Classical painting technique website
Alexei Antonov
painting technique to take a look.
The site features, in addition to my paintings, some teaching materials,
including free classical technique lessons online, information about my
Classical Painting Tachnique Video Workshop and more.
I'd be grateful for your commmnets.
Alexei Antonov
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Learn to draw and paint like the masters and everyone will respect
>your work. Only then will you be free to paint anything you wish and
>still gain the interest of the viewer without having to resort to
>bullshit.
>
>Mani DeLi
>...no skill no art
I find it interesting that you have to *learn* the *classical technique*
and how to draw. All learning does indeed earn some respect because it
implies a state of seriousness in regard to an interest (Mani would do
well to learn some grammar and spelling if he wants to be respected in
his writing). But the idea of having to learn to draw also raises some
very interesting questions. Is it a natural action if it has to be
learned ? Is it natural to be adopt a technique that is accepted as
*classical* - which implies that it is the right one) ? And most
importantly - WHY do we need to learn classical techniques - how does
that help us to earn freedom ?
Its imperative to consider these questions in relation to the idea of
*freedom*. Mani says we have to *earn* freedom by a rigid education of
techniques that in no way can be considered *natural*. Will this or
should this, earn us the freedom to paint anything we wish ?
Alison.
-- Indeed by the sole fact that I am conscious of the causes which
inspire my action, these causes are already transcendent objects for my
consciousness; they are outside. In vain shall I seek to catch hold of
them; I escape them by my very existence. I am condemned to exist
forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act. I am
condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom can be
found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to
cease being free. -- Satre *Being and Nothingness* 1943
Sharon Barcone
therefore printed out your on line art lesson. Questions will follow. and
Thank You...
Mani: I "Understand" and agree with your opinions.
Alison: Stuff a sock in it.
Sharon
Only when you can paint an apple as it really is, are you free to paint it
as it is not.
Chris
It's interesting that you should consider freedom somehow "natural". The
notion of freedom - at least the one that extends beyond a small ruling
sect - is very much an unnatural (and hence learned) concept, which has
taken society several millennia to evolve - and I doubt the process is
anywhere near finished.
The amusing part is that even you don't really believe in some
Rousseauian ideal of art - after all, who is the first critic in this
group to trot out the phrases like "violates the rules of composition"
or "subjects that don't meet modern standards" or "non-contemporary",
etc?
There is a big difference between your rule book and Mani's, though.
Mani's (as much as it bothers me at times) is very much like common law;
it's based on a commonly accepted canon that's been built up over time
side by side with Western culture, and through practical experience. It
provides a common ground for not just for self-expression, but for the
communication and exploration of visual ideas.
Your rule book, OTOH, seems more drawn from a misreading of Orwell's
1984. (It really wasn't supposed to be a training manual for statists).
Perhaps the strongest theme in it is the need to belong to the group, to
think along group lines, and to obtain certificates of position in a
hierarchy.
But as for the crucial question - are we free to paint anything we wish?
As far as I know, at least here in Canada there are laws proscribing
works of art are pretty lax, though they do exist (For example, the
issue of child pornography is currently being debated, and what does,
and does not constitute hate propaganda is always a touch issue).
Otherwise, society here is pretty accepting of other viewpoints and
methods of expression. Perhaps it's different in Britain.
OTOH, some artists feel that an important aspect of freedom should be
the right to subsidization - either through direct grants or
appointments, or through tax concessions - if one is not able to support
one's art independently. But that in turn requires a state bureaucracy
to implement, it requires (quite undefined) rules of acceptance and
rejection, and it requires the power of the government to raise funds
through taxation; none of which are particularly conducive to liberty in
the arts or in society in general. Now I suspect that this "freedom" is
a substantial part of what you are arguing for (and correct me if I'm
wrong). But personally I think it is irrelevant.
Chris
Alison A Raimes wrote:
>
>
> I find it interesting that you have to *learn* the *classical technique*
> and how to draw. All learning does indeed earn some respect because it
> implies a state of seriousness in regard to an interest (Mani would do
> well to learn some grammar and spelling if he wants to be respected in
> his writing). But the idea of having to learn to draw also raises some
> very interesting questions. Is it a natural action if it has to be
> learned ? Is it natural to be adopt a technique that is accepted as
> *classical* - which implies that it is the right one) ? And most
> importantly - WHY do we need to learn classical techniques - how does
> that help us to earn freedom ?
>
> Its imperative to consider these questions in relation to the idea of
> *freedom*. Mani says we have to *earn* freedom by a rigid education of
> techniques that in no way can be considered *natural*. Will this or
> should this, earn us the freedom to paint anything we wish ?
>
> Alison.
>
> -- Indeed by the sole fact that I am conscious of the causes which
> inspire my action, these causes are already transcendent objects for my
> consciousness; they are outside. In vain shall I seek to catch hold of
> them; I escape them by my very existence. I am condemned to exist
> forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act. I am
> condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom can be
> found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to
> cease being free. -- Satre *Being and Nothingness* 1943
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/Artists/ChrisB
StudioTour: http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/brobeck
Tomi Holmberg
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
> In article <38b5abc4...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
> writes
>
> >Learn to draw and paint like the masters and everyone will respect
> >your work. Only then will you be free to paint anything you wish and
> >still gain the interest of the viewer without having to resort to
> >bullshit.
> >
> >Mani DeLi
> >...no skill no art
>
technique*
> and how to draw. All learning does indeed earn some respect because it
> implies a state of seriousness in regard to an interest (Mani would do
> well to learn some grammar and spelling if he wants to be respected in
> his writing). But the idea of having to learn to draw also raises
some
> very interesting questions. Is it a natural action if it has to be
> learned ? Is it natural to be adopt a technique that is accepted as
> *classical* - which implies that it is the right one) ?
it's not about one special technique that deli talks about. whether
it's AbstractExpressionism or classical oriented stuff - you have to do
a lot work to learn to draw or paint anyway (which begins with handling
objects in your hand in your childhood). all ways are equal natural,
but the more you spend time on artschools the more artificial/affected
you'll be. ofcourse, it's a personal thing to judge that, not any truth.
> And most
> importantly - WHY do we need to learn classical techniques - how does
> that help us to earn freedom ?
>
> Its imperative to consider these questions in relation to the idea of
> *freedom*. Mani says we have to *earn* freedom by a rigid education of
> techniques that in no way can be considered *natural*. Will this or
> should this, earn us the freedom to paint anything we wish ?
we doesn't have to learn "anything". you imply that we have to earn
freedom to be called as artists, our work to be even considered, etc.
by a education of techniques (artschool) that in *no* way can be
considered *natural* - but cultural.
it doesn't mean that backstreetboys, abbateens, boyzone, spicegirls -
whoever they are who fill the topten's - are good musicians at all.
the fact still remains and has been proven by history that those who
can't even know the basics of decent drawing/painting have to resort to
bullshit. people have earlier thought, and still do, that the women
isn't capable of doing art. ofcourse the statement isn't decend and
thus it have to resort to bullshit. in order to keep art pure, you
don't have to consider all the 6th rate illustrators who paint/draw
like your cat (but know the deal with bullshit or relationships)
as "good" fine art-artists. nowadays, usually that means respect for
those who work against criminals in artfield.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Alison A Raimes
<bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> writes
>Alison -
>
>It's interesting that you should consider freedom somehow "natural". The
>notion of freedom - at least the one that extends beyond a small ruling
>sect - is very much an unnatural (and hence learned) concept, which has
>taken society several millennia to evolve - and I doubt the process is
>anywhere near finished.
Can you see the irony of your response, Christine ? May I suggest a re-
reading of the passage by Sartre included at the end of my post ?
>
>The amusing part is that even you don't really believe in some
>Rousseauian ideal of art - after all, who is the first critic in this
>group to trot out the phrases like "violates the rules of composition"
>or "subjects that don't meet modern standards" or "non-contemporary",
>etc?
I hope you are prepared to back up this with evidence or I will be
forced to call you a liar. At no time, and nowhere have I ever written
any of those statements. So amusing as you may find it, you are talking
through your anus again. Incidentally, who DID make those statements ?
>
>There is a big difference between your rule book and Mani's, though.
>Mani's (as much as it bothers me at times) is very much like common law;
>it's based on a commonly accepted canon that's been built up over time
>side by side with Western culture, and through practical experience. It
>provides a common ground for not just for self-expression, but for the
>communication and exploration of visual ideas.
Mani and I have both formed our ideas about art from coming into contact
daily with would-be artists. On many things we agree. I would imagine he
also finds your work third rate, just as I do. On matters of freedom he
and I do not agree.
>Your rule book, OTOH, seems more drawn from a misreading of Orwell's
>1984. (It really wasn't supposed to be a training manual for statists).
>Perhaps the strongest theme in it is the need to belong to the group, to
>think along group lines, and to obtain certificates of position in a
>hierarchy.
Really. You may be confused about *rule* books and the confidence to
openly express opinions. This Free world is full of people frightened to
say what they really think. I will leave the analysing of how I have
formed my opinions to you then. You seem to be so proficient at it. Did
you get a certificate yet ?
>
>But as for the crucial question - are we free to paint anything we wish?
>As far as I know, at least here in Canada there are laws proscribing
>works of art are pretty lax, though they do exist (For example, the
>issue of child pornography is currently being debated, and what does,
>and does not constitute hate propaganda is always a touch issue).
>Otherwise, society here is pretty accepting of other viewpoints and
>methods of expression. Perhaps it's different in Britain.
>
Please. You miss the point of the Sartrian questions entirely. You are
bringing me close to tears.
>OTOH, some artists feel that an important aspect of freedom should be
>the right to subsidization - either through direct grants or
>appointments, or through tax concessions - if one is not able to support
>one's art independently. But that in turn requires a state bureaucracy
>to implement, it requires (quite undefined) rules of acceptance and
>rejection, and it requires the power of the government to raise funds
>through taxation; none of which are particularly conducive to liberty in
>the arts or in society in general. Now I suspect that this "freedom" is
>a substantial part of what you are arguing for (and correct me if I'm
>wrong). But personally I think it is irrelevant.
>
Isn't it bizarre that your post ends up discussing tax benefits and
rules ? I think you need to think about the term *freedom* without
constantly referring to society. You might even enjoy the experience. So
no, you are completely wrong - it is not what I am *arguing* for. In the
first place I posed questions for consideration regarding our notion of
*freedom* which you succeeded in agreeing with Mani on, namely that they
are predefined as part of our modern day human condition. No *argument*
as such but investigation. Secondly, no discussion of mine, ever, in
regard to the notion of *freedom* would ever be included in a discussion
on government strategies. So yes, you are correct, your reply is totally
irrelevant to the questions I raised.
Now, as requested, I have to go stick a sock somewhere ... either in
*Sharon's* mouth or up Mani's ass. Probably end up in the same place
anyway.
--
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
http://raimes.homestead.com/index.html
Alison A Raimes
<tomi...@hotmail.com> writes
>it's not about one special technique that deli talks about.
Absolutely it IS about one special technique that Mani talks about.
Classical, academic technique.
>whether
>it's AbstractExpressionism or classical oriented stuff - you have to do
>a lot work to learn to draw or paint anyway (which begins with handling
>objects in your hand in your childhood). all ways are equal natural,
>but the more you spend time on artschools the more artificial/affected
>you'll be. ofcourse, it's a personal thing to judge that, not any truth.
>
Why do you have to learn to draw ? Please, I am serious here. Why ? How,
if your subject matter is abstract, do you need to learn to draw an
apple ? I challenge anyone to answer that. Now if your argument is that
you need to learn composition, form, and colour for instance, I might be
inclined to agree. But realistic representation ? Why ? As to spending
time at art school - anyone who has attended a degree course, certainly
in Britain, knows that they do not *teach*. They provide an environment
in which to develop your research.
>it doesn't mean that backstreetboys, abbateens, boyzone, spicegirls -
>whoever they are who fill the topten's - are good musicians at all.
I agree.
>
>the fact still remains and has been proven by history that those who
>can't even know the basics of decent drawing/painting have to resort to
>bullshit. people have earlier thought, and still do, that the women
>isn't capable of doing art. ofcourse the statement isn't decend and
>thus it have to resort to bullshit. in order to keep art pure, you
>don't have to consider all the 6th rate illustrators who paint/draw
>like your cat (but know the deal with bullshit or relationships)
>as "good" fine art-artists. nowadays, usually that means respect for
>those who work against criminals in artfield.
>
Sorry, you lost me on all of that. I apologise, but I presume there is a
language problem.
How are the doodles coming along ?
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
http://raimes.homestead.com (work in progress site)
Brian Shapiro
existing can be considered absolutely natural and the idea that such a
substance can be considered absolutely free. As you might expect, these two
conceptions easily fall apart under introspection. It is, after all, a
natural state of existence to learn from the state of circumstances in one
moment as we move to the next. The process of experiencing the world and
thus, learning from it, is automatic and necessary for our very existence,
and thus learning is part of a natural state. However, as soon as we are
exposed to the experiences in the world we are in essence, also trapped by
them, and thus become less like our originary form and less 'free' in that
regard. Immediately, one should recognize that 'freedom', with respects to
substantive reality, is relative to the context under discussion. In respect
to Sartre, he is discussing his state of existence in phenomenal reality,
and thus is dealing with forms, qualia, or ideals when he is talking about
his consciousness and what he percieves. In this case, his degree of
'freedom' of consciousness is completely unattatched from substantive
reality, neither limited nor enabled, in the essential sense, by the
circumstances of it in any way. However, the degree his freedom would be
'realized' in material substance, as you wish in art, would depend upon how
much control his consciousness would have over the substantive reality, and
how he could fully express his phenomenal forms in this substantive reality.
Of course, these forms are ungraspable materially and infinite in
conception, so it would be impossible to fully express them to the highest
degree. However, through techniques of refinement, i.e. learning, one could
close the 'gaps' as much as possible and thus have a higher degree of
control, and thus freedom, over the formal aspects of an art. The degree of
'freedom', in this case, should be judged by how much control the artist has
in translating what is in his mind onto his media.
--Brian Shapiro
> I find it interesting that you have to *learn* the *classical technique*
> and how to draw. All learning does indeed earn some respect because it
> implies a state of seriousness in regard to an interest (Mani would do
> well to learn some grammar and spelling if he wants to be respected in
> his writing). But the idea of having to learn to draw also raises some
> very interesting questions. Is it a natural action if it has to be
> learned ? Is it natural to be adopt a technique that is accepted as
> *classical* - which implies that it is the right one) ? And most
> importantly - WHY do we need to learn classical techniques - how does
> that help us to earn freedom ?
>
> Its imperative to consider these questions in relation to the idea of
> *freedom*. Mani says we have to *earn* freedom by a rigid education of
> techniques that in no way can be considered *natural*. Will this or
> should this, earn us the freedom to paint anything we wish ?
mdeli
wrote:
Everyone here should take a look at these paintings and compare this
work to that of the artzy fartzies here.
Antonov uses classical technique and it shows well even in small
computer scale. It is excellent in all respects.
Although I find the subject matter less modern then I would prefer,
it is always nice to see modern realism that looks like more than a
mere photo.
His portrait is especially fine in color, pose and composition
There are still lots of fine artists out there who teach. You just
will rarely find them in most art schools.
Learn to draw and paint like the masters and everyone will respect
your work. Only then will you be free to paint anything you wish and
still gain the interest of the viewer without having to resort to
bullshit.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Brian Shapiro
when you can't even paint a simple apple? The point is that a master artist
should be able to do anything with the medium that he desires.
--Brian Shapiro
"Alison A Raimes" <floa...@address.in.sig> wrote in message
news:G$FIrRAJ$Zt4...@raimes.demon.co.uk...
Alison A Raimes
Brian Shapiro <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes
>How can you expect to paint something infinitely complex such as Beauty,
>when you can't even paint a simple apple? The point is that a master artist
>should be able to do anything with the medium that he desires.
>
>--Brian Shapiro
What evidence do you have that an artist who can render a realistic
impression of an apple is anymore capable of rendering complex thoughts
through art ? Consider that the teaching of how to render this apple
consists of a rigid and formal technique imposed on the student as
requisite in the making of art. The decision is made for him. Under
those conditions the student is *taught* how to look. They have an
apple, plucked from the other bruised, imperfect and infected apples on
a tree, by the human hand, and placed in an artificial and unnatural
display. In addition to this there is usually artificial light
incorporated in order to enhance the aesthetic experience. This then
becomes their subject matter. What could be more unnatural ?
The idea of art has then be pre-supposed for the student thus denying
freedom of expression by imposing pre-conceptions and demands of a
social structure within the art establishment. In addition, the apple
here serves as a metaphor for Sartre's *acting in bad faith*. He cites
religion as *bad faith* because it teaches human beings that the actions
of previous humans, namely Adam and Eve, are responsible for human
frailty. In the same way, the apple and rendering it in its artificial
conditions are taught as a license to artistic freedom. Under these
conditions, it could well be seen as *acting in bad faith* - in other
words, denying freedom.
Alison A Raimes
Brian Shapiro <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes
>Your entire post presumes two things, the idea that anything materially
>existing can be considered absolutely natural and the idea that such a
>substance can be considered absolutely free. As you might expect, these two
>conceptions easily fall apart under introspection.
Of course they do, Brian, just as your assumptions regarding the
entirety of my post *presuming* two things, would fall apart under
introspection. Conceptions collapse when evidence is non-existent. There
is no evidence that I have made presumptions. What I have done is invite
a debate on what we understand as *freedom* and to direct that debate
towards what is a *natural* human act and its association with what the
idea of freedom by inviting a consideration of Sartre's ideas (as
intrinsically part of modern day thinking). In this instance Mani's
declaration of earning artistic freedom through the learning of
classical techniques has prompted me to do so.
If, however, you were to make assumptions about my motives for such a
debate, then you might well assume that by asking the questions that I
have, I may be opposing the idea of the teaching of classical techniques
in drawing as an essential component of art education. You would have to
make your own assumptions on that because I, unlike yourself, am
undecided and have never made a statement for or against that notion.
There may be a valid need for such learning, but until I am convinced I
will continue to question the relevance of it within today's art
education.
>It is, after all, a
>natural state of existence to learn from the state of circumstances in one
>moment as we move to the next. The process of experiencing the world and
>thus, learning from it, is automatic and necessary for our very existence,
>and thus learning is part of a natural state.
This is a very important starting point to consider. Learning, as you
have described, as an integral part of survival and human development
seems to be a natural human condition. Consider then the social
condition of being *taught*. The state of circumstance becomes a forced,
and artificial condition in which the mind of the learning body has
ideals, actions and behaviour forced upon him by the framework of the
social structure into which he is introduced. Thus *learning* no longer
remains a *natural state* but an imposition of a framework of convention
within the constraints of social existence that is *taught*. This social
structure is itself in constant flux as it's own framework develops.
>However, as soon as we are
>exposed to the experiences in the world we are in essence, also trapped by
>them, and thus become less like our originary form and less 'free' in that
>regard. Immediately, one should recognize that 'freedom', with respects to
>substantive reality, is relative to the context under discussion. In respect
>to Sartre, he is discussing his state of existence in phenomenal reality,
>and thus is dealing with forms, qualia, or ideals when he is talking about
>his consciousness and what he percieves. In this case, his degree of
>'freedom' of consciousness is completely unattatched from substantive
>reality, neither limited nor enabled, in the essential sense, by the
>circumstances of it in any way.
Sartre argues that existence precedes essence and that man must create
the latter and so define who he is. If one is *trapped* by them, then it
is seen as a fault of the individual - known as acting in *bad faith* by
denying individual freedom. In this context, if one becomes a prisoner
within the constricts of a rigid form of technique in art, for instance,
one could be seen as acting in bad faith by denying individual
development of thought (freedom).
Sartre cites the dualism between subject and object as the subjective
consciousness and the objective human being. Freedom is seen as a
subjective experience. In _Being and Nothingness_ the *being* becomes
the *thing-in-itself* and *nothingness* refers to *freedom*. Freedom
becomes the ability to define and assign meaning through thought
process, where individuals become responsible for their actions and
thoughts. It has nothing to do with material existence (the being). The
*being* becomes only a tool to negotiate projects of freedom... in this
case the work of art.
