Why so hostile ??? Please read
Marilyn
Marc Odley wrote:
Mark wrote a lot of whinning & complaining about the reaction to his
spam ads for his work.
My objection to his post is different.
The nude - male & female as a subject in art has
been done to death.
Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
by male artists.
Get a new subject matter.
jhe...@yorku.ca
Hello all:
The below message carries either a strongly fasict, feminist view
or a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist view. In either case,
censorship must be eliminated, as nobody has the right to impose
his/her views upon anybody else.
My suggestions to Marilyn and Mark are included below.
Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
> My objection to his [spam] post is different.
> The nude - male & female as a subject in art has
> been done to death.
> Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
> by male artists.
> Get a new subject matter.
Marilyn: You should be ashamed to publicize such a dictatorial
viewpoint. If less people like you existed, there would be more
freedom and less social fragmentation and cultural degradation. The
whole arts community suffers because of censorship. This has caused
the collapse of the National Endowment for the Arts in the United
States, an effort led by Senator Jesse Helms: a proponent of
neo-fascist, right-wing, anti-feminist, anti-pornography, and
anti-minority legislation. All he does is serve his own interests --
and interest groups -- while collecting a higher annual salary than
90% of the American people could ever hope to earn.
This is really an infantile view of the artworld. To accuse male
artists of exploiting women's bodies is a matter of opinion. Do you
mean to suggest that male artists have also exploited the landscape
because so many artists have painted landscape? Do you not exploit
women by continuing this tired debate about the valuation or
devaluation of art based on its representation of the female nude?
Nudes happen not to be of interest to me, as I prefer paintings
of substance -- dealing with political, social, religious issues.
HOWEVER, unlike Marilyn, I do not believe in censorship, whether
socially- or self-imposed.
Mark: Paint whatever you want to paint, as nobody has the right
to censor your material. If nudes are your preferred subject, paint
on! You should suggest that perhaps Marilyn should begin painting
male nudes to 'get even' with male painters -- of course, some women
artists in the 1970s did exactly that, but soon gave up, recognizing
that those interested in buying male nudes were not other women, but
gay bars and nightclubs!
Freedom for all . . . J. Heuman <jhe...@yorku.ca>
mdeli
On Wed, 01 Oct 1997 18:29:57 -0700, Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>Marc Odley wrote:
>Mark wrote a lot of whinning & complaining about the reaction to his
>spam ads for his work.
>
>My objection to his post is different.
>The nude - male & female as a subject in art has
>been done to death.
>
>Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
>by male artists.
>
>Get a new subject matter.
Gee I never realized that Marilyn was also a prude and a feminist
crank.
Now I know that Botticelli's Venus was merely a means to "exploit
women's bodies." Wow, Bouguereau and Dali must be sex criminals.
Where does that put Picasso Marilyn?
MD
Marilyn
jhe...@yorku.ca wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> The below message carries either a strongly fasict, feminist view
> or a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist view. In either case,
> censorship must be eliminated, as nobody has the right to impose
> his/her views upon anybody else.
> My suggestions to Marilyn and Mark are included below.
>
> Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>
> > The nude - male & female as a subject in art has
> > been done to death.
> > Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
> > by male artists.
> > Get a new subject matter.
>
Yeah and freedom for me to express an opinion too.
You over react.
Ask yourself, why.
Marilyn
jhe...@yorku.ca
It seems we have a intellectual dictator, Marilyn, in our midst. The
focus of my objection to Marilyn's original message was that she
expressed a desire to censor that which she does not like. Here, read
it for yourselves:
> Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>
> > My objection to his [spam] post is different.
> > The nude - male & female as a subject in art has
> > been done to death.
> > Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
> > by male artists.
> > Get a new subject matter.
I wrote, "The...message carries either a strongly fasict,
feminist view or a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist view." She is
heavy-handed, daring to accuse Mark of exploiting women's bodies. As
for Marilyn's dictatorial character -- how about her concluding
sentance: "Get a new subject matter." This was neither a question,
nor a suggeestion, but an aggressive and hostile demand.
Though I asked if artists throughout the centuries exploited the
landscape by painting it so often, Marilyn chose not to respond. So
have male artists exploited both women and the landscape?
I also pointed out, "If less people like you existed, there would
be more freedom and less social fragmentation and cultural
degradation. The whole arts community suffers because of censorship."
