quality & beauty
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<Man, I was only gone a few days, but I'm having the hardest time getting
<back into it. Mind if I cut in?
Well, it only takes a few days in New York to make you out of shape and flabby
Mark so sure enough, get the excercise you need and join us again.
<(snip)Context? I cetainly think we wouldn't all agree on every specific
painting
<or sculpture, but would we stand behind most of the same artists?
(and)
<(snip)and maybe quicker than if we try to look at the bodies of work
<of a number of celebrated artists. Why *does* Michelangelo work well for
<everyone that he does? Are there a lot of different reasons?
Well I'm going to say something here that you may not like. I don't think that
if most folks weren't familiar with the pre press that stands behind many of
the artists that we now consider great, that there would be quite so many
admirers. We tend to appreciate better whatever it is that we understand and
what's commonly accepted. If left solely on our own to make judgements about
individual works of art or in other matters, there would be and there is a wide
discrepency about what is worthy.
Influence is one of the major factors lying behind our appreciation of the
masters, influence from "experts", established institutions (museums), critics,
professors, books, newspapers and comic books. One doesn't automatically come
to appreciate a "great work of art", it is a learned thing for the most part.
We can appreciate "art" on all levels and masterpieces may fall within one of
those levels but it might not either. We actually cultivate our appreciation
but it's not a natural given.
Now let me qualify that last statement. There is an inherent something within
us all that recognizes that central "ingredient" that lies within all works of
art. But that something is tied into our psyche on a deeper level than
appreciation. Now that is definitely not a fact. It is definitely my opinion
but so far I haven't been able to fully describe to myself or others just what
it is that I sense. So let's say it's only an opinion without any backup. At
any rate, whatever that something is doesn't necessarily discriminate about the
quality or magnificence of a work of art, it only discerns something that
connects us with the aesthectic efforts of another. Well, enough of the vague,
let's continue along Mark's chosen line of thinking.
<That's the Question with the Curse, because how can you say it isn't a
<work of art? Isn't the question really "Is it a great or good work of
<art?"
That seems to be the specific question, yes. Is it good or is it not so good.
<If just one person says it's art, then it's art. So we are back to
<evaluation. And how do we evaluate? Personal taste? How well it fits into
<the dogma?
We judge works according to criteria or formula, Mark. It's like grading a
paper in school, purely subjective on one level, partially based on known
givens on another. However, unless we adhere to the dictates of others, each
of us puts together a unique set of basic rules. I know that's not the best
way to put it but in fact that is exactly what we do. This allows us to make
some sort of determination in a formal sense about whether one work qualifies
as art and another doesn't. From that we then attempt to qualify a work
further by applying additional standards to determine the degree of "artness" a
work has. Then we begin to compare one work's greatness or (lack thereof)
against another to place it within a hierarchy. And it goes on and on until I
can yawn no more.
Now it just so happens that your rules and mine may coincide more often than
not and so a consensus is arrived at. That's how we finally determine just how
great one masterpiece is compared to another. Consensus either by conviction
or by coercion. Over time that consensual body grows in number and the
hierarchy of masterpieces changes according to the numbers. Conventional
wisdom then reigns and maybe it's right on the money more often than not.
If Michelangelo was a social realist from the nineteen thirties and painted
then as he did in his lifetime, would he be as highly regarded today? Answer
this and you have answered your question. In my opinion, he wouldn't be, it
would simply take more time to figure it out. None of this, of course,
actually has any effect on the real value of his efforts. I'm simply saying
that not so many folks would recognize it because there hasn't been the backlog
of agreement to substantiate his worth.
If it is your intent to determine an objective way of evaluating works of art
then we are going to have to do a lot more work on this because it's so
difficult to separate what we think is an objective view from what is presumed
correct. Is there a set of standards or criteria that is basic enough to apply
to all works that are actually great? I honestly don't think so but if there
was, it would take volumes to list all the variences that would apply. From
all that I've seen over the years, the one conclusion I draw is that each piece
that I think is great (not just good) has incorporated it's own set of rules
and often has revealed one or two new ones I haven't been aware of before.
Therefore I think that artmaking is a dynamic process that cannot stagnate
simply because it makes up new rules as it moves along the time line.
We can use our standards to judge works of the past but they may not apply to
works currently being done or that will be done tomorrow. If we settle for the
past then we'll forsake the opportunity to grow and keep pace with what is
actually happening in the present.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
jha...@om.com.au
croc...@aol.com (CROCUSDES) wrote:
> If it is your intent to determine an objective way of evaluating works of art
> then we are going to have to do a lot more work on this because it's so
> difficult to separate what we think is an objective view from what is presumed
> correct. Is there a set of standards or criteria that is basic enough to
apply
> to all works that are actually great? I honestly don't think so but if there
> was, it would take volumes to list all the variences that would apply. From
> all that I've seen over the years, the one conclusion I draw is that each
piece
> that I think is great (not just good) has incorporated it's own set of rules
> and often has revealed one or two new ones I haven't been aware of before.
> Therefore I think that artmaking is a dynamic process that cannot stagnate
> simply because it makes up new rules as it moves along the time line.
>
> We can use our standards to judge works of the past but they may not apply to
> works currently being done or that will be done tomorrow. If we settle for
the
> past then we'll forsake the opportunity to grow and keep pace with what is
> actually happening in the present.
>
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
Chris, it's all about time.... Once we separate ethics, morality and beauty
from rational systems of logic then we can liberate ourselves from those who
would bog us down in examining the connection. It matters little why I like
Vermeer more than I do of Rothko. What is important is that I do. To be
conscious of our own evolution (in the wold of ideas) is the sublime pinnacle
of observation and discernment. If we can see our own history and our place
(a mere shadow on a summers hillside) in time then we can exist on a cloud in
a world of angels and wallow in what we truly think is beauty without the
sudden interruptions of the self-promoting, idealogues. Ouch!
John Hagan
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
mark webber
On 2 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> <(snip)Context? I cetainly think we wouldn't all agree on every specific
> painting
> <or sculpture, but would we stand behind most of the same artists?
> (and)
> <(snip)and maybe quicker than if we try to look at the bodies of work
> <of a number of celebrated artists. Why *does* Michelangelo work well for
> <everyone that he does? Are there a lot of different reasons?
>
> Well I'm going to say something here that you may not like. I don't think that
> if most folks weren't familiar with the pre press that stands behind many of
> the artists that we now consider great, that there would be quite so many
> admirers.
By "pre press" I suppose you mean "art history". On one level I suppose
you are right - if you mean before we have really engaged ourselves in
looking at art.
On the other hand, if A. Earnest Looker (to creat another character for
purposes of conjecture,) who hasn't studied any art history at all,
"doesn't know much about art, but knows what he likes", if this fellow
finds himself beneath the Sistine Chapel ceiling, he won't respond to any
of the things that, say, Berenson reponds too?
> We tend to appreciate better whatever it is that we understand and
> what's commonly accepted.
"We?" Which "We?" - The "we" who make art? I don't appreciate better
what's commonly accepted. Naturally we appreciate better what we
understand, but if "we" aren't artists, do the Earnest Lookers *really*
appreciate the commonly accepted? Maybe one tenth of the commonly
accepted.
(and for that matter, commonly accepted by whom? No Chris, sorry - you'll
have to refine that one a tiny bit.)
> If left solely on our own to make judgements about
> individual works of art or in other matters, there would be and there is a wide
> discrepency about what is worthy.
OK, I'm not arguing with that - I was trying to specifically avoid
speaking of individual works of art (above) and focus on ouevres. While
we may not all admire *all* of the following to the same degree...
Michelangelo, Chardin, Rubens, Dekooning, Matisse, Ingres, Delacroix,
Giotto, Soutine, Monet, Rodin, Goya...
They may not all be favorites of all of us, but don't we all respect most
of these people as being enormous contributers? And don't most of us feel
this way for mostly similar reasons? And couldn't that be deemed a
starting point for a discussion of Quality as a legitimate notion?
>
> Influence is one of the major factors lying behind our appreciation of the
> masters, influence from "experts", established institutions (museums), critics,
> professors, books, newspapers and comic books. One doesn't automatically come
> to appreciate a "great work of art", it is a learned thing for the most part.
> We can appreciate "art" on all levels and masterpieces may fall within one of
> those levels but it might not either. We actually cultivate our appreciation
> but it's not a natural given.
>
I don't disagree with the first half of this, but the second half (We can
appreciate "art" on all levels and masterpieces may fall within one of
those levels *but it might not either*.) again might only work in theory.
In other words (and I know you hate it when I do this...)
Can you give me an example of one masterpiece that doesn't work on some
level? (Isn't that what you are arguing there?)
>
> <That's the Question with the Curse, because how can you say it isn't a
> <work of art? Isn't the question really "Is it a great or good work of
> <art?"
>
> That seems to be the specific question, yes. Is it good or is it not so good.
>
> <If just one person says it's art, then it's art. So we are back to
> <evaluation. And how do we evaluate? Personal taste? How well it fits into
> <the dogma?
>
(snip)
> If Michelangelo was a social realist from the nineteen thirties and painted
> then as he did in his lifetime, would he be as highly regarded today? Answer
> this and you have answered your question.
Doesn't it complicate things even more to add this sort of question? Now,
this 1930s Michelangelo - is he familiar with the 16th century
Michelangelo? Or did that one exist? If not, then did mannerism happen?
Could it have? If not, wouldn't someone of Michelangelo's genius be
greatly appreciated in a period as bland as that of Social Realism? In the
1930s New York wasn't exactly Florence.
Ok, I think I have an answer. Yes. Michelangelo in 1930 would not only
have risen to the top, but AbEx wouldn't have happened: DeKooning would
have been a Mannerist.
> In my opinion, he wouldn't be, it
> would simply take more time to figure it out. None of this, of course,
> actually has any effect on the real value of his efforts. I'm simply saying
> that not so many folks would recognize it because there hasn't been the backlog
> of agreement to substantiate his worth.
Then how did the real Michelangelo draw attention in the first place?
>
> If it is your intent to determine an objective way of evaluating works of art
> then we are going to have to do a lot more work on this because it's so
> difficult to separate what we think is an objective view from what is presumed
> correct. Is there a set of standards or criteria that is basic enough to apply
> to all works that are actually great? I honestly don't think so but if there
> was, it would take volumes to list all the variences that would apply. From
> all that I've seen over the years, the one conclusion I draw is that each piece
> that I think is great (not just good) has incorporated it's own set of rules
> and often has revealed one or two new ones I haven't been aware of before.
> Therefore I think that artmaking is a dynamic process that cannot stagnate
> simply because it makes up new rules as it moves along the time line.
I like the sound of this, but as I think about it, I find myself
questioning it a bit. I mean, I think what makes Dekooning Great is
largely the same thing that makes Poussin or Corot Great.
I think what makes him influential is *how* he chose to demonstrate his
sensibility. His "handwriting", the "action", moving back and forth from
abstraction to figuration, the whole AbEx painterly excitement.
But his sensibility is what makes all that stuff credible, what makes it
work.
And Michelangelo's sensibility is what makes all those twisting nudes
work. Dozens of artists in Rome could render that well. Only Michelangelo
could put it all together that well.
So I'm saying that maybe your mystical common denominator (which, I'm
sorry, I snipped) maybe it is involved with sensibility.
>
> We can use our standards to judge works of the past but they may not apply to
> works currently being done or that will be done tomorrow.
Why? And that is essentially my question for BT too. What is different? I
mean, in terms of what I've just described above? Did Marcel Duchamp
really make sensibility irrelevant? It doesn't seem that way, because
Bonnard and others continued to demonstrate their sensibilities.
> If we settle for the
> past then we'll forsake the opportunity to grow and keep pace with what is
> actually happening in the present.
See, to me the past isn't any different than the present - not in terms of
looking. Some dead guy's sensibility isn't getting in the way of some
living guy's. And keeping pace with what is happening in the present could
mean trying to keep up with gimmicry or cynicism. Not always - but
certainly in a lot of cases.
Anyone who's work is straining to be original or in the present always
winds up looking strained, not original or in the present.