In addition to this, Sartre's development of the phenomenological
description of the world for consciousness; relations with others; and
human freedom, lead him to consider human existence within social
reality as one of the driving forces in his investigations. Throughout
his works he consistently defines two states of consciousness. The first
as unreflective and the second as reflective. The first is recognised as
the thought process that we can only be aware of by making it an object
of consciousness through the reflective. The first is what he refers to
as *freedom* and the second as our acknowledgement of it. If we deny
this by imposing *learned* thoughts onto the subject how can it then be
seen as a free action ?
The two decades between him writing _Critique of Dialectical Reason_ and
_Being and Nothingness_ witnesses a consistent move from the concerns of
abstract freedom of man and the relationship to the concrete freedom of
man within the constraints of social determination. The dialectical
tension between the individual and society is consistently referred to.
Thus the world is defined for us through the age and teaching we are
exposed to and not through a form of *natural* learning. Through art, we
attempt a synthesis between our own perceptions and those of others
around us. Often mistakenly seen as a form of communication. We attempt
to satisfy the dualism between us (the experiencer) and the world (the
experienced) by projecting our views and perceptions out to others in an
attempt to solve the instability between individual and world.
>However, the degree his freedom would be
>'realized' in material substance, as you wish in art, would depend upon how
>much control his consciousness would have over the substantive reality, and
>how he could fully express his phenomenal forms in this substantive reality.
>Of course, these forms are ungraspable materially and infinite in
>conception, so it would be impossible to fully express them to the highest
>degree. However, through techniques of refinement, i.e. learning, one could
>close the 'gaps' as much as possible and thus have a higher degree of
>control, and thus freedom, over the formal aspects of an art. The degree of
>'freedom', in this case, should be judged by how much control the artist has
>in translating what is in his mind onto his media.
>
>--Brian Shapiro
If we impose those views by demands such as the *earning* of artistic
freedom through classical techniques, are we not denying ourselves
freedom (if we understand that freedom is part and parcel of the
unreflective unconsciousness) ? The assumption is that techniques of
refinement (classical) are requisite to our making of art and our
ability as an artist. That the *formal* aspects of art must be learned
in order for the artist to translate his own thoughts to his medium must
surely become obsolete where the artist does not believe in the
realistic rendering of a man made and *unnatural* condition - that of
making art.
Henry
Art is what it is, and not the many things that made it so.-Me
--Henry
Wishing you warm offshore winds, clean waves and ono grinds afterward.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>You don't have to. You are a prime example. However when you attempt
>to draw or paint its obvious that you are incapable of either.
You also lump Picasso into this category, Mani, and yet the museum in
Barcelona is bulging with amazing *classical* drawings done by him from
a very early age. You refuse him the license to artistic freedom even
though the evidence is right in front of you. Just when does your regime
allow this so called *freedom* ?
Alison A Raimes
<squea...@aol.com> writes
>
>
>Art is what it is, and not the many things that made it so.-Me
>
>
>
>
>--Henry
In message <38.29959c...@aol.com>, Squea...@aol.com writes
>Alison,
>
> I will start by saying that I am a lurker in this group. I have read
>things here for a little while. I will admit that I am no fan of you or your
>opinions or critiques in general. Sometimes I find your assaults and
>"critiques" distasteful. However, I agree with you on your opinion of
>classical training. Beyond all the double-talk (by all parties concerned)
>your point is well made and history has proven it so.
>
> Art is judged only by the final product. Technique, training, materials,
>etc. etc. are all secondary to the final piece regardless of genre.
>
> Art is what it is, not the many things that made it so.
>
> This is a basic, undeniable truth. You know this, and I know this.
>
> Why even argue it with these people?
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Henry
Henry: if you can't express an opinion in public then don't bother at
all. Certainly not unsolicited in my mailbox. How dare you, a complete
stranger, presume the authority to express your views and beliefs in the
sanctuary of my private mailbox and then tell me not to do so with mine
in a public domain. What the hell do you come here for ?
Now go get out a dictionary and check out the word PHILOSOPHY and then
try considering that there is NO argument here, only investigations
..... and don't ever try and tell me what and how I should do anything,
particularly in a discussion on Freedom.
Alison.
Alison A Raimes
I take that as the highest compliment. It's is the focal point of my
work. Translated you have just said that the material objects, in this
case my paintings (or the being) will derive Freedom (the nothingness).
I couldn't have put it better myself.
>Especially of the economic variety.
>
I imagine that an American would have to resort to capitalist
considerations in the discussion of freedom - it signifies their total
inadequacy to understand even the basic concept of the word. Americans
have come to epitomise slavery.
Kay
Hate them!
(Although to be fair, I guess you could consider Canada as part of the
Americas, but they consider themselves "Canadians" are seem to be very proud
of the fact!)
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
news:qgqEyaAO...@raimes.demon.co.uk...
: In article <38b8026f...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli <hug...@interlog.com>
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>Not fair, Alison. We don't claim Mani as one of our own. He is a Canadian.
>Hate them!
>(Although to be fair, I guess you could consider Canada as part of the
>Americas, but they consider themselves "Canadians" are seem to be very proud
>of the fact!)
>
>Kay
>http://KayKane.homestead.com
Not so, Kay. He is an American living in Canada.
Tomi Holmberg
country still.
In article <gdAt4.53641$Cn1.1...@news5.giganews.com>,
"Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> Not fair, Alison. We don't claim Mani as one of our own. He is a
Canadian.
> Hate them!
> (Although to be fair, I guess you could consider Canada as part of the
> Americas, but they consider themselves "Canadians" are seem to be
very proud
> of the fact!)
>
> Kay
> http://KayKane.homestead.com
>
> "Alison A Raimes" <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
> news:qgqEyaAO...@raimes.demon.co.uk...
> : In article <38b8026f...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli
<hug...@interlog.com>
> : writes
> : >>
> : >The "being" of Allison's work will derive a lot of "nothingness."
> :
> : I take that as the highest compliment. It's is the focal point of my
> : work. Translated you have just said that the material objects, in
this
> : case my paintings (or the being) will derive Freedom (the
nothingness).
> : I couldn't have put it better myself.
> :
> : >Especially of the economic variety.
> : >
> : I imagine that an American would have to resort to capitalist
> : considerations in the discussion of freedom - it signifies their
total
> : inadequacy to understand even the basic concept of the word.
Americans
> : have come to epitomise slavery.
> :
> : --
> : Alison
> :
> : ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> : http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
> : http://raimes.homestead.com/index.html
>
>
mdeli
I wrote:
>>Learn to draw and paint like the masters and everyone will respect
>>your work. Only then will you be free to paint anything you wish and
>>still gain the interest of the viewer without having to resort to
>>bullshit.
>>
>>Mani DeLi
>>...no skill no art
>
>
>I find it interesting that you have to *learn* the *classical technique*
>and how to draw.
You don't have to. You are a prime example. However when you attempt
to draw or paint its obvious that you are incapable of either.
snip
> WHY do we need to learn classical techniques - how does
>that help us to earn freedom ?
Its the same reason one learns the scales in music. Its not the fact
that its old. its the fact that it is rote. This was once learned at
an early age. In the past most everyone who studied drawing could
draw. Look at student drawing from the past. Its like music most
everyone can learn to play, if they are taught, but few go on to be
fine musicians.
Present day so-called artists who attempt to express form whose basic
artistic knowledge is on your low level have to spout, cryptic babble.
lengthily quotes, and refer to esoteric theory to excuse the obvious
look of incompetence of their artwork.
The only way out of this rut of incompetence is to switch to the
antiquated rut of flat Modern Academic Abstraction. Then you can try
to justify your pattern making, which can't really be criticized for
looking flat and error ridden, by a lot of Artspeak about composition,
color, cryptic theory, and hope that someone gets talked into liking
your signature instead of that of another. That's also an art but not
the stuff I'm referring to.
>
>Its imperative to consider these questions in relation to the idea of
>*freedom*. Mani says we have to *earn* freedom by a rigid education of
>techniques that in no way can be considered *natural*.
In your case its not natural and your lack of education shows. Some
people learn rote and advance faster and more easily than others.
They get better ideas and their work looks more original. That is
perhaps what you refer to as natural.
>Will this or
>should this, earn us the freedom to paint anything we wish ?
>
>Alison.
>
>-- Indeed by the sole fact that I am conscious of the causes which
>inspire my action, these causes are already transcendent objects for my
>consciousness; they are outside. In vain shall I seek to catch hold of
>them; I escape them by my very existence. I am condemned to exist
>forever beyond my essence, beyond the causes and motives of my act. I am
>condemned to be free. This means that no limits to my freedom can be
>found except freedom itself or, if you prefer, that we are not free to
>cease being free. -- Satre *Being and Nothingness* 1943
>
The "being" of Allison's work will derive a lot of "nothingness."
Especially of the economic variety.
Anyone who makes less than $60,000 a year and votes Republican is
voting to screw himself.
Gordon Matheson
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
> stranger, presume the authority to express your views and beliefs in the
> sanctuary of my private mailbox and then tell me not to do so with mine
> in a public domain
"sanctuary of my private mailbox" is the most amazing think I have read in
raf. The idea staggers the imagination. My mailbox is disturbed by
strangers many times a day. You must have used a no spam signature from day
1 on the internet. I am impressed.
G.
Alison A Raimes
Gordon Matheson <GO...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>"sanctuary of my private mailbox" is the most amazing think I have read in
>raf. The idea staggers the imagination. My mailbox is disturbed by
>strangers many times a day. You must have used a no spam signature from day
>1 on the internet. I am impressed.
>
>G.
I have actually - its part of Demon's excellent service to avoid
unwanted spam. My own mailbox is full of letters from beautiful people
and that is the way I intend to keep it. If any strangers here has
anything to say to me, do it in public, don't use my mailbox for your
cowardliness. What really disturbs me are people on Usenet like our
friend Henry. Lurkers who haven't the guts to make their views public
but are the first to complain about others. The world is full of lurkers
- non contributors who expect others to play and then condemn the game.
My mailbox is set to reject all the mail from the people on mailing
lists/newsgroups that I don't want to read. I just had a letter from
someone on one of the lists who complained that a control freak had
posted her an angry letter regarding a very intelligent exchange - that
she was clearly winning. I told her to post it to the list and let the
coward be accountable in public - trying to intimidate in this fashion
has no place in public domain. As for spam - zero coming into my
mailbox. There is nothing impressive about this - any semi-intelligent
person can set their machine to do the same. Not one person here can
complain about having to read unwanted spam - they all have the facility
to adjust their settings. The decision is yours.
Erik A. Mattila
Tomi Holmberg wrote:
> as far as i've seen, canadians rocks while yankees are a developing
> country still.
Then how come our universites are full of visiting european cognicenti who
claim that they are trying to get a peek at what europe will be like ten
years from now?
I'm just joking. The US is indeed the land of the crude, the home of the
Dude (as in The Big Labowsky).
Errki Mattila
>
>
> In article <gdAt4.53641$Cn1.1...@news5.giganews.com>,
> "Kay" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> > Not fair, Alison. We don't claim Mani as one of our own. He is a
> Canadian.
> > Hate them!
> > (Although to be fair, I guess you could consider Canada as part of the
> > Americas, but they consider themselves "Canadians" are seem to be
> very proud
> > of the fact!)
> >
> > Kay
> > http://KayKane.homestead.com
> >
> > "Alison A Raimes" <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
Lauri Levanto
>
> In article <9Njt4.2367$7c2....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Brian Shapiro <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> writes
> >How can you expect to paint something infinitely complex such as Beauty,
> >when you can't even paint a simple apple? The point is that a master artist
> >should be able to do anything with the medium that he desires.
> >
> >--Brian Shapiro
>
> What evidence do you have that an artist who can render a realistic
> impression of an apple is anymore capable of rendering complex thoughts
> through art ?
You are a yachtperson. The idea of sailig is in the freedom to
to go where you wish. But you are much better off, if you have gained
control over your instrument, the vessel. As a chef you can make any
kinds of gravies,
but only after yoou have learned not to byrn them in to the pan.
> Consider that the teaching of how to render this apple
> consists of a rigid and formal technique imposed on the student as
> requisite in the making of art. The decision is made for him. Under
> those conditions the student is *taught* how to look.
> (...) What could be more unnatural ?
No evidence at all - but during 50 years I have experienced a lot of
different
art teachers. The best of them have been demanding. Drawing, painting
sculpting an apple
is an unnatural situation, but it shows you are in the control,
making what you wish instead of what happens to come out.
>
> The idea of art has then be pre-supposed for the student thus denying
> freedom of expression by imposing pre-conceptions and demands of a
> social structure within the art establishment.
The few liberal teachers I have enjoyed, have had a very special way
to indoctrinate preconceptions like self-expression, artistic,
symbolism, truth to colours etc. In fact a very narrow point of view
within demands of another art establishment.
" I tell my watercolor students always to use best possible
paper and let the good colours take care of the rest"
Joyce Gary in "Jimson and the whale". (my back translation from Finnish)
In addition, the apple
> here serves as a metaphor for Sartre's *acting in bad faith*. He cites
> religion as *bad faith* because it teaches human beings that the actions
> of previous humans, namely Adam and Eve, are responsible for human
> frailty. In the same way, the apple and rendering it in its artificial
> conditions are taught as a license to artistic freedom. Under these
> conditions, it could well be seen as *acting in bad faith* - in other
> words, denying freedom.
Interesting that you keep citating Sartre. I have not seen his painting,
can you give an URL :-) Really, I appreciate your involvement with
philosophy. I can compare your career to some Airline hostesses,
that can speak 5-10 languages but have hardly anything to say.
You are much better off.
The skill is by necessity
the licence to artistic freedom. Without it you are
on the mercy of happenstance.
Yes, rendering itself is not the skill for me.
Only a tool to mastering my instruments.
> >The point is that a master artist
> >should be able to do anything with the medium that he desires.
> >
> >--Brian Shapiro
Was it Kay or Ariane, who cursed that she had to paint
a cow on a milk jar for her aunt. Horrible task, I admit.
But it was one impetus to me to start work on my garden gnome.
When I can do a good garden gnome, I know that I can do
much more, too.
> Alison A Raimes
> ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
-lauri
journeyman of sculpture
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
Alison A Raimes
Gordon Matheson <GO...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>"sanctuary of my private mailbox" is the most amazing think I have read in
>raf. The idea staggers the imagination. My mailbox is disturbed by
>strangers many times a day. You must have used a no spam signature from day
>1 on the internet. I am impressed.
>
>G.
you know, anyone who posts to groups like alt.sex.incest with their
Email address showing deserves to have their mailbox *disturbed* with
strangers. I am not impressed with you or your posting history.
Marilyn
Yet, another voice Austriasized.
There are so many you could start your own country.
Gordon Matheson wrote:
> Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
> How dare you, a complete
> > stranger, presume the authority to express your views and beliefs in the
> > sanctuary of my private mailbox and then tell me not to do so with mine
> > in a public domain
>
Gordon Matheson
Alison A Raimes <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
> In article <JQJt4.18862$tk7.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> Gordon Matheson <GO...@worldnet.att.net> writes
>
in
> >raf. The idea staggers the imagination. My mailbox is disturbed by
> >strangers many times a day. You must have used a no spam signature from
day
> >1 on the internet. I am impressed.
> >
> >G.
>
> Email address showing deserves to have their mailbox *disturbed* with
> strangers. I am not impressed with you or your posting history.
Thank you for pointing that out. Alt sex incest was the result of some
butthead cross posting to a fishing or golf newsgroup. I don't think I ever
got any mail from that. Not that you care. And not that I care what
impresses you. You are far too busy being impressed with yourself to worry
about me or anyone else except as a vehicle for expressing your obvious
superiority complex. Most of your insults appear to be unwarranted and
generally off the mark or maybe it's just that you are British. I can only
assume you are merely doing it for the sport and really don't care about
anything more than looking intellectually artsy tough in print. I'm not
impressed with your insults, your posting history or your art either but I'm
sure you are impressed enough for several people on all three counts . Go
figure.
G. - who would normally send an answer to such a personal post via private
e-mail but wouldn't want to invade your sanctuary without knocking first.
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Poor Henry,
>
>Yet, another voice Austriasized.
>
>There are so many you could start your own country.
That's almost witty for you Marilyn ......... while Henry and his fellow
lurkers are all off in Ostria sizing up the Germanics, we will be here,
missing their energy and input that makes this group so active and
interesting.
Imagine it alt.lurkers ...... it could be the quietest voyeurist site in
Usenet.
Alison A Raimes
<lauri....@nokia.com> writes
>You are a yachtperson. The idea of sailig is in the freedom to
>to go where you wish. But you are much better off, if you have gained
>control over your instrument, the vessel. As a chef you can make any
>kinds of gravies,
>but only after yoou have learned not to byrn them in to the pan.
Lauri: you confuse the idea of learning the tools of your trade with
being taught a specific technique. The two are vastly different notions.
I covered all that in my response to Brian. You then go on, for some
reason, to compare an Air Hostess to my *career* - I guess you have your
reasons. During that *comparison* you illustrate how the teaching of
particular skills, (the Air Hostesses example it is languages) and how
you consider they serve no purpose in ability of a person to think
(bearing in mind that thinking is directly related to freedom in
Sartrian terms as being discussed here). Its a good example, even if you
didn't mean it as such. In addition to this you talk of *control* and
use words like *indoctrinate preconceptions* and *narrow point of view*
as acceptable teaching methods. Yet at no time have you actually been
able to say why or how the teaching of classical techniques, in this
instance rendering a realistic apple, relates to artistic freedom. No
one has yet. I wonder if the supporters of the idea have been so
indoctrinated that they are unable to *think* for themselves and support
a concept that collapses under investigation.
>
>" I tell my watercolor students always to use best possible
>paper and let the good colours take care of the rest"
>Joyce Gary in "Jimson and the whale". (my back translation from Finnish)
Another useless teacher who teaches that *best* is best. Imagine if art
teachers all started to convince their students that they should be able
to make art on anything and anywhere instead of getting them to line the
pockets of the material suppliers. Still you know what they say: those
that can do; those that can't teach.
Tomi Holmberg
things are relative depending of what one keeps important =).
two years ago, i bought tickets, took my last moneys - 600 bucks - and
flew to california, visited some artists and places in san jose, los
angeles, tucson(sierravista)/arizona, missouri, delaware and the big
apple. then after 3 months when my moneys (and some that i get with
selling some paintings) were partied and my visa getting old i had to
leave. well, i saw how the riches lived and the most poor. everywhere,
nature conservation and recycling was even worse than in estonia
nowadays which made me pretty sad. the waste in everything, like in
gasoline was enormous.
sure, the abuse in human rights (like pot and death-sentence) and the
rejection of kioto's air convention talks for themselves.
but one still questions the level of your developing when every citizen
here have selfphones in our pockets while your bosses usually still
keep those beeping machines in their pockets =)
erik, ofcourse the money for *some* universities is stronger there and
the militarian status (with violating the universal laws of freedom
from injury), but i don't take that cookie ;)
ps. the clinton's speak about the increase of the price for oil was
quite ridiculous, did you note that =)?
In article <38B7A80F...@tomatoweb.com>,
> > > "Alison A Raimes" <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in
message
> > > news:qgqEyaAO...@raimes.demon.co.uk...
> > > : In article <38b8026f...@news.psi.ca>, mdeli
> > <hug...@interlog.com>
> > > : writes
> > > : >>
> > > : >The "being" of Allison's work will derive a lot
of "nothingness."
> > > :
> > > : I take that as the highest compliment. It's is the focal point
of my
> > > : work. Translated you have just said that the material objects,
in
> > this
> > > : case my paintings (or the being) will derive Freedom (the
> > nothingness).
> > > : I couldn't have put it better myself.
> > > :
> > > : >Especially of the economic variety.
