What is the reason for Edouard Manet's fame?
John Ng
the reason for Edouard Manet's fame. We have been talking about the
failure of Bouguereau because he paints too realistically. Isn't
Manet's painting copied from a photo as well? Maybe the only reason
is because he painted it flat... like a Christmas Card; or rather,
left it unfinished. Hard luck Bouguereau, if I had been around, I
would have told you to frame your paintings after the first coat of
paint.
de Montmiral
based on the copy below, I fear some one has been seriously
missleading you about the work of Manet.
To understand his initial fame I suggest you have to understand the
time he lived in, were they were at so to speak. As for the enduring
worth of the work, I wonder if you have seen any of his originals ? My
perception was completely changed by visiting some of the originals in
Paris. Worste case, you have a budget holiday in France ! Best case, a
radical new insight.
Maybe easier for me, I am only 4 miles from France by car (to the
ferry port !) or 1 1/2 cityhopper flight. Best case, a radical new
insight.
Please let me know what you think of the above comments.
Gordon frickers, Plymouth, England.
pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote in message news:<d1bb492a.02020...@posting.google.com>...
Bob & Dale Ford
create decorations. As a decoration maker he was skilled with using
realistic techniques to make pretty pictures. Realism isn't the problem,
shallow vs deep space isn't the problem. The problem is lack of
originality, expression, passion, artistic merit. Yes he was a
commercial success. But he did not further the lines of art history at
all, nothing new in his work. Since we are all individuals there should
be something different about his work but there isn't. That is why every
one has seen his paintings but can't remember his name.
Dale
el
There are several reasons I know of, the idea of putting nudes in an
everyday scene rather than glorified and god/angel like is one.
Lunchon was seen as pronographic, shocking! The style was flat and the
proportions are off. How dare someone violate the old ideals of
perspective! Manet was radical, for his time. Finally, his painting
common people in situations meant for those of honor and glory, was
another outragious act.
When I first saw a Manet I thought, what's the big deal? His work
looks like an endless list of bad painters, but then I was looking at
his work with 20th c eyes not 19th c ones.
I later figured that with the development of the camera (1840) why
bother painting something to look like it really does when the camera
does that in a flash and cost much less. So let's play, let's look at
how this scene makes my soul feel and let me further figure out why
blue next to yellow has one effect on me while blue next to violet has
a differnt effect. Impressionism is real the science of art. When you
think about it, as painting faded from the classical style of gods and
monsters and the scientific and industrial age took hold the aritst
went inside and started looking at how those demons and angels
effected their minds and hearts with this new found science of colour.
Art does reflect society.
am I making sense yet?
"Art is meant to upset people, science reassures them."
Georges Braque
John Ng
> Realism isn't the problem,
> shallow vs deep space isn't the problem. The problem is lack of
> originality, expression, passion, artistic merit.
Ah yes. This one is up to you to interprete. As for me, all four
points are extremely high in my view when I look upon his paintings.
However, they are subtle and almost need to reflect upon.
> Yes he was a commercial success.
I can't see why I would want to pay lots and lots of money for a piece
of painting which seems valueless and insipid, even if it is
skillfully done. I log into ARC everyday hoping to see a new
Bouguereau. Can't imagine an insipid artist would get me so excited.
> But he did not further the lines of art history at
> all, nothing new in his work. Since we are all individuals there should
> be something different about his work but there isn't.
I guess Raphael is an artist as hopeless as Bouguereau because he
merely duplicated Michelangelo's and Leonardo's works. He hasn't done
anything different as well.
> That is why every one has seen his paintings but can't remember his name.
When I first saw Bouguereau, something ticked but I can't remember his
name as well because it is so hard to pronounce. I had to make every
effort to make it stick. Same like most other painters as well.
John
John Ng
> The style was flat and the
> proportions are off. How dare someone violate the old ideals of
> perspective! Manet was radical, for his time.
Manet was radical alright for only one reason. Every artist has
painted bad disproportionate paintings but Manet was one of the first
to display those stuff. Radical... yes... an artist... no.
Also, if you go back a 500 years, all painting are out of perspective
and disproportionate too. Manet is still radical?
> There are several reasons I know of, the idea of putting nudes in an
> everyday scene rather than glorified and god/angel like is one.
> Lunchon was seen as pronographic, shocking!
I am looking at Anthony Van Dyck and he has nudes in real life, and
pornographic too. ("Susanna and the Elders")
> Finally, his painting
> common people in situations meant for those of honor and glory, was
> another outragious act.