(I can't for a minute prove that, but doesn't it sound good?)
Always a pleasure, Chris!
Mark
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip)On the other hand, if A. Earnest Looker (to creat another character for
<purposes of conjecture,) who hasn't studied any art history at all,
<"doesn't know much about art, but knows what he likes", if this fellow
<finds himself beneath the Sistine Chapel ceiling, he won't respond to any
<of the things that, say, Berenson reponds too?
I didn't mean to imply that. Of course observations are going to coincide from
time to time. However, the reasons that draw out a response from a viewer may
be quite different even though the results (appreciation) are similar. Someone
like Berenson would most likely disect a work of art into components and
perhaps analyze the work based on prior experience and assumed values. His
experience of the work may extend much deeper than another's simply because of
his conditioning. A.E.Looker may not have that background so what he sees is
based on reaction, an intuitive reception of experience. Now indeed Mr. Looker
may be moved by the Sistene Chapel as deeply as a Mr. Berenson but I might ask,
is this experience brought about by effect or the intrinsic qualities inherent
in the work? Of course it may be the quality itself which initiates the path
to an emotional response but not necessarily. The Sistine Chapel is a
bombastic example and one which could hardly be ignored by anyone for whatever
reason.
Let me counter your example with another one....daVinci's Mona Lisa, a more
modest work in scale and one that is less impressive with the obvious. This
painting does not possess the gymnastics employed by Michelangelo so it's a bit
more difficult to discern it's inherent features that might qualify it as a
masterpiece. Now everyone, it seems, is enthralled with this work. Is it
because it's a great work or because it is supposed to be? Who in the western
world has not heard of it, yet without the press, how many would be such avid
admirers of the artist's work?
I still don't think that if the Mona Lisa was an obscure painting hanging in
the Louvre that it couldn't be ignored or unappreciated by one who was not
astute or conditioned to view works of art as art. Yes it may be arresting
because of it's inherent "presence" or maybe because it conforms to an
individual's taste in pictures. I wouldn't assume that this painting would
hold everyone's attention simply because it presumably has all the right
ingredients to make it a work of art.
Would this same work, if it was obscure rather than well known, still appeal to
afficiendos of Abstract Expressionism or some other school of art? It's nice
to believe that we can all be unbiased but that doesn't touch on reality. So
even an astute individual, versed in the fine points of art may still dismiss
other works based upon their own particular set of values. Let's not forget
also that the individual untutored in the fine points of art stills brings with
him/her their own set of standards based upon experience and doesn't just
naturally gravitate towards the creme de la creme of paintings.
Another point to keep in mind as well is how many times have we "rediscovered"
the work of an artist we ignored in the past. That discovery comes about
because of a learned appreciation otherwise we wouldn't have missed the gem in
the first place. So even we are guilty of missing the obvious, I suppose.
We are, afterall, trying to determine if there are intrinsic qualities in a
true work of art that are univerally understood and accepted. A kind of
standard that all great works share regardless of which culture it stems from
or the period in which it was created. Again I will reiterate that there seems
to be something inherent that many works of art share but that inherent quality
is not related to masterpieces but rather to something else that sets the work
apart from object. I'll continute to try and refine this idea and see if, over
time, I can make sense of it. Just be patient.
>> We tend to appreciate better whatever it is that we understand and
>> what's commonly accepted.
>"We?" Which "We?" - The "we" who make art? I don't appreciate better
>what's commonly accepted. Naturally we appreciate better what we
>understand, but if "we" aren't artists, do the Earnest Lookers *really*
>appreciate the commonly accepted? Maybe one tenth of the commonly
>accepted.
>(and for that matter, commonly accepted by whom? No Chris, sorry - you'll
>have to refine that one a tiny bit.)
The we I refer to is the all we, all of us. What we understand in relation to
the world around us is what we accept as our particular reality. We tend to
embrace the familiar and the comfortable, it's a natural thing that we do.
It's certainly not uncommon to embrace shared values whether we understand them
or not. In this country for instance, we accept the common notion of democracy
but how many of us knows what that means? Still we embrace the notion,
multitudes of us do. Take this idea one step in another direction and relate
it to our concept of what fine art is to begin with. What the hell is "fine"
art anyway? Still, without fully understanding the term many of us (artists if
you like) commonly accept that idea, we embrace it and nurture it even if we
don't know what it is exactly that we are doing. Is that any clearer?
Well, I'm running out of time right now and have other matters to attend to so
I'll have to end my response here Mark. If I can do it later then maybe I can
touch on the other points you made in your last post.
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip) Michelangelo, Chardin, Rubens, Dekooning, Matisse, Ingres, Delacroix,
<Giotto, Soutine, Monet, Rodin, Goya...
<They may not all be favorites of all of us, but don't we all respect most
<of these people as being enormous contributers? And don't most of us feel
<this way for mostly similar reasons? And couldn't that be deemed a
<starting point for a discussion of Quality as a legitimate notion?
Well, I won't quibble about the reasons we may accept the named artists as
contributors because bascially I might agree with the spirit of your statement.
But you seem to think that "Quality" as a legitimate notion is something that
might be in contention here. I don't think that this has been the case. What
quality means in terms of art then yes, there is certainly plenty of room for
exploration and where does one really begin with that?
We can simply start with the idea of quality as something to be quantified but
this is a loaded word and means different things on different levels. If you
want, we can try to layer the different meanings and see if they all connect to
a unified whole or be placed within a hierarchy of importance. (Drawing,
composition, color, content, all of these things? none of these things? Let's
see if we can find a beginning somewhere then go on). This then begins to sound
like an academic excercise though. Nevertheless I'm still game because I think
your real intent, and mine also, is to see if we can find that one essential
ingredient that is part of the overall makeup of what we might consider a
genuine masterpiece. Quality is only one aspect of the greater question and I
think we both understand that.
<(snip) but the second half (We can
<appreciate "art" on all levels and masterpieces may fall within one of
<those levels *but it might not either*.) again might only work in theory.
<In other words (and I know you hate it when I do this...)
You bet I do!
<Can you give me an example of one masterpiece that doesn't work on some
<level? (Isn't that what you are arguing there?)
I want to use one example especially because it'll take you out of safe ground
and put you on the edge, same as I. The work I want to use is one that I can't
remember the title of but I think you can help out here. It is one of
deKooning's slashed up women and any work from that particular period will
serve the purpose for me so you may choose any one.
I'm using deKooning as the example artist for two reasons. First is that I
really dislike his work and maybe you don't put it on the same level as a Goya
either. The second reason is that objectively speaking perhaps his work from
that time period might be considered as having the elements of masterful work
comparable to the old masters. At least this is the contention of some folks.
Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to accept that because if we
yakkity yak it to death we can come up with all the right words and
descriptions to make this a fact and not fiction.
Using an old master as an example has the disadvantage of relying on assumed
presumptions to support your point of view or mine. I am not in love with the
old masters, for me it is something I can revere but leave in the dusty past.
An example that we both might be skeptical about puts us on an even playing
field. Or maybe I'm wrong and you really do think deKooning is as great as
some of the other painters you admire. So much the better.
<Can you give me an example of one masterpiece that doesn't work on some
<level? (Isn't that what you are arguing there?)
Sorry to repeat the clip but we may have forgotten what the point is by this
time so a refresher isn't going to hurt. Now to return to that long ago and by
now nearly forgotten statement I made that a work of art may be a masterpiece
but could easily be bypassed by Mr. Looker who missed it's charm and
magnificence. A deKooning "masterpiece" may indeed have all the earmarks of a
successful work but unless the viewer is astute enough to get past it's frontal
appearance, it doesn't necessarly mean that it's inherent or intrinsic value is
going to be recognized. That's really all I was saying. Nothing profound just
an observation. Jeez, you make me jump through all kinds of hoops just to say
something like that. Well, it's okay Mark, I need the excercise too.
mark webber
On 2 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark writes:
> <(snip) Michelangelo, Chardin, Rubens, Dekooning, Matisse, Ingres, Delacroix,
> <Giotto, Soutine, Monet, Rodin, Goya...
>
> <They may not all be favorites of all of us, but don't we all respect most
> <of these people as being enormous contributers? And don't most of us feel
> <this way for mostly similar reasons? And couldn't that be deemed a
> <starting point for a discussion of Quality as a legitimate notion?
>
> Well, I won't quibble about the reasons we may accept the named artists as
> contributors because bascially I might agree with the spirit of your statement.
> But you seem to think that "Quality" as a legitimate notion is something that
> might be in contention here. I don't think that this has been the case. What
> quality means in terms of art then yes, there is certainly plenty of room for
> exploration and where does one really begin with that?
That's what I'm proposing. We start generally, not with specific works,
but oeuvres of Big Guns. Who knows, we might have it figured out in time
for BT's next appearance. He'd be damned proud of us!
> We can simply start with the idea of quality as something to be quantified but
> this is a loaded word and means different things on different levels. If you
> want, we can try to layer the different meanings and see if they all connect to
> a unified whole or be placed within a hierarchy of importance. (Drawing,
> composition, color, content, all of these things? none of these things? Let's
> see if we can find a beginning somewhere then go on). This then begins to sound
> like an academic excercise though.
Of course it is, but the best stuff in here is academic. It's analytic as
all get-out. Don't worry, it doesn't have to (couldn't!) last for ever....
> Nevertheless I'm still game because I think
> your real intent, and mine also, is to see if we can find that one essential
> ingredient that is part of the overall makeup of what we might consider a
> genuine masterpiece. Quality is only one aspect of the greater question and I
> think we both understand that.
>
Yup. But I think it is the big aspect, because I think that is what
determines the historical endurance. I mean, if we've heard about it, then
I think that's ultimately why we've heard about it.
I think the originality/innovation deal is fine, but it's meaningless
without the quality/beauty deal. We get so hopped up on the
originality/innovation train that sometimes we forget (or even fail to
learn about) the basic "how does it look" part. And I don't mean "does it
look real" I mean "does it look good."
(I'm prepared for a rain of examples of ugly art, and the questions in
reply can range from "is it really ugly?" to "will we care about it in
another few decades?")
> <(snip) but the second half (We can
> <appreciate "art" on all levels and masterpieces may fall within one of
> <those levels *but it might not either*.) again might only work in theory.
>
> <In other words (and I know you hate it when I do this...)
>
> You bet I do!
>
> <Can you give me an example of one masterpiece that doesn't work on some
> <level? (Isn't that what you are arguing there?)
>
> I want to use one example especially because it'll take you out of safe ground
> and put you on the edge, same as I. The work I want to use is one that I can't
> remember the title of but I think you can help out here. It is one of
> deKooning's slashed up women and any work from that particular period will
> serve the purpose for me so you may choose any one.
>
Well, he made paintings distorting women in the 40s, 50s and 60s, but I'll
bet you mean the 50s. Like "Woman I", right?
> I'm using deKooning as the example artist for two reasons. First is that I
> really dislike his work and maybe you don't put it on the same level as a Goya
> either.
Um, when he's good, he's right up there with Goya, in my book. But the 50s
women, while among the best known, are not my favorites..
> The second reason is that objectively speaking perhaps his work from
> that time period might be considered as having the elements of masterful work
> comparable to the old masters. At least this is the contention of some folks.
> Okay, for the sake of discussion, I'm going to accept that because if we
> yakkity yak it to death we can come up with all the right words and
> descriptions to make this a fact and not fiction.
>
> Using an old master as an example has the disadvantage of relying on assumed
> presumptions to support your point of view or mine. I am not in love with the
> old masters, for me it is something I can revere but leave in the dusty past.
> An example that we both might be skeptical about puts us on an even playing
> field. Or maybe I'm wrong and you really do think deKooning is as great as
> some of the other painters you admire. So much the better.
>
Yes, that is the case. I think the paintings he made in the 70s are among
the best things of this century.. And I like the 40s an awful lot, too.
> <Can you give me an example of one masterpiece that doesn't work on some
> <level? (Isn't that what you are arguing there?)