> > > : >
> > > : I imagine that an American would have to resort to capitalist
> > > : considerations in the discussion of freedom - it signifies their
> > total
> > > : inadequacy to understand even the basic concept of the word.
> > Americans
> > > : have come to epitomise slavery.
> > > :
> > > : --
> > > : Alison
> > > :
> > > : ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> > > : http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
> > > : http://raimes.homestead.com/index.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
>
--
Art Suxors!!
www.sci.fi/~tomppa1
Erik A. Mattila
As a starving artist, Ali, I think you need to always turn misfortune to
advantage. In this case, I'm seeing, with my minds eye, a full screen
picture of you in a cute little Air Hostess outfit on your home page, with
the text "Fly Me to the Tate!"
Erik
>
> >
> >" I tell my watercolor students always to use best possible
> >paper and let the good colours take care of the rest"
> >Joyce Gary in "Jimson and the whale". (my back translation from Finnish)
>
> Another useless teacher who teaches that *best* is best. Imagine if art
> teachers all started to convince their students that they should be able
> to make art on anything and anywhere instead of getting them to line the
> pockets of the material suppliers. Still you know what they say: those
> that can do; those that can't teach.
Kay
"Marilyn" <nos...@islands.com> wrote in message
news:38B7F6DD...@islands.com...
: Poor Henry,
:
: Yet, another voice Austriasized.
:
: There are so many you could start your own country.
What a hypocrite she is! She reports ME to my server (nice try creep!)
because I was engaged in a dialogue about blow jobs and she got offended on
behalf of her over-20 year old daughter reading it and now she objects to
Alison being offended by someone e-mailing her privately.
2 faces of Marilyn.
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>As a starving artist, Ali, I think you need to always turn misfortune to
>advantage. In this case, I'm seeing, with my minds eye, a full screen
>picture of you in a cute little Air Hostess outfit on your home page, with
>the text "Fly Me to the Tate!"
>
>Erik
Cute ! I noticed on my stats that you had been ogling my *legs* page,
Erik ;-) OK, Air Hostess uniform next it is !
BTW, have you heard about the New Tate Bankside opening May in London ?
It'll be the largest Modern Art Museum in Europe. The old Tate Museum
will be exclusively British art from here on, which means Rothko's
legacy to hang in the same museum as Turner is over. However, his legacy
to have the Seagram Mural works on permanent display will now be
fulfilled. Damn, this city and its art is so exciting at the moment.
So what happens now ? If I am to continue being Mani's very own *fat
sow*, I can't claim starvation ...... can I ... she says ticking into
crispy Chinese duck pancakes.
Cheers !
Henry
to do so with mine in a public domain>>
My sincerest apologies. I meant only to express my support for your argument.
I read many of your posts amazed at the amount of anger contained. I expressed
this so you wouldn't think it was empty support, but agreement from someone who
usually thinks you are often off the mark.
I still agree with your opinion regarding "classical training." The value of
art is in the final product. How realistically someone recreates an apple is
more often an expression of technical ability. Personally, I have viewed the
work of many artists who exhibit good technical ability in their work, but it
seems to lack "spark" (for lack of a better word).
My letter to you was not an overture of friendship nor intended to be a
one-sided argument. It was a personal message to you, stating that although I
don't usually agree with you, I thought you were making a good enough point.
Good enough in fact that I thought there was folly in continuing. "Beating a
dead horse." You could have contacted me directly to protest your displeasure,
it seems though you need the attention of a forum to voice your views. That is
your choice and I respect it and understood the consequences of "poking that
snake."
I tried to approach your intellectual side, instead I have now found there are
no sides to you. Just what appears to be a circle of anger.
Why you are so angry in unknown to me and of little concern. It is apparent,
and that is that. Enjoy it, it seems to serve you.
Again, my apologies, you won't hear from me again.
To everyone in this thread: I have read your views and stated my own. What
else is left? Ranting and raving and making personal attacks or sensible
discussion? If anyone would like to discuss this civilly and personally respond
to me directly. I will not be entering into this circus of the absurd again nor
engaging its dictatorial ringmaster.
Sincerely,
Kay
"Erik A. Mattila"
(snip)
: Now I resent that. Alison only thinks she is the ringmaster, but
secretely I am (Alison
: even has confirmed this, calling me a 'control freakkin mysogynist' during
one of her
: more erudite literary seizures.)
You are so the ringmaster, Erik! You are also some of the other things at
times as well, but then - other comparable terms can be applied to the rest
of us (except for the nice ones like Larry) often enough as well.
: Anyway, my vote is that you stick around, at least until you explain "ono
grinds" Does
: the refer to Yoko Ono and Strip Tease?
I think "ono grinds" is a type of new age coffee or Java or whatever the
really cool folks call it now.
and:
I agree, Erik, Henry. Pick a side and come out with your paintbrush in your
dukes. Or take a break from this group for 2 weeks or so and you will
likely forget who you hate or you may hate someone new. In between,
sometimes some very interesting information is posted here. I've learned a
lot.
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
: Regards, Erik Mattila
:
: > --Henry
:
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <38B820AB...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >As a starving artist, Ali, I think you need to always turn misfortune to
> >advantage. In this case, I'm seeing, with my minds eye, a full screen
> >picture of you in a cute little Air Hostess outfit on your home page, with
> >the text "Fly Me to the Tate!"
> >
> >Erik
>
> Cute ! I noticed on my stats that you had been ogling my *legs* page,
> Erik ;-) OK, Air Hostess uniform next it is !
Yup. I was trying to figure out how it was attached. But be assured, it's a
fine leg that wags.
Hmmm. consider an outfit with a darling fuzzy bunny-tail, as in HefnerAir.
You could even display it with some paint on it, as if you had backed up to a
canvas to create a bump and grind Clifford Still appropriation. The rabbit
ears should also have paint, probably dripping, as if you had faced the canvas
and nodded violently several thousand times until you've achieved a reasonal
Pollock action masterpiece. BTW, in the HefnerAir uniform, the rabbit ears
stick out sideways, like airplane wings, and the hostessess wear cute little
beanies with psionic powered propellers. They originally considered 'bats' a
variation of 'bunnies,' but when the Hostesses hung by their heels from the
fuselage ceilings, the silicon didn't change its sag vector, and it looked
unnatural, and customers complained about the candied guano they served with
the canned martinis. They said 'It tastes like chicken, and smells like
fish!"
> BTW, have you heard about the New Tate Bankside opening May in London ?
> It'll be the largest Modern Art Museum in Europe. The old Tate Museum
> will be exclusively British art from here on, which means Rothko's
> legacy to hang in the same museum as Turner is over. However, his legacy
> to have the Seagram Mural works on permanent display will now be
> fulfilled. Damn, this city and its art is so exciting at the moment.
Nope. Where I live "London" means that bridge on the Colorado River that's
about a hundred miles from here. I always wondered why they called it "London
Bridge" and where it came from, and what it had to do with water skiing. I
thought it was debris they picked up after a busy weekend at Stonehenge.
But seriously, this is the first I've heard about the new Tate. Do you know
of links to pictures? Is it an arhitectural masterpiece like Mario Botta's
(relatively) new SFMOMA?
http://www.GreatBuildings.com/cgi-bin/gbi.cgi/SFMOMA.html/cid_sfmoma_001.gbi
>
> So what happens now ? If I am to continue being Mani's very own *fat
> sow*, I can't claim starvation ...... can I ... she says ticking into
> crispy Chinese duck pancakes.
And what duck by-product are those made from?
But I'm distracting you from your other posts ... please continue.
'ello, Erik
Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Do you know any "Ogles" over there in Britain. I
found a geneological database recently on the county in the Smokey Mountains
where my great-grandparents hailed from, and I can trace great grandpappy,
Isaac Ogle, all the way back to the 11th Century - de Ogle. what's the 'de'
? Does that indicate France (Normandy?) It was quite a surprise, beccause my
Mom's familily always thought "Ogle" was Scotch. Anyway, at least in the
1700s they were landed gentry, with some knights in the line and all that
super stuff. Really quite fascinating. Are we related? Will I get a giant
back taxes bill for some old pink elephant Manor house if I pursue this?
Erik A. Mattila
picture of the new gallery.
http://www.manloft.co.uk/Gallery/area.htm
I regarded the building, and decided it was prett cool. But I read the
caption and it said it was the old Bankside Power Sation. I laughed at
myself, but then thought that there must be a urban renewal project going on
at Bankside. Then I read that the Power Station was being retrofitted to the
New Tate.
Hey, layers and layers of 1st class bricoulage going on here. Ultra Cool.
And how post modern. Pop artish, even. What happens when a soup can (power)
plant appears in an (as a) art gallery?
It's really a pretty building, though. It looks like it belongs in a H. G.
Wells novel. So is this the site of a huge urban renewal project? That's how
SF MOMA ended up where it is in San Francisco. The lower Mission was slated
for development, and some of the early projects were Moscone Center followed
by the new MOMA. The old Skid Rows on Mission, Howard and Folsom persist, but
what nice architecture the winos have to contemplate.
Erik
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <38B820AB...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >As a starving artist, Ali, I think you need to always turn misfortune to
> >advantage. In this case, I'm seeing, with my minds eye, a full screen
> >picture of you in a cute little Air Hostess outfit on your home page, with
> >the text "Fly Me to the Tate!"
> >
> >Erik
>
> Cute ! I noticed on my stats that you had been ogling my *legs* page,
> Erik ;-) OK, Air Hostess uniform next it is !
>
> BTW, have you heard about the New Tate Bankside opening May in London ?
> It'll be the largest Modern Art Museum in Europe. The old Tate Museum
> will be exclusively British art from here on, which means Rothko's
> legacy to hang in the same museum as Turner is over. However, his legacy
> to have the Seagram Mural works on permanent display will now be
> fulfilled. Damn, this city and its art is so exciting at the moment.
>
> So what happens now ? If I am to continue being Mani's very own *fat
> sow*, I can't claim starvation ...... can I ... she says ticking into
> crispy Chinese duck pancakes.
>
Erik A. Mattila
Henry wrote:
> <<How dare you, a complete stranger, presume the authority to express your
> views and beliefs in the sanctuary of my private mailbox and then tell me not
> to do so with mine in a public domain>>
>
> My sincerest apologies. I meant only to express my support for your argument.
> I read many of your posts amazed at the amount of anger contained. I expressed
> this so you wouldn't think it was empty support, but agreement from someone who
> usually thinks you are often off the mark.
>
> I still agree with your opinion regarding "classical training." The value of
> art is in the final product. How realistically someone recreates an apple is
> more often an expression of technical ability. Personally, I have viewed the
> work of many artists who exhibit good technical ability in their work, but it
> seems to lack "spark" (for lack of a better word).
>
> My letter to you was not an overture of friendship nor intended to be a
> one-sided argument. It was a personal message to you, stating that although I
> don't usually agree with you, I thought you were making a good enough point.
> Good enough in fact that I thought there was folly in continuing. "Beating a
> dead horse." You could have contacted me directly to protest your displeasure,
> it seems though you need the attention of a forum to voice your views. That is
> your choice and I respect it and understood the consequences of "poking that
> snake."
>
> I tried to approach your intellectual side, instead I have now found there are
> no sides to you. Just what appears to be a circle of anger.
Honestly Henry, and without malice, I don't think you can approach a person's
'intellectual side' if you use disparagement as a preamble. Doesn't that sound true? I
mean, your words to the effect "I never (seldom) agree with anything you say, but here is
an acception..." seem to engender some sort of resistance from the get-go.
> Why you are so angry in unknown to me and of little concern. It is apparent,
> and that is that. Enjoy it, it seems to serve you.
Alison's not angry, she's just agressive. Were she embedded in the boiler room of the
London Stock Exchange, she would be everybody's hero. And she also has a great sense of
humor, and can even laught at herself (sometimes).
> Again, my apologies, you won't hear from me again.
I mean, jeeze, you attacked her, and out of the unknown. My initial reaction when I read
your words was that it was 'off the wall,' implicitly hostile (although dipped in a bit
of honey) and rather pointless (other than establishing yourself as an 'entity' with a
voice.)
If you've lurked here for any length of time you'll know that Alison and I like to spar a
bit, strike low blows, grapple, and what have you. But it's like the man who kept
hitting himself on the head with a hammer because it felt so good when he stopped. It's
rather fun to rock back and have a good laugh about it all, and Alison is very good at
doing that. The harder the punches, the hardier the laugh, too.
But as the old adage goes, if you can't cut the mustard, don't take up so much of the
bread. If you want to wimp out, go for it. It won't take anyone very long to completely
forget that you exist. Otherwise, stick around, put up your dukes, and party on, my
friend.
> To everyone in this thread: I have read your views and stated my own. What
> else is left? Ranting and raving and making personal attacks or sensible
> discussion? If anyone would like to discuss this civilly and personally respond
> to me directly. I will not be entering into this circus of the absurd again nor
> engaging its dictatorial ringmaster.
>
> Sincerely,
Now I resent that. Alison only thinks she is the ringmaster, but secretely I am (Alison
even has confirmed this, calling me a 'control freakkin mysogynist' during one of her
more erudite literary seizures.)
(assuming the personna of what's his name -- Ice Pick, no "Ice Cube") You gotta problem
with absurd, holmes? Ain't dis Art? Or What:? (it's certainly not alt.polite)
Anyway, my vote is that you stick around, at least until you explain "ono grinds" Does
the refer to Yoko Ono and Strip Tease?
Regards, Erik Mattila
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <38B86F34...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >Ha ha. I was just searching under "Tate Bankside" and I thought I found a
> >picture of the new gallery.
> >
> >http://www.manloft.co.uk/Gallery/area.htm
> >
> >I regarded the building, and decided it was prett cool. But I read the
> >caption and it said it was the old Bankside Power Sation. I laughed at
> >myself, but then thought that there must be a urban renewal project going on
> >at Bankside. Then I read that the Power Station was being retrofitted to the
> >New Tate.
>
> That is it. In London there is a rejuvenation programme underway on such
> buildings. Our studios are a Victorian sweet factory and we are seeking
> funding from the European rejuvenation funding body for improvements.
> *Heritage*, Erik, the Brits love it !
Bad for the bloaks who blow up buildings, though. (hey, I think that sentence is
accidentally poetical - i can almost hear the tune.)
> >Hey, layers and layers of 1st class bricoulage going on here. Ultra Cool.
> >And how post modern. Pop artish, even. What happens when a soup can (power)
> >plant appears in an (as a) art gallery?
> >
> >It's really a pretty building, though. It looks like it belongs in a H. G.
> >Wells novel. So is this the site of a huge urban renewal project? That's how
> >SF MOMA ended up where it is in San Francisco. The lower Mission was slated
> >for development, and some of the early projects were Moscone Center followed
> >by the new MOMA. The old Skid Rows on Mission, Howard and Folsom persist, but
> >what nice architecture the winos have to contemplate.
>
> Glad you found the site for me ! Its pretty neat - we are all very
> excited especially after that blancmange they call the Dome. Someone
> ought to flatten that one ! Have you seen it ? You will find a site
> under Millennium Dome.
An upsidedown paper plate impaled with shish-ka-bob skewers what rats have munced
its edges. I wonder what Thos.Malthus (the laws of suprlus land value) would of
though of it?
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <38B86B19...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >Yup. I was trying to figure out how it was attached. But be assured, it's a
> >fine leg that wags.
>
> Yeah but how did he do that ???? And the eyes that role on one of the
> other guys ??? How ???????
It's really pretty simple. Animated GIFs. There are quite a few freeware and
shareware GIF Animation programs available on the net, and they're pretty easy to
operate. My hunch is that you can do all the preliminary work with Corel and save
your graphics in a GIF format, and the shareware program will read the frames and
assemble them into a nifty little animation file. GIF 89 format is preferred,
since it supports alpha channels (transparencies).
> <snipped the bunny stuff after laughing a lot>
> >
> >Nope. Where I live "London" means that bridge on the Colorado River that's
> >about a hundred miles from here. I always wondered why they called it "London
> >Bridge" and where it came from, and what it had to do with water skiing. I
> >thought it was debris they picked up after a busy weekend at Stonehenge.
>
> So what's the story ? I forgot that was where the bridge was. WHY did
> America buy London Bridge ? Did you know there is a reproduction of
> Stonehenge somewhere in the States ? Now THAT is pathetic. How the hell
> can you reproduce Stonehenge ? Stonehenge is a phenomena.
I really missed the story, I have no idea why London Bridge was shipped over here
and erected in the desert - I'll see what I can find. Of course it's a tourist
attraction, but it's so inane that it's 'campy' or 'high kitsch' or something like
that. I mean the brigde was purchased in the 60s for US2.5 million, taken apart
stone by stone, and reassembled in the desert near the shores of Lake Havasu,
which is a reservoir on the Colorado River. But since it didn't span any water,
the developers had to dig a channel to bring water under the bridge. Oh, yes, at
one end there is an authentic "English Village" which one would certainly expect
to find in the Mojave Desert. I guess it's incipient LasVegansm. We also have a
Great Pyramid misnamed "Luxor" because the latin root "Lux" is attractive to
gamblers. The story would make a wonderful Greenaway movie.
http://www.lakehavasu.com/cgi-bin/comtel?web-directory.mv+919827302
>
>
> >Oh, yeah, I almost forgot. Do you know any "Ogles" over there in Britain. I
> >found a geneological database recently on the county in the Smokey Mountains
> >where my great-grandparents hailed from, and I can trace great grandpappy,
> >Isaac Ogle, all the way back to the 11th Century - de Ogle. what's the 'de'
> >? Does that indicate France (Normandy?) It was quite a surprise, beccause my
> >Mom's familily always thought "Ogle" was Scotch. Anyway, at least in the
> >1700s they were landed gentry, with some knights in the line and all that
> >super stuff. Really quite fascinating. Are we related? Will I get a giant
> >back taxes bill for some old pink elephant Manor house if I pursue this?
>
> I do know some Ogles ! Seriously. Go see if there is a names newsgroup
> with Ogle and post some inquires you might get some info. The family
> Raimes has very similar roots. It originated as de Raymes and in the
> North of England, on Hadrian's Wall, there is a tiny church with
> Normandy de Raymes ancestors buried. They moved south into Yorkshire
> mainly, and I even traced a Raimes who works in John Haber's offices in
> NYC, who originated from a town in Yorkshire. Since then I looked him up
> in our family tree which someone put together about 20 years ago and
> found his branch. Its a very small family - maybe only around 100. My
> poor eldest brother has desperately been trying for a second son and
> only ended up with four more daughters in the process !
>
> Ogle, I believe, has a similar story. I think you will find that
> Scotland was home to a lot of Normandy *invaders* who also settled in
> the North of England. Er, do you really *want* to be related to me,
> Erik ?
Well, the plot thickens. Great Grandpappy Ogle married Mary Rains. I read that
old man de Raynes was eating oatmeal when asked to name his 14th son, and he
uttered "Raymes." But seriously, Mary Rains was probably a full blood Indian, and
Isaac Ogle's line included Indians also. The original English Rains were from
Virginia, buddies of George Washington, and one Captain went with Daniel Boone to
Kentucky on a survey expedition, and suddenly the Rains family name cropped up all
over Kentucky and the Smokey Mountains. Some may have been progeny, while other's
were just because Indians needed to take on a non-indian name for a variety of
reasons. It makess geneaology very difficult.
The Ogle who landed on these shores was John Ogle, son of John Ogle of Eglingham
(1621-86). Going back a few hundred years, the line was in Choppington, Sir
Knight Robert Ogle (1351 - 1409). Sir Robert Ogle 1329 -1362 was Lord of half the
barony of Hepple. Humphrey de Ogle 1085 - 1155 "Deed of William the Conqueror to
Humphrey de Ogle, of all liberties and royalties in his manor of Ogle." Finally,
at least in this database, is de Ogle, 1055 - 1125. Some of this data came from a
research called "'Pedigrees of Some of the Emperor Charlemagne's Descendants',
Langston & Buck, 1986. So this makes me wonder about the Normandy origin of this
family. But I don't know how this works out. I mean, Charlemange was a German
expatriot living in France when he was given the charter to bring the Germanic
tribes to christianity, and defend Europe from the naughty Vikings (Danes). So if
'de Ogle' is originally German, could it be a Saxon name rather than a Norman
name? I don't really know if Charlemange is counted as a Frenchman or a German,
for that matter. And it may be the hanky-panky in Charlemange's court, and
subsequent HRE courts, were quite ethnically diverse, right? But it is really
interesting and has nothing to do with ART of course. Anyway, I am interested in
your ideas on this.