I think it is not him but the whole movement during his times. Most
painters were glorifying peasants and the common people.
> I later figured that with the development of the camera (1840) why
> bother painting something to look like it really does when the camera
> does that in a flash and cost much less.
Okay, this was really the thing, I believe, that started the whole
Modern Art business. It was valid at that time just like back in
1980s (and before), people thought that computers will take over the
world. However, today, we still can't get a single photograph to give
us the same effect as a true realistic painting (like DR Knight,
Bouguereau, Tissot etc). Yes, with the avant of cameras, artists were
getting lazier and it is natural for artists like Manet to loose
interests in doing a proper job. I think it is wrong to grorify a
degenerate, especially if his paintings were just mediocre.
John
Peter H.M. Brooks
John Ng <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Can't imagine an insipid artist would get me so excited.
>
the green lady and other pictures of that ilk by Trechikoff.
--
'Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?"
The Latest Decalogue - Arthur Hugh Clough
silverpoint
with it's "flat", "playing card" like lack of modeling, and scandalous
subject matter, is based upon a Raphael composition executed, published and
popularized by the Renaissance engraver Marcantonio Raimondi, which has a
group of mythological figures in the same, exact poses. Raphael created
many drawings that were published in this manner, including a "Slaughter of
the Innocents," which were world famous for centuries, and copied by
students as part of their training.
Many 19th century viewers, especially artists trained from copying
Marcantonio's engravings (Delacroix raved about them, check his journal,)
would have gotten the joke, which incited the "scandal" of a classical theme
translated as a realist contemporary group sex scene in the countryside.
You really should study classical art.
Manet was a realist; his lack of modeling came from sizing up the lightest
lights and darkest darks, and what fell between was a lack of relief.....
Manet's rendering of Victoria Meurent as the nude in this painting is
fabulous, there's a small painted portrait bust of her in the museum of fine
arts in Boston that is a knockout in terms of portraiture, about as good as
his Portrait of Berthe Morisot.
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02020...@posting.google.com...
el
> with it's "flat", "playing card" like lack of modeling, and scandalous
> subject matter, is based upon a Raphael composition executed, published and
> popularized by the Renaissance engraver Marcantonio Raimondi, which has a
> group of mythological figures in the same, exact poses.
Do you know the name of the piece?
Thank You
el
>
> > The style was flat and the
> > proportions are off. How dare someone violate the old ideals of
> > perspective! Manet was radical, for his time.
>
> Manet was radical alright for only one reason. Every artist has
> painted bad disproportionate paintings but Manet was one of the first
> to display those stuff. Radical... yes... an artist... no.
Well you are entitled to your opinion.
> Also, if you go back a 500 years, all painting are out of perspective
> and disproportionate too. Manet is still radical?
Yes, because the subject matter and consciousness of the people of the
time was different.
> > There are several reasons I know of, the idea of putting nudes in an
> > everyday scene rather than glorified and god/angel like is one.
> > Lunchon was seen as pronographic, shocking!
>
> I am looking at Anthony Van Dyck and he has nudes in real life, and
> pornographic too. ("Susanna and the Elders")
Susanna a chaste wife of a wealthy man, Joachim, was taking a bath in
her garden, when two lusty elders, judges by proffesion, saw her and
demanded her favors. She cried for help, but the elders raised the
alarm themselves and accused her of infidelity: they said they saw her
with a young man under a tree. She was sentenced to death, but St.
Daniel, then a young boy, stopped the executors and asked the elders
to be interrogated separately; they were asked to show the tree under
which they had spied Susanna with her lover. The elders showed
different trees, Susanna was justified, and her accusers were stoned.
There is a difference.
The men were stoned for lying in Van Dyck's portrayl of Susanna; the
old testement moral compass. The men in Manet's story/painting
probably ate some cheese and had no morals. The point you are missing
in Manet's painting is the social comentary; "What hypocrites we are"
I guess with all that free time the camera gave artists it encouraged
them to think.
> > Finally, his painting
> > common people in situations meant for those of honor and glory, was
> > another outragious act.
>
> I think it is not him but the whole movement during his times. Most
> painters were glorifying peasants and the common people.
Before Manet? Rare. Who could afford it? For artists the camera and
the onset of the industrial age changed everything. People had more
money and could afford underware!
> > I later figured that with the development of the camera (1840) why
> > bother painting something to look like it really does when the camera
> > does that in a flash and cost much less.
