Cezanne's Perspective
Marilyn
I sent this jpg to Lissa as an example of the use of perspective
by the artists of Pompeii (circa 80 BC).
It is a crude linear perspective. (one point).
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jhauser/pictures/history/Romans/Pompeii/4/93-03.jpg
Daniel M. Mendelowitz talks about the use of perspective
even earlier by the ancient Egyptians:
"Systems of perspective existed in various cultures before the Italian
Renaissance. The ancient Egyptians suggested space by levels of action
one above another, each on its own ground line. the lowest band of
action in a composition was read as the frontal plane, the highest
as
the most distant. This constituted a system of perspective that had
both the intellectual logic and to a degree conformed to visual experience...
We see it in Oriental drawing and it has been used by contemporary
artists
as a means of suggesting space, yet maintaining the sense of the
picture
plane. [my emphasis]"
Those contemporary artists are more concerned with the picture plane
than with creating illusion.
The three aspects of linear perspective
1.diminishing sizes,
2.overlapping forms
3.converging lines
"The fundamentals of perspective are disarmingly simple,
the corollaries are extremely complex."
Mendelowitz describes the early use of perspective by the Egyptians
but it was during the Italian Renaissance that the Theory of Perspective
was rigorously developed.
He states:
"In fact, today's perspective theory often goes far beyond the artist's
needs, moving into theories of spatial projection more closely allied
with [geometry, engineering and science.]"
"Cezanne went further in his modifications of conventional uses
of perspective, tipping up the receding planes to make the observer
more fully aware of the spatial intervals involved in a drawing.
Cezanne also rather consciously limited the implied depth in his
works, thereby enabling himself to eliminate the ambiguity of spatial
relationships between the objects in his drawings. These departures
from conventional perspective practices also had a certain shock value.
They made the observer more sharply aware of space-and-form
relationships because they did not conform to familiar conventions,
inducing the observer to see with a fresh eye, even when irritated
with what seemed violations of 'correct' practices."
Then he goes into the advancing and receding characteristics
of pure colour which brings us to Hoffman...
Mendelowitz could have been describing raf posters here
who are still in a state of shock and highly irritated over Cezanne's
work.
Marilyn
Cezanne rules!
Sharon Barcone
Marilyn wrote in message <3B1D75B2...@islandnet.com>...
Thinking that the USE of perspective pre-dated the Renaissance
I sent this jpg to Lissa as an example of the use of perspective
by the artists of Pompeii (circa 80 BC).
It is a crude linear perspective. (one point).
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~jhauser/pictures/history/Romans/Pompeii/4/93-03.
jpg
Sorry, I don't seem to find much in this picture that would represent
perspective. Maybe you could explain to my thick head just where that one
point is located.
Daniel M. Mendelowitz talks about the use of perspective
even earlier by the ancient Egyptians:
"Systems of perspective existed in various cultures before the Italian
Renaissance. The ancient Egyptians suggested space by levels of action
one above another, each on its own ground line. the lowest band of
action in a composition was read as the frontal plane, the highest as
the most distant. This constituted a system of perspective that had
both the intellectual logic and to a degree conformed to visual
experience...
We see it in Oriental drawing and it has been used by contemporary
artists
as a means of suggesting space, yet maintaining the sense of the picture
plane. [my emphasis]"
It has been argued that this was based on a tactile approach rather that
on how the eye actually sees.
Those contemporary artists are more concerned with the picture plane
than with creating illusion.
The three aspects of linear perspective
1.diminishing sizes,
2.overlapping forms
3.converging lines
"The fundamentals of perspective are disarmingly simple,
the corollaries are extremely complex."
Mendelowitz describes the early use of perspective by the Egyptians
but it was during the Italian Renaissance that the Theory of Perspective
was rigorously developed.
He states:
"In fact, today's perspective theory often goes far beyond the artist's
needs, moving into theories of spatial projection more closely allied
with [geometry, engineering and science.]"
