negitive criticism a no-no?
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <337bc13e...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> This code has carried itself into the world of Modern
> Academic Art. If you criticize something you don't
> like, directly, concisely and to the point, the modern
> aesthete complains that he is offended and often lets
> go an Artspeak blast. Don't dare be negative.
>
This is a good point. There is a lot of rubbish about, however,
there is a risk to somebody expressing strong negative criticism. They
can be shown to have simply not understood, or appreciated the work
as a result of their own blocks. Where there has been widespread
criticism - as of the impressionists, for example, it has often
been followed by general acceptance and appreciation of the art
a few years later. This is clearly not always true, but, it is
wiser [or just more timid] to be more muted in objection.
It is also the case that, as much public appreciation of art is based
on how well it has been marketed, strong negative criticism can have
the opposite effect from that intended. I wish that I had been around
when the impressionists were being so criticised, and bought up half
a dozen at knock down prices.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli
>In article <337bc13e...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
>>
>> This code has carried itself into the world of Modern
>> Academic Art. If you criticize something you don't
>> like, directly, concisely and to the point, the modern
>> aesthete complains that he is offended and often lets
>> go an Artspeak blast. Don't dare be negative.
>>
>This is a good point. There is a lot of rubbish about, however,
>there is a risk to somebody expressing strong negative criticism. They
>can be shown to have simply not understood, or appreciated the work
>as a result of their own blocks.
If I see Matisse painting and the hands and feet look like a bunch of
flat flippers do tell us a way of wording this thought that you would
consider more suitable. If someone says they look like that because I
don't understand. All he needs do to explain why.
>
>It is also the case that, as much public appreciation of art is based
>on how well it has been marketed, strong negative criticism can have
>the opposite effect from that intended.
How?
> I wish that I had been around
>when the impressionists were being so criticised, and bought up half
>a dozen at knock down prices.
If I had bought a de Kooning cheap at the time I could have and now
sold it for millions to some idiot collector it wouldn't make it a
better painting nor would it make my criticism any less negitive.
MD
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <337cc2e7...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> On Fri, 16 May 97 15:04:14 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> Brooks") wrote:
>
> >In article <337bc13e...@news.interlog.com>
> > hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> >>
>
> If I see Matisse painting and the hands and feet look like a bunch of
> flat flippers do tell us a way of wording this thought that you would
> consider more suitable. If someone says they look like that because I
> don't understand. All he needs do to explain why.
>
I am quite happy to do so. You seek direct realism. There is nothing
wrong with this, and the camera will provide it to you. Painting tried
to do this before the camera, as did sculpture, but it failed. Apply
your concerns to Michaelangelo's 'David' and you will see that it fails
on a number of levels, it is too big for a human, it is too hard, it
lacks the natural colour of a person, and it doesn't show real toe
and fingernails. So, if you wish to object to art, then object to
it all and go for your camera.
If, on the other hand, you see some merit in the abstraction shown
in the statue of David, then you are just arguing about what
relative abstraction gives you a buzz. Maybe ducks on a wall
satisfy your need for realism, after all, they are more accurate
than David.
> >
> >It is also the case that, as much public appreciation of art is based
> >on how well it has been marketed, strong negative criticism can have
> >the opposite effect from that intended.
>
> How?
>
Consider the success of the 'praying hands'. These are often reproduced
in bronze and are very popular. They are actually very good, but many
other works that are quite up to the same standard - consider Rembrant
and his sketches of elephants, limbs and faces that have no similar
following.
>
> > I wish that I had been around
> >when the impressionists were being so criticised, and bought up half
> >a dozen at knock down prices.
>
> If I had bought a de Kooning cheap at the time I could have and now
> sold it for millions to some idiot collector it wouldn't make it a
> better painting nor would it make my criticism any less negitive.
>
No, I would hope that you would have the integrity to stick with
your personal view. If you can describe the aesthetic that determines
a good from a bad painting or drawing I shall always be in
your dept.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
m...@mkcolling.com
> >
> This is a good point. There is a lot of rubbish about, however,
> there is a risk to somebody expressing strong negative criticism.
Of course nobody's going to take a trashing. If you say something is
rubbish. Period. that's a trashing, an emotional diatribe. To that a
logical debater says "define your term," anyone else responds to emotion
with emotion, "who do you think you are?" You have to back your claim with
evidence - good reasoning - before it's valid criticism.
I'm probably thirty years out of date, because I studied philosophy. But .
. . criticism to me means a field of knowledge used to assign specific
pieces of art to categories so they can be compared with all other members
of their categories to determine how they rank for strength. The valid
critical arguments are over categories and what belongs in them and over
evaluation standards.
There's nothing negative except that sometimes an artist has to accept
that, in terms of what he's attempting, other people who attempted it
acommplished it more successfully. Or the critic has to accept that
somebody else knows more or has a better argument. the point of criticism
is learning why things work or don't work and how to make them work better.
A productive critical discussion ends with everyone's feeling uplifted,
informed and proud to be human.
A competent critic needs as close to perfect knowledge as humanly possible
about the entire field of art, about everything that's been done and who's
done it, to make those comparisons and explain them productively. That's
his job. Otherwise his opinions are hot air and he has no purpose on earth.
That's not to say nobody else can have an opinion or express it. It's just
that an unsubstantiated opinion has no value.
mdeli
On Fri, 16 May 97 21:20:43 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
Brooks") wrote:
>In article <337cc2e7...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
>> On Fri, 16 May 97 15:04:14 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
>> Brooks") wrote:
>>
>> >In article <337bc13e...@news.interlog.com>
>> > hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>> >>
>>
>> If I see Matisse painting and the hands and feet look like a bunch of
>> flat flippers do tell us a way of wording this thought that you would
>> consider more suitable. If someone says they look like that because I
>> don't understand. All he needs do to explain why.
>>
>I am quite happy to do so. You seek direct realism. There is nothing
>wrong with this, and the camera will provide it to you.
Utter nonsense. I don't seek direct realism.
Almost no realistic painting would be mistaken for a photograph. No
photograph matches a fine Dutch flower painting, Canaletto or
Bouguereau. Dali and Tanguy painted hyper-realism. These painting look
nothing like photographs nor do Rockwell's..
>Consider the success of the 'praying hands'. These are often reproduced
>in bronze and are very popular. They are actually very good, but many
>other works that are quite up to the same standard - consider Rembrant
>and his sketches of elephants, limbs and faces that have no similar
>following.
That's all very nice but you haven't told us why Matisse paints hands
and feet that look like flat flippers done in a manner no better than
that a ten year old. My "understanding" is that it has nothing to do
with photography and everything to do with incompetence. I contend
that its because he never learned how to draw much of anything,
realism or anything else.
>>
>> > I wish that I had been around
>> >when the impressionists were being so criticized, and bought up half
>> >a dozen at knock down prices.
>>
>> If I had bought a de Kooning cheap at the time I could have and now
>> sold it for millions to some idiot collector it wouldn't make it a
>> better painting nor would it make my criticism any less negitive.
>>
>No, I would hope that you would have the integrity to stick with
>your personal view. If you can describe the aesthetic that determines
>a good from a bad painting or drawing I shall always be in
>your dept.
>
I've described what constitutes bad drawing as that has been a subject
of my discussion. Bad drawing contains no skill, the worst is what
anyone can do.
I presume you claim to understand something which I don't. Its up to
you to tell me why Matisse draws the way he does as it was you who
inferred that I don't understand.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <mk-ya023180001...@news.frontiernet.net>
m...@mkcolling.com writes:
>
> A competent critic needs as close to perfect knowledge as humanly possible
> about the entire field of art, about everything that's been done and who's
> done it, to make those comparisons and explain them productively. That's
> his job. Otherwise his opinions are hot air and he has no purpose on earth.
