Perception
dwi...@nas.com
Our perception of the object changes as its temperature rises beyound a
certain point. It is here that its identity is defined.Suddenly its head
and arms were disapperaring.
R. Alzofon
--
Our perception of the object changes as its pressure becomes different
from the environment around it. At a certain point, the pressure
difference becomes so great, it gives way -- it collapses at the point
that defines its limit. One moment there are head and arms, the next
moment, nothing but dissipating energy. Its limit is, in part, its
identity.
--
R. Alzofon
http://art.net/~rebecca
Jay Elless
In article <max_crittenden-...@128.18.42.2>, max_cri...@qm.sri.com says...
>Our perception of the object changes as its pressure becomes different
>from the environment around it.
You guys have been blowing too much smoke into balloons.
Re-breathing smoke risks second-hand brain damage.
And if you already own a second-hand brain, you shouldn't
further contaminate it with second-hand smoke.
--
+++++++++++++++++++
Jay Elless
+++++++++++++++++++
Jay Elless
In article <max_crittenden-...@128.18.42.2,
>Our perception of the object changes as its pressure becomes >different from the environment around it.
comprehending this gobbledygook. That's why I don't understand
anything that is happening in the Art World today. It passed me by a
long time ago. Maybe that's why I'm so mean spirited and bitter.
Jay Elless
In article <4u3ko0$7...@cello.gina.calstate.edu>, j...@jackass.com says...
Just the kind of mindless impersonation one would expect from
a summer-shool neanderthal at CalState. What's wrong -- pissed that
UT stole your baseball coach away?
Regiment's Hobby Shop
Jay Elless <j...@jackass.com> wrote:
>In article <max_crittenden-...@128.18.42.2,
>max_cri...@qm.sri.com says...
>
>>Our perception of the object changes as its pressure becomes >different from the environment around it.
>
>Ok guys, I have to admit I'm not very smart. I'm not capable of
>comprehending this gobbledygook. That's why I don't understand
>anything that is happening in the Art World today. It passed me by a
>long time ago. Maybe that's why I'm so mean spirited and bitter.
> +++++++++++++++++++
> Jay Elless
> +++++++++++++++++++
I don't know much about the sport, but I believe in Scuba diving this
variation in pressure is called *the bends*. Jay, the art world hasn't
passed you by, you're just suffering from its noxious gases.....
AT
Jay Elless
In article <4u50pd$e...@ns3.n-link.com>, game...@n-link.com says...
>>Ok guys, I have to admit I'm not very smart. I'm not capable of
>>comprehending this gobbledygook. That's why I don't understand
>>anything that is happening in the Art World today. It passed me by a
>>long time ago. Maybe that's why I'm so mean spirited and bitter.
>> --
>> +++++++++++++++++++
>> Jay Elless
>> +++++++++++++++++++
>----------------------------------
>I don't know much about the sport, but I believe in Scuba diving this
>variation in pressure is called *the bends*. Jay, the art world hasn't
>passed you by, you're just suffering from its noxious gases.....
>AT
First of all, I did not write the above. See my disclaimer. Some
smartass with nothing to do but impersonate others in newsgroups
is wasting theirs and others times with this sort of drivel. Hope
school starts again soon wherever they are so they can get back
to learning about life instead of trying to imitate it.
The REAL Jay Elless . . .
dwi...@nas.com
"Take an object. Do something to it. Do something else to it......"
Johns?
"What you see there is there"?
The object is a word.
CAT
>Our perception of the object changes as its temperature rises beyound a
>certain point. It is here that its identity is defined.Suddenly its head
>and arms were disapperaring.
The aim of our perception is to reach a maximum of feeling while visually
holding the form in aesthetic control. The observer may be drawn into a
more actively reciprocal realtionship with the art by viewing it in a
introspectively lyrical way rather than a rigid formal or logical way if
the temperature is below 75 degrees. If it gets to warm to have a
reciprocal realtionship with the art, go have a beer.
CAT
R Blanchard
Jay Elless wrote:
> >Our perception of the object changes as its pressure becomes >different from the environment around it.
>
> comprehending this gobbledygook. That's why I don't understand
> anything that is happening in the Art World today. It passed me by a
> long time ago. Maybe that's why I'm so mean spirited and bitter.
Maybe you need to kick back, have a smoke and a cuppa, then take another
look. You will be absolutely sure that your perceptions are fine, the
'gobbledygook' *is* the current artform, and the sooner it passes out of
favor, the better off we all will be.
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
> >>comprehending this gobbledygook. That's why I don't understand
> >>anything that is happening in the Art World today. It passed me by a
> >>long time ago. Maybe that's why I'm so mean spirited and bitter.
> >> +++++++++++++++++++
> >> Jay Elless
> >> +++++++++++++++++++
> First of all, I did not write the above....
Interesting. Seems another address did show up above, as 'gamestore'.
Send him your attorney's name.
But the 'real' Jay did post some useless drivel about a baseball coach,
eh?
--
Rick Blanchard
Jay Elless
In article <320ED2...@sd.znet.com>, bde...@sd.znet.com says...
>But the 'real' Jay did post some useless drivel about a baseball coach,
>eh?
>--
>Rick Blanchard
Useless to whom? Depends on whether you are a CalState fan
or a Longhorn fan -- or neither most likely.
dwi...@nas.com
> The aim of our perception is to reach a maximum of feeling while visually
> holding the form in aesthetic control. The observer may be drawn into a
> more actively reciprocal realtionship with the art by viewing it in a
> introspectively lyrical way rather than a rigid formal or logical way if
> the temperature is below 75 degrees. If it gets to warm to have a
> reciprocal realtionship with the art, go have a beer.
>
> CAT
The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which colors the
perceptual event's essential character and therefore conceals our
intuitive awareness of the real objects true nature. The observer creates
emotional attributes and bestows them upon the object but is not the
originator of the object which possesses no emotive attributes. This
applies equally to the artist who assumes that art is the result of a
unique, personal expression. Any reciprocal relationship which occurs in
an introspectively lyrical way occurs outside the object and is
attributable only to the observer. Establishing a reciprocal relationship
with the art requires an aesthetic attitude or acquiescence to a situation
pre-established by convention. This acquiescence also influences the
perceptual event.
From the "Eighth Surface of the Painting"
Regiment's Hobby Shop
If you write something so convoluted the meaning is lost, does that mean
it (the writing) no longer exsists?
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this post saying that what the
artist paints and what the viewer sees are not always the same thing?
I'll buy that...if that's not the idea, then I'm lost.
AT
CAT
In article <dwilson-1208...@dialup18.nas.com>,
dwi...@nas.com wrote:
>The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which... >snip<
>From the "Eighth Surface of the Painting"
Wow! Classic! My hat is off to you. That is some really impressive
ArtSpeak. This Buds for you.