>
> Sorry to repeat the clip but we may have forgotten what the point is by this
> time so a refresher isn't going to hurt. Now to return to that long ago and by
> now nearly forgotten statement I made that a work of art may be a masterpiece
> but could easily be bypassed by Mr. Looker who missed it's charm and
> magnificence. A deKooning "masterpiece" may indeed have all the earmarks of a
> successful work but unless the viewer is astute enough to get past it's frontal
> appearance, it doesn't necessarly mean that it's inherent or intrinsic value is
> going to be recognized. That's really all I was saying. Nothing profound just
> an observation. Jeez, you make me jump through all kinds of hoops just to say
> something like that. Well, it's okay Mark, I need the excercise too.
> Chris Ray - sculptor
> http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
Oh. Whoops - I thought when you said "we can appreciate art ... but it
may not work on any level" you meant "we" as in us. I didn't realize you
meant "that" we. "That" we might appreciate anything for the wrong
reasons.
Can "we" appreciate art for the wrong reasons? I think so. If A.
Expressive Sculptor (another conjecture character) makes bronzes that
aren't "realistic", and his mom likes them because her son made them,
that may not be the reason A. Expressive Sculptor wants her to like them.
Only one example, but I think you see my point.
Anyway, it's really nice to be back.
Mark
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip) I think the originality/innovation deal is fine, but it's meaningless
<without the quality/beauty deal. We get so hopped up on the
<originality/innovation train that sometimes we forget (or even fail to
<learn about) the basic "how does it look" part. And I don't mean "does it
<look real" I mean "does it look good."
Good point although I don't aree with this statement as you've written it.
When you are suggesting that the originality/innovation aspect of a work of art
is subservient to the quality/beauty part then I interpret this to mean that
works of art are mostly about appreciation of it's visual qualities. I would
contend that expressive art is basically about a visceral experience instead.
One that extends beyond the surface and draws from within, a response that
connects more with our human experience rather than the sensual one.
The original aspect of one's work is that part that is extended from the
individual onto the work itself and is in my opinion, the only thing that has
true worth, not how well the image is manipulated. I would most certainly
quantify this as a quality although it can't be indexed and archived into
hardcopy, but then neither can the idea of beauty be as well.
BT has in fact offered you a better clue leading to this idea than I can write.
When he pointed out that the significant artists that we cherish today were in
fact, those painters who differentiated themselves in a unique way than their
predecessors, his statement is in fact, pointing to originality as being the
prime factor that we value.
What causes disruption in this dialog is that we are confusing the two major
siblings of art, interchanging one completely for the other. When we are
discussing conventional ideas about what western traditional art is about, I
think we will have to understand that it comes in two basic flavors.
Expressive art and Decorative art.
Now it's understood, of course, that the two forms do indeed flow one into the
other without inhibition, but there is normally a dominant feature that rules.
It is the intent of the artist that we have to judge if it's possible. If one
paints a decorative picture but offers it as an expressive statement then it
may be a failure from that point of view. On the other hand if offered as
decorative and judged as decorative, then different values apply.
So this is the problem I have when the emphasis on art is on it's beauty or
visual success. Though it is a value in both decorative and expressive work,
the dominent position of importance is different in both. I would suggest that
this is not simply an opinion but base the idea on what it is that we hold onto
over the course of time. Objects of beauty and skill are certainly cherished
as well but what we seem to cherish most is the original concept of certain
works that we treasure above all others.
Simply changing the look and feel of a work without offering something unique
and hopefully meaningful from the artist, does little more for me than a quick
appreciation as a decorative work, if it lacks any originality. Something nice
to look at and little beyond that.
Of course originality alone doesn't make a work of art. Not by any means and
to convey one's intent then the concept requires a suitable vehicle. Anything
can be orginal but that doesn't qualify it as art, there are other dimensions
to consider as well, of course. Beauty, quality, skill, presentation, more,
all or some of these things are brought into play to create something out of an
idea.
Fortunately there isn't a single standard to judge the qualification of a work
of art which leaves the door open for additional rules which are continuously
supplied by creative efforts. Additional improvement of skills adds little, if
anything, already accomplished so far within the realm of art.
So my main disagreement is with your first statement above Mark. Originality
does, in fact, have meaning and value even if not wholly executed in the
"right" way. An unoriginal idea expressed in a masterful manner is still an
unoriginal idea and how long will that hold your interest?
mark webber
On 3 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Good point although I don't aree with this statement as you've written it.
> When you are suggesting that the originality/innovation aspect of a work of art
> is subservient to the quality/beauty part then I interpret this to mean that
> works of art are mostly about appreciation of it's visual qualities. I would
> contend that expressive art is basically about a visceral experience instead.
And I very much include the visceral response in my (obviously personal)
visual experience. In my own experience, expressiveness and sensibility
are not at all mutually exclusive.
> One that extends beyond the surface and draws from within, a response that
> connects more with our human experience rather than the sensual one.
I can't separate the sensual and the human. And whether we are speaking of
Mondrian or Van Gogh, all the information, all the decisions are right
there, on the surface.
>
> The original aspect of one's work is that part that is extended from the
> individual onto the work itself and is in my opinion, the only thing that has
> true worth, not how well the image is manipulated.
By that standard, Michelangelo's work is of no more importance than mine -
a pathetic equality.
Here I do humbly disagree with you - I think the word art holds in it some
notion of "well-done". How well the image is manipulated, how well the
shapes, colors, contrasts are arranged - for me that is the value.
Although, maybe I misunderstand - would you agree with this:
When the the individual projects a mediocre sensibility into the art, it
is of less value than art which expresses a sublime or ingenious
sensibility?
>
> BT has in fact offered you a better clue leading to this idea than I can write.
> When he pointed out that the significant artists that we cherish today were in
> fact, those painters who differentiated themselves in a unique way than their
> predecessors, his statement is in fact, pointing to originality as being the
> prime factor that we value.
And as you may have seen in my response to him, I question that summary.
There have been plenty of original ideas that haven't made it into
our collective awareness of art history. We don't have nearly so high a
regard for the majority of what were once exciting Modernist ideas -
movements like Orphism, Purism, Futurism - what masterpieces did these
very original ideas yield?
On the other hand, painters like Bonnard, Derain, Balthus, Soutine and
Giacometti,(working at the same time) who were very wrapped up in the
recapitulation of old successes, are still admired very much today.
I'm not saying ideas and innovations aren't interesting, I'm just saying I
think they hang rather hollow without a good painting underneath.
>
> What causes disruption in this dialog is that we are confusing the two major
> siblings of art, interchanging one completely for the other. When we are
> discussing conventional ideas about what western traditional art is about, I
> think we will have to understand that it comes in two basic flavors.
> Expressive art and Decorative art.
>
> Now it's understood, of course, that the two forms do indeed flow one into the
> other without inhibition, but there is normally a dominant feature that rules.
> It is the intent of the artist that we have to judge if it's possible. If one
> paints a decorative picture but offers it as an expressive statement then it
> may be a failure from that point of view. On the other hand if offered as
> decorative and judged as decorative, then different values apply.
>
I agree that we have (at least) two tendencies here, but I also think as
soon as we go from your abstraction to some examples, we might see it
weaken:
Van Gogh's "Irises" - are they not sublime?
Titian's "Entombment" - For me it expresses every bit as much, if not
more, than any Gaugin, Nolde or Kokoschka. Ditto the expressive powers of
such decorative artists as Matisse, Mondrian and Cezanne.
And this list of "Expressive" artists who make beautiful things and
"decorative" artists who express a great deal is very abbreviated. I mean,
we could go on all day, really.
> So this is the problem I have when the emphasis on art is on it's beauty or
> visual success. Though it is a value in both decorative and expressive work,
> the dominent position of importance is different in both. I would suggest that
> this is not simply an opinion but base the idea on what it is that we hold onto
> over the course of time. Objects of beauty and skill are certainly cherished
> as well but what we seem to cherish most is the original concept of certain
> works that we treasure above all others.
The works I cherish most are the ones that are visually and emotionally
stimulating at the same time.
>
> Simply changing the look and feel of a work without offering something unique
> and hopefully meaningful from the artist, does little more for me than a quick
> appreciation as a decorative work, if it lacks any originality. Something nice
> to look at and little beyond that.
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to evoke anything so cold or dry. I really do believe
the most astonishing pictures are deeply felt.
> Of course originality alone doesn't make a work of art. Not by any means and
> to convey one's intent then the concept requires a suitable vehicle. Anything
> can be orginal but that doesn't qualify it as art, there are other dimensions
> to consider as well, of course. Beauty, quality, skill, presentation, more,
> all or some of these things are brought into play to create something out of an
> idea.
>
See, I think the more shape we give our opinions, the more they appear in
agreement.
> Fortunately there isn't a single standard to judge the qualification of a work
> of art which leaves the door open for additional rules which are continuously
> supplied by creative efforts. Additional improvement of skills adds little, if
> anything, already accomplished so far within the realm of art.
>
And I don't necessarily ask for a single standard - but I do think there
should be criteria - and I think they should be self-evident.
> So my main disagreement is with your first statement above Mark. Originality
> does, in fact, have meaning and value even if not wholly executed in the
> "right" way. An unoriginal idea expressed in a masterful manner is still an
> unoriginal idea and how long will that hold your interest?
I'll tell you, there isn't much original about much of what Titian did - I
pick him because he isn't just a recent favorite. But I can't even walk by
a tiny reproduction of one of his paintings without pause.
Titian didn't invent the types of compositions he used. We could probably
give that credit to Giorgione, Michelangelo, Bellini and Raphael, to name
four who seem to me to be big influences on him. I don't get bored with
his shapes and colors, though.
And an innovator like Caravaggio doesn't amaze me with his realism so much
as his "recapitulation" of the already old problems of Form.
On the other hand, the extremely original art of Warhol, which once
intrigued me, now bores me, and the "extremely" original Schnabels have
always just looked dumb.
Always fun to talk with you Chris!
Warm regards,
Mark
Andrew Werby
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On 3 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
> > When you are suggesting that the originality/innovation aspect of a
work of art
> > is subservient to the quality/beauty part then I interpret this to mean that
> > works of art are mostly about appreciation of it's visual qualities.
I would
> > contend that expressive art is basically about a visceral experience
instead.
>
> And I very much include the visceral response in my (obviously personal)
> visual experience. In my own experience, expressiveness and sensibility
> are not at all mutually exclusive.
>
>
> > One that extends beyond the surface and draws from within, a response that
> > connects more with our human experience rather than the sensual one.
>
> I can't separate the sensual and the human. And whether we are speaking of
> Mondrian or Van Gogh, all the information, all the decisions are right
> there, on the surface.
[This is not agreed on by everybody. Many people seem to think it impossible
to judge a work of art rightly without knowing the life story and sexual
proclivities of, cultural milieu surrounding, and influences upon the artist.
I remember going a few rounds on this one with Gabriel, only to be damned as
a "formalist" for asserting a position similar to the above.]
> > The original aspect of one's work is that part that is extended from the
> > individual onto the work itself and is in my opinion, the only thing
that has
> > true worth, not how well the image is manipulated.
>
> By that standard, Michelangelo's work is of no more importance than mine -
> a pathetic equality.
>
> Here I do humbly disagree with you - I think the word art holds in it some
> notion of "well-done". How well the image is manipulated, how well the
> shapes, colors, contrasts are arranged - for me that is the value.
>
>
> Although, maybe I misunderstand - would you agree with this:
>
> When the the individual projects a mediocre sensibility into the art, it
> is of less value than art which expresses a sublime or ingenious
> sensibility?
>
[I don't see how this distinction moves us forward. Since these adjectives are
applied after the fact, can't one person's "mediocre" be another's "sublime"?
Are we supposed to reference the artist's journal entries to prove he painted
with his head in the clouds, instead of thinking about what he was going to
have for dinner?]
> >
> > BT has in fact offered you a better clue leading to this idea than I
can write.
> > When he pointed out that the significant artists that we cherish
today were in
> > fact, those painters who differentiated themselves in a unique way
than their
> > predecessors, his statement is in fact, pointing to originality as being the
> > prime factor that we value.
>
> And as you may have seen in my response to him, I question that summary.