>
> Okay, this was really the thing, I believe, that started the whole
> Modern Art business. It was valid at that time just like back in
> 1980s (and before), people thought that computers will take over the
> world. However, today, we still can't get a single photograph to give
> us the same effect as a true realistic painting (like DR Knight,
> Bouguereau, Tissot etc). Yes, with the avant of cameras, artists were
> getting lazier and it is natural for artists like Manet to loose
> interests in doing a proper job. I think it is wrong to grorify a
> degenerate, especially if his paintings were just mediocre.
Degenerate, mighty strong political buzz word.
One thing is for certain, you can't stop progress...
If you want to regard art as a techincal means to an end you're
missing a whole lot of art. Manet's painting reflects a societal
trend, a new way of thinking, a step on the path to where we are now.
You can disagree with the validity of his work like you might disagree
with a political party or ideology. Regardless, art reflects life.
Maybe artists should stay in their place and not do any reflective
thinking, let's leave that task to the bankers, lawyers and
politicians ;)
Happy Trails
silverpoint
"el" <elr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5c69753c.02020...@posting.google.com...
Yes, the Marcantonio engraving is entitled "The Judgment of Paris," and I
managed to find scans at
http://www.metmuseum.org/collections/view1.asp?dep=9&full=0&item=19%2E74%2E1
and
http://www.massart.edu/library_slides/csa_101-102/slide121.html
Other prints can be seen at:
http://rubens.anu.edu.au/htdocs/bytype/prints/raimondi/
And a short bio of the printmaker at
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12634b.htm
el
Excellent!!!
Thanks!
el
Know where I could get a copy of a slide of this?
Thank You
Bob & Dale Ford
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
you attribute to him. If you want to argue that he is a good artist. Few
here would argue. The fact of the matter is that Raphael is not in the
same league as the B man, he is considered one of the greats.
Dale
Bob & Dale Ford
John Ng wrote:
>
> elr...@yahoo.com (el) wrote in message
>
> > The style was flat and the
> > proportions are off. How dare someone violate the old ideals of
> > perspective! Manet was radical, for his time.
>
> Manet was radical alright for only one reason. Every artist has
> painted bad disproportionate paintings but Manet was one of the first
> to display those stuff. Radical... yes... an artist... no.
>
> Also, if you go back a 500 years, all painting are out of perspective
> and disproportionate too. Manet is still radical?
>
> > There are several reasons I know of, the idea of putting nudes in an
> > everyday scene rather than glorified and god/angel like is one.
> > Lunchon was seen as pronographic, shocking!
>
> I am looking at Anthony Van Dyck and he has nudes in real life, and
> pornographic too. ("Susanna and the Elders")
>
That isn't real life it is an illustration of a story
mdeli
>Boy you really really really need to study art history.
>Dale
You will notice this is about all this jerk can answer. I doubt that
he ever read more than fashionable coffee table books on art history
or any history in general.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Bob & Dale Ford
of book.
He needs to study art history. If after that he forms opinions about art
at least he will understand what the hell he is talking about. I don't
tell engineers how to build bridges, why is it in the field of art
every person feels qualified to trash works of art they know nothing
about, haven't studied, yet feel absolutely qualified to trash it.
Personal taste....not that's not good enough for a study of art history.
Maybe that's your problem too.
Dale
silverpoint
>
> Know where I could get a copy of a slide of this?
> Thank You
You might try the Met musuem in New York, or perhaps the Louvre, I know the
Met owns a copy as its on their website. There's a book from some years ago
called Engravings of Marcantonio Raimondi which might show up on Amazon
somehow.
el
I tried the Met, would take a month just to get permission and then at
least $15 for them to send it. That's a lot for a slide that will be
presented to high school students for aprox. 3 minutes, don't cha
think?
I'd still rather have a slide if I can get it elsewhere. Otherwise I
supose I could copy the detail off the met and make a transparency.
It's just that a slide is easier to cart around, less equiptment to
lug. I also called Universal and Davis no luck there either.
I have to say that I was quite surprised that this slide is so hard to
find considering it's importance to the Manet. No problems finding
Jasper Johns or Duchamp though, Go figure!
John Ng
> > Also, if you go back a 500 years, all painting are out of perspective
> > and disproportionate too. Manet is still radical?
>
> Yes, because the subject matter and consciousness of the people of the
> time was different.
Alas that is the philosophy of Modern Art. Doing a child's drawing
when you are forty is chic but doing a child's painting when you are
two year old is immature. No comments.
> Degenerate, mighty strong political buzz word.