Greenberg and Hughes would be proud.
CATacquiescence
Mary Odom, Daniel, and Matthew
> >> holding the form in aesthetic control. The observer may be drawn into a
> >> more actively reciprocal realtionship with the art by viewing it in a
> >> introspectively lyrical way rather than a rigid formal or logical way if
> >> the temperature is below 75 degrees. If it gets to warm to have a
> >> reciprocal realtionship with the art, go have a beer.
> >>
> >> CAT
> >
> >The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which colors the
> >perceptual event's essential character and therefore conceals our
> >intuitive awareness of the real objects true nature. The observer creates
> >emotional attributes and bestows them upon the object but is not the
> >originator of the object which possesses no emotive attributes. This
> >applies equally to the artist who assumes that art is the result of a
> >unique, personal expression. Any reciprocal relationship which occurs in
> >an introspectively lyrical way occurs outside the object and is
> >attributable only to the observer. Establishing a reciprocal relationship
> >with the art requires an aesthetic attitude or acquiescence to a situation
> >pre-established by convention. This acquiescence also influences the
> >perceptual event.
> >
> If you write something so convoluted the meaning is lost, does that mean
> it (the writing) no longer exsists?
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but is this post saying that what the
> artist paints and what the viewer sees are not always the same thing?
> I'll buy that...if that's not the idea, then I'm lost.
> AT
It means that the interpretation of the work of art lies outside the work -- it goes something
like this:
A) The event (in this case, the painting, sculpture, symphony, whatever, considered as a
specific percieved event) has an existance of its own.
B) Human beings have a lousy signal to noise ratio, if you get my meaning -- we tend to distort
the events we percieve. (Qu: does the distortion occur before or after perception?)
1) Humans percieve things in works of art that are not actually attributes of those works;
therefore, these percieved attributes are a result of "noise."
2) Conversely, when an artist creates a work, and believes that he has put things into it that
are not actually a part of the created event, this belief is a product of "noise."
THEREFORE
Discussion of imagined emotional attributes in an event (in this case, a work of art) is
pointless -- the perception of these attributes, which is a result of "noise", is completely
subjective.
OK?
Bruce Attah
In article <AE35113A...@pa1dsp19.nc5.infi.net>, cat...@nc5.infi.net
(CAT) wrote:
> In article <dwilson-1208...@dialup18.nas.com>,
> dwi...@nas.com wrote:
>
> >The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which... >snip<
>
> >From the "Eighth Surface of the Painting"
>
> Wow! Classic! My hat is off to you. That is some really impressive
> ArtSpeak. This Buds for you.
>
> Greenberg and Hughes would be proud.
>
> CATacquiescence
Clement Greenberg was as wrong as a wrong person being completely wrong,
but at least you knew why he was wrong. This dwilson person goes beyond
that, into the realms of the truly baffling. How does he/she do it? CAT,
I admire your bravery in attempting to parody an earlier post from our
resident sage, but it appears Guru dwilson can outdo any parody.
BTW, this "Eighth Surface of the Painting" must be really something. So
far, after a good few years of practice, I've only ever managed to produce
paintings with two surfaces, and only one surface worth looking at (if
that!). I am eager to receive further enlightenment from the Zen master
of planet Zgrothx!
Kajojacobs
In article <320FD6...@spidome.net>, "Mary Odom, Daniel, and Matthew"
<mo...@spidome.net> writes:
>
>Regiment's Hobby Shop wrote:
>>
>> >From the "Eighth Surface of the Painting"
This stuff is so deep it just feels good to wallow in it.
~Karen Jacobs~
R Blanchard
Jay Elless wrote:
> Useless to whom? Depends on whether you are a CalState fan
> or a Longhorn fan -- or neither most likely.
Is that Adrian Longhorn, who did "Swans Ascending the Bridge Abutment"
or Terry Longhorn who does those performance pieces with cheerleaders
and band members smearing each other with fake blood?
Never heard of this CalState person.
If they're not artists, try another newsgroup for such posts.
--
Rick Blanchard
R Blanchard
dwi...@nas.com wrote:
>
> > The aim of our perception is to reach a maximum of feeling while visually
> > holding the form in aesthetic control. The observer may be drawn into a
> > more actively reciprocal realtionship with the art by viewing it in a
> > introspectively lyrical way rather than a rigid formal or logical way if
> > the temperature is below 75 degrees. If it gets to warm to have a
> > reciprocal realtionship with the art, go have a beer.
> >
> > CAT
>
> The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which colors the
> perceptual event's essential character and therefore conceals our
> intuitive awareness of the real objects true nature. The observer creates
> emotional attributes and bestows them upon the object but is not the
> originator of the object which possesses no emotive attributes. This
> applies equally to the artist who assumes that art is the result of a
> unique, personal expression. Any reciprocal relationship which occurs in
> an introspectively lyrical way occurs outside the object and is
> attributable only to the observer. Establishing a reciprocal relationship
> with the art requires an aesthetic attitude or acquiescence to a situation
> pre-established by convention. This acquiescence also influences the
> perceptual event.
>
> From the "Eighth Surface of the Painting"
Our perceptions have no aim. They are formed from neurochemical
compounds colliding within our own unique organism. Each personal
chemical balance structures the neurochemistry in the most direct path
to create the least harm or discomfort to the organism. This includes
neural electrochemical impulses directed from the brain. If the object
perceived (being in all cases neutral, as an outside event) triggers a
chemical imbalance in a personal organism, it is an adjustment to the
body chemistry to achieve balance and prevent harm or discomfort.
The production of a piece of art is to be seen as a necessary activity
to bring the organism, i.e. the artist, into balance. An artist is
harmed or in discomfort if the artwork is not produced, and is kept out
of a balanced state until the piece is produced.
Beyond this the rest is bullshit.
From the "Thirty-First Surface of Painting"
--
Rick Blanchard
ellie clemens
In article <dwilson-1208...@dialup18.nas.com>, dwi...@nas.com says:
>
>
>> The aim of our perception is to reach a maximum of feeling while visually
>> holding the form in aesthetic control. The observer may be drawn into a
>> more actively reciprocal realtionship with the art by viewing it in a
>> introspectively lyrical way rather than a rigid formal or logical way if
>> the temperature is below 75 degrees. If it gets to warm to have a
>> reciprocal realtionship with the art, go have a beer.
>>
>> CAT
>
>The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which colors the
>perceptual event's essential character and therefore conceals our
>intuitive awareness of the real objects true nature.