This is, no doubt, a truism. People who try to impose views on others
fail. Sure, this sounds like I contradict myself . . . but only in my
attempt to establish freedom of thought and action for all.
Marilyn's reaction is typical of someone with no firm footing
except their hateful opinion. Here is her response:
> Yeah and freedom for me to express an opinion too.
> You over react.
> Ask yourself, why.
>
> Marilyn
So, I have been accused of over-reacting . . . I have been accused of
stiffling Marilyn's opinion. However, Marilyn DID NOT EXPRESS AN
OPINION, BUT AN AGGRESSIVE AND HOSTILE DEMAND. Ask yourself, why you
are so aggressive and hostile, Marilyn.
J. Heuman
jhe...@yorku.ca
zi...@interport.net
Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
I think that any subject matter and style has already been done to
death. One of you paints rather like, but not as well as my old friend
Ben who stopped painting in the late fifties and has been dead since
about 1968. Ben Isquith was a wonderful painter and seemed very
original then. He gave one friend of his and mine a painting he called
One Square Foot of Rubens Flesh. It is just that. Unfortunately
Rubens neverpainted a square foot of anything. He painted people who
were speific in his portraits or going through specific narrative
problems and Gods, Godesses or heroes. So the thing, whcih I still
like, des not compare. He could defend himself well from me I can hear
him now.
As far as radical modernism is concerned I am with Koheleth: "There is
nothing new under the sun." But I would go further than the pentateuch
and say that as long as you think you are doing something radically
new, especially then, there is nothing new under the sun. For anything
to be authentic first and then maybe to become new it will have to be
slowly hard fought and in places where we are sure the new can't come
from. For example, from the male and female nude.
By the way, if I painted a fine painting of a male nude and some one
gay or even a gay bar bought it I would find that absolutely OK. Is
there some reason why other bars are better? Frankly I don't like bars
altogether. The Muslims who can't drink alcohol spend all their time
in tea or coffee houses. Probably better for the mind and body,
especially the tea houses. I just wish they and the other iconoclasts
believed in art other than the art of calligraphy.
Anyhow I paint nudes and I have done so for about 40 years. All my
nudes are people and I like my models both male and female very much.
Nor do I exploit them. They are paid a better fee than anyone else
gives down here-and if I have to miss a session or several because I
am sick or anythingelse I pay them, too. I am an old union man and I
will not exploit people. Paying a dancer or artist or craftsperson or
actor who needs a source of income which does not interfere with what
is important in his/her life to pose for me is not exploitation.
If they pose for me for two or three years we become friends. Often
very good friends, as much as the age difference will allow. They are
the age of my younger son or a little younger nowadays. I have found
that the people who pose for me are some of thesmartest and nicest
people I have ever met -sometimes both categories, but always one or
the other. And, you Canadians, two of the best have been Canadians, a
guy who is a composer and a gal who is a hand craft shoemaker [one
from the East and one from the west]. They have certainly helped firm
my notion of how nice you all are. The woman is someone who a lot of
other people find difficult, butthat is because they don;t treat
her/him either as a human being [the model=furniture or a still-life
object] or they don't treat her/him as an equal. In several ways she
is my superior, [the hand craft shoe maker]although I am further along
in my craft than she is. I also have very strong beliefs about how the
model should be treated. Every painting of a person other than a
subject mattertale of myown, should express the personality of
thesitter-nude or portrait. So every nude should be a portrait. The
great tradition of painting the nude is real. It is also real that by
and large womenwere not painters. They weren't composers, either. The
only portion women had in the arts with a few exceptions was as
performers. This does not imply anything about anything other than
thecharacter of the societies they lived in. Men who painted nudes or
who sculpted them painted at first -in ancient tumes in Greece, more
male nudes than female ones. There weremorereasons for them. Womendid
not compete in the Olympics thus no sculptures of the female winners.
There were Aphrodites, Athenas, Artemises, Etc. and of course Kore's.