> There have been plenty of original ideas that haven't made it into
> our collective awareness of art history. We don't have nearly so high a
> regard for the majority of what were once exciting Modernist ideas -
> movements like Orphism, Purism, Futurism - what masterpieces did these
> very original ideas yield?
>
> On the other hand, painters like Bonnard, Derain, Balthus, Soutine and
> Giacometti,(working at the same time) who were very wrapped up in the
> recapitulation of old successes, are still admired very much today.
>
> I'm not saying ideas and innovations aren't interesting, I'm just saying I
> think they hang rather hollow without a good painting underneath.
>
[Of interest in this connection might be a quote from our local museum director
(SF MOMA's David Ross (speaking of Richard Diebenkorn) "So many artists dwell
not on their internal sense of achievement but on what others think of them.
In art, having a really strong sense of self and purpose is essential to what
we might, at the end of the day, call quality." (SF Chronicle, 10/4/98) I'm
not sure this is the whole story, but the sentiment seems to have some truth
to it. Individuality powerfully expressed seems to be at the core of what we
perceive as great art, more than the ideas or techniques the artist may be
working with.]
>
> > So this is the problem I have when the emphasis on art is on it's beauty or
> > visual success.
[Chris- I hate to be pedantic (yeah, right) but I notice you tend to
apostrophize
"it's" for its possesive use, whereas it's only appropriate as a
contraction for
"it is". I wouldn't mention it, except that you seem to be generally trying to
write grammatically and spell things correctly.]
Though it is a value in both decorative and expressive work,
> > the dominent position of importance is different in both. I would
suggest that
> > this is not simply an opinion but base the idea on what it is that we
hold onto
> > over the course of time. Objects of beauty and skill are certainly
cherished
> > as well but what we seem to cherish most is the original concept of certain
> > works that we treasure above all others.
>
> The works I cherish most are the ones that are visually and emotionally
> stimulating at the same time.
[In what does this emotional stimulation consist? The evocation of memory? The
manipulation of symbology? Or can it be a reaction to excitement in ones visual
centers?]
>
> > Of course originality alone doesn't make a work of art. Not by any
means and
> > to convey one's intent then the concept requires a suitable vehicle.
Anything
> > can be orginal but that doesn't qualify it as art, there are other
dimensions
> > to consider as well, of course. Beauty, quality, skill, presentation, more,
> > all or some of these things are brought into play to create something
out of an
> > idea.
> >
>
>
> See, I think the more shape we give our opinions, the more they appear in
> agreement.
[While most of us might agree on the foregoing, I think that all the
agreement might
break down when we got specific about what is meant by "Beauty, quality,
skill and
presentation." Somebody will find it in Dekooning's "Woman 1", for
instance; others
will look at that person as though he'd taken leave of his senses.]
>
> > Fortunately there isn't a single standard to judge the qualification
of a work
> > of art which leaves the door open for additional rules which are
continuously
> > supplied by creative efforts. Additional improvement of skills adds
little, if
> > anything, already accomplished so far within the realm of art.
> >
>
> And I don't necessarily ask for a single standard - but I do think there
> should be criteria - and I think they should be self-evident.
[Have you arrived at a formulation for these criteria which you're willing to
put forward?]
>
>
>
> > So my main disagreement is with your first statement above Mark.
Originality
> > does, in fact, have meaning and value even if not wholly executed in the
> > "right" way. An unoriginal idea expressed in a masterful manner is still an
> > unoriginal idea and how long will that hold your interest?
>
> I'll tell you, there isn't much original about much of what Titian did - I
> pick him because he isn't just a recent favorite. But I can't even walk by
> a tiny reproduction of one of his paintings without pause.
>
> Titian didn't invent the types of compositions he used. We could probably
> give that credit to Giorgione, Michelangelo, Bellini and Raphael, to name
> four who seem to me to be big influences on him. I don't get bored with
> his shapes and colors, though.
>
> And an innovator like Caravaggio doesn't amaze me with his realism so much
> as his "recapitulation" of the already old problems of Form.
>
> On the other hand, the extremely original art of Warhol, which once
> intrigued me, now bores me, and the "extremely" original Schnabels have
> always just looked dumb.
>
> Always fun to talk with you Chris!
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Mark
[ Although I might quibble with some of the examples adduced, I am just as
bored with an original idea badly expressed as with an old idea endlessly
rehashed. But ultimately art isn't a matter so much of "ideas" in the conscious
intellectual sense as the expression of something more inchoate, and I prefer
the work of a talented artist without "ideas" to the self-conscious but
visually
unpalatable expressions of an artistic theory or concept, however new it
might be.
Of course, I agree it's best to be firing on both cylinders.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip) I think the word art holds in it some
<notion of "well-done". How well the image is manipulated, how well the
<shapes, colors, contrasts are arranged - for me that is the value.
Technique or final visual results can indeed be very important and is integral
to the more successful works, I would agree. But just what constitutes
masterful technique of exactly what aspect of a work might be still in
contention. I do not believe, however, that process is "the" value, it's a
means to an end instead.
The end result of a work of art is the experience it's capable of producing
from a viewer. For instance Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" may not be as masterful a
painting in terms of process, as say Manet's "Picnic in the Grass", but it
produces more of an aesthetic reaction from me. To me the Sunflowers is a
powerful personal statement, whereas Picnic on the Grass although the same may
be said of it, seems to be more about making a painting. "Proper" painting or
a self conscious approach to artmaking usually leaves me a bit short on the end
of the aesthetic appreciation stick.
Now we have to understand that this is a personal approach to aesthetics just
as it is for anyone. That's where the problem of defining exactly what
constitutes a work of art lies. Everyone's sense of what's important in this
matter differs to some extent and does not necessarily contradict another's
idea. Not really, if you consider that to arrive at the conclusion that one
piece or another produces an aesthetic experience, we all take different routes
to draw out a similar result.
Again for instance: Michelangelo's marble Slave series are among the best ever
of figurative works I've ever seen. Yet his technique may be no better or
worse than David or Cellini but the net results produces a much different
reaction for me. I'm not overly interested in how well the works are carved
although it's an important element. I'm interested in the results his work
produced. That reaction is produced by the artist's vision and how he conveyed
it in stone. Yes the vehicle through which the idea is conveyed is masterful
and no, it wouldn't be as effective if the carving was less than what it is. I
wholly agree that process is important, but it's the final expression that
counts the most.
So there you have it from me. The Sunflowers may be less than a perfect
painting and the Slave series which may be more than a perect carving. Two
approaches to arrive at a similar result which is a profound aesthetic
experience for me. In both cases the individual acts of creativity and
personal vision may be somewhat exaggerated from the "norm" at the time the
works were produced. But that doesn't negate the worth or effectiveness of
others who's vision was less obvious.
<Although, maybe I misunderstand - would you agree with this:
<When the the individual projects a mediocre sensibility into the art, it
<is of less value than art which expresses a sublime or ingenious
<sensibility?
Well sure, how could I disagree with that?
<(snip) On the other hand, painters like Bonnard, Derain, Balthus, Soutine and
<Giacometti,(working at the same time) who were very wrapped up in the
<recapitulation of old successes, are still admired very much today.
Hmmm....I don't see it that way. I'm not sure if those folks mentioned were at
all concerned about recapitulating anything. My impression is that they were
intensely interested in the works at hand and the problems to be solved that
they themselves created. You may be right in what you say but it's not
revealed to me through their works. Giacometti, Soutine? Sure they were
certainly familiar with past traditions and no doubt extracted whatever was
useful but that was simply stuff to be used when needed then discarded in favor
of more interesting ideas to explore. This is often the way traditions are
viewed and used in our works. It doesn't mean that we are going to conform to
a predictable (though not obvious) path prescribed by our predecessors. Is
this what you mean by recapitulation?
<I'm not saying ideas and innovations aren't interesting, I'm just saying I
<think they hang rather hollow without a good painting underneath.
And I say a well done painting is hollow without a good idea. It's basically a
thing to look at but not necessarily an experience. I guess we're on parallel
tracks concerning this argument and though we seem to meet in the distance,
that's a fallacious idea resulting from the effects of perspective. The truth
is that the train needs both tracks to run on, I suppose.
<(snip)And I don't necessarily ask for a single standard - but I do think there
<should be criteria - and I think they should be self-evident.
Mark, I don't think there is ever going to be a set of self-evident criteria
centering around the appreciation of art. Not ever. We will always have to
work on our judgements, each and every time, simply because new standards, new
concepts requiring reconsideration and even new parameters continually grow
with the developement of art. What you are really asking for is a standard
based on precedent and that's very stifling. Art making and appreciation isn't
going to be bound up that way, it can't be if it is to continue to be
meaningful.
The best we could hope to achieve with all of this is to determine a kind of
range of values that we can apply to a sub set of standards that are applicable
some of the time but not all of the time. If an hierarchal approach is useful
for some then these standards may be okay to some degree but for artists, I
think it has limited value.
Artists have learned to apply the lessons of traditions from all kinds of
sources, some considered masterful, some not, it makes no difference where one
goes for a source. Artists are quite capable of extracting whatever is useful
from wherever they chose and can from that create magnificent works or garbage.
It's all dependent upon the competance of the artist.
It is in the realm of art appreciation that the main thrust of this dialog
points to I suppose. Though I am interested certainly and like yourself am
continually weighing one concern over another, this interest is an intellectual
one. It's less important to me than understanding what it is that elicits a
response rather than how well the object was made. The factors which move me
is the content or concept and how it was achieved to produce a result. Not how
great the work is compared to others. Each piece created can have it's own
space and can be appreciated on it's own merits. Sometimes I think to accept
just that is all that's needed. For scholars and historians then yes, it is a
good idea for them to make a determination and fortunately they don't have to
look in my direction for any help.
<On the other hand, the extremely original art of Warhol, which once
<intrigued me, now bores me, and the "extremely" original Schnabels have
<always just looked dumb.
Well thankfully I can end this on a note of hearty agreement with you Mark.
Always looking for the upbeat at the end you know.
CROCUSDES
Andrew writes:
<(snip)[I don't see how this distinction moves us forward. Since these
adjectives <are
<applied after the fact, can't one person's "mediocre" be another's "sublime"?
<Are we supposed to reference the artist's journal entries to prove he painted
<with his head in the clouds, instead of thinking about what he was going to
<have for dinner?]
I probably should leave this for Mark to answer Andrew, but it seems to me that
the only reference that matters is what any work itself conveys. Expression of
a concept is the result of an action which would be a painting or sculpture
itself. If the work isn't self evident (of course that's a realitve thing
depending on the viewer) then we have nothing else to really guage. What's the
point of saying anything in a work if it isn't conveyed in terms of the medium
itself. This is even pertinent with conceptual work because without access to
the ideas which becomes part of the work, then it's a meaningless venture. In
one case it's the hard stuff which is looked at, in the other it's soft stuff
but should be incorporated to become integral with whatever else is shown.
Well, it's a thought anyway.
<I notice you tend to apostrophize "it's" for its possesive use
Thanks for bringing it to my attention. That's one of the reasons I never use
the spell or grammer checkers, they're always giving me hell for the way I
write. I guess I'm just stubborn about my unruley ways.
<(snip) [While most of us might agree on the foregoing, I think that all the
<agreement might
<break down when we got specific about what is meant by "Beauty, quality,
<skill and presentation.
No argument there but we still engage ourselves in this excercise and I think
we do it more to expand our own individual understanding of these things than
to convince others that we're right. I assume that's why we're doing this.
<(snip)and I prefer the work of a talented artist without "ideas" to the
self-<conscious but visually unpalatable expressions of an artistic theory or
concept, <however new it might be. Of course, I agree it's best to be firing on
both <cylinders.]
Yeah, we all need those two cylinders Andrew. Damn, sometimes though a gasket
will blow on one or the other and then we find ourselves up the creek making do
with what's left to work with.
mark webber
On 4 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Thanks for bringing it to my attention. That's one of the reasons I never use
> the spell or grammer checkers, they're always giving me hell for the way I
> write. I guess I'm just stubborn about my unruley ways.
That's "unruly".