Well, I find the image of an "aim" being "blunted" to be a very clumsy
mixed metaphor, but that aside, you go on to say that [emotion] "conceals our
intuitive awareness of the real object's true nature." It's not clear
whether you mean an artist should be a camera-head and just copy exactly
what's out there, or whether you think that there's some "true nature"
that an artist devoid of emotion (camera??, idiot??, brain-dead zombie?)
can somehow perceive. Now, I *think* what you are trying to say is that
the artist should have some sort of mental/spiritual interaction with the
subject. (Or are you saying the exact opposite?) I'm not generally
stupid, but if your writing is this hard to decode, what is the point?
Who are you talking to? Do you know a second language? A very good way
to root out foolishness on one's writing is to try translating it. The
meaningless phrases are impossible to translate.
-ellie
Regiment's Hobby Shop
kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs) wrote:
(about the recent posts on perception, reality, etc)
>
>This stuff is so deep it just feels good to wallow in it.
>
>~Karen Jacobs~
Frankly, I can't follow most of this thread. The reasoning is getting
much too convoluted and circuler to make sense to me. But, for what it's
worth, those who are interested in the mechanics of perception might try
reading "An Anthropologist On Mars" by Oliver Sacks. It has some
extremely interesting essays on artists, who through brain damage or some
other physical anomoly (sp?) *cannot* perceive the world and their art as
you and I do. (although after reading some posts today I wonder if I
perceive anything the way others do, maybe that's the point....).
AT
dwi...@nas.com
In article <4usk9f$3...@news-old.tiac.net>, cle...@ccs.tiac.net (ellie clemens)
> -ellie
>The aim of our perception is blunted by emotion which colors the
>perceptual event's essential character and therefore conceals our
>intuitive awareness of the real objects true nature.
>Well, I find the image of an "aim" being "blunted" to be a very clumsy
>mixed metaphor,
Not a useful criticism.
> but that aside, you go on to say that [emotion] "conceals our
>intuitive awareness of the real object's true nature."
> It's not clear
>whether you mean an artist should be a camera-head and just copy exactly
>what's out there,
> or whether you think that there's some "true nature"
>that an artist devoid of emotion (camera??, idiot??, brain-dead zombie?)
>can somehow perceive.
I am not saying anyone should be anything. Is intuitive awareness a form
of perception? These statements are meant to stimulate consideration of
the object and its perception; not criticism of their syntax. If we spend
our time trying to rearrange the syntax of a phrase or the apparent
attributes of an object to our liking we are wasting our time in useless
analysis. Remaking the perceived object?
> Now, I *think* what you are trying to say is that
>the artist should have some sort of mental/spiritual interaction with the
>subject.
The object and the subject are the subject of this inquiry. Some painters
make paintings(objects)that make reference to a subject. Other painters
make paintings(objects) that make reference only to themselves. Each of
them possesses perceivable qualities or attributes. The structure and the
relationships(syntax) of their attributes are determined by the
subject(perceiver). The painter perceives the structure as it unfolds
during the process. The subject perceives the structure as it unfolds
during the process. Each is influenced by emotion, memory and imagination
which are unique to the individual. The quality of meaningfulness although
clear to some may not be clear to others. Factors that can affect the
perception of meaningfulness include; language, memory, cultural bias,
emotional state, situational preconditions, et al. I'm saying that the
real object is not subject to these factors. It exists in its own light .
> (Or are you saying the exact opposite?) I'm not generally
>stupid, but if your writing is this hard to decode, what is the point?
No you are not stupid. Recent surveys show that people on-line are 10%
more intelligent than those that are not. Art is not always easy.
>Who are you talking to? Do you know a second language? A very good way
>to root out foolishness on one's writing is to try translating it.
Not a useful criticism or useful advice. Whats done is done.
> The meaningless phrases are impossible to translate.
Are the meaningless phrases meaningless because of their structure or are
they meaningless because we cannot perceive the harmonious relationships
of their parts? Is an object without meaning an object without attributes?
John Chapman
>kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs) wrote:
>(about the recent posts on perception, reality, etc)
>
>This stuff is so deep it just feels good to wallow in it.
>
>~Karen Jacobs~
>-----------------
I once had a converstion with an activist/scholar type
who does a fair amount of post-modern and post-structralist
theory, though tends to keep it grounded in the real world.
She described a lecture by Gyatri Spivak, one of the more
lofty and academic post-structuralists out there (she was
one of the first to publish a translation of Derrida into
english). She described the lecture as being like a poetry
reading. You didn't try to understand what she was trying
to say, you just listened to the way she put together words.
Sometimes I think we should look at a lot of artspeak in a
similar vein. Approach it as a literary form.
CAT
In article <4usnll$9...@ns3.n-link.com>,
Regiment's Hobby Shop <game...@n-link.com> wrote:
>Frankly, I can't follow most of this thread. The reasoning is getting
>much too convoluted and circuler to make sense to me.
You are not supposed to. Just pretend to follow it. That is the joy and
fun of ArtSpeak.
CAT
Kajojacobs
>kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs) wrote:
>(about the recent posts on perception, reality, etc)
>>
>>This stuff is so deep it just feels good to wallow in it.
>>
>>~Karen Jacobs~
>-----------------
>Frankly, I can't follow most of this thread. The reasoning is getting
>much too convoluted and circuler to make sense to me. But, for what it's
>worth, those who are interested in the mechanics of perception might try
>reading "An Anthropologist On Mars" by Oliver Sacks. It has some
>extremely interesting essays on artists, who through brain damage or some
>other physical anomoly (sp?) *cannot* perceive the world and their art as
>you and I do. (although after reading some posts today I wonder if I
>perceive anything the way others do, maybe that's the point....).
>
>AT
Whatever it is they are talking about here beats the trash talk going on
elsewhere in this ng. I'm delighted someone is offering something
worthwhile - even if I can't always follow it, the challenge is there.
Will have to let you know later if I agree or disagree, going back now, to
read it one more time.
~Karen Jacobs~
dwi...@nas.com
I've Been Framed
Thats right! I've been framed. Goddammned fast thinking know- it- all's
framed me on the basis of perception. Can you believe it? Commoners and
fools.
Thats what they are. They've fallen all over themselves in their rush to
achieve perceptual equilibrium. The meaning of the whole depends upon the
relationships of its parts. Its a simple concept requiring no thoughtful
analysis. Hell, its decades old. Can't establish perceptual equilibrium?
Use your imagination and your memory. Then give it attributes it doesn't
really have. Make it something you can act on. Give it meaning. Give it a
word. Make yourself a painting.
CAT
A free quote from my incredible #1 best selling Hooked on ArtSpeak Multi
Level Marketing tapes and seminars. As seen on the Danny Bonoduce-Kevin
Trudeau show.
Ground floor opportunity!
Unlimited potential!
Be your own boss!