Erik, HRE
Kay
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote :
Alison wrote:
So what's the story ? I forgot that was where the bridge was. WHY did
: > America buy London Bridge ? Did you know there is a reproduction of
: > Stonehenge somewhere in the States ? Now THAT is pathetic. How the hell
: > can you reproduce Stonehenge ? Stonehenge is a phenomena.
:
: I really missed the story, I have no idea why London Bridge was shipped
over here
: and erected in the desert - I'll see what I can find. Of course it's a
tourist
: attraction, but it's so inane that it's 'campy' or 'high kitsch' or
something like
: that. I mean the brigde was purchased in the 60s for US2.5 million, taken
apart
: stone by stone, and reassembled in the desert near the shores of Lake
Havasu,
: which is a reservoir on the Colorado River. But since it didn't span any
water,
: the developers had to dig a channel to bring water under the bridge. Oh,
yes, at
: one end there is an authentic "English Village" which one would certainly
expect
: to find in the Mojave Desert. I guess it's incipient LasVegansm
London Bridge is located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. I guess the reason
they got it is because they outbid others for it. It happens to be about
150 miles from me though I think it is in the Sonoran Desert. Lake Havasu
City is right across the river from a smaller version of Las Vegas and I
can't remember the name now but it does decent tourism/gambling business.
It is also closer to Phoenix/Tucson than Las Vegas so you get a lot of the
senior citizen $10/trip package (those grannies love to gamble!). It is
slowly replacing Ft. Lauderdale, Florida as the Spring Break center of
drinking & sunning & sinning. Those who can't afford to go to Cancun,
Mexico for Spring Break go to Lak Havasu City, AZ. Sheesh, Erik, don't you
watch MTV? I was watching once and they were coving the drunken orgies in
Havasu and I saw a group of athletes holding up a drunken
steel-bellied-airhead blonde with a bit less than nothing on and realized
with horror that it was my daughter! Back to Lake Havasu City - it
frequently is the hottest spot in the US tempature - always over 110 in the
summer and more likely to go over 117-125 degrees during the hottest times.
: Erik, HRE
What does HRE mean?
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
: >
: >
: > Alison A Raimes
:
Gordon Matheson
Havasu area. The guy who developed the area was the buyer, but at the time
there was nothing there but desert. There was a great story in Life
magazine with lots of pictures showing the new old bridge spanning nothing
but an empty stretch of desert. Everyone thought the guy was nuts, but then
no one had an idea what was going to transpire in Las Vegas (where a bridge
probably wouldn't even be noticed today.) Eventually it came out the guy
was going to build a big community there and he brought it for the
publicity. He sure got that in spades. Is it a very successful area now?
Maybe he wasn't so crazy.
I could use a bridge over the pond in my driveway. Is the Brooklyn Bridge
still for sale? Who owns it this week?
G.
Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message > >
Gordon Matheson
Kay <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote in message news:QiWt4.45028I was engaged
in a dialogue about blow jobs and she got offended on
> behalf of her over-20 year old daughter reading it and now she objects to
> Alison being offended by someone e-mailing her privately.
A 20 year old needs to be protected from reading about blow jobs on Usenet?
I take back what I said about "sanctuary of a private mailbox" staggering
my mind. [Apologies to Alison.]
Her mother (Marilyn ) has no idea how many movies, cable shows and now
network TV shows bring up that subject with mouth watering gusto? Her
daughter was only two years old when Phoebe Cates (Fast Times at Ridgemont
High) made blow jobs a respectable subject for teen films. Keep the poor
child locked up for goodness sake and don't let her listen to any 17 year
old girls having a casual conversation. Definitely don't let her go out when
any guy over 11 years old. I hope she hasn't seen a Cosmopolitan lately.
Throw out those radios. You don't want to know what TLC is singing about!
My God! Sex is everywhere. Even in art museums.
G. Thinks they all should be reported although,after 18 years, I still get
excited seeing someone bite into a carrot . The horror!
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Bad for the bloaks who blow up buildings, though. (hey, I think that sentence
>is
>accidentally poetical - i can almost hear the tune.)
Yeah, trust you to bring blow jobs into a conversation on demolition.
>An upsidedown paper plate impaled with shish-ka-bob skewers what rats have
>munced
>its edges. I wonder what Thos.Malthus (the laws of suprlus land value) would of
>though of it?
I found you lots of other sites to take a walk around London - but they
are on my studio computer. If you search on Yahoo there are some sites
next to the Bankside address that are pretty neat. On the tour of
London, look out for Gabriel's Wharf where Oliver and I are in a co-op
gallery. Its a bit of a yuppy area - lots of TV stars who I never
recognise when they come in - but at least they have money. Anyway, that
tour should take you along the South Bank where the arts action is.
Festival Hall, National Theatre and the Hayward are all next door
neighbours. Then if you go East it takes you as far as the Tower of
London (my second residence;-) which is half a mile from Cable Street. I
tried to see if there was as site for Cable Street because there was a
*battle* there in the late 19th century - we have a photo of the studios
when they were a factory in the middle of the battle. I'll try and get
hold of a copy for the website.
What a great city - I can't help but continually get a buzz out of it.
Got to dash - driving an exhibition to Bath today. Now that is a town
steeped in history.
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>'de Ogle' is originally German, could it be a Saxon name rather than a Norman
>name? I don't really know if Charlemange is counted as a Frenchman or a German,
>for that matter. And it may be the hanky-panky in Charlemange's court, and
>subsequent HRE courts, were quite ethnically diverse, right? But it is really
>interesting and has nothing to do with ART of course. Anyway, I am interested
>in
>your ideas on this.
>
>Erik, HRE
He Rocks on Ecstasy ? you need to get back to the weed, man, that's what
I think ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<lauri....@nokia.com> writes
>And how does this refer to a specific technique? I can render an apple
>in five different techniques.
Lauri: with all due respect I think you lost the plot of this thread. It
originated as a challenge on Mani's license to artistic freedom through
classical training. If I were to make a defence then I would cite almost
the entire history of Modern Art where classical training has been
abandoned. In regards to Sartre, it was my intention to lead the inquiry
into what we understand by the word *freedom* and how it relates to the
notion of artistic freedom. It is part of a 3,000 word paper that has to
be presented in support of my MA application. Sorry you don't like it,
but that is part of my future - my experiences regarding sailing and
cooking are my past and I don't live there anymore.
Regards,
Erik A. Mattila
Kay wrote:
> "Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote :
> Alison wrote:
> So what's the story ? I forgot that was where the bridge was. WHY did
> : > America buy London Bridge ? Did you know there is a reproduction of
> : > Stonehenge somewhere in the States ? Now THAT is pathetic. How the hell
> : > can you reproduce Stonehenge ? Stonehenge is a phenomena.
> :
> : I really missed the story, I have no idea why London Bridge was shipped
> over here
> : and erected in the desert - I'll see what I can find. Of course it's a
> tourist
> : attraction, but it's so inane that it's 'campy' or 'high kitsch' or
> something like
> : that. I mean the brigde was purchased in the 60s for US2.5 million, taken
> apart
> : stone by stone, and reassembled in the desert near the shores of Lake
> Havasu,
> : which is a reservoir on the Colorado River. But since it didn't span any
> water,
> : the developers had to dig a channel to bring water under the bridge. Oh,
> yes, at
> : one end there is an authentic "English Village" which one would certainly
> expect
> : to find in the Mojave Desert. I guess it's incipient LasVegansm
>
> London Bridge is located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. I guess the reason
> they got it is because they outbid others for it. It happens to be about
> 150 miles from me though I think it is in the Sonoran Desert. Lake Havasu
> City is right across the river from a smaller version of Las Vegas and I
> can't remember the name now but it does decent tourism/gambling business.
> It is also closer to Phoenix/Tucson than Las Vegas so you get a lot of the
> senior citizen $10/trip package (those grannies love to gamble!). It is
> slowly replacing Ft. Lauderdale, Florida as the Spring Break center of
> drinking & sunning & sinning. Those who can't afford to go to Cancun,
> Mexico for Spring Break go to Lak Havasu City, AZ. Sheesh, Erik, don't you
> watch MTV? I was watching once and they were coving the drunken orgies in
> Havasu and I saw a group of athletes holding up a drunken
> steel-bellied-airhead blonde with a bit less than nothing on and realized
> with horror that it was my daughter! Back to Lake Havasu City - it
> frequently is the hottest spot in the US tempature - always over 110 in the
> summer and more likely to go over 117-125 degrees during the hottest times.
You're kidding! Your daughter? That's like winning the lotto - as far as the
odds go.
That's a good question if its the Sonoran or Mojave (or something else on your
side of the river.) On this side of the river the division between the Sonoran
and Mojave is a matter of altitude. When you get past Palm Springs and start
climbing up the hill, it the 'high desert' and thus Mojave. It might be
different in AZ - but how wierd, it's only a river.
>
>
> : Erik, HRE
>
> What does HRE mean?
Well, grandpappy Chalemange was the first Holy Roman Emporer. Charlemange HRE
Erik
>
> Kay
> http://KayKane.homestead.com
>
> : >
> : >
> : > Alison A Raimes
> :
Erik A. Mattila
> In article <38B99219...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >'de Ogle' is originally German, could it be a Saxon name rather than a Norman
> >name? I don't really know if Charlemange is counted as a Frenchman or a German,
> >for that matter. And it may be the hanky-panky in Charlemange's court, and
> >subsequent HRE courts, were quite ethnically diverse, right? But it is really
> >interesting and has nothing to do with ART of course. Anyway, I am interested
> >in
> >your ideas on this.
> >
> >Erik, HRE
>
> He Rocks on Ecstasy ? you need to get back to the weed, man, that's what
> I think ;-)
Heheehe. I'm too old for Ecstacy, and too out of touch for weed. I dare not go
shopping in this neighborhood - the Mexican Mafia makes the worst of the Columbian
Cartels look like amatuers. Today the Police Chief of Tijuana was assasinated. So
I have to settle for Johnny Walker.
But you haven't heard the 'alf of it. I got engrossed in geneaology today, and dug
up a pretty good theory on the origin of the Ogle name. 'Oghgul' was the tribal
(clan) name for the original Saxon foederati that Vortigern brought to Britain to
use against the Pict and Scot raiders in 445. Hengest and Horsa and Co. Apparently
after their double crosses and intrigue and tenure in Kent, they (the clan) settled
in Northumberland, where there is still a village Ogle and an Ogle Castle (Manor).
There's a big gap between then and when Humphreys de Ogle appears in the record in
c. 1050. Additionally, about six generations after Humphreys de Ogle, Edward II
Longshanks' line intersects the Ogle line when Sir Robert Ogle of Choppington
marries Matilda Grey around 1430.
The fellow with the 'Oghgul' theory said if it could be proved, that Ogle line would
be Britain's oldest documented family. But what I can't figure is how history has
it that such blue-bloods could end up being hillbillys in Tennessee. They sort of
devolved back to the state of the Germanic hoards.
Cheers,
Erik Plantagenet Shortshanks
Marilyn
Mr. Matheson,
Correction:
1."Dialogue" consisted of a mean-spirited post using the word blow-job
20 times with
advice for me to it to teach my daughter.
2. I do not have a 20 year old daughter, check for yourselves
<www.artadventures.bc.ca>
3. I do not have a daughter who reads newsgroups
4. I did not report to server, but followed Usenet guidelines to protest
privately.
You prove my point .
Sex is discussed everywhere, all the time by anyone, but
FINE ART is not.
Kay
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
(snip)
Kay replied:
: > London Bridge is located in Lake Havasu City, Arizona. I guess the
No. It was a trip down memory lane and LOTS of people's sons & daughters
were on ;-) My first glance made me think "typical college slut" then when
my senses pointed out it was my daughter I thought "those potential rapists
are throwing my BABY in the air!" She was wearing one of those
thong-in-the-butt swimsuits. I didn't know. What a change of attitude, eh?
:
: That's a good question if its the Sonoran or Mojave (or something else on
your
: side of the river.) On this side of the river the division between the
Sonoran
: and Mojave is a matter of altitude. When you get past Palm Springs and
start
: climbing up the hill, it the 'high desert' and thus Mojave.
I live in the Sonoran, Erik and I am at 3,800 ft. Maybe it's determined by
what part of Mexico you live by. When I go to Mexico it is Nogales or Aqua
Prieto , Sonora, Mexico.
and:
It might be
: different in AZ - but how wierd, it's only a river.
You know in AZ we don't want to share the Colorado River with California,
don't you? We need it for all our new housing developments and golf
courses. We're just waiting for California to fall into the ocean ;-0
:
: > : Erik, HRE
: >
: > What does HRE mean?
:
: Well, grandpappy Chalemange was the first Holy Roman Emporer. Charlemange
HRE
:
: Erik
Holy Tamale!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know Charlemagne couldn't read or write, don't you?
: > Kay
: > http://KayKane.homestead.com
: >
: > : >
: > : >
: > : > Alison A Raimes
: > :
:
Kay
"Marilyn" <nos...@islands.com> wrote in message news:38BA5489...@islands.com...
Gordon Matheson wrote:
Correction:
1."Dialogue" consisted of a mean-spirited post using the word blow-job 20 times with
advice for me to it to teach my daughter.
And????????????
2. I do not have a 20 year old daughter, check for yourselves
<www.artadventures.bc.ca>
OK. 40?
3. I do not have a daughter who reads newsgroups
You raggedy old bitch! You certainly do. That was your cheif objection to our light-hearted discussion of blowjobs on alt.brallen! I guess you DO have a daughter that you taught to lie.
4. I did not report to server, but followed Usenet guidelines to protest privately.
Original discussion was the INVASION of privacy by uninvited e-mail. Report me again but DON'T write me privately and tell me about it!
You prove my point .
If you have a point, it will be a first.
Sex is discussed everywhere, all the time by anyone, but
FINE ART is not.
No, FINE ART is not discussed everywhere, all the time by anyone. And your point is????????
Never mind. I'm blocking you lest I suffer from terminal boredom.
Alison A Raimes
ur frum Norfumbaland. Whey ya bugga man. Actually you might find a real
Larn yerself Geordie site on the web - of you are to become a laird you
must learn the lingo.
Anyway: Cool ! when you research something you do it in style ! All four
of us were born in Kent and then we went kicking and screaming to
Northumberland to escape my father's London gambling debts in 1971. My
mother still lives in Hexham and she is on the case as I write (she
loves this sort of stuff) .............. and a few minutes later here is
her report: Ogle is a village next to where my youngest brother, Toby
lives, at Stannington. Its about 20 miles west of Hexham where Mum
lives. The village is between Stannington and Belsay (west of
Stannington and about 10 miles south of Morpeth). There is a castle at
Belsay, which is about a mile away from Ogle but not one at Ogle. In the
phone directory there are 24 entries with the name Ogle and all live
around Morpeth. More to follow !
And talking of culture - you'll like this one - one of those beautiful
people in my mailbox sent me it:
>And here's a little something about
>American 'culture' to keep you going for a while! This, out of
>a newspaper, a page size ad yelling:
>
>DO YOU WANT YOUR TEETH TO SHINE?
>DO YOU WANT YOUR TEETH TO GO 2 SHADES LIGHTER?
>USE R E M B R A N D T TOOTH PASTE.
>
>IT DOES THE TRICK!
Hasta Manana bro.
Ali.
In article <38BA4267...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>But you haven't heard the 'alf of it. I got engrossed in geneaology today, and
>dug
>up a pretty good theory on the origin of the Ogle name. 'Oghgul' was the
>tribal
>(clan) name for the original Saxon foederati that Vortigern brought to Britain
>to
Alison A Raimes
writes
>
> Mr. Matheson,
>
> Correction:
> 1."Dialogue" consisted of a mean-spirited post using the word
> blow-job 20 times with
> advice for me to it to teach my daughter.
> 2. I do not have a 20 year old daughter, check for yourselves
> <www.artadventures.bc.ca>
> 3. I do not have a daughter who reads newsgroups
> 4. I did not report to server, but followed Usenet guidelines to
> protest privately.
>
> You prove my point .
> Sex is discussed everywhere, all the time by anyone, but
> FINE ART is not.
>
Well one thing is for sure - when Moaning Marilyn lies she does it in
grand style.
Erik A. Mattila
>
> No. It was a trip down memory lane and LOTS of people's sons & daughters
> were on ;-) My first glance made me think "typical college slut" then when
> my senses pointed out it was my daughter I thought "those potential rapists
> are throwing my BABY in the air!" She was wearing one of those
> thong-in-the-butt swimsuits. I didn't know. What a change of attitude, eh?
The best on-liner I ever heard the Wheel-0f-fortune guy say was just after they
showed a picture of a vacation spa that was on the prize wheel, which showed
some bikini-clads from behind walking down the beach -- "and everyone there
flosses regularly" he said.
> : That's a good question if its the Sonoran or Mojave (or something else on
> your
> : side of the river.) On this side of the river the division between the
> Sonoran
> : and Mojave is a matter of altitude. When you get past Palm Springs and
> start
> : climbing up the hill, it the 'high desert' and thus Mojave.
>
> I live in the Sonoran, Erik and I am at 3,800 ft. Maybe it's determined by
> what part of Mexico you live by. When I go to Mexico it is Nogales or Aqua
> Prieto , Sonora, Mexico.
> and:
Thus I look up to you, Kay, from 179' below sea level. But I remember going to
Ambos Nogales and Cresencia just had to go into a huge shopping center there, I
think is was called "Las Palmas" or something like that -- it was a huge tin
building painted blue and orange. I waited in the car for a couple of hours,
staring at the blue wall of tin.
> It might be
> : different in AZ - but how wierd, it's only a river.
>
> You know in AZ we don't want to share the Colorado River with California,
> don't you? We need it for all our new housing developments and golf
> courses. We're just waiting for California to fall into the ocean ;-0
OK, I'll look up the geography and get back to you on this. I'm curious. I
know that one thing that divides the Sonoran from Mojave here are species
variation and altitude. But I've seen Joshua trees over in Arizona, which is
the hallmark of the Mojave (altitude), but our little corner of the Sonoran
don't got no Sequaro. We don't got no endangered desert tortoise here, but the
Mojave does. The Gila Monster apparently has never made it west of the
Colorado River.
> : > : Erik, HRE
> : >
> : > What does HRE mean?
> :
> : Well, grandpappy Chalemange was the first Holy Roman Emporer. Charlemange
> HRE
> :
> : Erik
>
> Holy Tamale!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> You know Charlemagne couldn't read or write, don't you?
Didn't know that. But apparently he had other skills, considering the huge
number of his progeny that is alive today.
Erik
>
>
> : > Kay
> : > http://KayKane.homestead.com
> : >
> : > : >
> : > : >
> : > : > Alison A Raimes
> : > :
> :
Erik A. Mattila
> Gor blimey ...... ye kna, ya gonna ave te tak Geordie iv ya ancestoors
> ur frum Norfumbaland. Whey ya bugga man. Actually you might find a real
> Larn yerself Geordie site on the web - of you are to become a laird you
> must learn the lingo.
but, but...shouldn't I concentrate on the 'King's English' (yuk, yuk, yuk).
> Anyway: Cool ! when you research something you do it in style ! All four
> of us were born in Kent and then we went kicking and screaming to
> Northumberland to escape my father's London gambling debts in 1971. My
> mother still lives in Hexham and she is on the case as I write (she
> loves this sort of stuff) .............. and a few minutes later here is
> her report: Ogle is a village next to where my youngest brother, Toby
> lives, at Stannington. Its about 20 miles west of Hexham where Mum
> lives. The village is between Stannington and Belsay (west of
> Stannington and about 10 miles south of Morpeth). There is a castle at
> Belsay, which is about a mile away from Ogle but not one at Ogle. In the
> phone directory there are 24 entries with the name Ogle and all live
> around Morpeth. More to follow !