> One thing is for certain, you can't stop progress...
> If you want to regard art as a techincal means to an end you're
> missing a whole lot of art. Manet's painting reflects a societal
> trend, a new way of thinking, a step on the path to where we are now.
Pardon me... Manet's thinking is not "a new way of thinking" at all.
It seemed "new" but is a step in the wrong direction. The Medieval
painters must have thought that it was a step forward to dispense with
Classical Greeks. The Renaissance corrected this. There are very
strong signs now that a correction is in place. Don't think that Art
Renewal means returning to 19th C art and staying there. Rather, it
means returning to 19C art and stepping ahead into the 21C, somewhat
akin to PreRaphealites etc.
> You can disagree with the validity of his work like you might disagree
> with a political party or ideology. Regardless, art reflects life.
> Maybe artists should stay in their place and not do any reflective
> thinking, let's leave that task to the bankers, lawyers and
> politicians ;)
Art Renewal is not "reflective". It is not about copying the past.
It serves to correct mainly the one principle that Modern Art has
lost... and that is beauty of the painting arts. The re-birth of arts
is going to take some pains because the cold and inhuman world of
Modern has nearly wiped out 600 years of innovation.
John
silverpoint
Discovering it in their own time, as in "JESUS!!" or "Look, Ma, no Hands!!"
must have been quite a revelation. The threads of classical art that had
been dead since before the fall of the Roman empire, after the Hellenistic
dead end of the Greek period, were dug up and redisovered.
Get over your "realism" fetish. It betrays how entirely "modern" your
sensibility actually is.
"John Ng" <pigsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d1bb492a.02021...@posting.google.com...
el
> > > and disproportionate too. Manet is still radical?
> >
> > Yes, because the subject matter and consciousness of the people of the
> > time was different.
>
> Alas that is the philosophy of Modern Art. Doing a child's drawing
> when you are forty is chic but doing a child's painting when you are
> two year old is immature. No comments.
You're missing the point. It's satire, cynical, the artist no longer
has to be hired by the church or the elite to paint. He is making an
individual statement. Manet is making fun of what western society has
today taken for granted. Manet reflects: Painting done for pleasure,
experience, science, psycology, political statement, a tantrum... The
Industrial Age brought many new things during it's creation, one of
them was leasure.
Point: Renoir: Luncheon of the Boating Party. Art reflects life.
> > Degenerate, mighty strong political buzz word.
> > One thing is for certain, you can't stop progress...
> > If you want to regard art as a techincal means to an end you're
> > missing a whole lot of art. Manet's painting reflects a societal
> > trend, a new way of thinking, a step on the path to where we are now.
>
> Pardon me... Manet's thinking is not "a new way of thinking" at all.
> It seemed "new" but is a step in the wrong direction.
Wrong? Perhaps, technically or compared to the past, but you're
missing the point, it was a rebellion against the establishment. You
know how that works, chaos, order, chaos, order...
> The Medieval painters must have thought that it was a step forward to
> dispense with Classical Greeks.
Dictated by the church. That was really a control issue.
Have you ever studied world history?
> The Renaissance corrected this.
A new wave of consciousness, secularism.
> There are very strong signs now that a correction is in place.
What is the correction? I just don't see it, unless flinging dung on
the Virgin Mary or cutting cattle into sections placed between sheets
of plexglass is your idea of a corection? Let me remind you of your
DNA and splicing genes. Again, art reflects life!
...and there's a lot of thinkin' goin' on!
> Don't think that Art Renewal means returning to 19th C art and staying
> there. Rather, it means returning to 19C art and stepping ahead into the 21C, somewhat akin to PreRaphealites etc.
I don't think I said anything about renewal before now.
But, I will agree that the PreRaphealites painted some pretty
pictures, but that's already been done, it's sentimental, romantic,
nice.
However, with all this leasure time your average Joe may find the
desire and drive to learn the history of art and maybe even learn how
to paint. But their work will, from this time on, be their own
personal experience. And if their lucky find a connection with other
like minds and sell some of their work. Like that guy who paints those
pretty cottages.
> > You can disagree with the validity of his work like you might disagree
> > with a political party or ideology. Regardless, art reflects life.
> > Maybe artists should stay in their place and not do any reflective
> > thinking, let's leave that task to the bankers, lawyers and
> > politicians ;)
>
> Art Renewal is not "reflective".