*****************************************
..... When you are at the gallery, place your thumb and forefinger under
your chin while looking at your favorite black canvas or pile of broken
sticks. It will make you look pensive and intellectual. The occasional nod
of the head or biting of the lower lip is helpful as you peruse the
masterpieces. (study Bill Clinton) When listening to to ArtSpeak say
ummmm-hum or ahhhh (not too loud though) and nod your head in agreement
with the artspeaker. Chances are you will not understand any of the
ArtSpeak especially when spoken by a master. That does not matter! Using
these simple tools you will fit in any artzy fartzy clique.
Creating your own ArtSpeak...........
*****************************************
See you all at the seminars. Bring your credit cards!
Free bonus!
A special 15 minute Artspeak session by the well respected and incredible
ArtSpeak wizard dwi...@nas.com.
Kajojacobs
In article
<Bruce.Attah-19...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
>
>> We have been freed from the yoke of only replicating nature.
>
>You accused Bob Speel of not understanding abstract art, though his post
>gave no indication that he did not understand abstract art, merely that
he
>did not *like* it as much as the art of the 19th century.
>
>Meanwhile, your statement above shows clearly that you do not understand
>"realistic" art. Such art is NOT about "only replicating nature", and
>never has been.
>
>> We can now express imagination, emotion, even thought in art.
>
>We always could, and we always did. I further contend that we did it
>better, on the whole, before modernism came along.
>
>
Music without words might be called abstract music - instrumental music
may be good or bad, but the presence of vocals does not make that
determination.
I, personally, do not like to listen to music with vocalists telling me
all about their lives and experiences, I prefer to just listen to the
music. There are exceptions, of course, which I enjoy and perhaps even
sing along with.
I like my art the same way - no images. As with music, the presence of an
image in a painting does not determine its worth. In any case, let me
decide what to make of the painting without being funneled into some
storytelling event. There are exceptions here, as well, I have many
favorite realistic artists. But given a limited time to look, show me to
the abstracts, please (and I don't want to see some vague figure floating
in the shadows!)
~Karen Jacobs~
Bubba KaBoom
http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@7387@uk%2efinance
> RE: ! NEW MLM opens in the UK!!!, not yawn but YIKES!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From Bubba KaBoom <bub...@pernet.net>
> Organization RedNecks Need Permits For Pistols & Computers
> Date 17 Aug 1996 04:41:00 GMT
> Newsgroups uk.finance
> Message-ID <4v3igs$j...@jennifer.pernet.net>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://xp6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=3D13492&server=3Ddnserver.dbapr&CONT
> EXT=3D840257038.23588&hitnum=3D6
> > [Image][Visit our Sponsor]
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile]
> > [Post] [Post] [Reply]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > Article 7 of 820
>
> > Subject: ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL ACCUSES KEVIN TRUDEAU OF ILLEGLA PYRAMID SCHEME
> > From: mta...@interramp.com (Mark Taylor)
> > Date: 1996/04/19
> > Message-Id: <mtaylor-1904...@38.12.203.31>
> > Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
> > Newsgroups: alt.business.multi-Level,alt.business,misc.entrpreneurs,alt.consumers,,alt.consumers.experiences,biz.marketplace.dis=
> cussion,biz.marketplace.servi
>
> > The 4/18/96 edition of the Wall Street Journal carried the following
> > article concerning Kevin Trudeau/Nutrition For Life:
>
>
> > Nutrition for Life's Distributor Charged In Pyramid Scheme
>
> > CHICAGO -- The Illinois attorney general accused the largest distributor
> > for Nutrition for Life International Inc., Houston, of operating an illegal
> > pyramid scheme.
>
> > In an Illinois state court, Attorney General Jim Ryan alleged that Kevin M.
> > Trudeau, Trudeau Marketing Group Inc. and sales distributor Jules Leib
> > violated the state's consumer-fraud laws and failed to disclose relevant
> > background information. The suit alleges Mr. Trudeau and the other parties
> > make money recruiting sales representatives rather than selling products and
> > that Mr.Trudeau never disclosed past felony convictions and a bankruptcy.
> > The suit seeks a restraining order, permanent injunctions and a $50,000
> > penalty.
>
> > Nutrition for Life, a marketer of nutritional supplements, wasn't named as
> > a defendant in the suit.
>
> > Both a Nutrition for Life spokesman and a spokeswoman for Mr. Trudeau
> > declined to comment, saying they hadn't seen the suit. Mr. Trudeau has said
> > he is in compliance with all state regulations.
>
> > This newspaper reported in January that Mr. Trudeau had been convicted of
> > larceny and credit-card fraud. Mr. Trudeau is the top distributor of
> > Nutrition for Life and the beneficial owner of a 13% stake in the company.
>
> > Nutrition for Life has said its "executive" distribution progam is being
> > investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible
> > securities-law violations. Mr. Trudeau is a member of that program, although
> > he has said he hasn't been contacted by SEC officials.
>
> > [Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile]
> > [Post] [Post] [Reply]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Image][Visit our Sponsor]
Philip May
I like both music and painting -- I compose music, play piano and work as
an illustrator/painter. Some philosophers have disparraged this so called
"synthesis of the arts," but to me it is the only way to view modern life:
as a barrage of many different media, all coliding with one another, often
out of control. It is the job of the artist to find order in this
confusion: to control it and present it in a way that strives to make
sense of ourselves and our times.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Philip Mayor
Westwood, Los Angeles CA.
graphic artist/filmmaker/pianist/composer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bubba KaBoom
http://ww2.altavista.digital.com/cgi-bin/news?msg@7382@uk%2efinance
> RE: ! NEW MLM opens in the UK!!! ['ya gotta see THIS info!!!]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From Bubba KaBoom <bub...@pernet.net>
> Organization RedNecks Need Permits For Pistols & Computers
> Newsgroups uk.finance
> Message-ID <4v3iuf$j...@jennifer.pernet.net>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://xp6.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=3D4064722&server=3Ddnserver.dbapr&CO
> NTEXT=3D840257038.23588&hitnum=3D43
> > [Image][Visit our Sponsor]
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > [Previous] [Next] [Hitlist] [Get Thread] [Author Profile]
> > [Post] [Post] [Reply]
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > Subject: 5/10/96 Houston Chron Article on TRUDEAU
> > From: mta...@interramp.com (Mark Taylor)
> > Date: 1996/05/10
> > Message-Id: <mtaylor-1005...@38.12.203.248>
> > Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link
> scussion,biz.marketplace.serv
> > Article Segment 1 of 3
> > (Get All 3 Segments)
>
> > The following article appeared in the May 10 edition of the Houston
> > Chronicle (This information brought to you by the Online Fraud Newsletter
> > dedicated to investigating and reporting on illegal opportunities and
> > programs advertised on the Internet. Please send e-mail for details.)