>
Such people do exist. I think that Kenneth Clark in the 'Civilisation' films
made this criticism very approachable to the masses. The one problem that I
have found is to detect the pseud. Some 'critics' produce masses of turgid
prose with plenty of references but, when you persist [if you do], in
working out what they are banging on about it is piffle. Consequently,
I favour short elegant pieces of prose that make telling points
simply.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <337d15cf...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> I've described what constitutes bad drawing as that has been a subject
> of my discussion. Bad drawing contains no skill, the worst is what
> anyone can do.
>
>
> I presume you claim to understand something which I don't. Its up to
> you to tell me why Matisse draws the way he does as it was you who
> inferred that I don't understand.
>
Not really, I believe that I am more generous in judgement of the
overall effect of a picture, rather than what a close observation
of technique may show to be under expressed. This obviously varies
from artist to artist and picture to picture. Escher, for example,
plainly aims for drawing perfection, in detail, if I noticed a
missing finger on a hand it would clearly be a mistake. Having said
that, some Escher prints are stylised making birds look like
carved wooden toys. I believe that this is deliberately done
for effect. In the case of Matisse, I am quite happy to believe
that he found hands difficult to draw and even that he couldn't
draw them. However a good many artists who can't draw hands get
around this problem by hiding them. Matisse doesn't. Matisse also
seemed to be very concerned about getting composition right rather
than Escherlike detail. So I think the hands are drawn that way
as they are important to the composition, but not needed to be
there in detail.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
MrMalo
> > I wish that I had been around
> >a dozen at knock down prices.
>
> If I had bought a de Kooning cheap at the time I could have and now
> sold it for millions to some idiot collector it wouldn't make it a
> better painting nor would it make my criticism any less negitive.
>
No, I would hope that you would have the integrity to stick with
your personal view. If you can describe the aesthetic that determines
a good from a bad painting or drawing I shall always be in
your dept.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
if it invokes in the viewer the same feeling and idea that it does in the
artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
:)
Larry Seiler
MrMalo wrote:
>
... If you can describe the aesthetic that determines
> a good from a bad painting or drawing I shall always be in
> your dept.
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> if it invokes in the viewer the same feeling and idea that it does in the
> artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
> feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
>
> :)
>
This is all simple cultural relativism. What has happened to the ethics
and morality by transitions of the four major worldviews is also
happening to the arts. There no longer is an acceptable worldview that
recognizes absolute truth or universals. As a result, no common ground
will be found by argumentation of what is skillful art and what is not.
The prurient interests of debased character would in times past been as
scorned as his/her art...but essentially, if we find anyone that is so
moved with a similar ideology, you suggest that it is then fine art.
I'm afraid that if civilization survives, our generation will have
provided great amusement, pity, and disgust for the historians of their
day. Interesting as we judge the errors of past history, we fail to
recognize our own.
(Sorry mdeli, I'm going to alter your saying a bit here as a closure,)
"no absolutes..no basis to recognize skill"
Larry
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > if it invokes in the viewer the same feeling and idea that it does in the
> > artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
> > feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
>
> This is all simple cultural relativism. What has happened to the ethics
> and morality by transitions of the four major worldviews is also
> happening to the arts. There no longer is an acceptable worldview that
> recognizes absolute truth or universals. As a result, no common ground
> will be found by argumentation of what is skillful art and what is not.
>
Very well put. I don't agree that there is no longer a worldview that
recognises universals, I and many other people, yourself included from
the sound of it, hold that view. There is, however, a great deal
of 'New Age' nonsense abroad that depends upon rejecting universal
truth. Since journalists, academics in soft subjects, and some able
art marketeers are keen on pushing this view, it seems to have
the ascendancy.
>
> I'm afraid that if civilization survives, our generation will have
> provided great amusement, pity, and disgust for the historians of their
> day. Interesting as we judge the errors of past history, we fail to
> recognize our own.
>
I think that many of us do recognise not only this fallacy, but
also the dangers inherent in it.
>
> "no absolutes..no basis to recognize skill"
>
True. Not definitive, however, despite their being absolute values,
it is still the case that one may not recognise a truly novel
aesthetic - one does not have to give credence to all that is new,
simply because it is new, and, to appeal to the fact that certain
people of genius were not recognised in there life time is no
defence against bad art.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <33807de5...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> On Sat, 17 May 97 05:57:20 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> >>
> >Not really, I believe that I am more generous in judgement of the
> >overall effect of a picture, rather than what a close observation
> >of technique may show to be under expressed.
>
> Close observation is out of bounds for the modern artzy fartzy because
> there is no technique to observe closely. For the most part he stands
> far away from a painting and imagines he sees something others don't.
> It makes him feel very superior. This is why most modern art is
> worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance from a man in a
> rush.
>
This may be true. I think that there is some philistinism in praising
technique over composition. You can go to any high street 'art gallery'
and be overwhelmed with massive exhibition of highly overworked
'technique', horses coming out of the waves etc. etc, with never
a piece of art in the place.
>
> >In the case of Matisse, I am quite happy to believe
> >that he found hands difficult to draw and even that he couldn't
> >draw them. However a good many artists who can't draw hands get
> >around this problem by hiding them. Matisse doesn't.
>
> Right on. But if Matisse were to hide everything he couldn't draw his
> paintings would just contain a background
>
Maybe. I don't think that there is enough evidence to be certain of this.
After all, impressionism did value the overall impression over the
fine detail. If you class van Gogh as an impressionist, then, I
find it very difficult to object to this. Having spent quite some time
studying van Gogh, I am convinced that most of the time [his Japanese
period is a quite awful exception] his lack of traditional technique
did lead to masterpieces. The technique isn't lacking, quite the
reverse, it is simply very different.
>
> > Matisse also
> >seemed to be very concerned about getting composition right rather
> >than Escherlike detail. So I think the hands are drawn that way
> >as they are important to the composition, but not needed to be
> >there in detail.
> >
> Matisse's paintings and drawings are ridicules in all respects. His
> composition amounts to nothing, his jelly bean colors are childishly
> inferior, his subject matter utterly conventional and his drawing
> abominable. One doesn't have to look close to sense this.
>
I wouldn't agree. I think that, though initially the ponds do look
rather a mess, they to certainly grow on you. I have absolutely no
reason to wish to like them, but, having spent time with the originals,
I have to confess to having warmed to them.
>
> Matisse does perfect examples of no skill realism. His much touted
> abstraction is on the level of any mediocrity found in any commercial
> graphics in a magazine.
>
I don't think that it is fair to judge him as a realist. Even the famous
execution painting is clearly intended to be, at least to some extent,
abstract. I think that the power that it has is precisely because it
is abstract. The same subject executed with consumate technical skill
in a realistic manner would be likely to have very little impact.
Actually, having previously only seen poor reproductions of the
execution picture [I forget its exact title], I was arrested by
it when walking through the Glyptotech in Copehagen recently. It was
hung in a gallery filled with rather indifferent paintings, and I
had no idea that it was there. It suddenly imposed itself on me
forcefully. I spent quite some time contemplating it and decided
that it was a magnificent painting. Of course, the guns are not
very accurate [I couldn't read the manufacturers name], and the
hands were not as accurate as flippers, being merely blobs of
paint. The tragedy and emotion was, however, brilliantly
conveyed.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <33807c71...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> On 17 May 1997 14:57:12 GMT, MrMalo <male...@mail.sccoast.net> wrote:
>
> >if it invokes in the viewer the same feeling and idea that it does in the
> >artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
> >feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
>
> Tell us how you can tell what the feelings of the artist are? I could
> never tell nor did I ever care.