(only, kidding, Chris - my spelling and Grammer are the worst. I'll be
back in the morning with a serious reply.)
CROCUSDES
Well, it's later in the evening and my work is done for the day. I went over
one of your posts again Mark and saw that I haven't responded to everything
although I don't know if it's really necessary to do so. At any rate I have
some time to spend on this so here I go:
I originally wrote:
> The original aspect of one's work is that part that is extended from the
> individual onto the work itself and is in my opinion, the only thing that has
> true worth, not how well the image is manipulated.
Mark responded:
<(snip) By that standard, Michelangelo's work is of no more importance than
<mine -a pathetic equality.
Whoa....let's not get carried away. What you say may be true but I haven't
seen your work yet. I think you are adding something to what I said but I
doubt if it is intentional. When I state that what we put into our work is the
only thing that has true worth, then that is what I mean. Now, how worthy that
true worth is becomes another matter and that is where we apply our judgement
of value.
<(snip and rearranged) And I very much include the visceral response in my
(obviously personal)
<visual experience. In my own experience, expressiveness and sensibility
<are not at all mutually exclusive.
Ah...now we are in a comfort zone because I can agree with you on this. To
aptly express our particular sensibility then we will need a degree of skill to
convey the statement we wish to make. If we choose a particular medium to
speak with then it is indeed important that we manipulate that particular
medium in a way that exploits its inherent character to convey the idea or
concept. That is the crux of what we are talking about, isn't it? A painting
should be painterly (whatever that means) and a sculpture should be sculptural
(whatever that means).
There may be folks, however, that can push the limits of a medium in ways not
used before and still convey integrity of the medium. A painting may
incorporate electric lighting into the canvas and still be faithful to the idea
of painting. A sculpture can incorporate motors and kinetic movement and still
be a sculpture. In both cases, use of the primary medium can be extended
beyond its accepted limits. New and different skills are required to
aesthetically bring such works up to the level of previous standards that we
have set for ourselves but I think it's certainly possible. It may not have
been done yet but it's still possible.
Now in a case such as this, what precedence do we have in order to judge the
success of a piece that is unconventionally created? Do we apply traditional
standards to weigh in the pros and cons or some sort of "objective" reasoning
instead? I don't have a slick answer for this but I see this as one of the
thorns in the side of both of our reasoning Mark. How do we judge the success
of a skill that we're not familiar with in relation to works that have
preceeded it?
I'm afraid that I would have to admit that I don't think we're capable of
determining classic works produced in our own time. Works that will speak to
others in the distant future, in a meaningful way. This same problem existed
in the past so this isn't anything new. Giotto might have seemed an extremist
in his day, Rembrandt was favored for a while when producing bourgoise
portraits but then dismissed in his time when his interests changed and it just
goes on and on from there.
You see, I don't think it was skill or masterful work per se that was always
considered but rather the statement of the original artist that was questioned
and that reasoning still holds true for today. Rembrandt was just as skilled
doing one thing as the other yet what was important for the moment was the
statement. Over time it is the statement that still remains important only
which statement predominates is the one that eventually rules. Not the skill,
he was skilled both ways. Of course we do admire his mastery and rightly so.
It is the perfect marriage of skill with what he envisioned that sets his work
apart, I'm not going to dispute that. If he were only known for his portraits
though, I don't think he would hold the position he does today. Does this say
anything about which aspect of a work is in the primary position? Maybe, maybe
not.
<big snip) I agree that we have (at least) two tendencies here, but I also
think as
<soon as we go from your abstraction to some examples, we might see it
<weaken:
Don't count on it because all of us can find valid examples to support our
argument, you know that. If I had the big book of the most fabulous one
thousand greatest works of art on my lap I could easily thumb through and
select whatever I choose to support my thesis. You could do the same also.
This is why I prefer to rely more on rationale than examples. It's a bit more
naked this way. Tougher to substantiate perhaps but much more interesting to
try.
Tying to dissect the essence of art is like trying to hold a handful of water.
To succeed we really have to cheat with a hidden paper towel in our palm. The
subject is simply too elusive to put a genuine fix on it. However, if after
our efforts we come away with damp hands....well that's something isn't it? I
think that's the best we are going to get in the long run.
tim...@my-dejanews.com
is a grad student working on her Master's thesis. I would like her focus to
be on either a mosaic or fresco artist from the 1400s to the 1640s, but my
knowledge of art is rather limited to the big names and French
impressionists. If anyone has any recommendations for a lesser known artist,
maybe someone you believe deserves more respect than he gets, I'd appreciate
a name, some general dates, and a few main works.
I realize this must seem an odd request, but there aren't many open forums
to turn to in respect to art. I appreciate any emails on this.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
mark webber
On 4 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark writes:
> <(snip) I think the word art holds in it some
> <notion of "well-done". How well the image is manipulated, how well the
> <shapes, colors, contrasts are arranged - for me that is the value.
>
> Technique or final visual results can indeed be very important and is integral
> to the more successful works, I would agree. But just what constitutes
> masterful technique of exactly what aspect of a work might be still in
> contention.
Yes, that's true. But in general I think it could be said to be visual in
orientation (as opposed to what ideas are represented or illustrated) and
in general it would be concerned with the relationships of the parts; how
they create the whole (as opposed to the rendering of subject matter.)
( I can't help it - it looks to me like all of the best of them were/are
formally oriented. I know this seems impossible but the only alternative
explanation is that I have excellent taste!)
(I cite those particular distinctions because of the very popular notion
of technique = rendered well.)
> I do not believe, however, that process is "the" value, it's a
> means to an end instead.
I very much agree - process, by definition, is kind of just that: the
means to the end.
In a lot of cases, the process and its "residue" happen to be an appealing
part of the end product.
> Now we have to understand that this is a personal approach to aesthetics just
> as it is for anyone. That's where the problem of defining exactly what
> constitutes a work of art lies. Everyone's sense of what's important in this
> matter differs to some extent and does not necessarily contradict another's
> idea. Not really, if you consider that to arrive at the conclusion that one
> piece or another produces an aesthetic experience, we all take different routes
> to draw out a similar result.
Yes, but you do complicate things when you slip back to that more vague
question: do you really mean "what constitutes a work of art" or do you
mean "what constitutes a *great* work?"
Two very different questions, and I know I harp on it, but I think we have
to be careful that one question is not mistaken for the other.
>
> Again for instance: Michelangelo's marble Slave series are among the best ever
> of figurative works I've ever seen. Yet his technique may be no better or
> worse than David or Cellini...
Depends on how you, (and others) define technique - if you mean "rendering
skill" I might agree - but we'll sometimes also be asked to include all
sorts of sensibility notions like compostion, movement, the depiction of
tension, not just anatomy, within technique....
> ...but the net results produces a much different
> reaction for me. I'm not overly interested in how well the works are carved
> although it's an important element. I'm interested in the results his work
> produced.
Naturally - of course, his decision-making process was exactly what
produced that effect. His sensibility. His problem solving.
> That reaction is produced by the artist's vision and how he conveyed
> it in stone. Yes the vehicle through which the idea is conveyed is masterful
> and no, it wouldn't be as effective if the carving was less than what it is. I
> wholly agree that process is important, but it's the final expression that
> counts the most.
Absolutely.
>
> So there you have it from me. The Sunflowers may be less than a perfect
> painting and the Slave series which may be more than a perect carving. Two
> approaches to arrive at a similar result which is a profound aesthetic
> experience for me. In both cases the individual acts of creativity and
> personal vision may be somewhat exaggerated from the "norm" at the time the
> works were produced. But that doesn't negate the worth or effectiveness of
> others who's vision was less obvious.
>
Or refined. Yes, it doesn't negate other less brilliant artists, but
it also doesn't equate them. I mean if there is a notion of "better
restaurant" or "better movie" or "better ball player" there is certainly
room for the notion of "better artist". We aren't all equal. Art isn't
democratic.
> <(snip) On the other hand, painters like Bonnard, Derain, Balthus, Soutine and
> <Giacometti,(working at the same time) who were very wrapped up in the
> <recapitulation of old successes, are still admired very much today.
>
> Hmmm....I don't see it that way. I'm not sure if those folks mentioned were at
> all concerned about recapitulating anything. My impression is that they were
> intensely interested in the works at hand and the problems to be solved that
> they themselves created. You may be right in what you say but it's not
> revealed to me through their works. Giacometti, Soutine? Sure they were
> certainly familiar with past traditions and no doubt extracted whatever was
> useful but that was simply stuff to be used when needed then discarded in favor
> of more interesting ideas to explore.
Hold on, partner, are you saying Giacometti dicarded his interest in the
age-old problem of depiction of space at some point? Soutine reworked
Rembrandt's ideas of content and facture his whole life. Yes, I feel
pretty secure in the statement that those gents above (and many others)
were very much engrossed in the problems and solutions of earlier art.
Braque was toying, throughout his career, with compostions and value
distributions he saw in Corot. Balthus has never been able to get the
Piero and Massaccio out from under his fingernails. Derain, after about
1925, became entirely concerned with almost all of the issues that
Caravaggio was reworking from Giotto, and which Corot was restating after
Ingres.
"And this, gentlemen of the press, curators, critics, experts and others,
is the claim we painters make in regard to the old masters. They are ours,
not yours. We have their blood in our veins." - W. R. Sickert
(Kind of corny, I admit, but I just saw it yesterday in the Times Book
Review, and I liked it.)
> This is often the way traditions are
> viewed and used in our works. It doesn't mean that we are going to conform to
> a predictable (though not obvious) path prescribed by our predecessors. Is
> this what you mean by recapitulation?
Absolutely not. That would be completely counter to the notion of
creativity. But an awful lot of artists spend an awful lot of time in
museums, fascinated with "old questions."
>
> <I'm not saying ideas and innovations aren't interesting, I'm just saying I
> <think they hang rather hollow without a good painting underneath.
>
> And I say a well done painting is hollow without a good idea.
Without a definition of "good idea" you can make that statement with no
argument from me. Is Chardin's bland little idea of painting a bowl of
strawberries on a table a good idea? There was very little that could be
said was new about much of Chardin's work, but those things are really
perfect. Just perfect.
> It's basically a
> thing to look at but not necessarily an experience. I guess we're on parallel
> tracks concerning this argument and though we seem to meet in the distance,
> that's a fallacious idea resulting from the effects of perspective. The truth
> is that the train needs both tracks to run on, I suppose.
>
Maybe - but I think if we spent a few hours in some museums, with actual
pieces to look at and talk about, we would actually agree more often than
not.
> <(snip)And I don't necessarily ask for a single standard - but I do think there
> <should be criteria - and I think they should be self-evident.
>
> Mark, I don't think there is ever going to be a set of self-evident criteria
> centering around the appreciation of art. Not ever.
Maybe I'm being unclear. What I mean is, when I look at Cezanne, it is
evident that rendering is not the issue. All of the decisions evident in
the work raise issues - issues of space, color, compostion, structure.
So the criteria is evident in the work. I think the same is true in all of
those Big Guns. It's clear "how" we are supposed to look at Van Gogh,
Mondrian, Courbet and David - that is part of their success: the work is
self-referential. (In plenty of cases there is also subject matter that is
being "illustrated", but in the best cases, the illustration is secondary
to the design, to the visual experience.)
> We will always have to
> work on our judgements, each and every time, simply because new standards, new
> concepts requiring reconsideration and even new parameters continually grow
> with the developement of art.
Yes, of course, in this regard you are right - but I don't see how those
new concepts or parameters can be present in a work without indicating
their nature to us - and when their nature is indicated, we can develop
criteria. Usually. Unless that parameter or concept is one which claims
"this is unjudgeable."
> What you are really asking for is a standard
> based on precedent and that's very stifling.
No, I don't think that is what I'm asking for. I may be asking for "good
faith looking" among other things.
Doesn't Jeff Koons, for example, rather defy "good faith looking?"
How can we "judge" the content of a Koons? Or of any art?
> The best we could hope to achieve with all of this is to determine a kind of
> range of values that we can apply to a sub set of standards that are applicable
> some of the time but not all of the time. If an hierarchal approach is useful
> for some then these standards may be okay to some degree but for artists, I
> think it has limited value.