All art is reflective even your idea of "renewal" is reflective.
i.e. The human being sees or experiences a thing, the natural process
is to think about it, to reflect, they then react, put something into
action. This may be by painting their reflection; consciously or
subconsciously, through imaginative representation or actual
representation, on a whim or well planed. That is just the nature of
thinking. Have you ever tried thinking about thinking?
BTW: If humans didn't reflect they would be void of memory. Reflective
thinking goes on whether you are actually aware of it or not, unless
you suffer from Parkinsons or some other like disease.
> It is not about copying the past.
> It serves to correct mainly the one principle that Modern Art has
> lost... and that is beauty of the painting arts. The re-birth of arts
> is going to take some pains because the cold and inhuman world of
> Modern has nearly wiped out 600 years of innovation.
> John
It's clear that after reflecting upon the world of Modern Art you have
come to some conclusion about where you want to see your art go. You
are entitled to your own personal path, like everyone else is entitled
to theirs, if they cross with others, great! However, times change a
new movement, renewal or retro, it's always good to experiment. When
the artist reflects upon society and their own personal growth they
find out what is really important, the striving. I think it's a good
thing that more and more people stop thinking like a tribe, it really
the road of responsibility, freedom.
-el
"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
el
FYI: I found out it is public domain so I can have it copied onto a slide.
Thanks for your help.
mdeli
>You're missing the point. It's satire, cynical, the artist no longer
>has to be hired by the church or the elite to paint. He is making an
>individual statement.
Nothing new here.
> Manet is making fun of what western society has
>today taken for granted. Manet reflects: Painting done for pleasure,
>experience, science, psycology, political statement, a tantrum... The
>Industrial Age brought many new things during it's creation, one of
>them was leasure.
>Point: Renoir: Luncheon of the Boating Party. Art reflects life.
>
Dutch painters did all this in the 17th century. Only they could paint
far better.
>> Pardon me... Manet's thinking is not "a new way of thinking" at all.
>> It seemed "new" but is a step in the wrong direction.
>
>
>Wrong? Perhaps, technically or compared to the past, but you're
>missing the point, it was a rebellion against the establishment. You
>know how that works, chaos, order, chaos, order...
-and usually crappy technique, no ideas no skill and the worship of
the philosophy of the gutter.
>But, I will agree that the PreRaphealites painted some pretty
>pictures, but that's already been done, it's sentimental, romantic,
>nice.
--unlike Modern Academic art which mostly ugly, stupid and expresses
little more then the artists lack of ability and ideas,
>
>"That which does not kill us makes us stronger."
>- Friedrich Nietzsche
Try a low dose of arsenic.
...no skill no art "The Emperor's New Clothes aren't clothing you stupid little girl. They are Body
Installations containing invisible Color Fields."
el
> On 11 Feb 2002 21:38:50 -0800, elr...@yahoo.com (el) wrote:
> >You're missing the point. It's satire, cynical, the artist no longer
> >has to be hired by the church or the elite to paint. He is making an
> >individual statement.
>
> Nothing new here.
>
> > Manet is making fun of what western society has
> >today taken for granted. Manet reflects: Painting done for pleasure,
> >experience, science, psychology, political statement, a tantrum... The
> >Industrial Age brought many new things during it's creation, one of
> >them was leisure.
> >Point: Renoir: Luncheon of the Boating Party. Art reflects life.
> >
> Dutch painters did all this in the 17th century. Only they could paint
> far better.
This is true, however you are speaking about the 17c Dutch not the 19c
French.
Different times, different people, different circumstances. But, I
understand that if you haven't explored World History this might be
hard to understand.
> >> Pardon me... Manet's thinking is not "a new way of thinking" at all.
> >> It seemed "new" but is a step in the wrong direction.
> >
> >
> >Wrong? Perhaps, technically or compared to the past, but you're
> >missing the point, it was a rebellion against the establishment. You
> >know how that works, chaos, order, chaos, order...
>
> -and usually crappy technique, no ideas no skill and the worship of
> the philosophy of the gutter.
Some people lived in the gutter, some people died horrible deaths in
the Great War, is Beckman a degenerate? Was all the work the
Impressionists did with their experiments in colour worthless?
Art isn't only an intellectual study, it is also how it effects the
viewer, how it inspires. You know that most Modern Artists were
masters at their craft looking for something more than a photo copy of
what they saw. Being an artists also meant you could make an
individual statement. Modern Art and all the movements that developed
out of its inspiration is a statement for the time in which they live
and the times in which we live, art reflects life. It doesn't always
have to be pretty pictures and like music applying technique alone
doesn't make it worthwhile.