I completely disagree with this statement. I believe the artist of the
21 century would greatly benefit from the study of the scientific aspects
implied here and well as those of color theory and the science of how the
eye sees, as did the painters many years ago.
"Cezanne went further in his modifications of conventional uses
of perspective, tipping up the receding planes to make the observer
more fully aware of the spatial intervals involved in a drawing.
Cezanne also rather consciously limited the implied depth in his
works, thereby enabling himself to eliminate the ambiguity of spatial
relationships between the objects in his drawings. These departures
from conventional perspective practices also had a certain shock value.
They made the observer more sharply aware of space-and-form
relationships because they did not conform to familiar conventions,
inducing the observer to see with a fresh eye, even when irritated
with what seemed violations of 'correct' practices."
Sorry, I just don't "see" it.
Then he goes into the advancing and receding characteristics
of pure colour which brings us to Hoffman...
Mendelowitz could have been describing raf posters here
who are still in a state of shock and highly irritated over Cezanne's
work.
Marilyn
Cezanne rules!
I remember a lecture I heard a while back, someone from the Chicago
Inst. of Art I believe. Stating that Cezanne struggled his entire career in
the effort to represent a realistic three dimensional image on canvas.
Cezanne saw he own failing in that effort and the resulting muddied effect
he achieved from overworking his canvas, to the point of leaving many of his
canvases unfinished. He was successful however in portraying the somber
moodiness of the artist he was.
I can't help but think that Cezanne would be horrified by those who have
turned his failings into what they would call great art.
Cezanne is dead...
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Bob & Dale Ford
Sharon Barcone wrote:
I disagree with that. He was attempting to give new life to the old masters
"idealized" forms and bring Impressionism in line with the works of the museum.
That doesn't mean he was trying to produce works that are visually similar to
the old masters but a new style that merged the too. ( For example using
multiple layers of paint and carefully reworking his canvases over a period of
time.) Courbet was the realist not Cezanne. In merging the works of the old
masters with impressionism that is where Cezanne thought he failed (especially
in his figurative works but he was fairly successful with the landscapes.)
Realism had nothing to do with it.
>
> Cezanne saw he own failing in that effort and the resulting muddied effect
> he achieved from overworking his canvas, to the point of leaving many of his
> canvases unfinished. He was successful however in portraying the somber
> moodiness of the artist he was.
>
> I can't help but think that Cezanne would be horrified by those who have
> turned his failings into what they would call great art.
>
> Cezanne is dead...
>
> sharon
Most artists are never truly happy with their creations. We are constantly
striving to be better all the time. Why trash Cezanne for that. Shows he didn't
give up and rest on his laurels. Good for him and any other artist who
continually strives to be better. His is dead but is innovations live on in the
works of many. I recognize his influence (so do 99% of art historians and
critics) on 20th century art, it is quite obvious. So why do we argue about him
so much here?????
Dale
And I would suggest almost every single artist of the 19th century would be
horrified by the wide variety a "schools" today. Not just Cezanne.
Sharon Barcone
Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B1E9397...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
>
>Most artists are never truly happy with their creations. We are constantly
>striving to be better all the time. Why trash Cezanne for that. Shows he
didn't
>give up and rest on his laurels. Good for him and any other artist who
>continually strives to be better. His is dead but is innovations live on in
the
>works of many. I recognize his influence (so do 99% of art historians and
>critics) on 20th century art, it is quite obvious. So why do we argue about
him
>so much here?????
>Dale
Let's face it, for every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.
(Sorry for mixing metaphors). I was not bashing Cezanne's efforts at
improvement and you are right, it is what all artists should strive for in
their art. But I cannot accept his failings as innovation. Also it wasn't me
who said Cezanne was struggling in his effort to create a realistic three
dimensional image on canvas. It was that guy from the Chicago Art Institute
(also sorry I can't remember his name). I believe innovation comes from
knowledge mixed with intelligence and vision not just happy little
accidents.