>
> > By Michael Davis, Houston Chronicle
>
> > Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
>
> > May 10--When Nutrition For Life International made Kevin Trudeau a
> > distributor about two years ago, company officials knew he was no choir boy.
>
> > A twice-convicted felon who had served time in a federal prison, Trudeau
> > also had a reputation as a charismatic salesman, the "king of
> > infomercials."
>
> > In Trudeau, Nutrition For Life got its top salesman, and then some.
>
> > Now, as the Securities and Exchange Commission investigates the
> > company's distributor recruiting practices and authorities in Illinois
> > prepare a case against Trudeau for allegedly running an illegal pyramid
> > scheme, the chief concern among Nutrition For Life investors and
> > distributors is how the Houston company will fare if it has to continue
> > without Trudeau,who has been instrumental in doubling the company's sales
> > in the last year.
>
> > The company, with about 175 employees in Houston, has grown
> > significantly since Trudeau began aggressively marketing distributorships
> > in March 1995. He is estimated to have signed up about 30,000 new
> > distributors through his Trudeau Marketing Group based in Chicago. The
> > total number of distributors has almost doubled from 44,000 a year ago to
> > about 82,000.
>
> > Sales of the company's vitamin and health food products -- as well as its
> > lesser-known water and air filtration systems, weight management products,
> > skin care products and cleaning concentrates -- went from $17.6million in
> > 1994 to $32.3 million in 1995.
>
> > For fiscal 1996's second quarter, the company had a record $3.67 million profit.
>
> > "The company turned in sensational numbers for the quarter, but they were
> > overshadowed by Kevin Trudeau's problems," said Ed Larkin, an analyst with
> > Cohig & Associates, the Denver-based company that helped underwrite
> > Nutrition For Life's last stock offering in July 1995. "The facts have
> > changed dramatically in the past two months."
>
> > The Illinois attorney general filed suit April 17 against Trudeau and his
> > associate Jules Lieb, charging they were running an illegal pyramid scheme
> > with Nutrition For Life and another so called "multilevel marketing"
> > company, Nightingale Conant.
>
> > In Illinois, a pyramid scheme is defined as an operation in which a person
> > has the opportunity to benefit based upon inducing others to participate
> > in the program and is not contingent on the volume or quantity of goods,
> > services or other property sold or distributed. In such a scheme, sign-up
> > fees from new distributors are used to compensate distributors who joined
> > earlier, meaning those who sign up lasttypically end up losing all of
> > their money.
>
> > Michigan has ordered Trudeau to stop all marketing activity in the state
> > related to the Trudeau Marketing Group. The state also ordered him to
> > dissolve TMG, which was incorporated in Illinois.
>
> > Chris DeWitt, a spokesman for the Michigan attorney general's office, said
> > his office attempted to have some discussions with Trudeau prior to
> > issuing the cease-and-desist order but that Trudeau was "less than
> > cooperative." DeWitt would neither confirm nor deny that Michigan was
> > preparing to file a suit against Trudeau similar to Illinois' action.
>
> > As Nutrition For Life prospered from Trudeau's efforts, so too has it
> > suffered from his legal woes. The company's stock lost about 50 percent of
> > its value in the week following the Illinois suit, filed April 17, one day
> > after KPMG Peat Marwick resigned as the company's auditors. KPMG has not
> > offered an explanation for its resignation.
>
> > The stock has since strengthened somewhat. After hitting a 52-week low of
> > 10 on April 24, it's been trading recently for about 14 and closed
> > Thursday at 141/4.
>
> > (Get Next Article Segment)
Mdeli
kajoj...@aol.com (Kajojacobs) wrote:
>I like my art the same way - no images. As with music, the presence of an
>image in a painting does not determine its worth.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH ABSTRACTION BUT WITH MODERN
ACADEMIC ABSTRACTION.
It is a delusion to think that an image or the lack of
one has anything to do with the merit of a work.
You seem to imagine that those who reject the values of
Modern Academic art reject all abstraction. Japanese,
Islamic and much advertising art is abstract and I
would not deny its merit.
> In any case, let me
>decide what to make of the painting without being funneled into some
>storytelling event. There are exceptions here, as well, I have many
>favorite realistic artists. But given a limited time to look, show me to
>the abstracts, please (and I don't want to see some vague figure floating
>in the shadows!)
Classical abstraction has technique skill and
imagination without conforming to the fashions of
academic abstraction. And I needn’t see vague figures
floating in the shadows of these works.
Mani DeLi
-no skill no art
Bruce Attah
In article <4vdn0r$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kajoj...@aol.com
(Kajojacobs) wrote:
> Music without words might be called abstract music - instrumental music
> may be good or bad, but the presence of vocals does not make that
> determination.
Abstract paintings may also be good or bad. I happen to think that
abstract expressionism as a style tended to produce bad abstract art.
I do not object to abstract art as such -- why would I? What I do object to are
(1) the pretence that abstraction is a modernist innovation,
(2) the pretence that depiction ('representation') is passe, and
(3) the poor quality of the bulk of abstract painting that is found in the
museums.
> ...funneled into some storytelling event...
Are all figurative paintings of a storytelling nature?
> But given a limited time to look, show me to the abstracts, please...!
How limited...under 5 seconds? Abstract or realistic, good art rewards
long inspection.
Earlier this year, I wrote a long piece in praise of the traditions of
abstract art that have persisted for some thousands of years. Perhaps you
did not come across that piece, or you would not imagine that I was
opposed to abstract art.
Yolanda Liberte
In article <4vihq3$f...@news.interlog.com>, hu...@interlog.com says...
>You seem to imagine that those who reject the values of
>Modern Academic art reject all abstraction. Japanese,
>Islamic and much advertising art is abstract and I
>would not deny its merit.
Are you not confusing abstraction with pattern, designs, and
decoration? Isamic art in particular, at least in the accepted
traditional sense, relies strongly on clearly defined repeating
designs -- or patterns, if you will. These are carefully laid out
designs, especially as found in ornamental texts and the
architectural details of buildings. Both Japanese and Islamic
art relies heavily on calligraphic designs -- not abstract
spontaniety.
--
<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
Yolanda Liberte
<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<:>:<>:<>:<>
Bruce Attah
In article <4vkf39$s...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, yo...@free.com (Yolanda
Liberte) wrote:
The confusion here is not between abstraction and pattern, but between
abstraction and 'spontaneity'. Pattern and repetition are neither
necessarily present nor necessarily absent from abstract art, and the same
goes for spontaneity. Some abstract styles appear very spontaneous (much
of Kandinsky's work, for instance) while other work, such as that of Piet
Mondrian, Victor Vasari, Bridget Riley, Frank Stella and many others, is
clearly calculated with a good deal of precision. A lot of abstract
painting that _appears_ spontaneous is claimed by its artists to be the
product of very careful forethought.