>
That you don't know shows that you don't pretend to be a psychic, that
is no matter. That you don't care suggests that you are a philistine.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Larry Seiler
> > > artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
> > > feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
> >
> > and morality by transitions of the four major worldviews is also
> > happening to the arts. There no longer is an acceptable worldview that
> > recognizes absolute truth or universals. As a result, no common ground
> > will be found by argumentation of what is skillful art and what is not.
> >
> Very well put. I don't agree that there is no longer a worldview that
> recognises universals, I and many other people, yourself included from
> the sound of it, hold that view. There is, however, a great deal
> of 'New Age' nonsense abroad that depends upon rejecting universal
> truth. Since journalists, academics in soft subjects, and some able
> art marketeers are keen on pushing this view, it seems to have
> the ascendancy.
> >
When I refer to living in an age where the worldview no longer
recognizes universals..I am refering not to the fact that individuals of
past various worldviews are yet living and have some influence, but as
you know the prevailing current view..which we know today as
postmodernism. I am encouraged some still hold to the existence of
absolute truth.
> > I'm afraid that if civilization survives, our generation will have
> > provided great amusement, pity, and disgust for the historians of their
> > day. Interesting as we judge the errors of past history, we fail to
> > recognize our own.
> >
> I think that many of us do recognise not only this fallacy, but
> also the dangers inherent in it.
> >
> > "no absolutes..no basis to recognize skill"
> >
> True. Not definitive, however, despite their being absolute values,
> it is still the case that one may not recognise a truly novel
> aesthetic -
true....believing absolutes exist does not inherently mean one is
dedicated to any degree of excellence, or committed to contemplation, or
astute in aesthetics. Marketing knows very well how poorly educated
society is and has been in truly understanding aesthetics and is one
reason poor arts thrive...(inclusive of all genres and styles!)
one does not have to give credence to all that is new,
> simply because it is new, and, to appeal to the fact that certain
> people of genius were not recognised in there life time is no
> defence against bad art.
>
You are right...but I would say genious not recognized is yet a sign, a
testimony, an evidence of a growing ignorance and desensitizing, a
result of poor education and bad art. No defence against bad art, but
evidence against it.
Larry
mdeli
On 17 May 1997 14:57:12 GMT, MrMalo <male...@mail.sccoast.net> wrote:
>if it invokes in the viewer the same feeling and idea that it does in the
>artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
>feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
Tell us how you can tell what the feelings of the artist are? I could
never tell nor did I ever care.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
>In article <337d15cf...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
>>
>> I've described what constitutes bad drawing as that has been a subject
>> of my discussion. Bad drawing contains no skill, the worst is what
>> anyone can do.
>>
>>
>> I presume you claim to understand something which I don't. Its up to
>> you to tell me why Matisse draws the way he does as it was you who
>> inferred that I don't understand.
>>
>Not really, I believe that I am more generous in judgement of the
>overall effect of a picture, rather than what a close observation
>of technique may show to be under expressed.
Close observation is out of bounds for the modern artzy fartzy because
there is no technique to observe closely. For the most part he stands
far away from a painting and imagines he sees something others don't.
It makes him feel very superior. This is why most modern art is
worthy of little more than a fifteen second glance from a man in a
rush.
>In the case of Matisse, I am quite happy to believe
>that he found hands difficult to draw and even that he couldn't
>draw them. However a good many artists who can't draw hands get
>around this problem by hiding them. Matisse doesn't.
Right on. But if Matisse were to hide everything he couldn't draw his
paintings would just contain a background
> Matisse also
>seemed to be very concerned about getting composition right rather
>than Escherlike detail. So I think the hands are drawn that way
>as they are important to the composition, but not needed to be
>there in detail.
>
Matisse's paintings and drawings are ridicules in all respects. His
composition amounts to nothing, his jelly bean colors are childishly
inferior, his subject matter utterly conventional and his drawing
abominable. One doesn't have to look close to sense this.
Matisse does perfect examples of no skill realism. His much touted
abstraction is on the level of any mediocrity found in any commercial
graphics in a magazine.
Dan
At the risk of sounding paranoid, delusional, or at the very least
crass might I suggest yet another reason for today's seemingly
meaningless skill-less artwork.
It has been suggested here that realists and 'skill-mongers' are
'commercial', producing art for the sake of money only. They also
state that 'art for art's sake' is the only true fine art and that the
accessability and understanding of the general public has nothing to
do with a pieces' merits. I will flip back and forth from paraphrasing
the book to my opinion, indicating the changes.
Book:
I maintain that the exact opposite is true. In his book, "All
Consuming Images... The Politics Of Style In Contemorary Culture",
Stuart Ewen outlines the the history of commercialism in America from
the 18th century to the present. In this he shows the division of the
classes that happened with the coming of the Industial Age. The
Industrial Age also brought about the downfall of skilled artisans as
cheap mass produced items forced them out of the marketplace and into
the factories. As the industrialists prospered the working classes
felt the need to have at least the appearance of wealth and the
industrialists were happy to oblige. Thus began the circle of having
things in order to be recognised as having worth. People would furnish
only the front half of the house so as not to appear 'poor' and not
furnish the back because they couldn't afford it.
Opinion:
Around this time came the advent of the camera. The thinking became 'a
camera can reproduce this.... we must do something different'. This is
the first flaw in logic on the road to today. The rich, having bought
this first lie and having killed skilled workmanship with their
factories clamored after something new to hang in their homes...
something expensive... something the masses couldn't have. This is
where I believe artspeak began.
Book:
The advent of the Technological Age brought about a shift in this
thinking. The thrust of advertising became 'Be the first in your
neighborhood to have...'. Radio and TV pushed this into every home in
America. Fortunes were now being made from slick advertising
campaigns.
Opinion:
It is during this time that art moved from impressionistic to
abstract. After all, once a trend has started, who's going to tell the
ones with the money and power 'The Emperor Has No Clothes'? (where
have I heard this before?) Music began its' downturn as well, with the
loss of complex melodies in favor of the three chord turnaround. Don't
get me wrong, I love Rock'n'roll, but the classics move me in more
directions. The critics have now raised another generation to believe
what they have been pushing. Another important event of these times
was the advent of Pop art. This was art available to the masses, mass
produced and marketed. This made some 'commercial' artists very rich,
and in my opinion threatened the 'fine art' artists and critics
causing them to create a wider rift in the art world to protect their
'commercial' interests with cries of 'commercialism' and 'illustrative
art'.
Book:
We move into the Information Age with yet another shift in thought.
Now in order to be recognised you must have the 'right' things... the
right brand name, the right style, the most up to date technology,
etc. The thought processes through the years have moved from the
appearance of being rich, to being the first to have something, to the
something being your identity. All of this brought about by the media
exploiting peoples' needs to be important, recognised and worthwhile.
With the death of monarchies and power being bestowed by birthright
came the Industrial Revolution with power bestowed by money.
Opinion:
With these shifts in thought came the idea that the things regardless
of quality or craftsmanship (skill) had merit by name alone, if the
name could be marketed well. Each new technology is marketed not by
actual need for the item, but by playing on the publics' desire for
'new', 'state-of-the-art', gee-whiz type advertizing. Admen compete to
sell you the identity you 'must have to compete in todays world'.
'Moving at the speed of buisness', for example, is a concept that
anyone who works for a large corperation understands to be a falacy.
