
Modernism claimed art was to be ever new for the pravailing (white,
western-educated, masculine) culture. (whaddya want from an ethos which
came out from two horrible wars?!)
>
> > So the tremendous mental energies, spent by other minds much finer than
> > our own over many years and in many fields whose summary is available in
> > any decent essays on the postmodern are what you call "brainwashing?"
>
> Tremednous mental energies spent do not guarantee us positive or
> productive output. Just because a bunch of people get together and think
> and write doesnt mean we are required to buy what they sell.
You are using a metaphor from Capitalism, the ideology which preaches
production, consumption, waste, profit, plunder of natural resources.
Are you comfortable with that? I don't bet you are.
******************It is not for sale. Why kick and scream? Modernism is
dead. You can still make art and do it very nicely and be a decent
person in the process. But you have to realise what it is you are doing
ultimately.****************
>
> Fascism had the same attention paid to it. Should we also be fascists?
> Many 'great political minds' as well as painters and authors of various
> calibers contributed to the mindset and its outline...Was it good?
The major difference between Facism and this PoMo is that Pomo has
nothing to do with sending people off to their deaths. Nuff said. Yet, I
cannot think of a more useful parallel. Just say "prevailing
intellectual revolutions" are kind hard to ignore!
> I am aware of my 'limits'...I don't really think I have any limits as in
> barriers...If I don't know something I'll learn about it...I'm not one of
> those people who think that it isnt worth knowing if I dont know it
> already..
Well, I suggest you spend a little time looking into the postmodern. It
doesn't matter really.
> But it's still bull [postmodernism].
It is the prevailing intellectual revolution of our time. It is
acknowledging the fact that modernism is way past the point of no return
and it is attempting to define that process and by doing so has made
significant inroads to understanding contemporary culture and culture in
general.
>
> > Oh jeez: those wouldn't be *modernist* criteria, would they? Please
> > recite them so we don't leave any of them out.
>
> Argh.
> I should really type these up for easy mail-out. I have stated these many
> times. Any artist worth 2 bits knows the makings of a good work of art.
You know that is a good idea, the FAQ. I've been thinking about it too.
> They do not apply to any set school of thought. They are universal,
> absolute and the point of any and all of my statements against so called
> artforms.
...sounds interesting to me. I shall be happy to be your editor; though
you should think that proposal through very carefully.
> No, there is definite crap to be found worldwide.
>
Yer right, Gertrude Stein said 95 percent of everything is crap! 95% of
the time I say cite her on this.
wsparker
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> | ...
>
> w...@olympus.net:
> | Please try to consider the fact that modernism is dead!
>
> "'Dead' is dead." There's a lot of Modernism around.
> It's lost its revolutionary edge, but that doesn't
> make it dead. It may make a lot of it decor, which
> is perhaps a worse fate from certain points of view.
>
You said, modernism has "lost its revolutionary edge."
To the thinking of most people that would make it dead. It generates no
new growth: therefore it is dead. It was a movement based upon newness,
innovation and objects of art embodied the everincreasing insight and
vision of its celebrated (or soon-to-be-discovered-and-celebrated)
isolated genius practitioners.
However, one may continually pay homage to the deceased by creating
images in it's name.
I don't know, really though; I do believe we should try live in our age!
G*rd*n
| > | ...
| >
w...@olympus.net:
| > | Please try to consider the fact that modernism is dead!
G*rd*n wrote:
| > "'Dead' is dead." There's a lot of Modernism around.
| > It's lost its revolutionary edge, but that doesn't
| > make it dead. It may make a lot of it decor, which
| > is perhaps a worse fate from certain points of view.
| You said, modernism has "lost its revolutionary edge."
|
| To the thinking of most people that would make it dead. It generates no
| new growth: therefore it is dead. It was a movement based upon newness,
| innovation and objects of art embodied the everincreasing insight and
| vision of its celebrated (or soon-to-be-discovered-and-celebrated)
| isolated genius practitioners.
|
| However, one may continually pay homage to the deceased by creating
| images in it's name.
I don't see why the loss of revolutionary edge -- which is
the fate of any "movement" -- means that a style is dead.
Is Art Deco dead? Not in Florida. Modernism has been put
to work in more humble situations, but it's still being
put to work.
Except, of course, for the that Vietnam War Memorial, which
one could also accuse of being an example of Modernism.
wsparker
G*rd*n wrote:
>
>
> I don't see why the loss of revolutionary edge -- which is
> the fate of any "movement" -- means that a style is dead.
> Is Art Deco dead? Not in Florida. Modernism has been put
> to work in more humble situations, but it's still being
> put to work.
I getcher point. I guess it means "as a movement" i.e. something people
would belong to and participate in as a "going concern" it's a gonner.
Like, I don't know, Castro's revolution is dead, perhaps. I mean there
are still people who believe in it, though their motives aren't easy to
know these days, it still exists but "we all know" it's days are over.
It is easier to know when an organism is dead I guess.
G*rd*n
G*rd*n wrote:
| > I don't see why the loss of revolutionary edge -- which is
| > the fate of any "movement" -- means that a style is dead.
| > Is Art Deco dead? Not in Florida. Modernism has been put
| > to work in more humble situations, but it's still being
| > put to work.
| I getcher point. I guess it means "as a movement" i.e. something people
| would belong to and participate in as a "going concern" it's a gonner.
|
| Like, I don't know, Castro's revolution is dead, perhaps. I mean there
| are still people who believe in it, though their motives aren't easy to
| know these days, it still exists but "we all know" it's days are over.
|
| It is easier to know when an organism is dead I guess.
I think what we could call "movementism" or "ismism" might
be dead, or at least pretty attenuated. The idea of
"movements" seemed to be something like wars or coups
d'etat, where the movement utterly destroyed everything else
in the field. Now, you have many different genres or styles
coexisting in at least some of the arts -- music, pictorial
arts, small-scale design, fashion.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
wsparker
G*rd*n wrote:
>
> I think what we could call "movementism" or "ismism" might
> be dead, or at least pretty attenuated. The idea of
> "movements" seemed to be something like wars or coups
> d'etat, where the movement utterly destroyed everything else
> in the field. Now, you have many different genres or styles
> coexisting in at least some of the arts -- music, pictorial
> arts, small-scale design, fashion.
I really enjoy the plurality of it all, It comes with that uncertainty,
complexity and people trying to work their ways thru it. I'm happy with
the idea that art is more like religion. That would end the debate.
"Whose the best artist?" becomes, "Who's the best parishioner?" Who's
conception and/or practice of Buddhism" is the best? etc.
We are reduced to becoming good editors! You have to choose what makes
most sense to you at this moment and keep yourself open to new
possibilities as they present themselves until you get to an epiphany I
guess, if you're lucky.. Like Thomas Merton? What a model for living,
huh?
What do you think happens to you when, or when do you think you reach a
level of certainty that you can live with (and perhaps also let others
live with)?
I'm glad it's so highly questionable and yet many of the options seem
viable (i.e. reasonable) at the same time.
You can thank Jack Daniels for me, please.