On the other side of the coin, pattern, repetition and spontaneity can and
do appear in figurative art.
Bruce Attah.
Yolanda Liberte
In article <Bruce.Attah-23...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk says...
>The confusion here is not between abstraction and pattern, but between
>abstraction and 'spontaneity'.
This is one of those arguments that of its own can be so convoluted
as to be pointless. Jackson Pollock's work is usually thought of as
the epitomy of spontaniety, when in fact, it was a very controlled
process with Pollock constantly making thoughtful choices.
But the by definition, PATTERN, in its decorative context, means
a REPEATING design. Certain elements repeat themselves to form
a coherent, visually stimulating whole. So if one equates abstraction
with deliberation, and spontaniety with non-deliberation, then I suppose
we can narrow the terms of our argument some. I'm not sure that
there is a point in doing so though -- except for the sake of argument.
--
<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<>
Yolanda Liberte
<>:<>:<>:<>:<>:<:>:<>:<>:<>
Jack Smith
Yolanda Liberte wrote:
>
> And this post was keeps repeating itself, put here by an obsessive-
> compulsive, AIDS infected faggot...
Yolanda Liberte is not a woman. Yolanda is a homophobic, misogynistic,
bigoted old man living in Austin, Texas; who pretends to be an art
professional, and pretends to be associated with the University of
Texas.
Here is a post Yolanda Liberte (Jay Elless <j...@tejas.com> A.K.A. Barbie
Kew, Helen Bakk, Rose Madder, etc.) made last January when he was
calling himself Ima Dillo:
Subject: re: What do YOU think.
From: Arm...@shell.com (Ima Dillo)
Date: 1996/01/10
Message-Id: <4d0o20$j...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Organization: Tex-I-Can, Inc.
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Because I don't want all the fairies in the world invading my
email box, you will have to reply here to this post query.
While cruising through southern New Mexico early one morning,
before sunrise, on an open highway without another vehicle in
sight, I was pulled over for speeding by a New Mexico State
Trooper. I accepted the ticket, put it in my bag, and didn't look
at it until later when I was unpacking from my trip. The ticket
is a carbon copy, and written across the face with a pen and
ink in original form are these words:
Hi My name is Charlie, and I'm gay.
The officer's signature on the carbon of the ticket is Charles D____.
Aside from being highly insulted by the inferrence of handing this
ticket to a lone male driver in the darkness of early morn, I am
astounded that a highway patrol officer would exercise such
un-professionalism.
My legal question is this. Was the ticket voided by his actions?
I intend to write to the New Mexico Dept. of Public Safety and
complain, and ask that this ticket be voided as an acceptable
apology to me.
Ima Dillo.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here is another post Yolanda Liberte (Jay Elless <j...@tejas.com>)
made in June when he was calling himself Rose Madder:
Subject: Re: How do you know the county is . . .
From: Fugi...@large.com (Rose Madder)
Date: 1996/06/28
Message-Id: <4r1e58$d...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Distribution: austin
References: <4qmcpq$5...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<4qmjui$l...@boris.eden.com> <4qon9i$2...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<4qrrq7$b...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <31D2A124...@tab.com>
Organization: Colorful Characters, Inc.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: austin.general
In article <31D2A124...@tab.com>, j...@tab.com says...
>Needles to say, if Rose Madder really is a true transsexual she'll
>figure it out some day.
Honey, I figured out long ago who and what I am. Visualize a
morphing of former Gov. Ann Richards with columnist Molly Ivins,
then age the morphed image a 1/4 century, and add the sound
of Phyllis Dillard's voice and laugh and you will be damned close to
figuring out why I choose to disguise myself and sport an alias.
--
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Colorful but fugitive.
~ Rose Madder ~
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bruce Attah
In article <4vn0i3$n...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, yo...@free.com (Yolanda
Liberte) wrote:
[...some confused nonsense...]
Abstraction has nothing to do with spontaneity or its deliberation.
Abstraction has nothing to do with the presence or the absence of pattern.
Abstraction has nothing to do with the presence or absence of repetition.
Abstraction, as the term is commonly used, concerns only the absence of
depiction, or its stylization to the verge of unrecognizability.
Abstraction is not a new idea; it has existed since neolithic times.
Kajojacobs
In article
<Bruce.Attah-23...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
>(Kajojacobs) wrote:
>
>> Music without words might be called abstract music - instrumental music
>> may be good or bad, but the presence of vocals does not make that
>> determination.
>
>Abstract paintings may also be good or bad. I happen to think that
>abstract expressionism as a style tended to produce bad abstract art.
As has realism of all styles produced both good and bad art. (Is there an
echo in here?)
>
>I do not object to abstract art as such -- why would I? What I do object
to
>are
>
>(1) the pretence that abstraction is a modernist innovation,
So.....?
>(2) the pretence that depiction ('representation') is passe, and
Say's who?
>(3) the poor quality of the bulk of abstract painting that is found in
the
>museums.
Your opinion... which is probably right on...could be said of
paintings of all styles, right?
>
>
>
>> ...funneled into some storytelling event...
>
>Are all figurative paintings of a storytelling nature?
Yes...in your face!
>
>
>> But given a limited time to look, show me to the abstracts, please...!
>
>How limited...under 5 seconds?
Be real...
> Abstract or realistic, good art rewards
>long inspection.
>
Who said otherwise, Bruce? The paintings I like get a good long
look - abstract or otherwise. I stated my preference. I am entitled to
like what I like. I have been giving art a good long look for a good long
time. I wish I had your ability to argue the matter to the death (but I
wouldn't if I could.) To put it simply - you are overlooking, or
ignoring, the fact that there is something for everyone in art (as well as
music, theater, dance, etc.) Time will tell what will last and what will
not, but in the meantime, isn't it of value that we are not all seeking
the same thing? How boring and how very uncreative.
>
>
>
>Earlier this year, I wrote a long piece in praise of the traditions of
>abstract art that have persisted for some thousands of years. Perhaps
you
>did not come across that piece, or you would not imagine that I was
>opposed to abstract art.
>
>
It's quite possible that I read it (after a point, my eyes tend to glaze
over) and possibly agreed with it. But why pick on abstraction as a whole
when bad art afflicts all styles?
~Karen Jacobs~
Kajojacobs
In article
<Bruce.Attah-27...@support-saturn.isltd.insignia.com>,
Bruce...@insignia.co.uk (Bruce Attah) writes:
>
>Abstraction has nothing to do with spontaneity or its deliberation.
>Abstraction has nothing to do with the presence or the absence of
pattern.
>Abstraction has nothing to do with the presence or absence of repetition.
>
>Abstraction, as the term is commonly used, concerns only the absence of
>depiction, or its stylization to the verge of unrecognizability.