The funny part of it is that my ancestor's are all coming out wrong. I mean I
rooted for Mel in Braveheart, the Scots and Picts and Welsh have always been my
heros, and when I read a little book by John McFee called "The Crofter and the
Laird" I thought the Highlander's got a pretty raw deal and the Brits were quite
nasty. And now I discover that I are one. "Out Dammed Spot!"
I also found out that the Ogle's were among the infamous and nasty "Border
Reiver's" of history. But check out this URL re: historicity of Beowulf:
http://www.britarch.ac.uk/ba/ba39/ba39feat.html "Finding Beowulf in Kent's
landscape" in British Arceaology, 39, 1998. It was very challenging for me,
because I don't know the geography at all. I couldn't fine any decent maps (yet)
on www., but I know there are some.
There's a picture of 'Ogle Castle" (which looks suspiciously like a Manor House)
here, as well as the crests etc. http://www.ogles.org/History.htm This page also
mentions that only a small number of Saxons were able to retain lands after the
Norman conquest, in Northumbria the Ogles and Roddams (Hillary Roddam Clinton?)
But anyway, British history is totally fascinating. Did you know that Mark Twain
was quite an afficianado of it? He taught his children all the kings and queens of
England by naming fenceposts after each one that his kids had to walk past every
morning on thier way to school.
>
> And talking of culture - you'll like this one - one of those beautiful
> people in my mailbox sent me it:
>
> >And here's a little something about
> >American 'culture' to keep you going for a while! This, out of
> >a newspaper, a page size ad yelling:
> >
> >DO YOU WANT YOUR TEETH TO SHINE?
> >DO YOU WANT YOUR TEETH TO GO 2 SHADES LIGHTER?
> >USE R E M B R A N D T TOOTH PASTE.
> >
> >IT DOES THE TRICK!
Funny, I don't remember Van Rijn being into teeth. I can't think of a single
painting that shows teeth. Had he done so, their whiteness would have certainly
been occluded by the raw sienna atmosphere of the grain-mill's dust, or Dutch
Master cigar smoke.
> Hasta Manana bro.
> Ali.
Si. It's really great that you've drug Mums into this. I'm eager to hear what she
will dig up. But to bring it back to art, I did run across reference to some
studies of the melding of Saxon styles with Briton, Pictish and Roman styles, as
expressed in such masterpieces as the Book of Kells, Lindesframe Manuscript, etc.
That would be very interesting to study. Another interesting thing I read which
argued that Saxon cultured merged with British culture because the Saxon's had deep
plows pulled by a 6 Oxen team, and were able to farm land with very heavy soil that
the Britons had ignored. So one culture didn't replace another, but merged into
what we have now, distinctions such as Geordie aside.
Erik
>
>
> In article <38BA4267...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>
> >But you haven't heard the 'alf of it. I got engrossed in geneaology today, and
> >dug
> >up a pretty good theory on the origin of the Ogle name. 'Oghgul' was the
> >tribal
> >(clan) name for the original Saxon foederati that Vortigern brought to Britain
> >to
Alison A Raimes
tentatively link it to architecture ;-)
Here is a site for Kent that has some photographs of the landscape. It
is a big county extending from South London right down to the coast. My
favourite area is around Tunbridge Wells
http://www.southeastengland.uk.com/
And here is one for Northumberland which does call Ogle Castle a castle
but doesn't link to it. Its a joke of course - we were brought up in a
Manor house that had a building the size of that *castle* in our
grounds. I'll try and find a photo and post it in my photo album.
http://www.northumbria-tourist-board.org.uk/home_v4.htm
And here you go ! A dictionary so you can get learning the lingo.
http://www.geordiepride.demon.co.uk/dictionary.htm
I'm going to Northumberland the weekend after next so maybe I can find
out more. Ogle is clearly a much bigger family than Raimes - I think
there are only about the same number of listings ion the entire UK
directory for us that Ogle has in Northumberland.
Hey ! I hope you are going to help me write this freakin essay in
return? Damn thing.
More later.
Cheers !
Ali
In article <38BB0BA3...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>There's a picture of 'Ogle Castle" (which looks suspiciously like a Manor
Sharon Barcone
necessarily believe you must study representational art to paint abstract.
BUT you must study something! Abstract art is not about creating an image of
"something" but it is about design. You must therefore know about the
elements of design. However that said I do not believe Picasso could paint a
cubist apple without knowing how to paint the real thing realistically.
Why, because painting realistically is about understanding form and how to
relates to light hitting it's shape. Without understanding it's shape how
could you abstract a design to another style. OK so you don't want to paint
any apples. I firmly believe an abstract artist will create more impressive
and memorable work if that artist has some foundation in realism. I think it
is unfortunate that abstract art has become a catch all category for a lot
artists with no talent, no education and no understanding of design. I
believe to understand to elements of design in the abstract you must
understand how these same elements work in realism. Elements of design
include line, texture, color, composition, etc., these elements are easier
to learn in a realistic format. Surely you don't believe knowledge of the
elements of design and the ability to use them effectively are unnecessary
in creating your abstract art, so can you understand that learning realism
first could benefit some artists in learning to create a compelling abstract
design.
Sharon
Alison A Raimes
<Sharon...@email.msn.com> writes
>Getting back to me original point about that apple. No Alison, I don't
>necessarily believe you must study representational art to paint abstract.
Excuse me, but I don't remember you ever having an original *point*
other than telling me to *put a sock in it* and supporting Mani's narrow
minded and bigoted ideas. Those ideas clearly stated that artistic
freedom must be earned through classical training. Forgive me if I
missed a seminal post of yours. As the *sock* post was my first ever
encounter with you, I do not now feel much inclined to invest energy
into an exchange with someone who is not prepared to allow someone else
to ask the questions regarding an important issue, particularly someone
who is unable to substantiate the stance they choose to advocate. We are
all capable of sustaining ideas, but how many are prepared to actually
ask the questions that may collapse our ideals ?
As to the rest of your post you have still failed to answer the
fundamental question of how the learning of classical techniques is a
license to artistic freedom. This thread has never been about what *I*
believe - I have said on several occasions that I have not determined
the answer to this question. The assumption on this forum is that if one
asks the questions they are asserting an attitude towards an issue. How
ridiculous! What sort of artist is it that aimlessly complies with what
they are told is the *correct way*. I, myself, can realistically render
an apple as well as any of the artists I come into contact on a daily
basis, because it was an inherent part of learning at an early age
concerning what an apple *should* look like. It isn't something that
someone does naturally. But how does that knowledge now permit me the
right to artistic freedom ? I am a Western artist who is trapped by
conventional Western tradition in art. Can I ever be *free* to paint
anything without that being ever present ? How can artistic freedom be
linked so closely to a set of rules ?
My inquiry has always been to investigate what we believe we know about
to be *freedom* and to investigate how that teaching affects us. If I
were to place a case before this forum, I would immediately be inclined
to start comparing the art of non-western artists including what we now
know as *naive* painting. But the principals of judgement would forever
be bound to the conventions of my Western art training.
--
Alison
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
http://raimes.homestead.com/index.html
doolifly
There are rules that should apply to all art, be it abstract or realistic or
anything in between. Some of these rules are, value, edges, color and
compostition. The people willing to knuckle down and learn these rules can
and do create good art.
doolifly
Sharon Barcone wrote in message ...
>Getting back to me original point about that apple. No Alison, I don't
>necessarily believe you must study representational art to paint abstract.
Alison A Raimes
<dool...@noplace.com> writes
>Well said, Sharon!
>There are rules that should apply to all art, be it abstract or realistic or
>anything in between. Some of these rules are, value, edges, color and
>compostition. The people willing to knuckle down and learn these rules can
>and do create good art.
>doolifly
Can you expand on what you mean by *value* ?
lake
of people who maintain the heritage of classical painting techniques.
Obviously he is not addressing the contemporary concerns of painting,
but he is helping to keep the foundations of western painting in view.
He deserves support and congratulations from all avant-garde painters.
Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Kay
: The best one-liner I ever heard the Wheel-0f-fortune guy say was just
after they
: showed a picture of a vacation spa that was on the prize wheel, which
showed
: some bikini-clads from behind walking down the beach -- "and everyone
there
: flosses regularly" he said.
:
: > : That's a good question if its the Sonoran or Mojave (or something else
on
: > your
: > : side of the river.) On this side of the river the division between
the
: > Sonoran
: > : and Mojave is a matter of altitude. When you get past Palm Springs
and
: > start
: > : climbing up the hill, it the 'high desert' and thus Mojave.
: >
: > I live in the Sonoran, Erik and I am at 3,800 ft. Maybe it's determined
by
: > what part of Mexico you live by. When I go to Mexico it is Nogales or
Aqua
: > Prieto , Sonora, Mexico.
: > and:
:
: Thus I look up to you, Kay, from 179' below sea level.
Your summertime temps must be scorchers! We get barely over 100 here.
But I remember going to
: Ambos Nogales and Cresencia just had to go into a huge shopping center
there, I
: think is was called "Las Palmas" or something like that -- it was a huge
tin
: building painted blue and orange. I waited in the car for a couple of
hours,
: staring at the blue wall of tin.
I'm curious now. Why did you stay in the car? Did Cresencia go out and you
waited like a dork? I'm only asking because when I go to Nogales or Agua
Prieto (sp?) my husband has waited in the car which really peeved me. He
figures that if I know he is sitting in the car in 110 degree heat, I'll
hurry - HA!
: > You know in AZ we don't want to share the Colorado River with
California,
: > don't you? We need it for all our new housing developments and golf
: > courses. We're just waiting for California to fall into the ocean ;-0
:
: OK, I'll look up the geography and get back to you on this. I'm curious.
I
: know that one thing that divides the Sonoran from Mojave here are species
: variation and altitude. But I've seen Joshua trees over in Arizona, which
is
: the hallmark of the Mojave (altitude), but our little corner of the
Sonoran
: don't got no Sequaro.
I didn't see any in New Mexico, Utah or Nevada either. There are some in
Mexico by the Arizona boarder but no where else on planet earth. When we
first moved here, my husband fell in love with a cactus-type tree and wanted
to dig one up to plant in our new yard. We found out when he asked a
lifelong resident to help him that it was a "Jumping Cactus" which will
attack humans if they stand within 3-5 feet from them! Attraction to
electro-magnetic fields or something. The Cactii are beginning to bloom
here. Beautiful flowers. Such a contradiction!
We don't got no endangered desert tortoise here,
Then you don't got no really *cool* protests to hang out at... (Or maybe
it's the spotted owl)
but the
: Mojave does. The Gila Monster apparently has never made it west of the
: Colorado River.
I'll send you the family that lives in the desert behind our house. They
aren't aggressive, but when they bit they do NOT let go and you have to drag
that horrible thing to the ER with its ugly head and ferocious teeth
chomping off your leg :-0
Do you have Javalina there, Erik? I just had some Javalina Chorizo today
w/eggs - YUM!
: > : > : Erik, HRE
: > : >
: > : > What does HRE mean?
: > :
: > : Well, grandpappy Chalemange was the first Holy Roman Emporer.
Charlemange
: > HRE
: > :
: > : Erik
You're an Ogle, Erik. Quit faking!
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
Erik A. Mattila
"Freedom always exists in a context, which we mights just as well call a range
of possibilities. So people here in the US used to feel smug and criticize
the Soviets because we are a 'free people' who can own property. Of course we
completely ignored the the bitter reality that we can only really rent
property, since if we don't pay our taxes or submit to other forms of fealty
to the state, our 'ownership' is swiftly invalidated. Yet still, because we
are somewhat myopic, we cherish our freedoms."
The Apple Masters too carve out a freedom within a context for themselves,
which is often described as the range of possiblilty that comes from mastery.
Although we haven't successfully defined 'classical painting' yet, if we
subject ourselves to the ritual tutelage of formulaic process we can, with
diligence, achive a state of 'command' and 'control' that we may apply to
answer our whims. Thus the experience of freedom is achieved, and we feel the
mastery and we feel it course through our veins telling us that we are now
free to do whatever we wish.
But I'm not inclinded to argue freedom at all. The edge of possibliity comes
when we recognize that we are only free to do whatever we wish - the next
frontier is that we are not free in our wishes. I mean we can't imagine the
wishes that would make us free, because the range of wishes we have at our
disposal are in fact finite, shaped and over-determined by the context of our
lives. If we were to conduct a survey of a billion earthlings, and asked them
what is your freest wish, we would not end up with a billion wishes, we would
end up with a very small number of wishes which could be thought of either as
limits of possiblilty or the walls of our prisons.
But thank our lucky stars we are myopic, or else we would become totally
depressed about the impossibility of freedom. The less we know, the more
reified the concept of freedom becomes. We might even say that those who
shout loudest about freedom are also those who know the less. Eugene Ionesco
quitely recognizes this in "No Exit" and I'm not very familiar with Sartre,
but I asssume that he spent much of his philosophical life with the double
visions of either doors beyond the edge of freedom or the un-marked greyness
of prison walls.
That being said, it is very easy to see a very rigid, formulaic approach to
art educaation that we call (somehow) 'classsical' as oppression. How would
you liberate yourself from such gripping futility? I think a splash of paint,
a running ink-blot, a technique of non-control, a searching line, DRIP
Painting, automatic writing, philosophical painting, collage and so for all
can stand for liberation theology. But then, we understand that 'form' is a
map of the forces affecting an object (D'Arcy W. Thompson) and we see that our
paint drips predictably, and we can't escape it.
I think in the long run 'freedom' is just a declaration, an assumption, and
it's legitimacy is entirely based on faith. Some may feel free, at last, when
the jailer's gate bangs shut. Who is to say that they are not 'really free'
if the feel that they are. A person's most beautiful wish in their life may
well be to just have the opportunity to stop and do nothing as an ultimate
liberation.
Erik
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <uCu88tsg$GA.89@cpmsnbbsa02>, Sharon Barcone
> <Sharon...@email.msn.com> writes
> >Getting back to me original point about that apple. No Alison, I don't
> >necessarily believe you must study representational art to paint abstract.
>
Erik A. Mattila
> :
> : Thus I look up to you, Kay, from 179' below sea level.
>
> Your summertime temps must be scorchers! We get barely over 100 here.
Yup. Known to be hot. The Devil's Anvil.
> I'm curious now. Why did you stay in the car? Did Cresencia go out and you
> waited like a dork? I'm only asking because when I go to Nogales or Agua
> Prieto (sp?) my husband has waited in the car which really peeved me. He
> figures that if I know he is sitting in the car in 110 degree heat, I'll
> hurry - HA!
Well, the dork factor certainly was there. I was just tired - too much looking
at all the kewl Tupac art. But I'm a paraplegic - not totally, but I have to
use a cane. The size of Las Palmas just imtimidated me.
> I didn't see any in New Mexico, Utah or Nevada either. There are some in
> Mexico by the Arizona boarder but no where else on planet earth. When we
> first moved here, my husband fell in love with a cactus-type tree and wanted
> to dig one up to plant in our new yard. We found out when he asked a
> lifelong resident to help him that it was a "Jumping Cactus" which will
> attack humans if they stand within 3-5 feet from them! Attraction to
> electro-magnetic fields or something. The Cactii are beginning to bloom
> here. Beautiful flowers. Such a contradiction!
There is a cousin what grows in Central Baja. Looks like Sequaro, only
different. Those jumping cacti are Collas, we have an abundance of those over
here. Also Palo Verde, Fan Palms, Mesquite, Ocatillo, Creosote, a few Barrel
cacti, Prickly Pear (Opuntia).
> We don't got no endangered desert tortoise here,
>
> Then you don't got no really *cool* protests to hang out at... (Or maybe
> it's the spotted owl)
Sure we do. The Desert Pupfish, the Yuma Clapper Rail among others. Life is
dwindling everywere. Just think how many tarantulas they had to zap to build
London Bridge.
> but the
> : Mojave does. The Gila Monster apparently has never made it west of the
> : Colorado River.
>
> I'll send you the family that lives in the desert behind our house. They
> aren't aggressive, but when they bit they do NOT let go and you have to drag
> that horrible thing to the ER with its ugly head and ferocious teeth
> chomping off your leg :-0
>
> Do you have Javalina there, Erik? I just had some Javalina Chorizo today
> w/eggs - YUM!
That sound good. The Javalina are gone from around here. Actually, the big
environmental issue here is the Colorado Delta, just over the border. Until
the 1930s, which the construction of Hoover Dam, there were Jaguars, Puma,
deer, javalina, and several other spiecies that are now gone. In the Gulf, the
big isssue is the extinction of the Totoaba (a giant 400lb sea trout) and La
Vaquita, the world's smallest porpoise. All the water that used to keep this
unique biome alive, which is the largest desert estuay in the world, is shipped
out so civilized people can shit in it.
> : > : > : Erik, HRE
> : > : >
> : > : > What does HRE mean?
> : > :
> : > : Well, grandpappy Chalemange was the first Holy Roman Emporer.
> Charlemange
> : > HRE
> : > :
> : > : Erik
>
> You're an Ogle, Erik. Quit faking!
It's true. My great grandpappy was Isaac Ogle of Gatlinburg, Tennessee. A
Snuffy Smith type hillbilly. That's why mom almost named me 'Tater' when I
been borned. You sound like you know some Ogles. There's about 80,000 in the
US.
Erik
>
>
> Kay
> http://KayKane.homestead.com
Erik A. Mattila
plants, right?
Erik
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Well, Ali, if I were going to argue freedom it would go something like this.
>"Freedom always exists in a context, which we mights just as well call a range
>of possibilities. So people here in the US used to feel smug and criticize
>the Soviets because we are a 'free people' who can own property. Of course we
>completely ignored the the bitter reality that we can only really rent
>property, since if we don't pay our taxes or submit to other forms of fealty
>to the state, our 'ownership' is swiftly invalidated. Yet still, because we
>are somewhat myopic, we cherish our freedoms."
It seems inappropriate to include the relationship to society into a
discussion on artistic freedom, unless one believes that art is a slave
to society, of course. But most artists don't believe this, do they ?
Most artists believe that they are reflections of society, not slaves.
And so we find ourselves at the point of your synopsis. There is no
escaping it.
I used to work on a 125 ft motor yacht 16 years ago, that worked out of
Dubrovnik when it was still a communist state. The peasants used to look
at us like we were aliens as we pulled in, in our 4 million dollar boat
... until we pulled out the dollars, of course. Funny how those bits of
green paper have such universal appeal. They could, make three months
wages out of us from provisioning the boat. The shops and restaurants
all stocked the same food - fatty meat, usually horse. We bought toilet
rolls and sugar on the black market, usually exchanging for cigarettes.
The clothes and shoes were all the uniform and the prices were all set.
Competition didn't exist except on the black market. But one thing I
remember was that they were looked incredibly happy and it was one of
the safest places to travel too. From the end of one summer season to
the next the entire country was transformed. Communist leadership was
over and Levi's arrived. The shelves were stocked with toilet rolls.
Prices inflated and the crime soared from non-existent. The rest is
*history* - little of the old Dubrovnik I knew, has survived. But at
least they have their freedom, right ?
>
>The Apple Masters too carve out a freedom within a context for themselves,
>which is often described as the range of possiblilty that comes from mastery.
>Although we haven't successfully defined 'classical painting' yet, if we
>subject ourselves to the ritual tutelage of formulaic process we can, with
>diligence, achive a state of 'command' and 'control' that we may apply to
>answer our whims. Thus the experience of freedom is achieved, and we feel the
>mastery and we feel it course through our veins telling us that we are now
>free to do whatever we wish.