But besides the Gods wher it is pretty much equal time, when it came
to people there are more male nudes. In the cemeteries all things are
equal so we get as many tomb stones of one as the other. In Roman
times it evens out. There are many many portrait heads of women, but
as far as nudes are concerned, more men. Only in the Renaissance does
it start evening out and even more nudes are made ofwomen [after
Michelangelo, Raphael and their generation and the next in Rome ands
Florence where there still are more male nudes,partially because of
the homoerotic nature of the subjectand some of the artists]. It is in
Venice that the modern female nude begins. The first, by Giorgione is
a nude of Venus in which the construction of the painting is such that
she is identified with the land in the rest of the painting. Venus is
the fecundity of the earth. All of the nudes following that one, the
immediate followers by Titian and the late ones by Corot continue to
have that meaning. Most of the great nudes were usually not so erotic
as all that. In the 19th century for the first time we get a series of
more eroticized female nudes as typical. These are painted by very bad
artists like Cabanel, Bouguereau, Pierre Cot, asnd a long list of
nonentities. Does any one seriously think that the Cezanne and Renoir
nudes exploit and degrade women? I am sure there are a lot of such
people. What do they do with my firned Natalie's work? It comes outof
the same tradition. Now women are doing full sculptor's work. For a
sculptor who cares about and relates to the tradition, even through
modernist definitions of it, the figure is the ultimate goal. Would
you have women turn their backs on the greatest challenges and the
places where the greatest rewards lie?
The women whopainted nudes as a feminist response were not good
painters not one of them. Not in terms of painting the figure. That is
not to say there aren't good women figure painters -Louisa
Matthiasdottir, some ten years my senior is one. She has painted
numerous full length self portraits, by the way. They are some of her
best work.
At any rate if you want to pooh-pooh painting the nude you ought to be
aware of what you are painting and what its antecedents are. There has
been no new abstract formulation since abstract expressionism. I can
Find nothing being done today which isn't easily subsumed in the art
of someone active between 1912 and 1960.
That being so, beat another horse not this dead one of the nude. Why
are you painting anything you are painting? Why is it good for you?
Why is it good for us? What is what you are painting about? Do you
have specific metaphors for each work or a generalized one for all?
Which would be better? Is there a choice? There are real questions
about painting and demonizing some subject you don't paint and
probably can't paint won;t answer any for you.
Art may be love but talking about art brings up turf, ego, career and
hostility. What, did none of you know that? Where have you been all
these years?
I am not hostile to abstract art only to bad abstract artists. I am
not hostile to bad figurative art only to bad figurative artists. In
both cases unless I feel the inquiring and questing mind in there
which wants something betterand is groping for it the way we must all
grope I can get hostile. It is not clear what to do or where to go or
what is really good. No planning, ratiocination, philosophy, careerism
or anything else can decide it. Yes, we must think but then we must
test it out in the painting.
I haven't painted an automatic painting [like those of one of you]
since 1952. But I painted them from 1947 through 1952 and exhibited my
first deKooning in a competitive show at the Laurel Gallery on 57th
street in 1950. Since that time I believe in planning and thinking and
dreaming and doing whatever you can BEFORE you go to work and then
allowing it to flow and then thinking again afterwards. But remember
this is happening with models there from whom I am working. It is
never stream of consciousness. There is an intention which is known.
What is not known is how and where and when and all of those
proportions change and develop with an end in mind. Loosely in mind
while working or the work becomes dead and egoful where it should be
egoless.
Here is a motto. And do forgive me for the "man" that is how it goes
in Sankara and Meister Eckhart, both.
"The artist is not a special kind of man, every man is a special kind
of artist."
Sincerely,
Gabriel
Carlos Martins
jheuman wrote and (as an artist also envolved with women bodies "explotation"
in art field, i am entirely agree with him:
>
>Hello all:
> The below message carries either a strongly fasict, feminist view
>or a right-wing, Christian fundamentalist view. In either case,
>censorship must be eliminated, as nobody has the right to impose
>his/her views upon anybody else.
> My suggestions to Marilyn and Mark are included below.
> Marilyn: You should be ashamed to publicize such a dictatorial
>viewpoint. If less people like you existed, there would be more
>freedom and less social fragmentation and cultural degradation. The
exhibition at:www.openart.com/artistes/martins/Accueil.htm
Carlos Martins
>
>Marc Odley wrote:
>Mark wrote a lot of whinning & complaining about the reaction to his
>spam ads for his work.
>My objection to his post is different.
>The nude - male & female as a subject in art has
>been done to death.
>
>Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
>by male artists.
>Get a new subject matter.
as an artist i am totally oposed with the idea that women`s bodies
(or male) have been by any manner exploited by the artists (male or female).
Well, and for speaking about my own creative work, i have to tell that
the "explotation" of female bodies on my painting and collages are exactly
as an apology of the female and also a denounciation of her explotation.