Skill and craftsmanship have all but died in a mass produced, marketed
world. With those commodities no longer required the arts are fair
game to commercialism. Music now no longer requires anyone to learn
how to play an instrument. All you need to know is how to recite
poetry to a beat. After all, this is an 'art form'. It gives identity
to many. It too has a form of artspeak all its' own. It makes a ton of
money. It must be legit. Can you guess where I'm going with this?
Now I didn't quote a facists' remarks to get my point across, but
rather a broad historic view with the aid of a noted social
commentarian. Which do you think is more believable and would be
accepted by more people?
Dan
Dorothy M. Danforth
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> MrMalo wrote:
> >
> ... If you can describe the aesthetic that determines
> > a good from a bad painting or drawing I shall always be in
> > your dept.
> >
> > --
> > Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
> > feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
> >
> >
>
> This is all simple cultural relativism. What has happened to the ethics
> and morality by transitions of the four major worldviews is also
> happening to the arts. There no longer is an acceptable worldview that
> recognizes absolute truth or universals. As a result, no common ground
> will be found by argumentation of what is skillful art and what is not.
>
> scorned as his/her art...but essentially, if we find anyone that is so
> moved with a similar ideology, you suggest that it is then fine art.
>
> provided great amusement, pity, and disgust for the historians of their
> day. Interesting as we judge the errors of past history, we fail to
> recognize our own.
>
>
>
Larry,
I read your post regarding "no skill realism" and I agree with much of
what you said except for the "decline of man" aspect of your viewpoint.
I would like to know at what point in history you felt that there was a
world view of acceptible art or of universal truths? I don't believe
there to be one. To my knowledge, there has never been a time when we as
humans have had one completely unified civilization. Also consider that
we generally only hear about history's victors.
What would make you think that now is any different to then? In short,
you can not make a judgement on the impact of a genra or idealology
unless it is in retrospect.
Although personally, I would rather there be some sort of code or rule
to decide what is "good" art and what is rubbish (only of course, to
prove my own work the former). But there has never been a universal
concept of good let alone good art.
This said, I throw on the table that... skill, style, medium etc. are
irrelevant and all fall at the feet of time and context. And although I
agree that "no absolutes..no basis to recognize skill" is accurate. I
would add that there has never been any absolutes. Therefore, there has
never been a basis of recognizing skill.
The only absolutes are your own, the only truths are your own, the only
good art is art that you yourself deem good based on your personal
absolutes and truths.
And hey, if someone (or a group) has a similiar view of your work, and
you get your message across ... all the better. But this does not add
to, nor does it detract from the value judgment someone else may have
placed on it. (dare I say...everyone is right and/or everyone is wrong
in this scenario, all depending on the vantage point)
PS - I doubt future generations will be laughing at us too loudly
considering they too will be awash in their own mistakes.
:)
--
Dorothy M. Danforth
The Artesian Well
"discovering the future of art"
http://208.204.14.91/
a...@netlinkers.com
mdeli
On Mon, 19 May 97 20:17:33 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
Brooks") wrote:
>In article <33807c71...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
>> On 17 May 1997 14:57:12 GMT, MrMalo <male...@mail.sccoast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >if it invokes in the viewer the same feeling and idea that it does in the
>> >artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
>> >feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
>>
>> Tell us how you can tell what the feelings of the artist are? I could
>> never tell nor did I ever care.
>>
>That you don't know shows that you don't pretend to be a psychic, that
>is no matter. That you don't care suggests that you are a philistine.
>
>--
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>
Are you a psychic?
Since I'm a philistine and you are not, perhaps you can mention one of
your favorite paintings and tell us about artist's feelings and how
this affects the picture on the wall.
I believe that no one knows much of anything about the artist's
"feelings" and only bullshitters pretend to know.
Larry Seiler
Dorothy M. Danforth wrote:
>
> >
> > "no absolutes..no basis to recognize skill"
> >
> > Larry
>
> Larry,
>
> I read your post regarding "no skill realism" and I agree with much of
> what you said except for the "decline of man" aspect of your viewpoint.
> I would like to know at what point in history you felt that there was a
> world view of acceptible art or of universal truths? I don't believe
> there to be one.
Dorothy..first of all, I have checked out your site at Artesians Well,
nicely done.
I sense from the get-go, we are going to have to agree to disagree...for
me essential history is a "written" history, which no doubt puts me in
trouble with postmodern multiculturalism to start with. However, I
cannot weigh oral traditions against written traditions supported by
archaelogical supplementation. Your question would necessitate a study
in the four major world views, Leninism/Marxism, Secular Humanism,
Biblical Worldview, and Cosmic Humanism. (not saying you are not
familiar with those views but stated so for anyone else jumping in to
read). When I refer to a view...I am speaking on terms of the dominant
worldview.
The primary point I am trying to express is that certain universals and
absolutes did exist as a dominant worldview...prior to the thinking of
postmodernism and multiculturalism we are living with today. Quantum
physics no doubt changed many minds as to even prior universal
prinicples in science. The Biblical worldview..which eroded when the
Supreme no longer used prior precedence of past Supreme Court justices
to represent the intentions of the Founding Fathers, and chose instead
to interpret the Constitution, was a system of absolutes and universals
and would again take an incredible amount of time looking at the
Constitutional Congress, the influence of Blackwell's law, the original
goal of preparing clergy by the Ivy league schools..etc; etc; to
demonstrate original intentions were to establish a nation upon Divine
intentions and Absolutes.
My point without going off into another argument...was that the habit of
man sociologically to accept and conduct the affairs of life based upon
a sense of knowns..of truths, was to be less intimidated with those
insisting upon "straying" from what construed acceptable mores were. The
eventual redefinition of common good; the means to determine social
ethics..(as the Bible as a standard has been removed); some positive
changes such as more equity in the races; the introduction into the
classroom of situation ethics, behaviourism, generalism and various ways
of viewing how a right will be determined to be a right, a wrong to be a
wrong; a habit of judging history for its injustices...all these things
contributed to a postmodern view (with the help of state universities)
that literally has shattered any confidence in any absolute truth or
universal.
It has not always been so, in this American and Western culture, that
truth has been so difficult to be seen as universal. The law of non-
contradiction was at one time (predominantly) not a difficult concept to
grasp and commonly accepted.
As such..my point was, in lieu that we have artists old enough to have
experienced the the 50's "family" emphasis , the 60's revolution, the
70's "feel good", the 80's affluence/greed, and now the 90's relativity
it is pointless to determine definitively a definition of good art
versus bad.
Perhaps not long ago, it would have been possible, but we have ventured
in my opinion over the edge n'er to return. For me, I believe
excellence can be understood...and in my worldview...events and times
happen for reasons and intent both good and bad. I believe in
universals and absolutes.
At one time when most of society held a similar belief in such
absolutes, there was a more collective dominant agreement as to what
good art was. We have drifted too far away from those times to see the
demarcation lines anymore. It has come to a time where the dominant
worldview demands we allow for each person to believe what is for them
true...because it is wholly relative. I personally believe cultural
relatism is hypocritical and way too easy to justify social injustices
when the masses are swayed.
To my knowledge, there has never been a time when we as
> humans have had one completely unified civilization.
I would agree.....the closest perhaps being the Babylonian culture prior
to Babel....
However...there are within each worldview various devices to foster or
insist on unity...tyranny, belief..etc;
Also consider that
> we generally only hear about history's victors.
Yes..this is because historians were products of academy. It is
postmodern vogue today to discount written accounts as bias and racist,
and place equal weight upon oral traditions. Ever put 12 people in a
circle and whisper a story paragraph in one's ear to your left..let it
go all around the circle and see how the story comes out at the end.