I wouldn't ask for a formulaic way of approaching art. But some art is
better than other art, and that is, for me, one of the really nice things
about it all. I wouldn't want to ignor that.
>
> Artists have learned to apply the lessons of traditions from all kinds of
> sources, some considered masterful, some not, it makes no difference where one
> goes for a source. Artists are quite capable of extracting whatever is useful
> from wherever they chose and can from that create magnificent works or garbage.
> It's all dependent upon the competance of the artist.
>
Exactly. Now you understand! (kidding)
> It is in the realm of art appreciation that the main thrust of this dialog
> points to I suppose. Though I am interested certainly and like yourself am
> continually weighing one concern over another, this interest is an intellectual
> one. It's less important to me than understanding what it is that elicits a
> response rather than how well the object was made. The factors which move me
> is the content or concept and how it was achieved to produce a result.
Seems to me to be the same issue.
> Not how
> great the work is compared to others. Each piece created can have it's own
> space and can be appreciated on it's own merits. Sometimes I think to accept
> just that is all that's needed. For scholars and historians then yes, it is a
> good idea for them to make a determination and fortunately they don't have to
> look in my direction for any help.
Are you asking me to release this hardened grip, on your wrist, and its
forceful pressure against your back? Sorry - you MUST play! No quitting!
Assess! Judge! Evaluate!
>
> <On the other hand, the extremely original art of Warhol, which once
> <intrigued me, now bores me, and the "extremely" original Schnabels have
> <always just looked dumb.
>
> Well thankfully I can end this on a note of hearty agreement with you Mark.
> Always looking for the upbeat at the end you know.
>
And it is never difficult to find. Always a pleasure!
Mark
mark webber
On 5 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Well, it's later in the evening and my work is done for the day. I went over
> one of your posts again Mark and saw that I haven't responded to everything
> although I don't know if it's really necessary to do so.
In a word, yes.
> At any rate I have
> some time to spend on this so here I go:
>
> I originally wrote:
> > The original aspect of one's work is that part that is extended from the
> > individual onto the work itself and is in my opinion, the only thing that has
> > true worth, not how well the image is manipulated.
>
> Mark responded:
> <(snip) By that standard, Michelangelo's work is of no more importance than
> <mine -a pathetic equality.
>
> Whoa....let's not get carried away. What you say may be true but I haven't
> seen your work yet.
You should have received some reproductions by now, Haven't you?
>
> Ah...now we are in a comfort zone because I can agree with you on this. To
> aptly express our particular sensibility then we will need a degree of skill to
> convey the statement we wish to make. If we choose a particular medium to
> speak with then it is indeed important that we manipulate that particular
> medium in a way that exploits its inherent character to convey the idea or
> concept. That is the crux of what we are talking about, isn't it? A painting
> should be painterly (whatever that means) and a sculpture should be sculptural
> (whatever that means).
I'm following....
>
> There may be folks, however, that can push the limits of a medium in ways not
> used before and still convey integrity of the medium. A painting may
> incorporate electric lighting into the canvas and still be faithful to the idea
> of painting.
In theory....
> A sculpture can incorporate motors and kinetic movement and still
> be a sculpture.
yes...
> In both cases, use of the primary medium can be extended
> beyond its accepted limits. New and different skills are required to
> aesthetically bring such works up to the level of previous standards that we
> have set for ourselves but I think it's certainly possible. It may not have
> been done yet but it's still possible.
OK, but what do you mean by "aesthetically"? What are aesthetics, for you?
>
> Now in a case such as this, what precedence do we have in order to judge the
> success of a piece that is unconventionally created? Do we apply traditional
> standards to weigh in the pros and cons or some sort of "objective" reasoning
> instead?
Depends, I think, on what you mean by traditional - and I'm really not
trying to be evasive or clever.
> I don't have a slick answer for this but I see this as one of the
> thorns in the side of both of our reasoning Mark. How do we judge the success
> of a skill that we're not familiar with in relation to works that have
> preceeded it?
It really depends on how you've been judging the earlier works.
>
> Tying to dissect the essence of art is like trying to hold a handful of water.
> To succeed we really have to cheat with a hidden paper towel in our palm.
Or, we could carefully examine our hands, and very purposefully seal up
the gaps with pressure. We don't have to cheat - we can just be careful.
> The
> subject is simply too elusive to put a genuine fix on it. However, if after
> our efforts we come away with damp hands....well that's something isn't it? I
> think that's the best we are going to get in the long run.
Ok, but my hands are wetter than yours!
Mark
mark webber
I don't find myself in many dialogues with you, but I really enjoy your
posts and appreciate the opportunity to compare ideas.
On Sun, 4 Oct 1998, Andrew Werby wrote:
(in response to what I wrote in reponse to Chris)
(snipping)
> > And I very much include the visceral response in my (obviously personal)
> > visual experience. In my own experience, expressiveness and sensibility
> > are not at all mutually exclusive.
> >
> >
> > > One that extends beyond the surface and draws from within, a response that
> > > connects more with our human experience rather than the sensual one.
> >
> > I can't separate the sensual and the human. And whether we are speaking of
> > Mondrian or Van Gogh, all the information, all the decisions are right
> > there, on the surface.
>
> [This is not agreed on by everybody. Many people seem to think it impossible
> to judge a work of art rightly without knowing the life story and sexual
> proclivities of, cultural milieu surrounding, and influences upon the artist.
> I remember going a few rounds on this one with Gabriel, only to be damned as
> a "formalist" for asserting a position similar to the above.]
Do you mean Gabriel Laderman? I wish he'd return - he's a walking
encyclopedia and a spitfire. I think he'd be more confortable with the
tenor of the group these days - the rudeness has proven itself assinine.
But back to your point. I find it fascinating that anyone thinks they can
insert themselves into another context, another era, culture or pair of
shoes, to adequately determine how someone else's sexual proclivities or
milieu influence another individual.
In other words, how does knowing whether or not Boucher was a sexist or,
for that matter, a homosexual, how does this information contribute to
looking at his work *now*? If his paintings are well-made, we remember
them enough to ask how women felt about them. If someone else's paintings
are not as well made, we don't bother with those questions.
I'm not saying they are uninteresting questions - I'm saying they are
irrelevant to judgement. Naturally, plenty of people today disagree with
this - it is hip to feel that way today - will it be tomorrow?
> > Although, maybe I misunderstand - would you agree with this:
> >
> > When the the individual projects a mediocre sensibility into the art, it
> > is of less value than art which expresses a sublime or ingenious
> > sensibility?
> >
> [I don't see how this distinction moves us forward. Since these adjectives are
> applied after the fact, can't one person's "mediocre" be another's "sublime"?
Perhaps not a huge step forward, but sometimes these little statements go
along way to clarifying point of view.
And yes, one person's "mediocre" may be another's "sublime". Even
connoisseurs disagree on specifics.
> Are we supposed to reference the artist's journal entries to prove he painted
> with his head in the clouds, instead of thinking about what he was going to
> have for dinner?]
That's something I have no use for. I personally don't care about the
private lives.
> > I'm not saying ideas and innovations aren't interesting, I'm just saying I
> > think they hang rather hollow without a good painting underneath.
> >
> [Of interest in this connection might be a quote from our local museum director
> (SF MOMA's David Ross (speaking of Richard Diebenkorn) "So many artists dwell
> not on their internal sense of achievement but on what others think of them.
> In art, having a really strong sense of self and purpose is essential to what
> we might, at the end of the day, call quality." (SF Chronicle, 10/4/98) I'm
> not sure this is the whole story, but the sentiment seems to have some truth
> to it. Individuality powerfully expressed seems to be at the core of what we
> perceive as great art, more than the ideas or techniques the artist may be
> working with.]
I agree 100%.
> > (me)
> > The works I cherish most are the ones that are visually and emotionally
> > stimulating at the same time.
>
> [In what does this emotional stimulation consist? The evocation of memory? The
> manipulation of symbology? Or can it be a reaction to excitement in ones visual
> centers?]
> >
I wouldn't combat elicited memories, but I don't see them as essential.
Symbology? That can put so much stress on content that it might take away
from the visual experience as I enjoy it. No, it is probably closer to the
latter, although that sounds a little biological to me.
Great paintings don't all work the exact same way on me - some work on me
right away, others sneak up. Some seem hugely significant, majesticly
beautiful and others poignant in some small way.
> >
> >
> > See, I think the more shape we give our opinions, the more they appear in
> > agreement.
>
> [While most of us might agree on the foregoing, I think that all the
> agreement might
> break down when we got specific about what is meant by "Beauty, quality,
> skill and
> presentation.." Somebody will find it in Dekooning's "Woman 1", for
> instance; others
> will look at that person as though he'd taken leave of his senses.]
Yes, that's true. And like I said, even folks who spend loads of time with
art will disagree about specifics, not to mention newcomers.
> > And I don't necessarily ask for a single standard - but I do think there
> > should be criteria - and I think they should be self-evident.
>
> [Have you arrived at a formulation for these criteria which you're willing to
> put forward?]
I'm not sure I would admit to it. It is more profitable to try to get
others involved and see where it goes. I like a Socratic method, and I
think I show too much of my hand too often.
(me)
> I'll tell you, there isn't much original about much of what Titian did
> - I pick him because he isn't just a recent favorite. But I can't even
> walk by a tiny reproduction of one of his paintings without pause.
>
>
> Titian didn't invent the types of compositions he used. We could
> probably give that credit to Giorgione, Michelangelo, Bellini and
> Raphael, to name four who seem to me to be big influences on him. I
> don't get bored with his shapes and colors, though.
>
> And an innovator like Caravaggio doesn't amaze me with his realism so
> much as his "recapitulation" of the already old problems of Form.
> On the other hand, the extremely original art of Warhol, which once
> intrigued me, now bores me, and the "extremely" original Schnabels have
> always just looked dumb.
(Andrew)
> [ Although I might quibble with some of the examples
> adduced, I am just as bored with an original idea badly expressed as
> with an old idea endlessly rehashed. But ultimately art isn't a matter
> so much of "ideas" in the conscious intellectual sense as the expression
> of something more inchoate, and I prefer the work of a talented artist
> without "ideas" to the self-conscious but visually unpalatable
> expressions of an artistic theory or concept, however new it might be.
> Of course, I agree it's best to be firing on both cylinders.]
I'm in agreemant there. "Talented" might be thorny, though. What does that
mean to you?
Thanks for your input, Andrew,
Mark
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip) Yes, but you do complicate things when you slip back to that more
<vague question: do you really mean "what constitutes a work of art" or do you
<mean "what constitutes a *great* work?"
<Two very different questions, and I know I harp on it, but I think we have
<to be careful that one question is not mistaken for the other.
I mean what constitutes art. I still can't define a great work of art so I
have only what I actually understand to work with. To determine a great work
is still a vague process in my opinion and just because there may be common
agreement on particular examples, I'm not wholly convinced that we who agree
are absolutely right. I suspect we may be to some degree, but it's not a
factual thing.
In the back of my mind there is a continually nagging notion that we're missing
another essential ingredient here but I still have no idea what it is. What's
causing this discomfort is that we consistently apply standards that have been
developed over time, within a narrow framework of value judgements based on
western sensibilities.
For instance, if I view a series of Persian miniature paintings and apply some
of the same reasoning that I might use for a series of Giotto's work, I seem to
come up a bit short. The net result is that the Persian works may appear to be
more decorative (which many are, of course), but that's not a fair evaluation
of that particular form. I seem not to be equipped to determine if those
pieces are great, greater or greatest, not that it matters a whole lot to me if
they're working. Sure, the normal set of standards we use can be applied and
many of them can be applicable to other works, but is that all there is to it?
I don't think so.
This is one of the difficulties I have when trying to come up with a clearly
understandable method of evaluating a hierarchal standard for works of art.