Overall i think the female`s body as part of her personality and identity and
refuse to separate it from the global.
The female artists have exactly the same right. The creative work
have no frontiers.
regards
carlos martins
exhibition at:www.openart.com/artistes/martins/Accueil.htm
Susan Apple
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in article
<34354aab...@news.interlog.com>...
> Gee I never realized that Marilyn was also a prude and a feminist
> crank.
>
> Now I know that Botticelli's Venus was merely a means to "exploit
> women's bodies." Wow, Bouguereau and Dali must be sex criminals.
>
> Where does that put Picasso Marilyn?
>
> MD
Bougereau, Dali, and Picasso were "sex" criminals. Yes. Botticelli was a
sex "criminal". You are not as smart as you think you are.
Jonathan Clift
Susan Apple wrote
[firstly quoting Mani]
>mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in article
><34354aab...@news.interlog.com>...
>> Gee I never realized that Marilyn was also a prude and a feminist
>> crank.
>>
She doesn't seem like a crank to me. I doubt that she's a prude. And I
would probably be safe in saying that she's not a paid-up fascist. Why
was there such a strong reaction to what she wrote?
Her comment about giving up painting the nude was a bit along the lines
of "get a life". It was hardly a concerted attack on people's civil
liberties.
I don't entirely agree with her on this, but I'm not going to call her a
fascist for a (too) broad generalisation that just expresses an opinion
about artistic subject matter. (I'm curious to know whether she still
holds to this view, or whether it was an off-the-cuff remark made in the
heat of the moment.)
Gabriel's response (a brief history of the nude in art) was interesting,
but it was weighted in favour of nude art that does have artistic merit.
At one time, an awful lot of this material was produced for patrons who
today would just nip down to the newsagents for a glossy magazine. Just
look at all that "Oriental" subject matter, with slave girls who for
some reason never seemed to have any clothes on (must have been the hot
climate). You sort of acknowledge this, but presumably think it was
worth it for the good stuff that happened every once in a while. Does
that still apply today? Or, should we be trying to persuade artists to
think about what they do and the effects their images have.
>> Now I know that Botticelli's Venus was merely a means to "exploit
>> women's bodies." Wow, Bouguereau and Dali must be sex criminals.
>>
>> Where does that put Picasso Marilyn?
>>
>> MD
>
[and then her own response]
>Bougereau, Dali, and Picasso were "sex" criminals. Yes. Botticelli was a
>sex "criminal". You are not as smart as you think you are.
>
I don't have any problems with the Botticelli at all. It's probably the
worst example you could choose. Although the subject is a classical
theme, he has overlaid it with Christian ideas - the woman on the shore
is waiting to clothe her nakedness (think about ideas of original sin,
falling from grace, the loss of innocence, all that Garden of Eden
stuff). It's a complex picture, and the nudity is necessary to the theme
(he was using metaphor and visual language appropriate to his time). You
might not like these ideas (personally I don't, but it's still a great
picture), but they don't make him a "sex criminal". He asks some real
questions with this work that are still pertinent today. Ironically he's
quite close to you and Marilyn, though for completely different reasons.
--
Jonathan Clift
art...@aros.net
Susan Apple wrote:
>
> mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in article
> <34354aab...@news.interlog.com>...
> > Gee I never realized that Marilyn was also a prude and a feminist
> > crank.
> >
> > women's bodies." Wow, Bouguereau and Dali must be sex criminals.
> >
> > Where does that put Picasso Marilyn?
> >
> > MD
>
> sex "criminal". You are not as smart as you think you are.
The most interesting thing about this debate seems to be the fact that
women have primarily resorted to the critique of mens creative
aspirations wether they be violent, admirable or both. As a figurative
painter that finds herself often wandering into territory that other
feminist might condemn, I find the most productive way to investigate
ones response to the visual assaults of picasso or the commercial
manipulations of the body by the likes of David Salle is to make ART! No
one is everything they want to be. One of the most significant things
about making art is that it doesn't demand that you be an upstanding
citizen....true art in my mind, is art that seeks to be honest
confrontations with your own self. If picasso was obsessed with tearing
the female form apart and piecing it back together as a visual plastic
surgeon...that is exactly what he should have been painting. You paint
what is very important to you, not what you think people want or should
see. Anyway, to bring this rant to a close I find it of great import to
encourage women to add their voice to the mix by creating things instead
of trying to control what others create. This concept applies to art,
politics, sports and pornography. If you want history to reflect
something different then add something of substance to it.