> >But, I will agree that the pre-Raphaelites painted some pretty
> >pictures, but that's already been done, it's sentimental, romantic,
> >nice.
> --unlike Modern Academic art which mostly ugly, stupid and expresses
> little more then the artists lack of ability and ideas,
Those are some words to describe various works, you forgot icky. Very
simplistic, but it is your opinion and it's clear you don't like it.
(shrug)
But, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and you can't dictate love.
al least without a fight.
BTW I took a look at your art and it seems very personal and rather
self absorbed. I looked at several of your paintings and couldn't help
thinking that the subject matter reminded me of some typical Modern
Artists. Your technique is good, but what comes through just doesn't
inspire me, but then I don't love everything modern. I also found it
to be unoriginal and a cliché of nightmarish psychology and somewhat
exploitive. I mean it’s ok, but its nothing new. I've seen the
same kinds of stuff coming out of high school student work for years,
but without the technique. However, this may be your livelihood so I
don't expect you to be objective when it comes to your own art.
I’m sure you’ll find people who like your work, just like
ALL the artists since Manet found patrons who liked their stuff. Do
you sell much work or do you just do this for pleasure?
FWIW I think if you want a better understanding of Modern Art, doesn't
mean you have to like it, you might consider a course or a few book on
the topic of World History.
Good Luck
mdeli
>n...@mail.com (mdeli) wrote in message news:<3c6948c3...@news1.on.sympatico.ca>...
>
>> On 11 Feb 2002 21:38:50 -0800, elr...@yahoo.com (el) wrote:
>> >You're missing the point. It's satire, cynical, the artist no longer
>> >has to be hired by the church or the elite to paint. He is making an
>> >individual statement.
>>
>> Nothing new here.
>>
>> > Manet is making fun of what western society has
>> >today taken for granted. Manet reflects: Painting done for pleasure,
>> >experience, science, psychology, political statement, a tantrum... The
>> >Industrial Age brought many new things during it's creation, one of
>> >them was leisure.
>> >Point: Renoir: Luncheon of the Boating Party. Art reflects life.
>> >
>> Dutch painters did all this in the 17th century. Only they could paint
>> far better.
>
>This is true, however you are speaking about the 17c Dutch not the 19c
>French.
>Different times, different people, different circumstances.
Same class of subject matter.
> But, I
>understand that if you haven't explored World History this might be
>hard to understand.
>
We are talking about the subject matter of painting.
>
>> >> Pardon me... Manet's thinking is not "a new way of thinking" at all.
>> >> It seemed "new" but is a step in the wrong direction.
>> >
>> >
>> >Wrong? Perhaps, technically or compared to the past, but you're
>> >missing the point, it was a rebellion against the establishment. You
>> >know how that works, chaos, order, chaos, order...
>>
>> -and usually crappy technique, no ideas no skill and the worship of
>> the philosophy of the gutter.
> You know that most Modern Artists were
>masters at their craft looking for something more than a photo copy of
>what they saw.
You probably are so immersed in Modern Art that you never looked
carefully at fine craft.
> Being an artists also meant you could make an
>individual statement. Modern Art and all the movements that developed
>out of its inspiration is a statement for the time in which they live
>and the times in which we live, art reflects life. It doesn't always
>have to be pretty pictures and like music applying technique alone
>doesn't make it worthwhile.
>
The one thing any painter can't avoid is being modern.
John Ng
> > Alas that is the philosophy of Modern Art. Doing a child's drawing
> > when you are forty is chic but doing a child's painting when you are
> > two year old is immature. No comments.
>
> You're missing the point. It's satire, cynical, the artist no longer
> has to be hired by the church or the elite to paint. He is making an
> individual statement. Manet is making fun of what western society has
Yes, you can poke fun using a... fair game. But to continue to call
rubbish "art" is insane. And to promote such anti-art as art is what
I am against. The average Joe now thinks that mediocre, haphazard,
sloppy paintings are the norm. I was that average Joe once.
Joke it may be, but we have since been robbed blind of the skill to
create. How many living artists are able to paint as beautifully as a
century ago... even if they really really try? All is lost for a
joke... civilization is the poorer.
> Wrong? Perhaps, technically or compared to the past, but you're
> missing the point, it was a rebellion against the establishment. You
> know how that works, chaos, order, chaos, order...
I am never missing the point. I knew how all this kind of art got
started. Now is the time for that inane rebellion to end.
> Dictated by the church. That was really a control issue.
> Have you ever studied world history?
Have you ever seen Ben-Hur?