>
>Abstraction is not a new idea; it has existed since neolithic times.
>
>
(There's that darned echo again!)
Did I miss the part where you said something positive about abstraction?
(Other than you don't dislike good abstraction.)
What are your favorite *ancient* abstractions?
This inquiring mind really wants to know...in twenty five words or less,
pulleeze!
~Karen Jacobs~
Bruce Attah
In article <501253$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kajoj...@aol.com
(Kajojacobs) wrote:
> I (Bruce Attah) wrote:
>
> What I do object to are
> >
> >(1) the pretence that abstraction is a modernist innovation,
And Karen Jacobs asked:
>
> So.....?
So it is part of the justification of avant gardism, and the mindless
pursuit of innovation (sans purpose) that goes with it, and of course it
leads to the second pretence
> >(2) the pretence that depiction ('representation') is passe, and
>
> Say's who?
Says, for a start, Wassily Kandinsky, who in 1911 wrote that "The
spiritual triangle moves slowly onwards and upwards", indicating that the
(materialistic and backward) base segment of this triangle was populated
by "Jews, Catholics, Protestants etc.", as well as democrats and
republicans (small letters) and Socialists. Slightly higher up the scale
were naturalists in art, and far ahead of them, near the pinnacle, were
Picasso and Matisse. Kandinsky the symbolist-abstractionist-Theosophist
was of course understood to be the at the apex itself.
A few years later, the constructivists took up the idea, and also Mondrian
and his crew. Interestingly, Picasso was always inflexibly opposed,
saying that painting would become worthless if the subject were to be
abandoned.
By the run-up to the Second World War, these originally eccentric opinions
had become the establishment view, and Hilla Rebay wrote in 1937 for the
Guggenheim museum that abstractionism could "eliminate entirely the
unnecessary hindrance of intellect for the art of vision." Earthly
objects and intellectual subjects with titles and meanings were now the
province of photographers and poets. By the way, that last opinion of
Hilla Rebay is not in accord with Kandinsky's view. The latter was
convinced that 'meaningful' poetry was going to be replaced by sound
poetry, and that subject-matter as a focus would disappear from all the
arts. Apart from its stupid paean to 'genius', Hilla Rebay's essay echoes
your sentiments almost exactly when it explains why abstractionism is to
be preferred over representation.
Opposition to depiction has not waned. Donald Judd and Carl Andre are
well known for their vehement condemnation of anything non-abstract. In
preference, they want a sort of bloodless, introverted aestheticism. As
far as I amd concerned, they can have it, they can engage their simpering,
puritanical tendencies to their hearts content. Just be sure that I'm
having none of it.
But nowadays, of course, the abstract/realist debate has been left behind,
and people like Carl Andre are figures from the past arguing points that,
as far as the bulk of the criterati (nice word, that!) are concerned, have
been resolved long ago, or at least become uninteresting. The current
opinion to have is that *any* sort of painting, whether abstract or not,
is passe. Indeed, abstractionists today are much like impressionists in
the 1930s: _sort_of_ modern, but not quite. Brandon Taylor's recent
survey, "The Art of Today" (1995) bleeds antipictorialism from every
page. At one point, he dismisses the School of London (which includes
Frank Auerbach and Lucien Freud) as "an historical backwater", and one is
inclined to ask, how does he know that? Can he tell the future of
history?
>
> >(3) the poor quality of the bulk of abstract painting that is found in
> the
> >museums.
>
> Your opinion... which is probably right on...could be said of
> paintings of all styles, right?
Yes, and no. Granted, there's a lot of poor quality figurative art to be
seen in museums -- much of it produced in this century -- but the
abstract art is overwhelmingly poor. Note that I have not yet said 'bad',
simply because abstract art is incapable of being bad in any real sense of
the word. This is especially true of doctrinaire modernist abstract
painting, since, by prohibiting all _semblance_ of depiction and all
_semblance_ of decoration, the artists have limited themselves to a tiny
fraction of what is possible and to nothing at all where value counts for
anything. The doctrinaire modernist abstract painting (DMAP, in case I
need to use the phrase again) has no significance other than as an object
created by a supposed genius (cf. Hilla Rebay and others). As such, it is
no more capable of being bad than an inert and innocuous object created by
nature. When is such an object ever truly ugly? When, indeed, does such
an object ever totally lack beauty? Never, and so it is with DMAP. It is
possible to produce objects of truly amazing beauty -- but in order to do
so, you have to abandon the precepts of DMAP.
'Realistic' painting, on the other hand, can be genuinely, revoltingly
bad, or in its goodness can be truly amazing, verging on the miraculous.
For one thing, there are more configurations of light and dark, more sorts
of composition and focus, more varieties of texture available than are
permissible in DMAP, simply because DMAP prohibits anything that gives,
for instance, an illusion of depth or atmosphere or direction of light,
but also because the attempt to understand and represent visual reality
acts as a springboard for the imagination. For another thing, values
attach to depictions and to the manner of depiction. For instance, a
green blob (in DMAP) means 'rather pretty shade of green', whereas on a
leaf or a human face that same shade might be exactly right or shockingly
wrong -- it might even radically change the meaning of the whole picture.
So, the abstract painting on display in our museums is poor because of the
silly and arbitrary set of prohibitions (must not suggest representation,
must not hint at decoration) that prevent it from being as fine and
various as it might, but it is not downright bad. For that, we have to
look to David Hockney, Eric Fischl, Ian Katz, Philip Guston, Oskar
Kokoshka and others who paint in a 'realistic' mode. (I've heard that
Fischl's painting is improving, but I haven't seen any of his most recent
work, so my remarks are based on earlier output.)
> >> ...funneled into some storytelling event...
> >
> >Are all figurative paintings of a storytelling nature?
>
> Yes...in your face!
So, what sort of story does an Andy Warhol portrait of Marylin Monroe
tell? Do we learn from such a picture that Marylin Monroe was born Norma
Jean King, that she became a Hollywood star, that she married a famous
playwright, that she may have had an affair with the US president, and
that her death is held by some to have been a suicide, while others
suspect murder? No. Does it tell us that Andy Warhol met Marylin Monroe,
or that the latter sat for the former? No. Does it tell us that neither
of these events occurred? No. Does it even tell us that a person
resembling Marylin Monroe really existed and was not a figment of the
artist's imagination? No. The 'portrait' tells us nothing about the
model, the artist, or even about its own creation.
That was an obvious example, but there are thousands more I could offer
that would reinforce the truth that a figurative painting need not carry
any more narrative baggage than an abstract one.
> >> But given a limited time to look, show me to the abstracts, please...!
> >
> >How limited...under 5 seconds?
>
> Be real...