>
Do we ? Surely under these conditions we have installed a set of rules
into us that prevent us making *free* decisions ? When I was support
teaching, the eleven year olds arrived to us, fresh and unaffected (and
so cute;-). Within six months they had been taught perspective, colour
theory, form and light. The basics that they would have to continually
draw on as part of the National Curriculum. Like the times tables and
grammar, they become an integral part of our education and it become
impossible to imaging making at without them. But can art be comparable
with Maths and English ? Before we can answer that we must be able to
quantify art's relationship to society.
>But I'm not inclinded to argue freedom at all. The edge of possibliity comes
>when we recognize that we are only free to do whatever we wish - the next
>frontier is that we are not free in our wishes. I mean we can't imagine the
>wishes that would make us free, because the range of wishes we have at our
>disposal are in fact finite, shaped and over-determined by the context of our
>lives. If we were to conduct a survey of a billion earthlings, and asked them
>what is your freest wish, we would not end up with a billion wishes, we would
>end up with a very small number of wishes which could be thought of either as
>limits of possiblilty or the walls of our prisons.
>
This has always been Sartre's philosophy. Its the basis of works like
_On the Road_ for instance.
>But thank our lucky stars we are myopic, or else we would become totally
>depressed about the impossibility of freedom. The less we know, the more
>reified the concept of freedom becomes. We might even say that those who
>shout loudest about freedom are also those who know the less. Eugene Ionesco
>quitely recognizes this in "No Exit" and I'm not very familiar with Sartre,
>but I asssume that he spent much of his philosophical life with the double
>visions of either doors beyond the edge of freedom or the un-marked greyness
>of prison walls.
>
Mostly people read Camus and Sartre and other Existentialist writers as
depressing - which generally means that they haven't *read* them.
Neither Camu nor Sartre were *depressing* other than in their
realisation that we are not *free*. There are two people in my life who
have been incredibly influential on me regarding the idea of freedom.
One a painter and scholar of Camus who believes that the canvas is the
only *freedom* available to man. Needless to say he does not involve
himself in the commercial aspects of the art world and yet works
constantly on a recurring theme - his canvases are the window to
freedom. The other is a man who has been on Death Row for sixteen years.
Our exchanges generally evolve from books that I send him, in particular
Camus. One cannot imagine that being confined within four walls for
sixteen years for 23 hours a day could ever allow freedom, and yet his
letters display a freedom that is humbling. But my question then follows
as to whether freedom, in these two instances, are a form of escapism ?
>That being said, it is very easy to see a very rigid, formulaic approach to
>art educaation that we call (somehow) 'classsical' as oppression. How would
>you liberate yourself from such gripping futility? I think a splash of paint,
>a running ink-blot, a technique of non-control, a searching line, DRIP
>Painting, automatic writing, philosophical painting, collage and so for all
>can stand for liberation theology. But then, we understand that 'form' is a
>map of the forces affecting an object (D'Arcy W. Thompson) and we see that our
>paint drips predictably, and we can't escape it.
>
I think we need to make some critical comparisons with art that has not
been subjected to the rigors of classical training in order to evaluate
this one. Any suggestions ?
>I think in the long run 'freedom' is just a declaration, an assumption, and
>it's legitimacy is entirely based on faith. Some may feel free, at last, when
>the jailer's gate bangs shut. Who is to say that they are not 'really free'
>if the feel that they are. A person's most beautiful wish in their life may
>well be to just have the opportunity to stop and do nothing as an ultimate
>liberation.
>
>Erik
>
Ha ! I hadn't read this part before I wrote about my friend in jail.
Faith - that, I think, nails it on the head. One wonders what an
innocent man on Death Row can have Faith in ? Only his letters can ever
reveal this. Now I feel compelled to ask: can faith then be achieved
through the ability to render realistically ?
Have you ever read Camus's essay *Artist as Man* in _Exile and the
Kingdom_ ? If not, you must. Jonas has a *star*. He follows it all his
life. Art takes over his life until suddenly life takes over his art. He
eventually retreats to his loft and is found sitting in front of an
empty canvas - empty but for one word - an illegible word that could be
one or another. I won't tell you what the word is !
Cheers !
Erik A. Mattila
went 'poof'.
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> Ha ! This is fun ..... nothing to do with Art of course, unless we can
> tentatively link it to architecture ;-)
Depends where we want to stop. If it's with Humphreys, I guess Manor House
archetecture if ok, but if we wind it back to Hengest and Horsa, we can talk about
the Lindesfarne Gospel.
> Here is a site for Kent that has some photographs of the landscape. It
> is a big county extending from South London right down to the coast. My
> favourite area is around Tunbridge Wells
>
> http://www.southeastengland.uk.com/
>
> http://www.heritage.whd.net/
It's quite lovely. Especially in my view from the desert wastes. Here's some of
my neighborhood.
http://www.desertusa.com/sandhills/sandhills.html Where Jabba the Hut meets his
doom.
or
http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/SaltonBasinHomePage.html I live just a wee bit
below that body of water at the top, the Salton Sea, near the center of the photo.
At the center is the UW/Mexican border, and the grass is greener to the north,
since we suck the river dry before it enters Mexico. The water at the Bottom is
the Gulf of California. Actually, surfing around this site has pretty good pix of
this area.
>
> And here is one for Northumberland which does call Ogle Castle a castle
> but doesn't link to it. Its a joke of course - we were brought up in a
> Manor house that had a building the size of that *castle* in our
> grounds. I'll try and find a photo and post it in my photo album.
>
> http://www.northumbria-tourist-board.org.uk/home_v4.htm
>
> And here you go ! A dictionary so you can get learning the lingo.
>
> http://www.geordiepride.demon.co.uk/dictionary.htm
extreme kewl.
> I'm going to Northumberland the weekend after next so maybe I can find
> out more. Ogle is clearly a much bigger family than Raimes - I think
> there are only about the same number of listings ion the entire UK
> directory for us that Ogle has in Northumberland.
Watch out for the Border Rievers - a nasty lot. But Raimes, or Raymes, must have
been a Manor once. the 'de' is obviously a place name designator, probably came in
with the Normans. de Raymes, de Ogle, de Morney, de da, do wop diddy.
> Hey ! I hope you are going to help me write this freakin essay in
> return? Damn thing.
Sure, what can I do? Do you just need a reader? Fire at will.
> More later.
> Cheers !
> Ali
Erik
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
> In article <38BC880F...@tomatoweb.com>, Erik A. Mattila
> <emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
> >Well, Ali, if I were going to argue freedom it would go something like this.
> >"Freedom always exists in a context, which we mights just as well call a range
> >of possibilities. So people here in the US used to feel smug and criticize
> >the Soviets because we are a 'free people' who can own property. Of course we
> >completely ignored the the bitter reality that we can only really rent
> >property, since if we don't pay our taxes or submit to other forms of fealty
> >to the state, our 'ownership' is swiftly invalidated. Yet still, because we
> >are somewhat myopic, we cherish our freedoms."
>
> It seems inappropriate to include the relationship to society into a
> discussion on artistic freedom, unless one believes that art is a slave
> to society, of course. But most artists don't believe this, do they ?
> Most artists believe that they are reflections of society, not slaves.
> And so we find ourselves at the point of your synopsis. There is no
> escaping it.
Tsk, tsk. You're guilty of the formal fallacy, examplus attaccki! I joke...
> I used to work on a 125 ft motor yacht 16 years ago, that worked out of
> Dubrovnik when it was still a communist state. The peasants used to look
> at us like we were aliens as we pulled in, in our 4 million dollar boat
> ... until we pulled out the dollars, of course. Funny how those bits of
> green paper have such universal appeal. They could, make three months
> wages out of us from provisioning the boat. The shops and restaurants
> all stocked the same food - fatty meat, usually horse. We bought toilet
> rolls and sugar on the black market, usually exchanging for cigarettes.
> The clothes and shoes were all the uniform and the prices were all set.
> Competition didn't exist except on the black market. But one thing I
> remember was that they were looked incredibly happy and it was one of
> the safest places to travel too. From the end of one summer season to
> the next the entire country was transformed. Communist leadership was
> over and Levi's arrived. The shelves were stocked with toilet rolls.
> Prices inflated and the crime soared from non-existent. The rest is
> *history* - little of the old Dubrovnik I knew, has survived. But at
> least they have their freedom, right ?
Yes indeed. My Bolshevik grandma used to tell me that the Soviets were free from
unemployment. This was baisically true for a while in the USSR, but then, what's
the point of having a job if there's nothing to buy?
> >The Apple Masters too carve out a freedom within a context for themselves,
> >which is often described as the range of possiblilty that comes from mastery.
> >Although we haven't successfully defined 'classical painting' yet, if we
> >subject ourselves to the ritual tutelage of formulaic process we can, with
> >diligence, achive a state of 'command' and 'control' that we may apply to
> >answer our whims. Thus the experience of freedom is achieved, and we feel the
> >mastery and we feel it course through our veins telling us that we are now
> >free to do whatever we wish.
> >
> Do we ? Surely under these conditions we have installed a set of rules
> into us that prevent us making *free* decisions ? When I was support
> teaching, the eleven year olds arrived to us, fresh and unaffected (and
> so cute;-). Within six months they had been taught perspective, colour
> theory, form and light. The basics that they would have to continually
> draw on as part of the National Curriculum. Like the times tables and
> grammar, they become an integral part of our education and it become
> impossible to imaging making at without them. But can art be comparable
> with Maths and English ? Before we can answer that we must be able to
> quantify art's relationship to society.
I've always loved the wild imaginativeness of pre-school art, and my spirit would
drop to witness the soicalization process, when the sun belonged here, the ground
there. If you look at a range of kids art by age, you can see the step by step
indoctrination into the society of seeing. By the way, do you remember the
Geoffrey Williams classic "Down with Skool?" (Ronald Searle Illustrations).
1950s. The hilarious adventuress of Nigel Molesworth and Fathernigton Thomas.
What a gas.
> >But I'm not inclinded to argue freedom at all. The edge of possibliity comes
> >when we recognize that we are only free to do whatever we wish - the next
> >frontier is that we are not free in our wishes. I mean we can't imagine the
> >wishes that would make us free, because the range of wishes we have at our
> >disposal are in fact finite, shaped and over-determined by the context of our
> >lives. If we were to conduct a survey of a billion earthlings, and asked them
> >what is your freest wish, we would not end up with a billion wishes, we would
> >end up with a very small number of wishes which could be thought of either as
> >limits of possiblilty or the walls of our prisons.
> >
>
> This has always been Sartre's philosophy. Its the basis of works like
> _On the Road_ for instance.
I told you that I met Kerouac once, didn't I? He was with Niel Cassidy and a
gallon of Ernesto Cribari Red, and invited me to get drunk with him at 10am. When
I declined, he explained that he was trying to get close to the underbelly of
things, a writer's investigation - implying that he wasn't REALLY a lout. I guess
I was just too young to be a REAL beatnik.
> >But thank our lucky stars we are myopic, or else we would become totally
> >depressed about the impossibility of freedom. The less we know, the more
> >reified the concept of freedom becomes. We might even say that those who
> >shout loudest about freedom are also those who know the less. Eugene Ionesco
> >quitely recognizes this in "No Exit" and I'm not very familiar with Sartre,
> >but I asssume that he spent much of his philosophical life with the double
> >visions of either doors beyond the edge of freedom or the un-marked greyness
> >of prison walls.
> >
> Mostly people read Camus and Sartre and other Existentialist writers as
> depressing - which generally means that they haven't *read* them.
> Neither Camu nor Sartre were *depressing* other than in their
> realisation that we are not *free*. There are two people in my life who
> have been incredibly influential on me regarding the idea of freedom.
> One a painter and scholar of Camus who believes that the canvas is the
> only *freedom* available to man. Needless to say he does not involve
> himself in the commercial aspects of the art world and yet works
> constantly on a recurring theme - his canvases are the window to
> freedom. The other is a man who has been on Death Row for sixteen years.
> Our exchanges generally evolve from books that I send him, in particular
> Camus. One cannot imagine that being confined within four walls for
> sixteen years for 23 hours a day could ever allow freedom, and yet his
> letters display a freedom that is humbling. But my question then follows
> as to whether freedom, in these two instances, are a form of escapism ?
And what's wrong with escapism? I remember when really good friends sat around
reciting drug adventures. The greatest stories always involved some legendary
super drug that didn't allow you to believe your experiences were illusory. Then
you had the quality experiece which you couldn't distinguish from reality - thus
fudging a bit on live, and adding to your record adventures that were dreamed, yet
somehow real. In the end, all we have are our memories which define our existance
and identity. Why discriminate between the life of the imagination and the dalily
grind?
Now it's being predicted by the technology soothsayers that the completion of the
human genome project will pave the way of imprinting the human on a computer chip,
using nanotechnology, and packing a few million souls in a metal box and toss it
off to Alpha Centuri, where the chips will be reassembled into US. Some may
decline bodies, I would think. I wouldn't mind being a BMW for a change.
> >That being said, it is very easy to see a very rigid, formulaic approach to
> >art educaation that we call (somehow) 'classsical' as oppression. How would
> >you liberate yourself from such gripping futility? I think a splash of paint,
> >a running ink-blot, a technique of non-control, a searching line, DRIP
> >Painting, automatic writing, philosophical painting, collage and so for all
> >can stand for liberation theology. But then, we understand that 'form' is a
> >map of the forces affecting an object (D'Arcy W. Thompson) and we see that our
> >paint drips predictably, and we can't escape it.
> >
> I think we need to make some critical comparisons with art that has not
> been subjected to the rigors of classical training in order to evaluate
> this one. Any suggestions ?
Sure, there's plenty. I've already mentioned the fresh vision of preschoolers.
But you can see Naive art all over the world. There was a guy in Guetemala who
was remarkable, just got paint and started using it, with a very rudimentary
understand of art, culture, visual representations etc. In California there was a
wonderful Maidu artis, Frank Day, who was the same. Not only was he self-taught,
but he didn't look at paintings of other people. It was all built up from ground
zero on his own initiative. But he did see pictures, I mean like in magazines
etc. So it wasn't exactly ground zero. His paintaings fetch a very healthy price
today.
> >I think in the long run 'freedom' is just a declaration, an assumption, and
> >it's legitimacy is entirely based on faith. Some may feel free, at last, when
> >the jailer's gate bangs shut. Who is to say that they are not 'really free'
> >if the feel that they are. A person's most beautiful wish in their life may
> >well be to just have the opportunity to stop and do nothing as an ultimate
> >liberation.
> >
> >Erik
> >
> Ha ! I hadn't read this part before I wrote about my friend in jail.
> Faith - that, I think, nails it on the head. One wonders what an
> innocent man on Death Row can have Faith in ? Only his letters can ever
> reveal this. Now I feel compelled to ask: can faith then be achieved
> through the ability to render realistically ?
Great minds flow in the same gutter, you know. Did you ever read Foucault's
"Discipline and Punish?"
> Have you ever read Camus's essay *Artist as Man* in _Exile and the
> Kingdom_ ? If not, you must. Jonas has a *star*. He follows it all his
> life. Art takes over his life until suddenly life takes over his art. He
> eventually retreats to his loft and is found sitting in front of an
> empty canvas - empty but for one word - an illegible word that could be
> one or another. I won't tell you what the word is !
No, I'm illiterate. I've never read Camus or Sarte, I'm embarressed to say. I've
got a copy of "The Black Book" by Orhan Pamuk that a friend gave me recently that
I haven't even opened. I don't know what's happened to me. I can't seem to read
anymore. Only in media bytes. Some sort of anxiety, I guess. But the new book
has an inviting picture of the Topkapi on the cover. Books look so nice before
they're opened, without any wounds yet. But I did read Tacitus, the Linnesburh
fragment, and some Saxo Grammaticus today. That's it, I've developed the habit of
fragmentary reading. I can only handle anecdotes. It's the 'cat on a hot tin
roof' syndrome, I'm sure.
Erik
Tomi Holmberg
See signature <floa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
> In article <893k5l$s3g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tomi Holmberg
> <tomi...@hotmail.com> writes
>
> >it's not about one special technique that deli talks about.
>
> Absolutely it IS about one special technique that Mani talks about.
> Classical, academic technique.
> >whether
> >it's AbstractExpressionism or classical oriented stuff - you have to
do
> >a lot work to learn to draw or paint anyway (which begins with
handling
> >objects in your hand in your childhood). all ways are equal natural,
> >but the more you spend time on artschools the more
artificial/affected
> >you'll be. ofcourse, it's a personal thing to judge that, not any
truth.
> >
> Why do you have to learn to draw ? Please, I am serious here. Why ?
How,
> if your subject matter is abstract, do you need to learn to draw an
> apple ? I challenge anyone to answer that. Now if your argument is
that
> you need to learn composition, form, and colour for instance, I might
be
> inclined to agree. But realistic representation ? Why ? As to
spending
> time at art school - anyone who has attended a degree course,
certainly
> in Britain, knows that they do not *teach*. They provide an
environment
> in which to develop your research.
if your subject matter is abstract, why do you have to draw/paint at
all instead of keeping the work at rhetoric stage? but as long as the
product is visual, the more you know about the medium (classical skills
are one part of it) the better the output is. you know,
rendering/visualisation skills and such does not *only* work in
psychical form of canvas, we have to consider their importance to the
visual part of mind also (say for example, third-eye) and other deeper
issues. what goes around comes around. this is same for all things in
life. what comes to artschools still, the environment is artificial and
brainwashes people to certain norms. it's like religion, but truth
*can not* be teached or given with certificates, it must come to you.
thus, the real objective abstract artists does *not*support any
artschools, (most of them aren't even accepted to them because they
are "ahead"). fakers, criminals & "dogs who eat their own shit" (as
the old sanskrit noun goes on) do. most of the Situationists & Neoists
who work *solely* with artistic freedom, say in terms of rhetoric
pretexts, are those. but this is only imho ;)
but really, alison, the issue here goes to the same old hi/low brow
(what's the borderline between illustration and fine-art). I can't
answer to that and i don't think you can as you see the world with
*very* subjective eyes =). so i have to keep the "absolute" values for
me which erik represented earlier.
> >it doesn't mean that backstreetboys, abbateens, boyzone, spicegirls -
> >whoever they are who fill the topten's - are good musicians at all.
>
> I agree.
> >
> >the fact still remains and has been proven by history that those who
> >can't even know the basics of decent drawing/painting have to resort
to
> >bullshit. people have earlier thought, and still do, that the women
> >isn't capable of doing art. ofcourse the statement isn't decend and
> >thus it have to resort to bullshit. in order to keep art pure, you
> >don't have to consider all the 6th rate illustrators who paint/draw
> >like your cat (but know the deal with bullshit or relationships)
> >as "good" fine art-artists. nowadays, usually that means respect for
> >those who work against criminals in artfield.
> >
> Sorry, you lost me on all of that. I apologise, but I presume there
is a
> language problem.
it was about subjectivity. in last 2 threads where we were talking
(one was about tim and one about kay) i didn't bother to continue them
because of your *prejudice*. you'll handle that later so it's no my
duty stress that out.
> How are the doodles coming along ?
thanks for asking!
well, i haven't done any art for months, but educated myself a lot in
some areas that go hand in hand with art. also, i've been observing my
earlier life completely to remove most of the blocks & negativity
(what we all have to do someday). i wanna know what i want from my art
so i'm writing an essay of painting which i'll post soon here. i just
want to reborn for my 25th birthday and get to the old productive
creative mood ;)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Sharon Barcone
are all talking about. But how about this?
*Can you expand on what you mean by *value* ?
*Alison A Raimes
Value is the relative dark of light of a color. Example: the side of the
apple being hit with sunlight will be lighter in value than the side of the
apple in shadow. In direct sunlight the light side will be about 40% lighter
in value than the shadow. In colors them selves a raw umber is a lower value
than a raw sienna. Both are considered yellows but of different values.
*As to the rest of your post you have still failed to answer the
*fundamental question of how the learning of classical techniques is a
*license to artistic freedom.
*Alison A Raimes
I repeat:
Elements of design include line, texture, color, composition, etc..., these
elements are easier
to learn in a realistic format. Surely you don't believe knowledge of the
elements of design and the ability to use them effectively are unnecessary
in creating your abstract art, so can you understand that learning realism
first could benefit some artists in learning to create a compelling abstract
abstract art, so can you understand that learning realism first could
benefit some artists in learning to create a compelling abstract
design.