Rebecca
Marilyn
Jonathan Clift wrote:
>
> She doesn't seem like a crank to me. I doubt that she's a prude. And I
> would probably be safe in saying that she's not a paid-up fascist. Why
> was there such a strong reaction to what she wrote?
>
> Her comment about giving up painting the nude was a bit along the lines
> of "get a life". It was hardly a concerted attack on people's civil
> liberties.
>
> I don't entirely agree with her on this, but I'm not going to call her a
> fascist for a (too) broad generalisation that just expresses an opinion
> about artistic subject matter. (I'm curious to know whether she still
> holds to this view, or whether it was an off-the-cuff remark made in the
> heat of the moment.)
> To Jonathan
I still hold the view that I am bored with nudes. And thank you for not
interpreting that to mean that I am a "facistic feminist prude." First of
all, after years of life drawing, I do not associate the nude with eroticism
that to me is an notion in American culture probably from the Puritans.
Of course it can be erotic. So that eliminates the "prude" idea. Second of
all, I don't find the "subject" to be so important as the other elements of a
painting, mostly the life in it, the magic in it. I could go on...
I did not respond to MD's taunt because she mentions Botticelli and Bougereau
in the same sentence. They are world's apart.
I did not make the remark about sex-criminals, that was Ms Apple's remark. That
expression is not in my vocabulary, as it is rather vague. Also, I would not
say anything so vague/crude about Botticelli.
Someone else asked what this newsgroup is for and I would have to answer that it
seems to me to be a forum for mostly men artists to show how much they think
they know. There is a pretence of "teaching" or "instruction" or "advice" or
"information" but read them and weep, the egos always seem to dominate the
discussions. It is like a rummage sale, trying to find the interesting and
the objective among all the rest.
Bye now.
Marilyn
mdeli
, Marilyn wrote:
>I still hold the view that I am bored with nudes. And thank you for not
>interpreting that to mean that I am a "facistic feminist prude."
...And here is what you wrote. I quote.
---- " Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
by male artists. "
I interpret this as feminist crankery. However you might prefer this
remark be interpreted as just plain stupid?
>I did not respond to MD's taunt because she mentions Botticelli and Bougereau
>in the same sentence. They are world's apart.
But they both painted nudes didn't they? And you didn't tell us about
Picasso.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Marilyn
Tons of books have been written about Picasso, but then you don't read
that much or with very much comprehension. You only read enough to be
able to name-drop a few art historical names to back up your puerile
arguements.
Subject matter is not enough to give artists anything in common.
Velazquez painted dogs, does that give him commonality with
the painter of "Dogs Playing Poker?"
Will you ever break out of your conventional mold and look around you?
Marilyn
mdeli
On Wed, 15 Oct 1997 12:23:31 -0700, Marilyn <m...@islandnet.com> wrote:
>mdeli wrote:
>>
>> , Marilyn wrote:
>>
>> >I still hold the view that I am bored with nudes. And thank you for not
>> >interpreting that to mean that I am a "facistic feminist prude."
>>
...And here is what you wrote. I quote.
---- " Women's bodies especially have been exploited for centuries
by male artists. "
I interpret this as feminist crankery. However you might prefer this
remark be interpreted as just plain stupid?
I got no response, as usual. Is it because I like Dali Marilyn?
>>
>> >I did not respond to MD's taunt because she mentions Botticelli and Bougereau
>> >in the same sentence. They are world's apart.
>>
>> But they both painted nudes didn't they? And you didn't tell us about
>> Picasso.
>>
>> Mani DeLi
>> ...no skill no art [humbug slogans are not skillful]
>
>Tons of books have been written about Picasso, but then you don't read
>that much or with very much comprehension.
Another clairvoyant who professes to know my reading habits.
>You only read enough to be
>able to name-drop a few art historical names to back up your puerile
>arguements.
>
You don't sound like you ever read much of anything as you never
address the point.
>Subject matter is not enough to give artists anything in common.
>Velazquez painted dogs, does that give him commonality with
>the painter of "Dogs Playing Poker?"
Your intellect is too dull to even successfully beg the question.
>Will you ever break out of your conventional mold and look around you?
All you can see is the walls of your conventional coffin and you can't
even manage to say anything much about it.