Okay, I'll be real...under 10 seconds? How desparately short of time do
you need to be for the mere presence of subject-matter in a work to
preclude your enjoyment of it? If time were limited to minutes rather
than hours, wouldn't you rather see a few good pictures than many trivial
ones?
> I stated my preference. I am entitled to
> like what I like. I have been giving art a good long look for a good long
> time.
Sure, you are entitled. You have a right -- but that doesn't mean you
*are* right. I'm just helping you change your preferences from those to
which you are entitled, but which are wrong, to those to which you are
entitled, and which are right.
> I wish I had your ability to argue the matter to the death (but I
> wouldn't if I could.) To put it simply - you are overlooking, or
> ignoring, the fact that there is something for everyone in art (as well as
> music, theater, dance, etc.)
I quite agree with you that there is something for everyone in art, but I
am equally convinced that there is more for everyone in some art than in
other art. Spend too much time with the cheap pap, and you'll get used to
it, and once that happens, real nourishment will seem like too much hard
work. My aim is to encourage you, and others like you, so see afresh how
yawning is the gulf between the truly great art and the stuff you feed
yourself upon daily.
You say that I have an ability to "argue the matter to the death". If I
do, it is because I have thought long and hard about these matters, and I
think them important. I only hope I can persuade you to my view.
> Time will tell what will last and what will
> not, but in the meantime, isn't it of value that we are not all seeking
> the same thing? How boring and how very uncreative.
Yes, it is of value that we are not all seeking the same thing. And
figurative painting brings out that fact more effectively than abstract
painting can (even good abstract painting). Even so, I have no desire to
condemn the production and enjoyment of abstract painting -- that should
be a part of an art-lover's balanced diet, though a relatively minor part,
in accordance with its consequence.
I think that a lot of people who claim to prefer abstract to figurative
painting do so because they have been deprived of the opportunity to see
figurative painting of a high quality that speaks directly to them. It is
understandable that some people find the work of Renaissance and Baroque
artists to be too remote in its concerns to capture their attention. The
dominance of antifigurative and antipictorial attitudes within the art
establishment during much of this century has had a lot to do with this.
Fortunately, with the fragmentation of the modernist orthodoxy,
opportunities for modern (but not modernist) figurative painters have now
opened up.
Without figuration, painting would be dead now, having long since (despite
strenuous efforts to hold itself aloof) become a standard part of
corporate decorative schemes everywhere. What's needed now is an
improvement in the quality of the figuration we now have.
> >Earlier this year, I wrote a long piece in praise of the traditions of
> >abstract art that have persisted for some thousands of years. Perhaps
> you
> >did not come across that piece, or you would not imagine that I was
> >opposed to abstract art.
> >
> >
> It's quite possible that I read it (after a point, my eyes tend to glaze
> over) and possibly agreed with it. But why pick on abstraction as a whole
> when bad art afflicts all styles?
I haven't picked on abstraction as a whole. My attacks have been reserved
for particular abstract styles noted for attempting to hide their vacuity
behind monumental proportions: in particular, Abstract Expressionism and
Post-Painterly Abstraction.
> ~Karen Jacobs~
Bruce Attah.
Kajojacobs
Bruce Attah wrote:
>>Sure, you are entitled. You have a right -- but that doesn't mean you
*are* right. I'm just helping you change your preferences from those to
which you are entitled, but which are wrong, to those to which you are
entitled, and which are right.>>
KJ reply's:
(I can't believe how hard I'm working at this...there is no way this
visual person can give a proper retort to your well-thought opinions
without adding volumes to this over-chewed thread. But I must defend my
point because...)
I'm wondering if it is a matter of perspective -
Your's seems to be from a historic point of view, forming an opinion based
on quotes made by super egos (who are the ones that attract attention and
become quoted in the first place.) History always seems to boil down to
politics and war - and art history fits nicely into this scenario -
exaggerated opinions cause sides to choose this style over that - or
determine good art vs. bad art. But I contend that *Art* raises above all
of that. There is room for all art done creatively, with or without
appropriation, in a manner that pleases or does not please the viewer.
Opinions, like statistics, are formed from whatever information you choose
to be impressed by, and can be made to sound like facts, which they are
not - they are just opinions.
My perspective is from one who painted highly detailed realism for many
years (on a level that earned numerous honors, so some thought it
acceptable.) My work evolved and began leaning heavily on abstract
compositions (contemporary realism?) When I gave up the image entirely, I
rediscovered my passion for paint on canvas and the satisfaction that
comes from working freely in an inventive style. Some may say they see
symbols and meaning, I may even suggest a few myself - but how they got
there was not predetermined.
History will decide if my efforts are good art or not - I really won't
care once I'm out of here. The works of dead artists (realists or AE)
which appreciate in value are a commodity first, a work of art, second.
And nine times out of ten (no stats to back this up, just opinion) they
were produced as (dirty word coming up...) *decorative* art to begin with.
There may be a lot of 'passion' out there producing 'disagreeable'
results, so what? Cross the street - hit the delete button - hold your
nose - whatever, but the world is round, my friend, and we can't see over
the horizon to "the future of history." Your Elmer-Gantry-like efforts
(along with others) to corral us back to one "ism" or even to designate
what is good or bad art isn't likely to work. Not when it feels so good
to smear that paint around and so satisfying to find wonderful
developments that we didn't copy from something sitting there in front of
us. That's where art begins - in the process. When it becomes the
redundant use of technique and subject it may be called fine art, but it
is really fine craft.
(Please notice that I have made no disparaging remarks against realism - I
may return to it one day - please leave the light on.)
Karen Jacobs
==========================================
> ~Karen Jacobs~
Bruce Attah.
~Karen Jacobs~
Kajojacobs
Bear with me . . . just one more brief point:
In article <50g8i5$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, kajoj...@aol.com
(Kajojacobs) writes:
>
>> >> But given a limited time to look, show me to the abstracts,
>please...!
>> >
Bruce: >> >How limited...under 5 seconds?
>>
>> Be real...
>
>Okay, I'll be real...under 10 seconds? How desparately short of time do
>you need to be for the mere presence of subject-matter in a work to
>preclude your enjoyment of it?
It is *redundancy* that I have no time for, be it real or abstract. It
takes much less than 5 seconds to recognize the same tired subject
matter/technique presented again and again. (OK at the State Fair - Not OK
in museums.) Show me a painting that I wish I had painted, and you'll
find my nose prints all over it. And right now, images get in the way of
my viewing enjoyment. (Re: the original point of this thread - example -
a really great instrumental intro, spoiled by someone wailing about
his/her love life or lack of same. I hate it when that happens!)
>If time were limited to minutes rather
>than hours, wouldn't you rather see a few good pictures than many trivial
>ones?
Absolutely!!!
~Karen Jacobs~