It's a similar problem when describing the Big Universe where science has it's
factual and analytic approach that describes precisely how the universe is
materially constructed. Then there is the philosophical approach which goes
beyond material reasoning and attempts to discover the essence of the "force"
that lies behind the core of energy. The scientist can explain cause and
effect by connecting specific relationships of matter and energy and come up
with some right answers. Yet the question of "essential force" that actually
enlivens the universe itself is left unanswered. We may sense that there is
more than there is to the naked eye but the only tools left to continue our
efforts at understanding is imagination.
Trying to define "art" is similar in a way because we can describe physical
attributes common to our accepted inventory of great works but the true nature
of "art" or great art is still elusive. It extends beyond the physical,
otherwise why does it engage our interests as deeply as it does. Once
something is fully understood, the mystery is cleared and frankly, the thrill
is gone. If we really know how to create great works of art then it would be a
simple matter to pick up the "book of all known techniques required to make
great art" and page through it to select the right components that apply to the
particular work at hand. Yeah, yeah, I know Mark, I'm drifting off into la la
land again and it may strain your patience. Well to keep this interesting for
me I need to have a little fun now and then, sorry.
I actually do understand what you're driving at Mark when trying to come up
with an understanding of just what features are important and common to all
great works of art. I'm not trying to be dismissive of the effort but it does
get a little leaden sometimes so I just have to slip away into an alley now and
then. Actually, although it's not apparent maybe, this is how I approach
problem solving to begin with.
It's difficult to hold my feet to the fire of a linear approach to thinking and
I do resist now and then. On the other hand maybe the linear approach is the
only way to arrive at some solution to the questions asked, I don't know. In
case you're going to ask what I mean by linear I'll answer it now. I mean
connecting one dot to the other. Color, composition, space, drawing, other
stuff, etc. etc. all logically aligned in some order of importance. What
constitutes the makeup of art seems to me to be a recombination of all the
elements that go into the act of artmaking and maybe the success or failure of
our individual efforts is simply a matter of guided luck. You hate that idea,
I bet. Okay, I don't buy into it either but thought I might as well place it
here anyway.
Well, as usual, this stuff is getting to be long winded again so what I'll try
to do is to respond to the rest of your original post later. Who knows, I
might even begin to address your questions in a more direct manner. I'll try
but it depends on my mood at the time. I think what we really need is another
point of view thrown in here and I too wish that BT would be able to join us.
Andrew has promised to continue here so I'm looking forward to that. I just
think that I'm getting bogged down and not being very helpful.
Andrew Werby
Chris Ray wrote:
> Again for instance: Michelangelo's marble Slave series are among the
best ever
> of figurative works I've ever seen. Yet his technique may be no better or
> worse than David or Cellini...
Depends on how you, (and others) define technique - if you mean "rendering
skill" I might agree - but we'll sometimes also be asked to include all
sorts of sensibility notions like compostion, movement, the depiction of
tension, not just anatomy, within technique....
[The "slaves" resonate with our modern sensibility, but these were
Michaelangelo's unfinished works, remember? I wonder if he would have
considered
them art at all, or worthy of display.]
> ...but the net results produces a much different
> reaction for me. I'm not overly interested in how well the works are carved
> although it's an important element. I'm interested in the results his work
> produced.
Naturally - of course, his decision-making process was exactly what
produced that effect. His sensibility. His problem solving.
> That reaction is produced by the artist's vision and how he conveyed
> it in stone. Yes the vehicle through which the idea is conveyed is masterful
> and no, it wouldn't be as effective if the carving was less than what it
is. I
> wholly agree that process is important, but it's the final expression that
> counts the most.
[So if this counts as "final expression", it is only because Big Mike happened
to die when he did. Would the carving be "less" if it was more finished? Is it
fair to judge an unfinished work by the same standards as a finished one?
This brings me to something I was wrestling with the other day. Having a bit of
time set aside in which to do art, I started wondering- should I work on one of
my many unfinished projects, or start something new? Are people of the future
going to mull over all this stuff I never got around to completing, and maybe
like it better that way, or say "Gee, if he'd only gotten around to finishing
a few of these things, he might have had something there."
It is definitely more fun to start art projects than to finish them,
(especially
if they require a lot of sanding), but it requires a certain state of mind-
inspiration, call it what you will. Should these moments be used to initiate a
work of art that might never get finished? Or is it best to squelch the
muse, put
the nose to the grindstone (ouch!) and push something a little further along
toward completion? Certainly there are times when the choice is obvious, if I
listen to my mood; if I feel like working and don't have any particular burning
ideas, sanding (or all sorts of drudgery) is always there. And if I'm on
fire with
some great conception, I've clearly got to get it down. But there are a lot of
gray-area days which could go one way or the other. What do you guys do-
flip a coin?]
(Nice talking with y'all, by the way - amazing we don't seem to have hurt each
other's feelings yet...)
Andrew Werby
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > Do you mean Gabriel Laderman? I wish he'd return
Return from where?
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
CROCUSDES
Andrew writes:
<Depends on how you, (and others) define technique - if you mean "rendering
<skill" I might agree - but we'll sometimes also be asked to include all
<sorts of sensibility notions like compostion, movement, the depiction of
<tension, not just anatomy, within technique....
I have to agree with all that you say Andrew but I used the forshortened
version as a generalized point for the sake of discussion.
<[The "slaves" resonate with our modern sensibility, but these were
<Michaelangelo's unfinished works, remember? I wonder if he would have
<considered them art at all, or worthy of display.]
I have always chosen to think that these pieces were deliberately left in the
state that they were. Now I'm putting thoughts and ideas into Michelangelo's
head, I know, but I have often wondered if he didn't realize that what he
produced at the time these pieces were done were near perfect just as they
were. I guess maybe not but I've never been certain of that. In my opinion,
pushing these pieces any further would have ruined them although they would
have had a more exquisite appearance. Whatever his sensibilities were on that
matter, these works simply point out the power inherent in much of his work.
They are so direct and to me seem to more truly represent the essence of his
sculptural works without the uneeded dressing of a finish. How could he help
but not recognize this, I wonder. I guess we'll never know for certain.
<[So if this counts as "final expression", it is only because Big Mike happened
<to die when he did. Would the carving be "less" if it was more finished? Is it
<fair to judge an unfinished work by the same standards as a finished one?
You raise an interesting point here Andrew. We'll never know if it would have
been more or less if finished. All we have to go on is what we see and
interesting point is one that relates to the artist's intent and what we
actually imbue the work with. It may very well be different so is it valid to
consider the work on our own terms or not? I think it is, even though that
decision takes the process out of the artist's hands.
We do this all the time actually, when you consider how we view unfamiliar
works from other cultures. We actually transform what may have been originally
intended into something else. That new meaning is based upon our own
individual sensibilities and maybe, just maybe, that's what we do with any work
of art whether from our own culture or not. This is the point that Gabriel
actually raised some time back in reponse to something I had written.
Interesting how in a different light, an argument I didn't agree with suddenly
makes sense. I love it when I'm wrong.
<Should these moments be used to initiate a
<work of art that might never get finished? Or is it best to squelch the
<muse, put
<the nose to the grindstone (ouch!) and push something a little further along
<toward completion? Certainly there are times when the choice is obvious, if I
<listen to my mood; if I feel like working and don't have any particular
burning
<ideas, sanding (or all sorts of drudgery) is always there. And if I'm on
<fire with
<some great conception, I've clearly got to get it down. But there are a lot of
<gray-area days which could go one way or the other. What do you guys do-
<flip a coin?]
hmmm.....a classic dilemma for the workaday artist. I usually take the broom
and vigorously clean up the studio and put tools away when I resist working on
a piece that needs finishing. However, whenever something comes up and it
simply can't wait then I put aside what I'm doing and make a fresh start but
that's not often. It depends on temperment I think. I can hold onto a fresh
idea for a very long time although I might initiate a start on a new piece just
to get a "fix" on it.
I too have pieces unfinished that have been lying around for years sometimes,
but I try to keep them up in my face so I can get back to the work.
Unfortunately that's nothing more than a silly ploy because I am not going to
do that until the moment is right to reimmerse myself into the work. Well, I
guess I just don't worry about it.
The one thing I do avoid though is the practice of having simultaneous pieces
in progress all at the same time. That just doesn't work for me.
<(Nice talking with y'all, by the way - amazing we don't seem to have hurt each
<other's feelings yet...)
You make it sound like it's an inevitability Andrew. Obviously it doesn't have
to be. Misunderstandings do happen from time to time but it's not serious
stuff.
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>
>On the other hand, if A. Earnest Looker (to creat another character for
>purposes of conjecture,) who hasn't studied any art history at all,
>"doesn't know much about art, but knows what he likes", if this fellow
>finds himself beneath the Sistine Chapel ceiling, he won't respond to any
>of the things that, say, Berenson reponds too?
A. Earnest Looker, i love that. as much as i enjoy categorizing the
non-intellegensia as sheep or talking monkeys... modern man is more
complicated than this. there are too many environmental factors to A.
Earnest Looker to write it off to he knows what he likes. television, music
videos, design, architecture, cultural and religious tones,and basic
education greatly effect the filters that created Earnest. man is not an
island, especially an unexamined life in the twentieth century. i can think
of dozens of factors that would dramatically effect the impact for Earnest
to the Sistine Chapel, even more to de Kooning.
>Ok, I think I have an answer. Yes. Michelangelo in 1930 would not only
>have risen to the top, but AbEx wouldn't have happened: DeKooning would
>have been a Mannerist.
speaking of de Kooning, i must completely disagree. yes, the absence of
Michelangelo would cause major shifts in art history(in history itself for
that matter), but de kooning a mannerist, you can not sell me that. de
Kooning, as all artist were directly or indirectly effected by Michelangelo,
but the change it would take(in that specific point of time) to change de
kooning from a innovator(a risk taker) are not made by artistic influence.
perhaps if his father beat or didn't beat him or his mother drank or he was
or wasn't teased at school would effect that part of his personality that
made de Kooning, de Kooning the innovator not the artist who tows the
stylistic line. now if you want to say that if de Kooning painted during
the renaissance he might have been a representational artist, or if
Michelangelo did not exist his work would have be altered(even dramatically)
that is possible, maybe even probable.
>See, to me the past isn't any different than the present - not in terms of
>looking. Some dead guy's sensibility isn't getting in the way of some
>living guy's. And keeping pace with what is happening in the present could
>mean trying to keep up with gimmicry or cynicism. Not always - but
>certainly in a lot of cases.
but isn't that the point you were exactly trying to make with de Kooning and
Michelangelo? the past does effect the present, not in looking but in
perceiving. we are not scanners, but humans our past, the past effects us
and the art we look at and the artist we admire.
t aubuchon
mark webber
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.95.9810051...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> : > Do you mean Gabriel Laderman? I wish he'd return
> Return from where?
>
> Philip (never Phil) Ayers
Hi Philip, (and thanks for dropping by my show, it was nice to meet you.)
Gabriel was a very active regular here until shortly before you arrived,
if I remember right. If you do a search in dejanews, under Zita, you'll
find his posts.
Anyway, he was an informed contributor, and then decided it was time to
stop, I guess. Our loss.
Mark
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<Hold on, partner, are you saying Giacometti dicarded his interest in the
<age-old problem of depiction of space at some point? Soutine reworked
<Rembrandt's ideas of content and facture his whole life. Yes, I feel
<pretty secure in the statement that those gents above (and many others)
<were very much engrossed in the problems and solutions of earlier art.
Yes they were interested in some of the problems dealt with by prior artists
but I really don't think they had their noses poking through the back curtain
while they were creating their pieces. That's simply not the way it works,
generally. When we make our observations and draw some conclusions from other
works, that doesn't mean that those works are continually in the forefront of
one's interests. I just don't believe that. The primary objective that's
evident to me from the two artists mentioned is that they are taking what's
wanted or needed from others then moving on with these acquired ideas to ingest
then regurgitate into something else completely. Let's give them some credit
for initiating ideas on their own. They most certainly weren't trying to dress
up past efforts in new clothes but had more interesting agendas to deal with
instead. The past is used simply as a doorway to the future that's all.
<Braque was toying, throughout his career, with compostions and value
<distributions he saw in Corot. Balthus has never been able to get the
<Piero and Massaccio out from under his fingernails. Derain, after about
<1925, became entirely concerned with almost all of the issues that
<Caravaggio was reworking from Giotto, and which Corot was restating after
<Ingres.