> > The Renaissance corrected this.
> A new wave of consciousness, secularism.
Wrong. Secularism would only come years after Renaissance. Know how
many Renaissance paintings are non-religious... a tiny insignificant
fraction.
> > There are very strong signs now that a correction is in place.
>
> What is the correction? I just don't see it, unless flinging dung on
> ... Again, art reflects life!
Now, you are missing the point. The correction is going back to where
we still had "the thing" and re-starting from there. Art is not about
life... that is a modern deception. It is about skill to create a
thing of beauty.
> But, I will agree that the PreRaphealites painted some pretty
> pictures, but that's already been done, it's sentimental, romantic,
> nice.
My pet satire about the attitude of arty farties… "Words written
about a thing makes it good and none makes it bad". What I am saying
is that many people are simply lead on by the critics to see what the
critics want them to see. I love PRB, so your comment is fair, but
wonder whether it was the books... just like the Manet thing.
> However, with all this leasure time your average Joe may find the
> desire and drive to learn the history of art and maybe even learn how
> to paint. But their work will, from this time on, be their own
> personal experience. And if their lucky find a connection with other
> like minds and sell some of their work. Like that guy who paints those
> pretty cottages.
No, I am not hitting out at what the average Joe paints. If he
chooses to paint Picasso, and it turned out that the colours are
nice... my complements. However, if you are a critic (or any person
in some kind of role who promotes art), and if you deceive others into
thinking that a Kadinsky, a Man Ray and other Modern Art form, is
glorification of art (especially at the expense of others like Tissot,
Bouguereau etc) then I think you deserve the hardest blow.
A person is entitled to what he wants to do, BUT, he should not be
deceived.
> It's clear that after reflecting upon the world of Modern Art you have
> come to some conclusion about where you want to see your art go. You...
> the road of responsibility, freedom.
Modern art is boring… look around you at the most insipid of
places and it is there. Nothing new. Times ARE a-changing, and that
is Art Renewal, which is now becoming very evident. However, an Art
Renewal also necessarily means the death of Modern Art. Freedom is
about the ability to do what you want but Modern Art is about
deception and consequently about the constrain of freedom.
John
ART RENEWAL ADVOCATE
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
el
> >masters at their craft looking for something more than a photo copy of
> >what they saw.
>
> You probably are so immersed in Modern Art that you never looked
> carefully at fine craft.
What are you trying to say here?
Could this be a personal attack? You hardly know me.
el
> > > when you are forty is chic but doing a child’s painting when you are
> > > two year old is immature. No comments.
> >
> > has to be hired by the church or the elite to paint. He is making an
> > individual statement. Manet is making fun of what western society has
>
> Yes, you can poke fun using a... fair game. But to continue to call
> I am against. The average Joe now thinks that mediocre, haphazard,
> sloppy paintings are the norm. I was that average Joe once.
Your problem is with the word ”Art”
You need get over it, stop playing the victim. People know what they
like and if they want to know more they will develop the interest to
guide them. Just cause you liked something 5 years ago doesn’t
mean you have to keep liking it today. One aspect of art is abot
change. Things change.
> Joke it may be, but we have since been robbed blind of the skill to
> create. How many living artists are able to paint as beautifully as a
> century ago… even if they really really try? All is lost for a
> joke… civilization is the poorer.
There is one Rembrant and one Raphael, ever and never again, Never!
People who want to paint like they did are free to do so. To think
their works or inspiration is lost is ridiculous. That’s like
saying Orchestras are traveling museums bound for extinction by the
moog synthesizer. What is you beef anyway, why do you care what other
people like or buy or call anything? I bet you hate jazz too ;p
> > Wrong? Perhaps, technically or compared to the past, but you’re
> > missing the point, it was a rebellion against the establishment. You
> > know how that works, chaos, order, chaos, order…
>
> I am never missing the point. I knew how all this kind of art got
> started. Now is the time for that inane rebellion to end.
Jefferson said a revolution is good every 20 years or so… Take a
breath Modern Art wasn’t even regard by the masses until Warhol
came along, damn hippies!
And no one is making you look at it or buy it. No One! But, let me
know when your work is regarded and revered as Raphaels’ cause I
want to say I knew you when…
> > Dictated by the church. That was really a control issue.
> > Have you ever studied world history?
>
> Have you ever seen Ben-Hur?
That fake history movie, yes. Why?
> > > The Renaissance corrected this.
> > A new wave of consciousness, secularism.