And why do we argue Cezanne so much here? Perhaps it is because there are
those who love and esteem him while there are also those who do not. Good
positions for debating Cezanne I would say. And it is one where the "fors"
and "againsts" will never come to agreement.
>
>And I would suggest almost every single artist of the 19th century would be
>horrified by the wide variety a "schools" today. Not just Cezanne.
>
I think there is a lot more that 19th century artists would be horrified by
than the wide variety of schools around today and I even imagine some of
them would be inspired to try a new school or two. But that is easy to say
when none of them are around to ask.
sharon
Marilyn
extended the diminishing lines of the primary form. But I see by your further
response that you are entirely hostile to the work of Cezanne so what would be
the point?
Marilyn
Sharon Barcone
Marilyn wrote in message <3B1EA89A...@nospamislandnet.com>...
not hostile to the work of Cezanne, I merely have an opinion of him that
differs from yours and many others. If you can't see what the point is then
by all means, don't bother.
Marilyn
I just couldn't resist the play on words. Get the point?
Marilyn
Sharon Barcone
And BTW... every time I try to send a post with the word Cezanne in it my
spell checker says "word not found in dictionary" and suggests "Cozen" as a
replacement.
hmmmmm.......wonder what that means.......
sharon
Marilyn wrote in message <3B1ECF71...@nospamislandnet.com>...
mdeli
>
> Marilyn wrote
> even earlier by the ancient Egyptians:
>
> "Systems of perspective existed in various cultures before the Italian
> Renaissance. The ancient Egyptians suggested space by levels of action
> one above another, each on its own ground line. the lowest band of
> action in a composition was read as the frontal plane, the highest as
> the most distant. This constituted a system of perspective that had
> both the intellectual logic and to a degree conformed to visual
>experience...
This is the usual artzy round about way of not saying its axonometric
drawing. Which in a strict sense isn't perspective. These sorts of
statements are perfect for dunce art students who blindly accept
anything couched in this sort of language They get glassy eyed when
they hear anything clearly descriptive. They thirive on long ponderous
mostly meaningless statements.
> The three aspects of linear perspective
> 1.diminishing sizes,
> 2.overlapping forms
> 3.converging lines
The main aspect is missing namely that parallel line remain parallel.
>
> "The fundamentals of perspective are disarmingly simple,
> the corollaries are extremely complex."
True and read a clearly written book on the subject instead of this
sort of artzy and error riddled blather.
>
> Mendelowitz describes the early use of perspective by the Egyptians
> but it was during the Italian Renaissance that the Theory of Perspective
> was rigorously developed.
> He states:
> "In fact, today's perspective theory often goes far beyond the artist's
> needs, moving into theories of spatial projection more closely allied
> with [geometry, engineering and science.]"
All perspective Egyptian Roman etc is based on geometry and
proto-science. The main rules of perspective were completely described
in the Renaissance and haven't changed. However the mathematics behind
the rote was only described in the 19th century.
> "Cezanne went further in his modifications of conventional uses
> of perspective, tipping up the receding planes to make the observer
> more fully aware of the spatial intervals involved in a drawing.
> Cezanne also rather consciously limited the implied depth in his
> works, thereby enabling himself to eliminate the ambiguity of spatial
> relationships between the objects in his drawings.
Cezanne didn't know perspective and painted his landscapes in
cock-eyed axonometric. The result looks rather flat and amateurish. As
to any other subject he tried to tackle there is little sense of the
round because he could barely draw anything.
>These departures
> from conventional perspective practices also had a certain shock value.
> They made the observer more sharply aware of space-and-form
> relationships because they did not conform to familiar conventions,
> inducing the observer to see with a fresh eye, even when irritated
> with what seemed violations of 'correct' practices."
\
There are no violations, Cezanne couldn't "depart" from perspective
because he didn't know it.
>
> Sorry, I just don't "see" it.