It is the postmodern intention to create equity in this perceived wrong
and embarrassment.....by rewriting history.
>
> What would make you think that now is any different to then? In short,
> you can not make a judgement on the impact of a genra or idealology
> unless it is in retrospect.
Of all worldviews but one, yes.....the Biblical worldview is a
collection of histories, of warnings and examples of cultures that
pursued various ideologies. The founding fathers believed that men
having souls would give account at a later time in another world for
their actions, but that nations not having souls would be blessed or
cursed upon its heeding divine absolutes and universals, and established
the Constitution as a means to keep their nation on track. Of course
you might not agree, but this only means you would not be in agreement
with that worldview. Needless to say, such judgements of ideologies
were possible, and were done as a safeguard to preserve the civility of
those cultures.
I am not advocating we go back, because I don't believe we can..I
believe it was something to preserve..and once gone....GONE!!! I don't
believe any man is pure in intention enough today to enforce a Biblical
worldview politically..it would end up for many being a tyranny...and
his fallen nature would invite eventual corruption.
Personally, I believe we are heading toward a one world global village,
and that the arts and multiculturalism are a mechanism to assist in that
transition. I do believe however, that the Bible...(I know, more
chuckles) does say much about this coming global village.
>
> Although personally, I would rather there be some sort of code or rule
> to decide what is "good" art and what is rubbish (only of course, to
> prove my own work the former). But there has never been a universal
> concept of good let alone good art.
>
I would disagree with you here based upon the Biblical Worldview...for
prior to the fallen nature of man, all was "very good".
We have record of works of art that were influenced by an era attempting
but imperfectly following the Biblical worldview...for after the fall
all systems will have a degree of corruption. Yet for all its faults,
the works of the Byzantine period into the late Renaissance and Baroque
created some of the finest works and mastery this world has ever or will
ever see. Even if the artist himself had not been a believer, he was
under the influence of the standards of that dominant worldview..social
expectations and church expectations were such that a certain
expectation of a known anticipated quality established by the growth of
the academies would have accepted little less than man's best.
> This said, I throw on the table that... skill, style, medium etc. are
> irrelevant and all fall at the feet of time and context.
Yes..I agree with falling at the feet of time, but would not call it
irrelevant. I would say it is an accurate barometer of the times and
the prevailing worldview.
And although I
> agree that "no absolutes..no basis to recognize skill" is accurate. I
> would add that there has never been any absolutes.
Excellence...doing all to the glory of God..prior to corruption and
decay of the systemic worldview was based upon absolutes. The best work
done of its day became the new standard. In the same sense that a new
time set by an olympic event establishes the goal to beat, each new
discovery of a device or technique leading to greater demonstrated skill
created the work to beat. For this reason, many artists traveled across
the seas to Spain, to France, to Italy, to see for themselves the genius
of a contemporary painter. To see for themselves if the excellence was
all that they had heard.
I will say this in conclusion..perhaps it takes experience in skill to
recognize skill...for others choose to scorn the obvious.
Therefore, there has
> never been a basis of recognizing skill.
Of course this is not true, or there would have been no established
academies. Eventually, it was felt these academies were too confining,
as Rembrandt's dragging of his brush across nearly dry paint was
considered a no-no..but, yes there was a known standard. Art history
verifies this. Not recognized today by many....and by some, trying to
recover what was lost!
>
> The only absolutes are your own, the only truths are your own, the only
> good art is art that you yourself deem good based on your personal
> absolutes and truths.
Of course...this is perfect postmodernism...and again, I disagree. To
say there are no absolutes...you would have to be ABSOLUTELY SURE!!!
Absolutes are universal truths. One has a right to their own opinion.
This I would have...and so would you. But we do not have a right to our
own private truths. Truth is found, not created. As such, standards
can be established. We will only agree to disagree....
Nice talking with you...
Larry
no absolutes...no basis to recognize skill
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <338217bc...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> Are you a psychic?
>
No.
>
> Since I'm a philistine and you are not, perhaps you can mention one of
> your favorite paintings and tell us about artist's feelings and how
> this affects the picture on the wall.
>
> I believe that no one knows much of anything about the artist's
> "feelings" and only bullshitters pretend to know.
>
Fair enough as a belief. I would put forward a simple example, 'The
Scream'. I suggest that Munch was not an entirely happy bunny when
he painted it.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli
Now that you know this does it make the picture any better?
But how do you know he wasn't happy while doing the picture? Perhaps
he felt great at that time.
Was Picasso happy when he did Guernica or was he pissed off. And were
Matisse's hemorrhoids less oppressive while he was schmiering at the
"Dance?" Or was he spaced?
How did Bosch feel while doing "the garden of delights" did he feel
worse doing the Hell scenes?
Was Rockwell happy while he worked on his "thanksgiving dinner." All
the artzy fartzies here consider this work an abomination. Did his
feelings influence this opinion?
I can't answer any of these questions. Nor do I think an answer would
effect the value of the works in question because an artists feelings
are irrelevent to artistic value. What counts is what's on the wall.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Mani DeLi
A.B.Glen
Larry Seiler wrote:
>
> MrMalo wrote:
> >
> ... If you can describe the aesthetic that determines
> > a good from a bad painting or drawing I shall always be in
> > your dept.
> >
> > --
> > Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > artist then its fine art unless both the viewer and the artist get the
> > feeling and idea that hey this really IS crap!
> >
> >
>
> This is all simple cultural relativism. What has happened to the ethics
> and morality by transitions of the four major worldviews is also
> happening to the arts. There no longer is an acceptable worldview that
> recognizes absolute truth or universals. As a result, no common ground
> will be found by argumentation of what is skillful art and what is not.
>
> The prurient interests of debased character would in times past been as
> scorned as his/her art...but essentially, if we find anyone that is so
> moved with a similar ideology, you suggest that it is then fine art.
>
> I'm afraid that if civilization survives, our generation will have
> provided great amusement, pity, and disgust for the historians of their
> day. Interesting as we judge the errors of past history, we fail to
> recognize our own.
>
> (Sorry mdeli, I'm going to alter your saying a bit here as a closure,)
>
>
art truly is.
Though many lay claim to that knowledge, few have actually displayed it.
Heidi Hberkorn
I have a problem with art critics who claim to be the know alls of fine
art. Many are self proclaimed or have been elavated to their status by
friends and or relativies, or by some group whose readers depend upon
others to define what is or isn't good/fine art.
>
>Tell me what you think.
> Al
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <33835423...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> Now that you know this does it make the picture any better?
> But how do you know he wasn't happy while doing the picture? Perhaps
> he felt great at that time.
>
It doesn't make the picture any 'better'. You are right that it is
quite possible that he felt delighted, I don't, however, believe it -
I have no evidence, apart from my feelings when painting, and the
consequent results, but I don't believe that it would be possible
to produce such a powerful result without feeling strongly. I am
afraid that I don't believe technique is all - I have seen so many
perfectly executed but utterly lifeless pictures for that to be
a very firm belief.
>
> I can't answer any of these questions. Nor do I think an answer would
> effect the value of the works in question because an artists feelings
> are irrelevent to artistic value. What counts is what's on the wall.
>
It isn't the value, nor any attempt to deny what is apparent on the
wall. It is simply evident to me that, as a novelist produdes a
lifeless novel if at least the main feelings described haven't been
felt, so with a painter - or a poet, for that matter.