And one final thought, Classical , traditional, or old master techniques
whatever term used involved more than just learning to paint in a certain
way. It also includes a great deal of study into mediums and materials of
the craft. Not just how a painting is completed but the progression of the
painting process.
In visiting your site and viewing your art I noticed that you use synthetic
resin in your work. I was at one time also a resin lover, following in the
footsteps of Taubes and Dali. However I have since learned that resins are
notorious for cracking and yellowing over time. Indeed work from Dali's
heavy copal days shows serious signs of cracking. This can be minimized if
no turpentine is used in the painting process but that has it's own
problems. My own works of 20 years ago show signs of resin yellowing though
no cracking. Were you aware of these problems with using resins?
My suggested reading would be Ralph Mayers "The Artist's Handbook". It
includes very technical information on pigments, mediums, supports and
procedures. The classical or traditional methods have survived because they
offered an approach that would insure long lasting works.
My father was an artist. I have been drawing since I could pick up a pencil
but many of my fathers works have been attacked by the elements of life and
are deteriorating. I have studied to avoid this problem in my own art. If I
have grandchildren I would like them to see and enjoy my work and their
children too, as closely to how I painted it as possible. I was disabled 10
years ago and have studying a great deal in these last ten years. I do not
put out a large body of work nor do I show or sell my work. My art hangs in
the homes of family and friends as the work of my father did.
I feel that because I have studied what has come before me I have a greater
grasp of my medium and technique this allows me "the freedom" to go in the
direction I choose and still hold to my goal for creating long-lasting works
of art.
Sharon
Alison A Raimes
<Sharon...@email.msn.com> writes
>In visiting your site and viewing your art I noticed that you use synthetic
>resin in your work. I was at one time also a resin lover, following in the
>footsteps of Taubes and Dali. However I have since learned that resins are
>notorious for cracking and yellowing over time.
You should also then know that synthetic resin is a *plastic* and that
it starts its life as *yellow*. Or perhaps you might want to consider
that I am using a different sort of resin to the one you are familiar
with. Would that be too much to ask ? The substance that I use is
probably the most durable one available to mix with oil paint. It is
almost indestructible - you can roll it and will not crack. You can wash
it with soapy water. You can attack it with turpentine. Don't concern
yourself - I am more than familiar with the materials I choose to use
and don't at this stage need to refer to a *handbook* on something I
have been doing for almost a decade. Reading you is like reading a
handbook anyway. If I ever need advise I will be sure to ask you for it.
Alison A Raimes.
Kay
resin mold, let it dry, sanded it, etc. The sculpture is expected to last
centuries, moreso than paintings.
Kay
http://KayKane.homestead.com
"Alison A Raimes" <ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote in message
news:xYbCs2AC...@raimes.demon.co.uk...
: In article <#64B#i5g$GA.259@cpmsnbbsa04>, Sharon Barcone
Alison A Raimes
<scarl...@theriver.com> writes
>For everyone's information: During one of my sculpture classes, we poured a
>resin mold, let it dry, sanded it, etc. The sculpture is expected to last
>centuries, moreso than paintings.
>
>Kay
>http://KayKane.homestead.com
Yes, Kay, quite correct - but this is a different sort of resin and
should only ever be used in controlled circumstances - preferably a
foundry. The synthetic resins that painters use are generally mediums
that are used to speed the drying process of oil paints. There are many
different sorts on the market. The one I use is manufactured by Spectrum
in Wimbledon. The nearest option in the States is Galkyd, but even that
is not the same. I went to Spectrum's factory to talk to them about it -
invited because I am one of the individuals who uses the product in such
huge quantities - one other artist was pouring into pools (where
obviously it would never set). It is basically a *plastic*.
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>It's quite lovely. Especially in my view from the desert wastes. Here's some
>of
>my neighborhood.
>http://www.desertusa.com/sandhills/sandhills.html Where Jabba the Hut meets his
>doom.
>
>or
>
>http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/salton/SaltonBasinHomePage.html I live just a wee bit
>below that body of water at the top, the Salton Sea, near the center of the
>photo.
>At the center is the UW/Mexican border, and the grass is greener to the north,
>since we suck the river dry before it enters Mexico. The water at the Bottom is
>the Gulf of California. Actually, surfing around this site has pretty good pix
>of
>this area.
I really enjoyed that trip ! Did you get to do the London one yet ? I
wish I had asked you for more information on your neighbourhood before
my friend went off on her travel scholarship. I know she was close to
you. I wonder if they have updated her travel site yet
http://www.zero-k.co.uk
Last Email I had was New Years Eve and she was setting off into deepest
Peru the next day.
I'll get back to the other posts in a couple of days time. Got a hectic
weekend starting tomorrow hanging the work for the auction. I wonder if
I would have started it if I had known it was going to be this major ;-)
Cheers for now !
Alison A Raimes
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> writes
>you. I wonder if they have updated her travel site yet
>http://www.zero-k.co.uk
You need to go to Travelogue at this site, by the way.
Kay
Kay wrote:
: > You're an Ogle, Erik. Quit faking!
Erik wrote:
: It's true. My great grandpappy was Isaac Ogle of Gatlinburg, Tennessee.
A
: Snuffy Smith type hillbilly. That's why mom almost named me 'Tater' when
I
: been borned. You sound like you know some Ogles. There's about 80,000 in
the
: US.
I've been to Gatlinburg, Tennessee Erik. It's the most beautiful place I've
ever seen. I have some family there I don't claim and my cousin, er -
husband and I aren't in contact with our family, I mean families - there ;-)
Actually, I was at their beautiful ski resort there in the summer. Went ice
skating in that great resort rink and saw the skiiers practicing on skis
with wheels or something. I think this was before rollarblading and
figuring out how to put ONE roller instead of 2. The skis were the same
size as regular ones but had a few rollars underneath for practice, I guess.
Lots and lots of shops and tourists from all over the world. Beautiful.
How come they were going to name you "Tater"? Usually the names are
"Junior" and sometimes, if your parents love you a lot and you are a male -
"June Bug".
:
: Erik
:
: >
: >
: > Kay
: > http://KayKane.homestead.com
:
Erik A. Mattila
Gawd, Kay, either I'm 'that old' or you're culturally challenged. Didn't you
ever read "Snuffy Smith" in the Sunday funnies? It was the only comic strip
where the character's actually had a baby (you knnow what they had to do for
that) (about 1960 or so). Snuffy and Luizee had a bald-headed kid and they
named it "Tater." This strip introduced 'moonshiners' and 'revenooers' into
the American vocabulary.
>
>
> :
> : Erik
> :
> : >
> : >
> : > Kay
> : > http://KayKane.homestead.com
> :
Alison A Raimes
<emat...@tomatoweb.com> writes
>Tsk, tsk. You're guilty of the formal fallacy, examplus attaccki! I joke...
Just a quickie here, Erik ;-) I am guilty as charged - and it was a
deliberate attempt to illustrate the dilemma .... tsk, tsk for not
recognising that.
>I've always loved the wild imaginativeness of pre-school art, and my spirit
>would
>drop to witness the soicalization process, when the sun belonged here, the
>ground
>there. If you look at a range of kids art by age, you can see the step by step
>indoctrination into the society of seeing. By the way, do you remember the
>Geoffrey Williams classic "Down with Skool?" (Ronald Searle Illustrations).
>1950s. The hilarious adventuress of Nigel Molesworth and Fathernigton Thomas.
>What a gas.
No I haven't read that one but after working at a private boys school I
think I get the gist !
>I told you that I met Kerouac once, didn't I? He was with Niel Cassidy and a
>gallon of Ernesto Cribari Red, and invited me to get drunk with him at 10am.
>When
>I declined, he explained that he was trying to get close to the underbelly of
>things, a writer's investigation - implying that he wasn't REALLY a lout. I
>guess
>I was just too young to be a REAL beatnik.
yes, you did tell us ...... in between the Indian stories ;-) I bet
Kerouac was a blast. Sartre and Camus were also you know ? hard to
believe when you read them, but I think that is part and parcel of great
minds. The ability to work hard and play hard - have you ever seen a
bunch of medical students letting off steam ? Mad !
>And what's wrong with escapism? I remember when really good friends sat around
>reciting drug adventures. The greatest stories always involved some legendary
>super drug that didn't allow you to believe your experiences were illusory.
>Then
>you had the quality experiece which you couldn't distinguish from reality - thus
>fudging a bit on live, and adding to your record adventures that were dreamed,
>yet
>somehow real. In the end, all we have are our memories which define our
>existance
>and identity. Why discriminate between the life of the imagination and the
>dalily
>grind?
Escapism reigns as far as I am concerned ! But is it *freedom* ? Maybe
the freedom comes when you are able to discriminate between the
imagination and the real world. Dunno, I will have to think on this one.
>
>Now it's being predicted by the technology soothsayers that the completion of
>the
>human genome project will pave the way of imprinting the human on a computer
>chip,
>using nanotechnology, and packing a few million souls in a metal box and toss it
>off to Alpha Centuri, where the chips will be reassembled into US. Some may
>decline bodies, I would think. I wouldn't mind being a BMW for a change.
>
Oh you just want buxom blondes to sit on your hood ;-)
>Sure, there's plenty. I've already mentioned the fresh vision of preschoolers.
>But you can see Naive art all over the world. There was a guy in Guetemala who
>was remarkable, just got paint and started using it, with a very rudimentary
>understand of art, culture, visual representations etc. In California there was
>a
>wonderful Maidu artis, Frank Day, who was the same. Not only was he self-
>taught,
>but he didn't look at paintings of other people. It was all built up from
>ground
>zero on his own initiative. But he did see pictures, I mean like in magazines
>etc. So it wasn't exactly ground zero. His paintaings fetch a very healthy
>price
>today.
Yes, I am going to come back to this next week when time permits. Stand
by.
>Great minds flow in the same gutter, you know. Did you ever read Foucault's
>"Discipline and Punish?"
No, I read the History of Sexuality volumes one, two and three and a few
shorter works. I'll look out for that one. Thanks.
>No, I'm illiterate. I've never read Camus or Sarte, I'm embarressed to say.
>I've
>got a copy of "The Black Book" by Orhan Pamuk that a friend gave me recently
>that
>I haven't even opened. I don't know what's happened to me. I can't seem to
>read
>anymore. Only in media bytes. Some sort of anxiety, I guess. But the new book
>has an inviting picture of the Topkapi on the cover. Books look so nice before
>they're opened, without any wounds yet. But I did read Tacitus, the Linnesburh
>fragment, and some Saxo Grammaticus today. That's it, I've developed the habit
>of
>fragmentary reading. I can only handle anecdotes. It's the 'cat on a hot tin
>roof' syndrome, I'm sure.
yeah, I noticed you had a learning disability. Still you do pretty well
with that crotch of yours. Ooops, I meant crutch. But this anxiety you
speak of is quite common now - a product of the electronic age. We read
to gain knowledge or entertainment. Some have a naturally inquisitive
mind and want to soak up everything. This medium has opened the
information highway to all. To most it is just so phenomenal and
exciting that we think we are dysfunctional in the traditional learning
quarters, like reading books. I don't think we should feel *anxious*
about our changes in perceptions. Remember I tried, in the Sublime
thread, to introduce the idea that our visual perceptions have become so
demanding that we demand more and more from what we see. Its a change on
our demands and I think we should become more aware of why we demand
different things and not lock into what we think we should be doing.
Got to dash ....... its lucky I type fast eh ?
Alison A Raimes
<c...@hobbes.nautronix.com.au> writes
>well i cant "quantify art's relationship to society" but to answer the
>previous question...
>math is tricky (because not everyone has an innate sense of it, but
>everyone speaks english (obviously i'm only talking about native
>speakers)), but if we take english, the basics can be taught does
>that mean those taught will be great poets? no of course not, will
>almost all of those taught be able to compose some sort of poem?
>almost certainly.
Nice points made here. One thought to expand on it. Writing, Arithmetic
and Reading are considered *essential* and compulsory in Western
teaching because they are seen as *necessary* in Western society. Art is
an elective. Its treated as a sub category in most schools - god knows
how often I listened to the Head of Art at the school where I worked,
rant and rage about equal rights for the art department. And how often
kids are forced to take academic subjects to satisfy their parents
requirements of their education.
>
>is it _necessary_ to learn the basics of english before writing a poem?
>for some it maybe the only way they get the confidence to attempt it
>at all and for others it wont make the slightest difference.
Sure I agree, but the debate has never been about learning the basics.
It has always been about the presence of academic classical training in
today's arts. Academic classical training takes a great deal of time and
commitment to something that is specific and specialised. It trains the
eye and mind to think in a certain way which is hard to then discard.
Like being brought up in Western culture and ending up in outer Mongolia
and having to readjust to your environment it remains forever present.
>
>i see this as being the same with painting, some ppl need the confidence
>of knowing they've learnt what there is to learn before they start,
>other will jump straight in and never read up on it.
>
Confidence is an interesting thing to bring into the debate. I think you
may be onto something here. The only thing I would question here, in
terms of the line of the debate, would be the misconception that art is
about rendering a perfect example of the world. I am imagining now, a
world where art is taught as a *window* to another arena beyond that
which we know as the *world*.
>yet others will jump straight in _and_ learn what they can as they go along.
Some people do have that tenacity. They have inquisitive minds that
simply are never satisfied with what they think they know. they refuse
to accept what they are taught as absolute. They are explorers. That is
where you will find the art.
>there seems to be at least 2 different types of "free" being discussed here,
>there is material freedom, which is the freedom to do what you wish, ie if
>you've got a lot of money you're freer to do what you wish than those without.
>and then there is the freedom which is an outlook. i think this latter is
>the one that alison is investigating(?)
Correct ! I have no interest in material *freedom* - the world has to
deal with this freedom daily - children gunning down other children. How
do we survive this world ? Both my Camus scholar friend and my friend on
Death Row would say we have to free our minds for room to find the joy
of living - the experience of breathing and seeing and hearing and
being. To go into another room where the world as we have come to know
it is left behind. Not many are capable of doing this.
>havent read much, but i'd hardly call _the plague_ a bundle of laughs:)
Erik has read more Sartre than he realises - every time he read or spoke
with Kerouac. Sartre and Camus were great friends. They both loved to
cook and Camus was renowned for playing tricks on Sartre thus leading
them to a lot of good natured horseplay which, to the outsider (excuse
the pun) looked like rivalry. As for the Plague, I ask you to read it
again. Out of the Plague came a great joy - that amidst the injustice
and outrage of the Plague (the World in other words) the central figure,
Rieux, learned during that time that there was more in men to admire
than to despise. The town across united after their tragedy, stronger
and more aware of what life really constitutes. The town emerged happy,
ignorant of the specialised medical knowledge that the Rieux carried
locked within him - that the Plague was not over but lying dormant until
the next awakening.
>freedom is.
>its a mindset, a worldview.
>to call it escapism is to limit it even if it does look that way from
>the outside of a prison.
>to say that the canvas is the _only_ freedom seems ridiculous, that to
>me does seem like escapism, escaping from the world at large to paint,
>the painter is "free" to do that but i wouldnt call that freedom except
>on a very small scale.
The freedom spoken of here is the ability of the mind to disengage with
what they *know* as daily experience and to focus and engage with that
which is outside the daily realms of life.
>himself.
Yes.
>as i say above, for some it probably can, once they know they can
>draw an apple _perfectly_ they feel free to "experiment" but again
>i wouldnt call this freedom except on a small scale, i accept tho
>it may the first step to greater freedom especially as for some ppl
>it may be the first time they've experienced any sense of freedom at all,
>c
Thanks for the intelligent and thought provoking post. It makes a
refreshing exchange around here ! i wrote this is haste - I hope I
didn't do you an injustice as a result.
cheers !
Alison A Raimes
<tomi...@hotmail.com> writes
>visual part of mind also (say for example, third-eye) and other deeper
>issues. what goes around comes around. this is same for all things in
>life. what comes to artschools still, the environment is artificial and
>brainwashes people to certain norms. it's like religion, but truth
>*can not* be teached or given with certificates, it must come to you.
>thus, the real objective abstract artists does *not*support any
>artschools, (most of them aren't even accepted to them because they
>are "ahead"). fakers, criminals & "dogs who eat their own shit" (as
>the old sanskrit noun goes on) do. most of the Situationists & Neoists
>who work *solely* with artistic freedom, say in terms of rhetoric
>pretexts, are those. but this is only imho ;)
Tomi: brainwashing only occurs when the mind is weak. Your mind is so
locked into the idea against art education that you are unable to
consider that thousands of art graduates come out from their education
having soaked up as much information they possibly could which they
continually enter into their own practise without ever conforming. They
use the time to develop their work with the support of an institution to
guide them. They form relationships with their peer groups that last
forever. These people don't get brainwashed. They enter as strong
individuals, they contribute to their environment as strong individuals
and they emerge better for the fight and experience of NOT having been
brainwashed. Artists ARE strong individuals - they are not imitator of
some structure that you seem to think exists. How do I know this ? I
went, and am still going through the system (kicking and screaming of
course). Why ? Because I want access and exposure to information and
people who will challenge me and push me to my limits. I can't be happy
without that. Not until I am certain of what I am will I stop and if
that ever happens the canvas will be blank forever more.
Daily I come into contact with hundreds of artists who have been through
the system. Not one single artist that i consider to be *successful*
didn't hate their art education - the ones that did are either making
the same art that they were when they entered the system or are nowhere
to be seen following graduation and the *certificate*. Now how do you
come to your conclusions ?
You haven't made any art for months ? yet you feel inclined to write
about painting. Before you write that essay I really suggest that,
unless you want to end up like Mani, you determine what you believe art
to be and how you intend to support the idea. If you want to spend the
rest of your life doodling then that is fine, but make sure you
understand why you are doodling and if you feel it necessary to write
about it then I suggest you open your mind to the possibilities that you
are rejecting in favour of the doodles.
Sharon Barcone
*it starts its life as *yellow*. Or perhaps you might want to consider
*that I am using a different sort of resin to the one you are familiar
*with. Would that be too much to ask ? The substance that I use is
*probably the most durable one available to mix with oil paint. It is
*almost indestructible - you can roll it and will not crack. You can wash
*it with soapy water. You can attack it with turpentine. Don't concern
*yourself - I am more than familiar with the materials I choose to use
*and don't at this stage need to refer to a *handbook* on something I
*have been doing for almost a decade. Reading you is like reading a
*handbook anyway. If I ever need advise I will be sure to ask you for it.
*Alison A Raimes.
Sorry, Alison. I wasn't attacking your use of resins, only relating my own
experience, which was part of what lead me to learn more of the classical
techniques. I also assumed you were probably using a different resin medium
from the one I had used. Art support industries are constantly trying to
meet the needs of artists with new and better products. Only with sharing of
what works and what doesn't can we evaluate these products.
I thank you for that. About the "handbook", this book is more like a
chemistry text , and I bet even you could find useful information in it.
Did you know that at one time oil paints were called "plastic"?
Sharon
John Haber
I was looking at an artist's photos of her work yesterday, all
representational and exceptionally skillful but in a variety of styles
and concepts. People want to do their work and want to bring
something to their work, and they'll find the background they need to
get there. If it's Pollock ogling what for his time was the
equivalent of what we might now call outsider art, Seurat studying
optics, Michelangelo reading up on Neoplatonism, artists all need
training, but this isn't the century to equate training with someone's
little corner of the schoolroom.
I've mixed feelings about putting things in Existentialist terms, as
often as I've returned to Sartre. (I must be the world's only fan of
the realist novels, Les Chemins de la Liberte.) I think there's a
reason people tended to find the school after the fad passed a little
histrionic, bloodless, individualistic, or wallowing, even though that
hardly characterizes a mind as wonderful as his or Beauvoir's.