>
> Then he goes into the advancing and receding characteristics
> of pure colour which brings us to Hoffman...
...rIght, the realm of pure schmier which would have been far more
interesting had he left his paint in the tube as do so many present
wiser geniuses
Cezanne's main aim was to paint like Poussin. The closest he ever came
is when he stood next to one. If you want to see artwork which makes
mostly axonometric variations and looks like something, check out Gris
and the American Charles Demuth.
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
One spring I put artificial flowers in
among the real, many people could not
tell the difference, some stopped and
took a second and third look.
This is basically a metaphor for your
style. You take a few facts, throw in
some half truths, then some self
righteous anger and you are that lone
defender of the true art. You get your
jollies from half truths, and since only
the people you trick agree with you, you
will always feel fearful that they will
find out the truth of your insincerity.
On your site you write" One needn't have
any great amount of knowledge to
appreciate art or to distinguish
competence from utter incompetence."
That's child centered learning theory.
The kids don't need to know much.
That's the audience you are trying to
reach - people who don't know much.
I used to think that maybe you had some
integrity and were just opinionated, I
am beginning to think that Mani has no
integrity and you Mani are just a school
yard bully - you are going to reject
people before they reject you, because
you feel unloved and unwanted and can't
deal with it.
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
Marilyn Welch
why Mendelowitz was a professor at Stanford University and
you are chief grouch on an internet newsgroup.
Check out the Mendelowitz book on drawing folks
(not you Mani, you already know everything),
if you can get a hold of it.
"DRAWING"
Daniel M. Mendelowitz, 1967
Holt Rinehart Winston, Inc.
Marilyn
Marilyn
He continues to post that I am being safe by not showing HIM my art work online.
Well, I continue to hear from people who have collected my work and tell me 'thank
you.' Although they paid for the work, money can't buy the satisfaction I get from
thinking that I have made something worthwhile which people treasure.
Marilyn
Philip Ayers
>>> Cezanne's main aim was to paint like Poussin. The closest he ever came
>>> is when he stood next to one. If you want to see artwork which makes
>>> mostly axonometric variations and looks like something, check out Gris
>>> and the American Charles Demuth.
>>> ...no skill no art
..this is sooo stupid. Cezanne supposedly said "I want to paint Poussin from
life". He - didn't say - he wanted to "paint like Poussin." Again you take
liberties to lie. What he meant....well everyone knows what he meant except
possibly Assholes#1 & #2...but I'll explain if need be.
Bob & Dale Ford
Sharon Barcone wrote:
> Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B1E9397...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
> >
> >Most artists are never truly happy with their creations. We are constantly
> >striving to be better all the time. Why trash Cezanne for that. Shows he
> didn't
> >give up and rest on his laurels. Good for him and any other artist who
> >continually strives to be better. His is dead but is innovations live on in
> the
> >works of many. I recognize his influence (so do 99% of art historians and
> >critics) on 20th century art, it is quite obvious. So why do we argue about
> him
> >so much here?????
> >Dale
>
> Let's face it, for every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.
> (Sorry for mixing metaphors).
Not all opinions are equal.
> I was not bashing Cezanne's efforts at
> improvement and you are right, it is what all artists should strive for in
> their art. But I cannot accept his failings as innovation.
What I am saying is that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> Also it wasn't me
> who said Cezanne was struggling in his effort to create a realistic three
> dimensional image on canvas. It was that guy from the Chicago Art Institute
> (also sorry I can't remember his name).
I know I am disagreeing with both of you, him for saying it originally and you
for repeating it to support your opinion.
> I believe innovation comes from
> knowledge mixed with intelligence and vision not just happy little
> accidents.
> And why do we argue Cezanne so much here? Perhaps it is because there are
> those who love and esteem him while there are also those who do not. Good
> positions for debating Cezanne I would say. And it is one where the "fors"
> and "againsts" will never come to agreement.