We are not automata, our emotions have a strong effect on us,
particularly when we are expressing ourselves artisticly. This
doen't make it better or worse than a perfect drawing of
a machine part, but, if one is human, I think that it makes
it more approachable, by which I mean that one has similar
feelings evoked. Just as a psychopath can ape human feeling,
so, I am sure, can a technically brilliant artistic
psychopath ape art that has been produced with feeling. I don't
see that that affects my point, however.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Larry Seiler
Glen-
The main thing is....there is good and bad realism, good and bad
abstract..something many can admit though few will agree to determinants
yet... integrity in the work..the work demanding it, and an artist
willing to make the commitment and sacrifice to see a work completed
before aborting it!
A person fit to only walk 1/2 way up the mountain can think because he
has strapped on the shoes and made some effort, that he can carry on
dialog with those more experienced having many times been to the top.
It is easier for one well acquainted with all the fundamentals, the
pitfalls, the strength and endurance having a number of times been to
the top, to decide henceforth to only walk 1/2 way up the mountain for
the next few trips with the others. However, not so easy for the
partial climber to suddenly decide.."hey, think I'll go to the top!"
In essence...it is one thing to knock realism..but understand this. An
abstract painting may be an exploration of color. A "good" realistic
painter has explored color and rendered it effective by knowing the
relationships with the whole of other design elements and principles. An
abstract painting may explore line, values and balance. A "good"
realistic painter has explored those as well, and having learned a
sufficient amount of knowledge can likewise see its relationships with
the whole of the other design components to create a "good" piece.
At any time...the "good" and experienced realistic painter can much
easier contemplate a clever idea in abstract terms..eliminate several
design principles from the whole or isolate those, and create an
abstract work.
However...thinking on and experiencing design elements habitually in
terms of fragmentation certainly would challenge the abstract painter to
successfully pull off a "good" realistic rendering. In other words, it
will take a lifetime to develop expertise to create "good" realism,
however, one coming down from the top could pull of abstracts with
barely an effort.
An olympic sprinter would hardly be impressed with another's jogging
program. Both run..both strap on shoes. The one can also jog, but the
other cannot olympic sprint!
It is like comparing karoke singing in a bar to Pavorotti...
Sure, we must admit both are singing, but....any attempt to comparison
is embarrassing!
In a certain sense, "good" abstract art is very demanding, for lacking
in demonstration of the skills of higher art, greater emphasis must be
on the "cleverness" of the idea...or the nobleness of the statement's
"cause!"
But please...it seems ludicrous to keep beating this dead horse. You
can't compare the skill of flinging a rubber band across the room to
olympic marksmanship! I'm willing to call those that create abstract
work artists..much the same way I'm willing to call weekend warriors
that climb 1/2 up mountains...mountain climbers!
In all honesty...there is one abstract genre that has been for me very
compelling. In fact, it struck a chord in me to produce a few abstract
works as well. It is a summer music festival in Illinois and has a tent
for artists to bring submissions. The work is of a "spiritual" nature
and deals with deep issues of humanity. The collection of works IS for
me moving....and many "clever" and "insightful" works. Yes some "good"
abstract work successfully representing fragment elements of design.
Again....not denying there are "good" contemporary pieces, and sometimes
the "insightfulness" is so compelling and noteworthy that it stirs
emotions and arouses applause. It is hard for those that ONLY climb 1/2
way up the mountain to understand the hang-up of those with peak
experience. If you haven't been to the top however, there is much you
have not yet seen....and isn't seeing, "really seeing" what aesthetics
in its highest form calls us to do?
Larry
Larry Seiler
> I have a problem with art critics who claim to be the know alls of fine
> art. Many are self proclaimed or have been elavated to their status by
> friends and or relativies, or by some group whose readers depend upon
> others to define what is or isn't good/fine art.
> >
> >Tell me what you think.
> > Al
Well, actually, its just called communication. Know different than the
way you get when you pay for a BA degree in the Visual Arts at college.
The people there have degrees saying they have a right to teach and
define, and give opinion. Many here have a piece of paper too. You
should ignore anyone you do not agree with, including those in in a
college position. Oh yah..get you paper, your degree, but it is
redundant to claim artist status and yet be coerced to a conformity of
non-conformism.
Artists, art students as you know often are strong-willed people, march
to another drum so-to-speak. As such, we will all be fairly opionated
and firm in our convictions here. Firm convictions are not the same as
expertise. Yet newsgroups are a place to share such convictions.
There is an old proverb that says, "as iron sharpens iron, so one man's
will sharpens another!"
In essence, defining our positions, responding to criticism should
strengthen or show the weaknesses of our ideas and reveal that which is
passion from that which is weak in character and warrants dismissal.
I can't say I enjoy it very much when posts descend to a level where
explicatives are used. More and more I believe we should be secure
enough in our own passions to agree to disagree! :-) Larry
Larry Seiler
Glen....I began to answer you, it became rather lengthy, and felt it
might be better just to begin a new subject. So while the first post of
"Good Art, Bad Art" is a general subject post, it had in mind initially
to be an answer to your question!
:-) Larry
mdeli
I wrote:
>> Now that you know this does it make the picture any better?
>> But how do you know he wasn't happy while doing the picture? Perhaps
>> he felt great at that time.
GMT writes:
>It doesn't make the picture any 'better'.
THATS THE POINT.
>You are right that it is
>quite possible that he felt delighted, I don't, however, believe it -
>I have no evidence, apart from my feelings when painting, and the
>consequent results, but I don't believe that it would be possible
>to produce such a powerful result without feeling strongly.
What is "feeling strongly?" If you don't feel anything you are either
dead or unconscious.
As I said the artists feelings are of no importance in judging the
picture. What the artist may lead you to think on viewing his work is
a matter of his intent should he be successful.
>I am
>afraid that I don't believe technique is all - I have seen so many
>perfectly executed but utterly lifeless pictures for that to be
>a very firm belief.
I don't believe technique is all. I only believe that work considered
art today, which shows a lack of technique is practically worthless.
>>... What counts is what's on the wall.
>>
>It isn't the value, nor any attempt to deny what is apparent on the
>wall. It is simply evident to me that, as a novelist produdes a
>lifeless novel if at least the main feelings described haven't been
>felt, so with a painter - or a poet, for that matter.
>
A painting done with skill can be as you say lifeless. A painting done
without skill isn't much of anything
>We are not automata, our emotions have a strong effect on us,
>particularly when we are expressing ourselves artisticly. This
>doen't make it better or worse than a perfect drawing of
>a machine part, but, if one is human, I think that it makes
>it more approachable, by which I mean that one has similar
>feelings evoked.
Why say all this. We are Human.
>Just as a psychopath can ape human feeling,
>so, I am sure, can a technically brilliant artistic
>psychopath ape art that has been produced with feeling. I don't
>see that that affects my point, however.
>
What does this have to do with the question. I said I don't care what
the artists feelings are nor does anyone even knows what they were.
You suggested that I am a philistine because of this answer. Then you
agree that we don't know the artists feelings really are, Then you
meander on about the artists feeling.
Mani Deli
...no skill no art
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <338ddd6b...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> What does this have to do with the question. I said I don't care what
> the artists feelings are nor does anyone even knows what they were.
>
> You suggested that I am a philistine because of this answer. Then you
> agree that we don't know the artists feelings really are, Then you
> meander on about the artists feeling.
>
I didn't mean to "meander on". I believe that, to create a piece of work
that is art, rather than photographic representation or pastiche, there
has to be an emotional involvement from the artist. If you appreciate the
piece of work, then, I believe that you do as a result of understanding
the feeling that the artist had at the time. You can be sophist about this
and assert the impossibility of understanding what somebody else feels,
but I think that this is facile and, considering the art of poetry or
the novel, not sustainable.