>
> Wrong. Secularism would only come years after Renaissance. Know how
> many Renaissance paintings are non-religious… a tiny insignificant
> fraction.
`There was a lover and his lass with a hey with ho with a hey na ne
na...`
Do you know what Renaissance means? It means rebirth. A child
doesn’t grow up over night, history is long and old. Please read
about it.
> > > There are very strong signs now that a correction is in place.
> >
> > What is the correction? I just don’t see it, unless flinging dung on
> > … Again, art reflects life!
>
> Now, you are missing the point. The correction is going back to where
> we still had “the thing” and re-starting from there. Art is not about
> life… that is a modern deception. It is about skill to create a
> thing of beauty.
First you can’t really go back, but you can still create a thing
of beauty and a skillful thing that is beautiful. It’s in the
eye of the beholder… You like movies, right? have you seen
Cabaret? If not go rent it and listen to the song “If You Could
See Her.” might give you a chuckle.
BTW, skill and craftsmanship has never been out or lost.
You’re just not use to the masses having choices. If you think
that your craft or skill will be honored revered by the masses like a
Peter Max, well you have more faith in humanity than I do.
Appreciation for anything requires an education. You don’t watch
the news much or get out too often do you? You expect too much from
human beings.
> > But, I will agree that the PreRaphealites painted some pretty
> > pictures, but that’s already been done, it’s sentimental, romantic,
> > nice.
>
> My pet satire about the attitude of arty farties… “Words written
> about a thing makes it good and none makes it bad” .What I am saying
> is that many people are simply lead on by the critics to see what the
> critics want them to see. I love PRB, so your comment is fair, but
> wonder whether it was the books… just like the Manet thing.
Why do you care what the critics say or think? If they are wrong in
your eyes/mind anyway, why give their words any credence? Write your
own #8088 book!
What do you mean by “whether it was the books… just like
the Manet thing?”
> > However, with all this leisure time your average Joe may find the
> > desire and drive to learn the history of art and maybe even learn how
> > to paint. But their work will, from this time on, be their own
> > personal experience. And if their lucky find a connection with other
> > like minds and sell some of their work. Like that guy who paints those
> > pretty cottages.
>
> No, I am not hitting out at what the average Joe paints. If he
> chooses to paint Picasso, and it turned out that the colours are
> nice… my complements. However, if you are a critic (or any person
> in some kind of role who promotes art), and if you deceive others into
> thinking that a Kandinsky, a Man Ray and other Modern Art form, is
> glorification of art (especially at the expense of others like Tissot,
> Bouguereau etc) then I think you deserve the hardest blow.
Hey, I like Kandinsky, not all of his stuff, but I get it. Just cause
you don’t is your problem. And if you don’t like the so
called “roll models” who promotes these guys over Tissot,
then don’t read their books and instead of listening to their
lectures take a hike.
Another thing, Man Rey “glorification” of art?
“It’s all shit” -Man Rey
Even Man Rey would disagree with you there, he didn’t glorify
his work. What books are you reading?
You’re taking all of this rather personally and you’re not
even the #8088 artist!
> A person is entitled to what he wants to do, BUT, he should not be
> deceived.
People choose to be deceived. There is no suppression of books in the
US and yes, there may be an abundance of Modern Art books at the
thrift store, so what? Any one that is interested in art will find
what s/he likes Modern, Greek, Cave. Not everyone is an artist and the
majority of people don’t want to be. I think you’re
jealous.
I would, however, be curious what you think of Chinese Art, all those
blots and silly poetry eh? ;)
I have to ask if you are having a hard time with personal
responsibility cause you don’t seem to care about freedom all
that much.
> > It’s clear that after reflecting upon the world of Modern Art you have
> > come to some conclusion about where you want to see your art go. You…
> > the road of responsibility, freedom.
>
> Modern art is boring… look around you at the most insipid of
> places and it is there. Nothing new. Times ARE a-changing, and that
> is Art Renewal, which is now becoming very evident. However, an Art
> Renewal also necessarily means the death of Modern Art. Freedom is
> about the ability to do what you want but Modern Art is about
> deception and consequently about the constrain of freedom.
Oh that’s silly, Modern Art will not go away because it’s
a statement in time; like hippies they are a part of our past and will
always be, Always! They will never ever, ever go away, but they
won’t be like they were now as they were in then. Stop living in
the past! Crips, what’s next, reparations for Modern Art!
As far as your idea of Art Renewal, I’d rather think that Art is
in a constant state of renewal. :)
This was fun!
Enjoy!