True but to dismiss a hugely influential painter on the grounds of personal
taste ( as some do on this NG) is trite to say the least.
>
>
> >
> >And I would suggest almost every single artist of the 19th century would be
> >horrified by the wide variety a "schools" today. Not just Cezanne.
> >
>
> I think there is a lot more that 19th century artists would be horrified by
> than the wide variety of schools around today and I even imagine some of
> them would be inspired to try a new school or two. But that is easy to say
> when none of them are around to ask.
>
Oh I think there are plenty of 19th century artists around on this NG. Lol :-)
BTW I like 19th century art. I just don't think it was the peak of the history
of art. We are dealing with different time periods and influences then the 19th
century, for our art to be relevant it MUST be different. And hey I'm all for a
new school(s) of thought/art.
Dale
mdeli
>asshole #1 wrotez:
snip
>possibly Assholes#1 & #2...but I'll explain if need be.
>
I have now counted 18 assholes in Ayres' information filled messages.
However does (Assholes#1 & #2.) count single or double. Can anyone
help on this important matter.
I suspect that Ayres in his illusions of grandeur imagines he has no
navel and two assholes. This should certainly help him imagine he is
superior. He might also be graced with three balls.
ljrobins
> Philip Ayers our asshole expert wrote:
>
> >asshole #1 wrotez:
> snip
> >possibly Assholes#1 & #2...but I'll explain if need be.
> >
>
> I have now counted 18 assholes in Ayres' information filled messages.
> However does (Assholes#1 & #2.) count single or double. Can anyone
> help on this important matter.
Hmmm ...maybe we should start counting the number of times Mani uses the
words:
1. panties (when referring to a woman who stands up to him)
2. crap (when referring to any art that is outside his 1" x 1" box)
3. artzy fartzy (when referring to any artist who lives outside of his
1" x 1" box)
Anyone have any other words to add???
Philip Ayers
ljro...@cadvision.com wrote on 6/8/01 12:06 AM:
I only use the word as a way of describing certain peoples behavior. Like
shit comes from both places...excuse my french.
Thanks for being so understanding.
Sharon Barcone
Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B1FF173...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
>
>
>Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
>> Bob & Dale Ford wrote in message <3B1E9397...@mb.sympatico.ca>...
>> >
>> >Most artists are never truly happy with their creations. We are
constantly
>> >striving to be better all the time. Why trash Cezanne for that. Shows he
>> didn't
>> >give up and rest on his laurels. Good for him and any other artist who
>> >continually strives to be better. His is dead but is innovations live on
in
>> the
>> >works of many. I recognize his influence (so do 99% of art historians
and
>> >critics) on 20th century art, it is quite obvious. So why do we argue
about
>> him
>> >so much here?????
>> >Dale
>>
>> Let's face it, for every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion.
>> (Sorry for mixing metaphors).
>
>Not all opinions are equal.
Again, I was mixing metaphors here. "For every action there is an egual and
opposite reaction." And how true that all opinions are not equal. And my
opinion in the grand scheme of the art world may be completely unimportant
to everyone, except me. So why all the fuss?
>
>> I was not bashing Cezanne's efforts at
>> improvement and you are right, it is what all artists should strive for
in
>> their art. But I cannot accept his failings as innovation.
>
>What I am saying is that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Maybe so but it is my baby and my bath water.
>
>> Also it wasn't me
>> who said Cezanne was struggling in his effort to create a realistic three
>> dimensional image on canvas. It was that guy from the Chicago Art
Institute
>> (also sorry I can't remember his name).
>
>I know I am disagreeing with both of you, him for saying it originally and
you
>for repeating it to support your opinion.
Remember that my comments began with remarks about a link posted by Marilyn.
My opinion was that I didn't see much in the link that represented
perspective and followed up with remarks about her comment on Cezanne. I do
not disregard all of Cezanne's work. I was only pointing out that their are
other learned people who have dissenting opinions.