Consequently I believe that to simply consider the technique and not
the import is to be a philistine - to go further and profess a lack of
interest in what the artist felt is to confirm one as a philistine.
Of course, if you - in common with many psychopaths - feel nothing when
confronted with a great work of art, then I agree with you completely -
there is no point in you attempting to understand what the artist
felt.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Wanax
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
> In article <338ddd6b...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> > What does this have to do with the question. I said I don't care what
> > the artists feelings are nor does anyone even knows what they were.
> >
> > You suggested that I am a philistine because of this answer. Then you
> > agree that we don't know the artists feelings really are, Then you
> > meander on about the artists feeling.
> >
> I didn't mean to "meander on". I believe that, to create a piece of work
> that is art, rather than photographic representation or pastiche, there
> has to be an emotional involvement from the artist. If you appreciate the
> piece of work, then, I believe that you do as a result of understanding
> the feeling that the artist had at the time. You can be sophist about this
> and assert the impossibility of understanding what somebody else feels,
> but I think that this is facile and, considering the art of poetry or
> the novel, not sustainable.
IMHO, yes you can in many works gain a sense of emotion, but I believe the emotion
derived is not applicable to that of the artist. Like poetry, a very good work is one
that will draw emotions from a large segment of people; not necessarily all of the
people will have the same emotional reaction, and certainly none are the correction
emotion. I get emotional watching the Sound of Music on some songs, but am stone cold
on others; am I wrong on either count?
> Consequently I believe that to simply consider the technique and not
> the import is to be a philistine - to go further and profess a lack of
> interest in what the artist felt is to confirm one as a philistine.
>
> Of course, if you - in common with many psychopaths - feel nothing when
> confronted with a great work of art, then I agree with you completely -
> there is no point in you attempting to understand what the artist
> felt.
Name calling is a sign of frustration. I think this debate is valid. A Phillistine is
historically someone who was superior culturally to his neighbors, but he is also
biblically someone who is without God. This is, therefore, a dig that is too ambiguous,
and can in fact be interpreted similar to great works of art (see above).
Wanax
"I am 16, going on 17" +22 years :)
>
> --
> Peter H.M. Brooks
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <338EE7...@lyon.york.lib.sc.us>
bo...@lyon.york.lib.sc.us "Wanax" writes:
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
> people will have the same emotional reaction, and certainly none are the
> correction
> emotion. I get emotional watching the Sound of Music on some songs, but am
> stone cold
> on others; am I wrong on either count?
>
Of course not.
>
> > Consequently I believe that to simply consider the technique and not
> > the import is to be a philistine - to go further and profess a lack of
> > interest in what the artist felt is to confirm one as a philistine.
> >
> > Of course, if you - in common with many psychopaths - feel nothing when
> > confronted with a great work of art, then I agree with you completely -
> > there is no point in you attempting to understand what the artist
> > felt.
>
> Name calling is a sign of frustration. I think this debate is valid. A
> Phillistine is
>
I am not meaning to simply insult, philistinism is a reasonably well
known term used to apply to somebody who is insensitive to the
arts, who would rather watch the rugby and drink beer than enjoy
a more refined experience, such as opera.
With the exceptions of things like architectural drawings, I think
that almost all art is designed to appeal to our emotions, as well
as our intellect. I don't believe that a psychopath could paint
well, simply because you need to have felt the emotion yourself in
order to portray it. Some have chosen to believe that I mean that
Picasso was in tears when painting Guernica, this is not really
the point, he may well have been humming happily whilst painting
it, but he was painting the feeling of pain, that he had
experienced.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli
On Fri, 30 May 97 15:22:45 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
Brooks") wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>With the exceptions of things like architectural drawings, I think
>that almost all art is designed to appeal to our emotions, as well
>as our intellect.
You are slipping away from your original point. I quote your former
point.
I wrote
Tell us how you can tell what the feelings of the artist are? I could
never tell nor did I ever care.
>
You answered
"That you don't know shows that you don't pretend to be a psychic,
that is no matter. That you don't care suggests that you are a
philistine.
> I don't believe that a psychopath could paint
>well, simply because you need to have felt the emotion yourself in
>order to portray it.
Caravaggio? Richard Dadd?
> Some have chosen to believe that I mean that
>Picasso was in tears when painting Guernica, this is not really
>the point, he may well have been humming happily whilst painting
>it, but he was painting the feeling of pain, that he had
>experienced.
True, but not what you originally said.
I repeat, I don't care what the artists feelings are. I judge artwork
in terms of quality
Mani DeLi
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <3394d25...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> On Fri, 30 May 97 15:22:45 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
> Brooks") wrote:
> >> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote:
>
>
> You are slipping away from your original point. I quote your former
> point.
>
Yes, I was making another one.
>
> I wrote
> Tell us how you can tell what the feelings of the artist are? I could
> never tell nor did I ever care.
> >
> You answered
> "That you don't know shows that you don't pretend to be a psychic,
> that is no matter. That you don't care suggests that you are a
> philistine.
>
Exactly, if I were vain, I would say; 'Well put'.
>
>
> > I don't believe that a psychopath could paint
> >well, simply because you need to have felt the emotion yourself in
> >order to portray it.
>
> Caravaggio? Richard Dadd?
>
You believe them to be psychopaths? I am afraid it is rather difficult
to understand your point when you make it simply with question marks.
>
> > Some have chosen to believe that I mean that
> >Picasso was in tears when painting Guernica, this is not really
> >the point, he may well have been humming happily whilst painting
> >it, but he was painting the feeling of pain, that he had
> >experienced.
>
> True, but not what you originally said.
>
Yes, but I am saying it now, it doesn't contradict what I said eariler,
it simply amplifies it.
>
> I repeat, I don't care what the artists feelings are. I judge artwork
> in terms of quality
>
And what, pray, is 'quality'? If it is not the quality to move, to
enrich, to excite, to interest or to annoy? Surely if it is simply
to represent, a camera is all you need.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
mdeli
, Wanax <bo...@lyon.york.lib.sc.us> wrote:
>
>IMHO, yes you can in many works gain a sense of emotion, but I believe the emotion
>derived is not applicable to that of the artist.
This is a valid point. The artist can cause a sense of emotion through
his work if he has the skill to do it.
That doesn't mean that the viewer can conclude that he knows
something about the artist's state of mind by viewing his work.
Mani DeLi
Peter H.M. Brooks
In article <33963fd5...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
Not true. Think of what you have said, if an artist causes a 'sense
of emotion' as you put it, then you know that this artist must
either have felt this same sense of emotion (at some time), or
like a psychopath, be faking it.
So the viewer can conclude quite a lot about the artist's state
of mind by viewing his work - as you so rightly point out int
your first paragraph, but get wrong in your second.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Larry Seiler
mdeli wrote:
>
> , Wanax <bo...@lyon.york.lib.sc.us> wrote:
>
> >
> >IMHO, yes you can in many works gain a sense of emotion, but I believe the emotion
> >derived is not applicable to that of the artist.
>
> This is a valid point. The artist can cause a sense of emotion through
> his work if he has the skill to do it.
>
> That doesn't mean that the viewer can conclude that he knows
> something about the artist's state of mind by viewing his work.
>
You know one has to wonder. I doubt that townspeople stood around the
newly unveiled "David" and wondered what Michaelangelo was "thinking?"
I guess it is safe to assume that when artist's works began to be be
looked at supplemented with "what was the artist thinking?" that it was
necessary to ask such questions because the genius that forewith gripped
the viewer by the throat was slipping into the past.