When I read Heidegger, I was already heavily into Wittgenstein,
American postanalytic philosophy, deconstruction, and others who
refuse to find a core to experience, especially one within each one of
us. So I was fascinated by his breaking away from both Husserl's
axioms and his psychologizing of perception, toward an interconnected
experience of self and other.
Reading then Being and Nothingness, it made sense for me to see the
latter as running intelliegently through the entire argument of Being
and Time, step by step, but reinterpreting each step in psychological
terms. I was both impressed and a bit put off, fearing that he'd used
a book better than it had been used by its author but with an
assumption that it had contradicted, and the psychologizing of the
heavy bits, like nothingness and despair, worried me. I despair as
much as anyone, if not more so, and the stripped-down style and
precise human observation of this generation clearly drove the
spareness of others I admired, from Salinger to the Nouveau Roman, but
increasingly Camus's version of them seemed remote from the human
hungers and human delusions that fed mine.
I admired Sartre even more when I saw how Beauvoir could use a
parallel structure to effect political change and how he himself could
revise his system in his later work toward something close to my
assumption of sociopolitical context, without abandoning his
sensibility. Still, even then I worried if that didn't turn something
simply wrong-minded into something jury-rigged from disparate
impulses.
So no, I honestly don't relate to Existentialism now, though I'd like
many, many days to walk into the sea with Seymour Glass, and I don't
worry about it when I see art. Indeed, what I worry about most isn't
what I believe anyhow when I see art. It's trying to ascertain what
the art presupposes and how to make that relevant to myself and the
six other people, all in some New Jersey swamp, who read me. :)
John
John Haber
for you. I never faced it. Discipline and Punish for one thing
seemed shorter!
John
Alison A Raimes
writes
>Alison has learned a technique which produces patterns on a level
>somewhat beyond marbleized paper and batiks. She thinks this is
>something new, original and special and it all has something to do
>with Camus and Satre etc. I doubt that she is familiar with the
>abstract art of the past. If she were she would realize that her
>abilities aren't up to that of a good faux-finish wall painter.
On what do you base these comments ? I don't remember ever claiming my
work is *new* or *special*, though of course it is original. The
importance of the history of art has always been present in my practise.
The evidence of that is archived here and you are just being silly to
claim otherwise. Also I have never claimed my work is about Camus or
Sartre, but questioned what we understand *freedom* to be.
What's wrong, Mani - did you have to resort to personal attacks because
your claim that the learning of classical techniques are a license to
artistic freedom don't hold water ? Did I threaten your ideals ? Why
don't you pull out my blow job quotes ? That would really support your
claim.
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
>I've mixed feelings about putting things in Existentialist terms, as
>often as I've returned to Sartre. (I must be the world's only fan of
>the realist novels, Les Chemins de la Liberte.) I think there's a
>reason people tended to find the school after the fad passed a little
>histrionic, bloodless, individualistic, or wallowing, even though that
>hardly characterizes a mind as wonderful as his or Beauvoir's.
I think in terms of how we relate to freedom in today's society, it is
impossible to ignore Sartre or Camus as influential in today's thinking.
Sartre's ...'man is at his best in extreme circumstances' has been
hovering in my head, and I can't help but think that his remark is
flawed because life itself is an extreme circumstance -- not just the
threat to personal liberty, war and disasters. So, perhaps, with Camus?
Camus knows that in future ....'the plague will descend, again, on a
happy city'... but the people? they celebrate its end, and return to
the old ways -- which is precisely why the plague will return.
>
>So no, I honestly don't relate to Existentialism now, though I'd like
>many, many days to walk into the sea with Seymour Glass, and I don't
>worry about it when I see art. Indeed, what I worry about most isn't
>what I believe anyhow when I see art. It's trying to ascertain what
>the art presupposes and how to make that relevant to myself and the
>six other people, all in some New Jersey swamp, who read me. :)
>
>John
My take on Camus, and Sartre, is this: the two wars finished off the
Judeo Christian civilisation. In the days after the second war it was
fashionable to say that god is dead. What they failed to add is that
only the Christian/Hebrew divine is dead. That is what Hitler
accomplished. I think that in every utterance of both Camus and Sartre
there is, on the one hand, the recognition of a fundamental social
change. It is we that need to act, to be engaged -- all those
existential words -- to undo, in other words, what was perceived of as
the divine failure. And secondly, there was, in every word of theirs,
the fear that this, too, would fail. More than just fear, it became
quickly a deep seated knowledge that, if god failed to save us, then,
surely, we were doomed to fail also. The disaster of those years is
really a total disappointment in fundamental values and the sense of a
hopeless future.
But for me, Camus' voice is enormously inspiring. We ARE responsible for
our acts. And they were reacting in accordance with a war that marked
the defeat of the devil. Then, of course, life becomes 'normal' again,
no more extreme circumstances and the acts they preached, the
engagement, collapsed under the weight of normalcy.
Know what I think? I think that Camus was an artist first. He makes
demands of his readers which only artists -- and those who are committed
to a search of one kind or another, can swallow. And understand. And
identify with. We are not 'normal'. We do know that every hour of the
day is an extreme circumstance, we feel it in every bone and sinew, in
our hearts and bodies and spirits.
And something else: it now seems to me that both Camus and Sartre
were very, very dated. They did not, could not, foresee the changes
which the death of the civilisation would automatically bring to human
affairs. They did not really look at the meaning of the machine gun.
They would not decipher the meaning of a brand new player in the human
theatre, namely the random killer. Camus and Sartre were still
emotionally convulsed at the thought of our inhumanities. Now we have
ceased to think of some church bomber, or Bosnian holocaust, as acts of
malevolence. People who feel insignificant, bits of space matter? need,
I think, to take matters in their own hands. The shooting up of a
school cafeteria becomes a way of denying that sense of insignificance.
Alison A Raimes
<jha...@haberarts.com> writes
Oh you know me, forever in search of the answer to a better blow job ;-)
Alison A Raimes
<Sharon...@email.msn.com> writes
>Sorry, Alison. I wasn't attacking your use of resins, only relating my own
>experience, which was part of what lead me to learn more of the classical
>techniques. I also assumed you were probably using a different resin medium
>from the one I had used. Art support industries are constantly trying to
>meet the needs of artists with new and better products. Only with sharing of
>what works and what doesn't can we evaluate these products.
>I thank you for that. About the "handbook", this book is more like a
>chemistry text , and I bet even you could find useful information in it.
>Did you know that at one time oil paints were called "plastic"?
>
>Sharon
Asking that question of an art graduate is almost as insulting as
advising a graduate to invest in Meyer's Handbook - but not as insulting
as telling someone who asks questions about art to *put a sock in it*. I
presume you are a teacher. Do you want to explain the meaning of the
term *Plastic Arts* to this forum as opposed to synthetic fabrics, or
shall I ? Of course, anyone who has a copy of Gombrich can find out for
themselves by grabbing it off the shelf, right ?
Alison.
Tomi Holmberg
> quarters, like reading books. I don't think we should feel *anxious*
> about our changes in perceptions. Remember I tried, in the Sublime
> thread, to introduce the idea that our visual perceptions have become
so
> demanding that we demand more and more from what we see. Its a change
on
> our demands and I think we should become more aware of why we demand
> different things and not lock into what we think we should be doing.
wow, alison =)
so, as the masters say; know yourself and you will know all the gods
and all the universes.
Erik A. Mattila
Alison A Raimes wrote:
Don't tell me you read Foucault like I used to read Havelock Ellis? You
know, skimming for the good parts!!!
Erik Mattila
John Haber
>Sartre's ...'man is at his best in extreme circumstances' has been
>hovering in my head, and I can't help but think that his remark is
>flawed because life itself is an extreme circumstance -- not just the
>threat to personal liberty, war and disasters. So, perhaps, with Camus?
It's very romantic. It's normally seen as influenced not just by
having lived through extreme circumstances, the occupation, where they
HAD to deliver -- both for humanity's future and their own
self-respect. And they didn't do too badly, although Sartre's taken a
bit of a beating recently on his degree of engagement. Philosohy must
have seemed as revealing too little about how to act, so perhaps that
was because it agonized over the ordinary.
But I'd like to add that there's a romantic side influenced as well by
the return to normalcy, just as the Beats or books like "The
Organization Man" responded to Cold War corporatism. And like the
Beats, who know guys know I don't like as much as others, it feels
romantic and escapist in its lack of direct engagement with the
structure of, well, the new enemy.
>I think that in every utterance of both Camus and Sartre
>there is, on the one hand, the recognition of a fundamental social
>change. It is we that need to act, to be engaged -- all those
>existential words -- to undo, in other words, what was perceived of as
>the divine failure. And secondly, there was, in every word of theirs,
>the fear that this, too, would fail.
I can't help noticing that while the man Camus really was enormously
engaged, the writer talks about the alienated (Meursault) or the
abstract (rolling a stone uphill). I ought to reread at least
L'Etranger, which I haven't touched since first-year French, but I
have a hard time now thinking of killing as a meaningless gesture of
the outsider, when there are not only things Camus would kill and die
for, like the Resistance, but also American society in which the
outsider is wrapped up in psychoses and social structures (poverty,
gun laws, media images) that are all too real.
>Know what I think? I think that Camus was an artist first.
I like that a lot. And Sartre's constantly changing kinds of prose
attest to a committed searcher.
>And something else: it now seems to me that both Camus and Sartre
>were very, very dated.
Oops, there you anticipate what I just wrote above. Thanks!
John
Sharon Barcone
*advising a graduate to invest in Meyer's Handbook - but not as insulting
*as telling someone who asks questions about art to *put a sock in it*. I
*presume you are a teacher. Do you want to explain the meaning of the
*term *Plastic Arts* to this forum as opposed to synthetic fabrics, or
*shall I ? Of course, anyone who has a copy of Gombrich can find out for
*themselves by grabbing it off the shelf, right ?
*
*Alison.
You presume too much.
I don't know why you would presume that I am a teacher. Other than a few
years as a docent ( which does translate literally to one who teaches) at
the Salvador Dali Museum, I am not a teacher. I was merely shocked that
someone could be an artist for a decade and not know the meaning of the art
term "value".
As for *Plastic Arts" I was just asking you a question, so by all means you
go right ahead and explain if you can, I would be interested in what you
have to say. Don't know about Gombrich, haven't read it.
Obviously when someone explains one way in which classical painting
techniques have expanded or enhanced their work or objectives, you ignore
it. You refuse to be open minded.
Fortunately abstract art has been on the decline since the 1960's. There is
currently a renewed interest in and desire for realistic art in many
different styles. This is not my opinion, I have read it and seen in often.
As I am sure you have. Where will you go then?
Sharon
Alison A Raimes
<Sharon...@email.msn.com> writes
>You presume too much.
>I don't know why you would presume that I am a teacher. Other than a few
>years as a docent ( which does translate literally to one who teaches) at
>the Salvador Dali Museum, I am not a teacher. I was merely shocked that
>someone could be an artist for a decade and not know the meaning of the art
>term "value".
I asked if the originator of the post with the *list* knew what *value*
meant. I suspected he was spouting off something he had been taught and
wasn't really in tune with. Most people here are just parrots .... like
a docent at a Salvador Dali museum.
When I first came to this group I discovered that the Americans had
reduced the beautiful language that used words like glaze and impasto to
lean and fat - like painting was a piece of meat. You are too easily
shocked.
I hope you and Mani find plenty to talk about - you are one of a kind.
Alison A Raimes
<Sharon...@email.msn.com> writes
>Obviously when someone explains one way in which classical painting
>techniques have expanded or enhanced their work or objectives, you ignore
>it.
Has anyone yet done this ?
>Fortunately abstract art has been on the decline since the 1960's. There is
>currently a renewed interest in and desire for realistic art in many
>different styles. This is not my opinion, I have read it and seen in often.
>As I am sure you have. Where will you go then?
I will go where my heart takes me.
Erik A. Mattila
> Fortunately abstract art has been on the decline since the 1960's. There is
> currently a renewed interest in and desire for realistic art in many
> different styles. This is not my opinion, I have read it and seen in often.
> As I am sure you have. Where will you go then?
> Sharon
I don't think that's true, Sharon. There was a low-point in the 60s for A&E,
but it recovered. In fact, many European abstract expressionists use the
demise of of New York AE to get work in the limelight of the art world. Today,
it is very viable, as you can verify by looking at what's in the galleries
today. What's really happened, however, is that genre painting and
appropriations from the past have become credible, through the agency of the
electicism of post-modernism. But AE is here to say. It's unfortunte that you
see it, or any type of art for that matter, as 'unfortunate.' Art is so much
bigger than any one of us, you know.
Erik Mattila
lake
Let's assume Deli, that that there existed somewhere a painter who knew
classical technique backwards and forwards - even better than you let's
say - but that this painter chose to do only abstract paintings. Would
his work still be invalid? In other words, is non-representational art
inferior because its practitioners are unable to paint in a classic
style, or is there some intrinsic inferiority to abstract art itself?
Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
mdeli
<floa...@address.in.sig> wrote:
>In article <38B91395...@nokia.com>, Lauri Levanto
><lauri....@nokia.com> writes
>
>>And how does this refer to a specific technique? I can render an apple
>>in five different techniques.
---So can anyone. However, they may all look equally lousy. Art is a
lot more than rendering an apple. However it seems that a lot of
so-called artists haven't enough skill to even do that well. These
are about as knowlegeable as a musician who doesn't know the scales
and it shows in everything they do.
>
>Lauri: with all due respect I think you lost the plot of this thread. It
>originated as a challenge on Mani's license to artistic freedom through
>classical training. If I were to make a defence then I would cite almost
>the entire history of Modern Art where classical training has been
>abandoned.
You would site the entire history of Modern ACADEMIC Art. Modern Art
is another story because this includes the work banned from the Modern
Sections of Museums.
Most of the crap in these modern sections contains minimal amounts of
knowledge and craftsmanship and is chosen to reside there on the basis
of its hyped signature rather than any artistic merit. It is the
business of curators to make sure that nothing that might divert the
viewers attention from those rooms full of minimal boredom should ever
enter the place.
>In regards to Sartre, it was my intention to lead the inquiry
>into what we understand by the word *freedom* and how it relates to the
>notion of artistic freedom.
Satre has nothing to do with art and hasn't done a thing to make
anyone a better artist. However, I admit that it helps to quote him
and other esoterica if you want to impress anyone with Artspeak
bullshit.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
hobbes writes
>>is it _necessary_ to learn the basics of english before writing a poem?
>>for some it maybe the only way they get the confidence to attempt it
>>at all and for others it wont make the slightest difference.
Alison writes:
>Sure I agree, but the debate has never been about learning the basics.
>It has always been about the presence of academic classical training in
>today's arts.
---Which are the basics.
The basics are what four generations of Modern Academic Art teachers
don't teach because the don'[t know them. Instead they fill their
teaching with useless platitudes, tangents and excuses.
>Academic classical training takes a great deal of time and
>commitment to something that is specific and specialised. It trains the
>eye and mind to think in a certain way which is hard to then discard.
Alison is worried that the basic knowledge she totally lacks and calls
academic is "hard to discard."
>Like being brought up in Western culture and ending up in outer Mongolia
>and having to readjust to your environment it remains forever present.
I believe that most everyone who fails to learn their craft will end
up on the street or have to change their profession.
As to the apple myth:
If Allison or most anyone sat in front of an apple long enough and
schmiered around they would get a fair drawing an apple. Big deal!
However when Alison attempts to draw a face or a figure or any complex
form in space the result is no better than an art school disaster.
Learning to draw an apple doesn't mean you know your craft anymore
than a person who knows how to add knows mathematics.
Those who haven't learned there craft, a fact which any idiot can
descern by looking at their work, will invent all sorts of warnings
that skill and craftsmanship are dangerous; that if you learn the
basics which they label academic, you will loose your freedom, your
creativity and all will only be able to draw exactly what you see in
front of you and you will produce little more than candy boxes. In
reality, they suggest that you remain an ignoramus who like Parsifall
will lumber into success.
Alison has learned a technique which produces patterns on a level
somewhat beyond marbleized paper and batiks. She thinks this is
something new, original and special and it all has something to do
with Camus and Satre etc. I doubt that she is familiar with the
abstract art of the past. If she were she would realize that her
abilities aren't up to that of a good faux-finish wall painter.
The one thing that failure art teachers can point to as positive these
days are the successful winners of the Modern Academic Art lottery who
make millions selling their signatures. They always fail to point out
the huge population of losers, of which they are somewhat more
privileged members (they at least have a job).
I have nothing against those who insist that ignorance is bliss. The
more failures out there who can't draw and don't know their craft, the
more work for those few who do.
If you learn something few can do and many want you won't have to rely
on bullshit in order to get ahead.
mdeli
<ali...@see.signature.for.address> wrote:
hobbes writes
>>is it _necessary_ to learn the basics of english before writing a poem?
>>for some it maybe the only way they get the confidence to attempt it
>>at all and for others it wont make the slightest difference.
Alison writes:
>Sure I agree, but the debate has never been about learning the basics.
>It has always been about the presence of academic classical training in
>today's arts.
---Which are the basics.
The basics are what four generations of Modern Academic Art teachers
don't teach because the don'[t know them. Instead they fill their
teaching with useless platitudes, tangents and excuses.
>Academic classical training takes a great deal of time and
>commitment to something that is specific and specialised. It trains the
>eye and mind to think in a certain way which is hard to then discard.
Alison is worried that the basic knowledge she totally lacks and calls
academic is "hard to discard."
>Like being brought up in Western culture and ending up in outer Mongolia
>and having to readjust to your environment it remains forever present.
I believe that most everyone who fails to learn their craft will end
Tomi Holmberg
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
> > Fortunately abstract art has been on the decline since the 1960's.
There is
> > currently a renewed interest in and desire for realistic art in many
> > different styles. This is not my opinion, I have read it and seen
in often.
> > As I am sure you have. Where will you go then?
>
> > Sharon
>
> I don't think that's true, Sharon. There was a low-point in the 60s
for A&E,
> but it recovered. In fact, many European abstract expressionists use
the
> demise of of New York AE to get work in the limelight of the art
world. Today,
> it is very viable, as you can verify by looking at what's in the
galleries
> today.
Let's not forget that 50-200 years is not enough to get over from such
a great movement like abstract art. that's impossible in human
resources (and i guess it will stay forever). however we have to be
aware that most of the gallerists images of art are dozens of years
behind their times (and they got their artistic legacy from one
generation before them). this explains the bad art in galleries which
also implies to most of the artists. i'm not saying that most of the
art is bad, it certainly have it's place somewhere.
> What's really happened, however, is that genre painting and
> appropriations from the past have become credible, through the agency
of the
> electicism of post-modernism. But AE is here to say. It's
unfortunte that you
> see it, or any type of art for that matter, as 'unfortunate.' Art is
so much
> bigger than any one of us, you know.
that's true, you can consider art simply as lord's will, but to affect
for lord's will, as many say it, you have to open up your mouth ;)
imo, *most* of the abstract art is bad in terms of originality. now,
usually the works are only rip off's of earlier "masters" like pollock,
kline, rothko, and whoever of 'em, but where are all the new ideas?
where are all the new perspectives, new visual tricks etc. painting is
still two dimensional and always will be (not talking about collases or
some installations). If you know some new forces on the scene what i've
been missed, please mention some names to check out!
as sharon elicit, there is a crowd of "high class" players on scene,
who speculate and believe the coming of classical painting. how it
first comes is perhaps via half-abstract works.
-tomi
John Haber
here to stay? It'd be like saying that the Hudson River School, or
even its characteristics, are here to stay just because people still
paint landscapes.
That entirely aside, I suppose the art world's official vanguard still
prefers abstract art only when it's got some strong conceptual side
that reflects critically on the possibility of abstraction. Perhaps
that even has a point of sorts, as far as defining a cutting edge that
extends art deeply. The P.S. 1 show I mentions hardly has standalone
genres, even painting, period! Yet abstract painters who get wide
attention and move me lots definitely still exist. You know how much
I like Alison's work, and she met my ex-roommate. So (again the AE
question entirely aside) there's no doubt much to be said on both
sides of this one when Sharon reports what she's heard.
john