>
>> I believe innovation comes from
>> knowledge mixed with intelligence and vision not just happy little
>> accidents.
>> And why do we argue Cezanne so much here? Perhaps it is because there are
>> those who love and esteem him while there are also those who do not. Good
>> positions for debating Cezanne I would say. And it is one where the
"fors"
>> and "againsts" will never come to agreement.
>
>True but to dismiss a hugely influential painter on the grounds of personal
>taste ( as some do on this NG) is trite to say the least.
While I must agree that Cezanne was highly influential however, I have never
been one to run with the pack. Call me trite if you wish. I can't help but
wonder why it is so important to those who see Cezanne as the great father
insist that those who don't must hop on their band wagon.
>> >
>> >And I would suggest almost every single artist of the 19th century would
be
>> >horrified by the wide variety a "schools" today. Not just Cezanne.
>> >
>>
>> I think there is a lot more that 19th century artists would be horrified
by
>> than the wide variety of schools around today and I even imagine some of
>> them would be inspired to try a new school or two. But that is easy to
say
>> when none of them are around to ask.
>>
>
>Oh I think there are plenty of 19th century artists around on this NG. Lol
:-)
Well, sometimes I am a dinosaur, sometimes a space cowgirl.
>
>BTW I like 19th century art. I just don't think it was the peak of the
history
>of art. We are dealing with different time periods and influences then the
19th
>century, for our art to be relevant it MUST be different. And hey I'm all
for a
>new school(s) of thought/art.
>Dale
>
>>
For our art to be relevant to what exactly. Our time, our place in history,
our place in the tradition we follow?
I believe there are enough styles in are today to satisfy almost every one.
Art that gives a new vision to the world is certainly something to strive
for but I do not particularly believe that it must be two dimensional and
lacking in traditional perspective. But hey, it's my music and I will dance
to it how I please.
William Barkin
distant cousin of Mary Cassat...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote in message
news:3b1ed010_2@newsfeeds...
Bob & Dale Ford
Sharon Barcone wrote:
This is a continuation of several posts. You must have not seen them. (That's
why the fuss:-))And as far as your personal art goes it doesn't matter to me
what you choose to follow (be influenced by in your work or just like) or not
but it is important that you recognize the influence of those before us. Since
we don't live in a vacuum we are influenced by what we see either negatively or
positively. So whether you like Cezanne or not we all must acknowledge the
influence which you do. Same can be said for numerous other artists as well.
>
>
> >
> >> I was not bashing Cezanne's efforts at
> >> improvement and you are right, it is what all artists should strive for
> in
> >> their art. But I cannot accept his failings as innovation.
> >
> >What I am saying is that you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
>
> Maybe so but it is my baby and my bath water.
>
> >
> >> Also it wasn't me
> >> who said Cezanne was struggling in his effort to create a realistic three
> >> dimensional image on canvas. It was that guy from the Chicago Art
> Institute
> >> (also sorry I can't remember his name).
> >
> >I know I am disagreeing with both of you, him for saying it originally and
> you
> >for repeating it to support your opinion.
>
> Remember that my comments began with remarks about a link posted by Marilyn.
> My opinion was that I didn't see much in the link that represented
> perspective and followed up with remarks about her comment on Cezanne. I do
> not disregard all of Cezanne's work. I was only pointing out that their are
> other learned people who have dissenting opinions.
Again learned people may say Cezanne is crap but some of the comments posted
about what the lecturer said make me wonder how learned/biased. For example the
realism struggle. I have heard many bogus claims about many artists. In my
opinion, it is easy to trash an artist, any artist, especially if we are going
to impose our own system of judgement on their work. Like if I say an abstract
expressionist failed in his/her ability to create a realistic image, true they
didn't create any realistic images but since they never tried is that a
failure???
>
>
> >
> >> I believe innovation comes from
> >> knowledge mixed with intelligence and vision not just happy little
> >> accidents.