I have done a few works intended to get people to think..but as artist I
was still trying to be the manipulator. It would bother me to think
that some would stand around and ask, wonder what Larry was thinking at
the time hhe did this. What?? The work is not interesting enough or
good enough to evoke their own thoughts or response?
I have made the point in the past that one thing that really does bother
me about modern directions in art is that its making is highly
egocentric...as if society is obligated to care enough to want to figure
us artists out! What really irks me is the "necessity" to type up a
statement concerning the piece..shrink-wrapping it, and having it next
to the painting. Like a follow-up insurance policy to get us "into the
mind" of the artist.
My personal experience with many (note I do not say all) of these
artists is their lifestyle is so "value-less", debased, undisciplined,
and it is like they are on a crusade to destroy cultural values with a
vengeance. Their attitudes are often cynical..almost like pitying the
rest of the world for not knowing what they know. It is not a pinnacle
of genius they are striving for, but denigration and change...and
justification for their lewd appetites.
Larry
R.L.Smith
> My personal experience with many (note I do not say all) of these
> artists is their lifestyle is so "value-less", debased, undisciplined,
> and it is like they are on a crusade to destroy cultural values with a
> vengeance. Their attitudes are often cynical..almost like pitying the
> rest of the world for not knowing what they know. It is not a pinnacle
> of genius they are striving for, but denigration and change...and
> justification for their lewd appetites.
>
> Larry
A painting without emotion would be like a photograph without silver.
What would be the point? If artwork is done not to evoke emotion/thought
is it not, then, technical illustration? To try to guess the artist's
emotions while creating art is pointless. And if you have to explain the
meaning of the work with a "statement" then, again...what's the point? I
create cartoons and humorous illustration (boy, that ought to soldify my
qualifications to make a statement here) whose sole purpose is to evoke
emotion. I also create (what I consider to be) "fine" art (somebody tell
me where the line is drawn?) that is created, hopefully, to evoke thought
and emotion rather than a static piece to hang on a wall.
I'm not sure I can agree with the point that "artists lifestyle is so
"value-less", debased, undisciplined". I have been associated with
"artists" that seem to be "artists" just so that they may be possibly
elavated into some imagined social hierarchial position and with "artists"
whose only motivation is sales (thus, again, creating technical
illustration).But even those artists have "value" (misguided as it may
be). Can an artist create in a void? Without personal values/convictions
what is there to create? Which cultural values are being destroyed by art?
Isn't art a mirror of cultural values or am I missing the point? I know
of no artist whose purpose for creating art is "denigration and
change...and justification for their lewd appetites" (I know a few yuppies
whose...well, thats a different topic). What one person considers lewd,
another person may find thought provoking and emotional. A value system is
not lacking, it's just a different value system.
I recently attended a "show" where nine out of ten artists were displaying
numerous paintings of bluebonnets (we're in Texas). I find this to be
"value-less".
Robert
--
R.L.Smith
"Remember, fight mental health" -- Hondo Crouch
Larry Seiler
R.L.Smith wrote:
>
> A painting without emotion would be like a photograph without silver.
> What would be the point? If artwork is done not to evoke emotion/thought
> is it not, then, technical illustration?
Hey Russell!!
Of course it should have emotion...if it is truly art, it will strike us
so. Illustration can be striking..though more in point to get paid
regularly!
>To try to guess the artist's
> emotions while creating art is pointless. And if you have to explain the
> meaning of the work with a "statement" then, again...what's the point?
Ditto..
I
> create cartoons and humorous illustration (boy, that ought to soldify my
> qualifications to make a statement here) whose sole purpose is to evoke
> emotion. I also create (what I consider to be) "fine" art (somebody tell
> me where the line is drawn?) that is created, hopefully, to evoke thought
> and emotion rather than a static piece to hang on a wall.
We don't want static pieces, but again in past discussions on these
postings..possessing or creating a piece with emotion would be enhanced
with prowess so long as the artist maintains integrity and passion.
Without skill it could only be a visual record of the artist's struggle
to attempt to say what he wanted..then later justify failure to do so
by throwing a frame around it. While there are mediocre works out there
everywhere and in every style...I doubt that higher skills technically
are what will make a piece static...but I do know that possessing little
skill demonstrates one very real emotion on canvas and that is
"frustration!"
Understand, I am not saying one should fear painting for lack of skill.
Heaven's no!! All should paint. All should run, but after our pitiful
breathless 1/2-1 mile sprints..let us recognize the beauty of a tri-
athlete!
>
> I'm not sure I can agree with the point that "artists lifestyle is so
> "value-less", debased, undisciplined". I have been associated with
> "artists" that seem to be "artists" just so that they may be possibly
> elavated into some imagined social hierarchial position and with "artists"
> whose only motivation is sales (thus, again, creating technical
> illustration).But even those artists have "value" (misguided as it may
> be).
Yes of course..I was misunderstood when I used the term, "value-less".
It is a term being used to identify the goals of Discipline Based Art
Education...whereby teachers are facilitators- not wanting to inflict
their values upon the students, therefore the work being the students
own work. It is a utopia society where no moral ethical base of right
or wrong exists to create division or polarities among people...assuring
a harmonious global village. In essence, postmodernism.
Value-less was an independent characteristic from the other descriptive
words of "debased"...etc;
Yes..you are absolutely right about the "values" of some artists being
to become "socialites" etc; though if prowess is the ticket to attain
such, they may find themselves having to endure many years of
development only later to discover their field of study is no longer on
the marketing bandwagon!! Hahahaha!
Can an artist create in a void? Without personal values/convictions
> what is there to create? Which cultural values are being destroyed by art?
Of course..making any statements today about values and cultures is
amiss lest one recognize in our own country alone we are witnessing the
confrontations of many worldviews or at least the four main worldviews.
Thus..debates are like comparing "apples to oranges" unless people
realize that opinions will be aligning with a particular worldview.
When I find artists that are using say their gay "agenda" to shock
patrons that are going throughout a building of 60 art studios or more,
and purpose to paint large penises, images of sodomy..etc; and then
smirk as passer's through hasten to grab their little children before
the images are taken in..there is an attempt to pass on their
indulgences of appetite upon the ill-prepared for desensitization. To
me, to bait and use art among masses in such manner is a "debasement" of
culture and values. I know of quite a few artists whom band together in
their studios...cheerleading one another in their "causes"...their
private "joke" if-you-will.
> Isn't art a mirror of cultural values or am I missing the point?
It mirrors it, it is a barometer of it...but, lest we not understand the
medium, it also influences it...and such influence is actively sought.
Every Art Communications graduate knows this.
I know
> of no artist whose purpose for creating art is "denigration and
> change...and justification for their lewd appetites"
Well..I read thoroughly of one artist, whom mixed his beliefs of
satanism with art for live performances...and at party (I think put on
for some stuffy overcoat execs) slaughtered a lamb over a nude
female..allowing blood to pour over her. I'd call that both denigrating
and lewd myself. Not to forget my former gay studio artists mentioned.
It is one thing to do gay art...but these guys purposed to have more
impact on the local culture, rather than find perhaps a venue that might
have been deemed less offensive. They intended that impact by their
art!
(I know a few yuppies
> whose...well, thats a different topic). What one person considers lewd,
> another person may find thought provoking and emotional. A value system is
> not lacking, it's just a different value system.
Well of course this is the point and you are right..it is a value, and
from my worldview..corrupt, lewd, and offensive. My freedom of speech
allows me to deplore it.
Nice chatting with you Russell!
Larry