> >> And why do we argue Cezanne so much here? Perhaps it is because there are
> >> those who love and esteem him while there are also those who do not. Good
> >> positions for debating Cezanne I would say. And it is one where the
> "fors"
> >> and "againsts" will never come to agreement.
> >
> >True but to dismiss a hugely influential painter on the grounds of personal
> >taste ( as some do on this NG) is trite to say the least.
>
> While I must agree that Cezanne was highly influential however, I have never
> been one to run with the pack. Call me trite if you wish. I can't help but
> wonder why it is so important to those who see Cezanne as the great father
> insist that those who don't must hop on their band wagon.
Hey don't hop on the band wagon. Just recognize the influence. To say Cezanne
was a hack or a failure isn't right. That's my point.
>
>
> >> >
> >> >And I would suggest almost every single artist of the 19th century would
> be
> >> >horrified by the wide variety a "schools" today. Not just Cezanne.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I think there is a lot more that 19th century artists would be horrified
> by
> >> than the wide variety of schools around today and I even imagine some of
> >> them would be inspired to try a new school or two. But that is easy to
> say
> >> when none of them are around to ask.
> >>
> >
> >Oh I think there are plenty of 19th century artists around on this NG. Lol
> :-)
>
> Well, sometimes I am a dinosaur, sometimes a space cowgirl.
Not you specifically ;-)
>
>
> >
> >BTW I like 19th century art. I just don't think it was the peak of the
> history
> >of art. We are dealing with different time periods and influences then the
> 19th
> >century, for our art to be relevant it MUST be different. And hey I'm all
> for a
> >new school(s) of thought/art.
> >Dale
> >
> >>
> For our art to be relevant to what exactly. Our time, our place in history,
> our place in the tradition we follow?
Yes all that and more. Or one can chose to be irrelevant whatever, it just isn't
my personal struggle to eradicate all relevancy. Good Manifesto though.
>
> I believe there are enough styles in are today to satisfy almost every one.
Yes and many trace lineage to Cezanne.
>
> Art that gives a new vision to the world is certainly something to strive
> for but I do not particularly believe that it must be two dimensional and
> lacking in traditional perspective. But hey, it's my music and I will dance
> to it how I please.
No doesn't have to be 2D or lacking in perspective. I use traditional
perspective ( of course I usually make it eat itself, but that is another
topic). So did Cezanne.
Look my point is basically this we are influenced by those who have come before
us. Your "music" would be different if not for the post impressionists,
impressionist, cubists, classical, what ever. We are all connected. You don't
have to like Cezanne, but he wasn't a failure, if he was we wouldn't still be
arguing about him a hundred years later :-)))))
Sharon Barcone
liked Henri's work "The Art Spirit."
And by the way, I took a look at your work and enjoyed it. I am particularly
drawn to high contrast in art and use it a bit myself.
sharon
William Barkin wrote in message ...
Sharon Barcone
(snip snip)
>
>Look my point is basically this we are influenced by those who have come
before
>us. Your "music" would be different if not for the post impressionists,
>impressionist, cubists, classical, what ever. We are all connected. You
don't
>have to like Cezanne, but he wasn't a failure, if he was we wouldn't still
be
>arguing about him a hundred years later :-)))))
>
>>
influence was a good one. But suppose Cezanne actually was trying to create
a traditional representational image...
I quote from his own words in a letter of April 15, 1904 to Emile Bernard;
"May I repeat what I told you here: treat nature in terms of the cylinder,
the sphere, the cone, everything in proper perspective so that each side of
an object or a plane is directed towards a central point. Lines parallel to
the horizon give breadth, that is a section of nature, or if you prefer, of
the spectacle that the Pater Omnipotens Aeterne Deus spreads out before our
eyes. Lines perpendicular to this horizon give depth. But nature for us men
is more depth than surface, whence the need of introducing into our light
vibrations, represented by reds and yellows, and a sufficient amount of blue
to give the impression of air."
This sounds to me like an artist concerned with both traditional linear and
aerial perspective. That is something to my mind he did not accomplish very
well.
And yes by the way I did catch some of the earlier posts on the subject of
Cezanne but I tend to leave threads when they are reduced to profanity. Not
that I am a prude mind you. The "f" word comes in quite handy at times but
not in a public debate forum.
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com)
If I may interject at this point.
The quote below appears to deal with
landscape - He also dealt with still
life. His main concern is to set up
tension between plastic form and flat
surface. His landscapes are similar to
his still life works in the use of
shallow space, with a few modifications
because he is out doors and he still
tries to play with tension between
plastic and flat shapes.
One of the problems we encounter is
trying to determine if he is talking
about traditional perspective, or is he
speaking of the old system of building
plastic form using ovoides. The sphere
and the cone produce ovoids. Ovoids
derive their energy from their centers,
radiating outwards. Titian used this
system as a kind of primordial substance
out of which plastic form would by sheer
will of the artist create itself.
Complex topological design problems
occur when using ovids - it will be one
of my future essays.
This is a very complex process, so in
the end, which is it, traditional liner
and aerial perspective, or ovoids? From
looking at his work for many years, I
chose ovoids - perspective, both linear
and aerial, is to my way of thinking,
not what he was seriously using.
Form realization theory states that
realized form is perceived from the
center not from the edge - as I said -
a future essay.
your humble servant
keith (the Bytown gentleman)
Bob & Dale Ford
Sharon Barcone wrote:
To me it seems more like an artist concerned with abstraction.
>
>
> And yes by the way I did catch some of the earlier posts on the subject of
> Cezanne but I tend to leave threads when they are reduced to profanity. Not
> that I am a prude mind you. The "f" word comes in quite handy at times but
> not in a public debate forum.
I agree on that
Dale
mdeli
>Mani has an entire system - he's created it to explain to himself why
>art he considers 'crap' is successful and he is not. Some of the players:
I'm quite successful Fox. I suspect I do far better than you. Crap
isn't successful for the most part. There are thousands of disgruntled
so called artists who paint crap similar to your's who have little
more to show than diplomas and rooms full of paintings.
>
>MAA (modern academic art) - art that doesn't meet his criteria of
>technical- illustration type craft.
The vast majority of MAA doesn't meet any criteria for skill and the
best can be imitated by anyone barely aware of the craft. Has nothing
to do with illustration.
>
>Bauhaus Monastaries - art schools. They teach MAA.
Correct.
>
>Artzy Fartzy - anyone who makes, teaches, or sells MAA.
My term for the lot. Glad it irritates you.
>
>Richie Collectors - foolish dupes (who somehow manage to become wealthy
>and successful) who who are conned into buying MAA from Artzy Fartzies.
That in fact is probably what you have to spend most of your time at.
Lots of rich people collect fine art work. Any auction catalogs prove
this. I'm talking about the "foolish dupes." Dan like most here thinks
that only MAA represents all the artwork done in the century.
>The MAA Lottery - how artzy fartzies select the artists they will promote.
>Since all MAA is crap, artist selection cannot be made on the basis of
>skill and craft - it must be random. Artists who get 'connections' by
>AK (ass-kissing) a lot are more likely to win the lottery. Big examples:
>Rothko, Pollock.
It isn't quite random as I explained before. One has to know the right
people, go to the right parties, hang out in the right places and have
a streak of luck. That's why you're a lottery loser.
>
>I'll use the above in my review of Mani's work, which, I've realized, must
>include a review of Mani. I've been out of town but will try to get to it
>this weekend or early next week. It won't be as detailed as Keith's, but
>should be fun to read anyway.
Kieth is working on "War and Peace."
>I also think I know why Mani and a couple of
>others are so fascinating to us. Stay tuned!
That's simple. Artzy fartzies rarely hear anything but what they tell
each other on the subject. Looking forward to some of your usual
psychobabble.