Braque may have initially been influenced by his familiarity seen in Corot and
others, but so what, that only deals with the problem of composition. After
time as his work progressed I'm quite certain he was capable of dreaming up
newer compositions all on his own. One can only go so far with the idea of
composition alone and how much could Corot have to offer Braque may I ask?
This isn't rocket science nor as elusive a subject such as color for instance.
Braque's spacial compositions were interesting but not especially challenging
in my opinion. I do like his work though but only mildly more than some others
working in his particlar genre.
Balthus I'm going to have to leave alone. I know I have seen his work but none
of it sticks in my mind which tells me that I must not have been too much taken
with it. Derain also is not vivid in my memory although I seem to recall some
reproductions and maybe have seen it in a museum. I can't remember the
paintings clearly but I do remember the bad taste it left in my mouth.
I wrote:
>> (snip) This is often the way traditions are
>> viewed and used in our works. It doesn't mean that we are going to conform
>to a predictable (though not obvious) path prescribed by our predecessors. Is
> >this what you mean by recapitulation?
Mark writes:
>Absolutely not. That would be completely counter to the notion of
>creativity. But an awful lot of artists spend an awful lot of time in
>museums, fascinated with "old questions."
Nothing unusual about that is there? But I'm still unclear then about what you
mean exactly about recapitulation. The word itself implies repetition but
that's not what we normally do when we look at other works and then extract
what's useful for our own purposes.
< (clip) Without a definition of "good idea" you can make that statement with
no
<argument from me. Is Chardin's bland little idea of painting a bowl of
<strawberries on a table a good idea? There was very little that could be
<said was new about much of Chardin's work, but those things are really
<perfect. Just perfect.
Ah, thanks for bringing in his name, it's like enjoying a bit of desert after
all this. Chardin wasn't painting just a bowl of strawberries as you well
know. From my point of view he was painting weight and hollowness, he was
painting light, he was painting substance, he was painting paint! The sense of
presence he imbued in his work is also an idea. What he said wasn't new but it
was certainly Chardin and only he. That is his contribution....his vision and
his mark that stands apart from other more ambititious painters. The fact that
his work was very direct and honestly stated, celebrated the materialness of
his subjects. He was able to convey through the medium of paint, a sensuous
love of object. His was a supreme example of the connection between the person
and the canvas through his brush. To me, this represents some of the best that
an artist can be. A painter who can paint...no tricks, no devices, no
"bourgoise noble ideas" to convey, just pure painting. Okay, enough of this.
I write:
> >Mark, I don't think there is ever going to be a set of self-evident criteria
>> centering around the appreciation of art. Not ever.
Mark writes:
>Maybe I'm being unclear. What I mean is, when I look at Cezanne, it is
>evident that rendering is not the issue. All of the decisions evident in
>the work raise issues - issues of space, color, compostion, structure.
Well, we already have a contradiction here Mark because I do think that in the
case of Cezanne, rendering is part of the issue. He seems to have struggled
endlessly with the HOW of painting his concepts and to me that is very evident.
I don't think he was trying to raise those issues you speak about but to
resolve them instead!
Right here we're deadlocked because what's self evident is different for both
of us. Who among us can say that your view or mine doesn't apply to the same
artist? Still, that doesn't mean we have a consensus, because we don't.
>Are you asking me to release this hardened grip, on your wrist, and its
>forceful pressure against your back? Sorry - you MUST play! No quitting!
Nope, I'll keep on truckin'
<Assess! Judge! Evaluate!
Yes, it's permanently loaded in the back of my rig so don't despair, I ain't
givin' up.
CROCUSDES
t aubuchon writes:
<(snip)i am not sure i disagree with this... i do believe that beauty, skill,
<quality, ect. are secondary to another part of art[ more accurately a by
<product]. however, i am not sure what you mean by the "creative" part of
<creation.
Creative to me means something innovative that is a personal contribution to a
work. Something unique but not necessarily dramatically different. Not every
unique act weighs in the same on a value basis though, because that is
something determined by our individual sensibilities when viewing the results
produced by another.
<(snip) if art is the expression of the uncomprehendable form
<of universal truths, then even the artist can could not completely
<understand their own work.
Oh how true that is sometimes. Haven't you done work which after it's
completion you wonder just what it was that you just did? We work on all
levels of consciousness sometimes and can never be sure just what pops out and
into the work.
<(snip) we are trying to accomplish the undoable, define the undefinable, but
as <artist that is what we are suited for.
That's the magic of artmaking. We can do the undoable because what's done
doesn't have to conform to the restrictions of reality. What we do is
comparable to childrens play whereby we use our imagination to transform
cardboard boxes into majestic castles. If that isn't a form of magic, then I
don't know what is.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > Gabriel was a very active regular here until shortly before you arrived,
: > if I remember right. If you do a search in dejanews, under Zita, you'll
: > find his posts.
: >
: > Anyway, he was an informed contributor, and then decided it was time to
: > stop, I guess. Our loss.
: >
: >
: > Mark
Mark-
I looked under "zita" and nothing. Any other info? Laderman was at Queens
but I think he's retired. I know him, even got letter from him once for a
grant application. His work was important in my development back in the
70s. I was never a formal student of his, but his work has -always- been
interesting to me. He's done some pretty hot work just recently. He
represents a point of veiw that gets attacked regularly, and is even hated
by some. This point of view I got a lot when I was teaching at Indiana U,
but I've never really spoken to him in much depth. I would love to.
My work has never been "figurative" like his, but his dialogue with the
painting, to raise a question, is evident always and this is where we
share space.
mark webber
On 6 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark writes:
> <Hold on, partner, are you saying Giacometti dicarded his interest in the
> <age-old problem of depiction of space at some point? Soutine reworked
> <Rembrandt's ideas of content and facture his whole life. Yes, I feel
> <pretty secure in the statement that those gents above (and many others)
> <were very much engrossed in the problems and solutions of earlier art.
>
> Yes they were interested in some of the problems dealt with by prior artists
> but I really don't think they had their noses poking through the back curtain
> while they were creating their pieces. That's simply not the way it works,
> generally.
(snip bulk of specifics)
OK, well without sitting down with some monographs, or jetting around
France, I can't support my argument very well. All I can say is, those
artists I mentioned are some that I have spent the most time with in the
last decade or more, and I do feel strongly that I'm not entirely
misrepresenting their concerns.
On the other hand, I can't entirely disagree with the way you've worded
your reply... sticky little things, these words....
>
> Chris wrote:
> >> (snip) This is often the way traditions are
> >> viewed and used in our works. It doesn't mean that we are going to conform
> >to a predictable (though not obvious) path prescribed by our predecessors. Is
> > >this what you mean by recapitulation?
>
> Mark writes:
> >Absolutely not. That would be completely counter to the notion of
> >creativity. But an awful lot of artists spend an awful lot of time in
> >museums, fascinated with "old questions."
>
> Nothing unusual about that is there? But I'm still unclear then about what you
> mean exactly about recapitulation. The word itself implies repetition but
> that's not what we normally do when we look at other works and then extract
> what's useful for our own purposes.
>
The word does imply repetition, but it also seems to connote restatement
of sorts. BT was the first to use it here, and I glommed onto it because I
felt it was actually close enough to my feeling that many of the Big Guns
were often replaying old ideas in new ways.
> < (clip) Without a definition of "good idea" you can make that statement with
> no
> <argument from me. Is Chardin's bland little idea of painting a bowl of
> <strawberries on a table a good idea? There was very little that could be
> <said was new about much of Chardin's work, but those things are really
> <perfect. Just perfect.
>
> Ah, thanks for bringing in his name, it's like enjoying a bit of desert after
> all this. Chardin wasn't painting just a bowl of strawberries as you well
> know. From my point of view he was painting weight and hollowness, he was
> painting light, he was painting substance, he was painting paint! The sense of
> presence he imbued in his work is also an idea. What he said wasn't new but it
> was certainly Chardin and only he. That is his contribution....his vision and
> his mark that stands apart from other more ambititious painters.
Exactly my point - what he said wasn't new - it was how he said it.
> The fact that
> his work was very direct and honestly stated, celebrated the materialness of
> his subjects. He was able to convey through the medium of paint, a sensuous
> love of object. His was a supreme example of the connection between the person
> and the canvas through his brush. To me, this represents some of the best that
> an artist can be. A painter who can paint...no tricks, no devices, no
> "bourgoise noble ideas" to convey, just pure painting. Okay, enough of this.
>
Actually, there is never enough of that.
> Chris:
> > >Mark, I don't think there is ever going to be a set of self-evident criteria
> >> centering around the appreciation of art. Not ever.
>
> Mark writes:
> >Maybe I'm being unclear. What I mean is, when I look at Cezanne, it is
> >evident that rendering is not the issue. All of the decisions evident in
> >the work raise issues - issues of space, color, compostion, structure.
>
> Well, we already have a contradiction here Mark because I do think that in the
> case of Cezanne, rendering is part of the issue. He seems to have struggled
> endlessly with the HOW of painting his concepts and to me that is very evident.
Rendering the relationships. Cezanne said "I don't paint things - I paint
the relationships between things."
> I don't think he was trying to raise those issues you speak about but to
> resolve them instead!
Well, this may only be a semantic difference. Raising, resolving - he
certainly wan't trying to comment on social issues, or make fantasy
illustration. The space, composition, the "relationships between things",
those were his issues, as he stated them. I won't argue with him.
>
> Right here we're deadlocked because what's self evident is different for both
> of us. Who among us can say that your view or mine doesn't apply to the same
> artist? Still, that doesn't mean we have a consensus, because we don't.
>
We might niggle until we compare Cezanne to, say, Tintoretto- then I bet
we agree on what his issues are - then I bet they look evident.
> >Are you asking me to release this hardened grip, on your wrist, and its
> >forceful pressure against your back? Sorry - you MUST play! No quitting!
>
> Nope, I'll keep on truckin'
>
Right you are!
> <Assess! Judge! Evaluate!
>
> Yes, it's permanently loaded in the back of my rig so don't despair, I ain't
> givin' up.
Full tank?
Mark
mark webber
On Mon, 5 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
> mark webber wrote in message ...
> >
> >On the other hand, if A. Earnest Looker (to creat another character for
> >purposes of conjecture,) who hasn't studied any art history at all,
> >"doesn't know much about art, but knows what he likes", if this fellow
> >finds himself beneath the Sistine Chapel ceiling, he won't respond to any
> >of the things that, say, Berenson reponds too?
>
> A. Earnest Looker, i love that. as much as i enjoy categorizing the
> non-intellegensia as sheep or talking monkeys... modern man is more
> complicated than this. there are too many environmental factors to A.
> Earnest Looker to write it off to he knows what he likes. television, music
> videos, design, architecture, cultural and religious tones,and basic
> education greatly effect the filters that created Earnest. man is not an
> island, especially an unexamined life in the twentieth century. i can think
> of dozens of factors that would dramatically effect the impact for Earnest
> to the Sistine Chapel, even more to de Kooning.
>
Yes, but Setai, my friend - my question: No shared response with Berenson?
>
> >Ok, I think I have an answer. Yes. Michelangelo in 1930 would not only
> >have risen to the top, but AbEx wouldn't have happened: DeKooning would
> >have been a Mannerist.
>
> speaking of de Kooning, i must completely disagree. yes, the absence of
> Michelangelo would cause major shifts in art history(in history itself for
> that matter), but de kooning a mannerist, you can not sell me that. de
> Kooning, as all artist were directly or indirectly effected by Michelangelo,
> but the change it would take(in that specific point of time) to change de
> kooning from a innovator(a risk taker) are not made by artistic influence.
> perhaps if his father beat or didn't beat him or his mother drank or he was
> or wasn't teased at school would effect that part of his personality that
> made de Kooning, de Kooning the innovator not the artist who tows the
> stylistic line. now if you want to say that if de Kooning painted during
> the renaissance he might have been a representational artist, or if
> Michelangelo did not exist his work would have be altered(even dramatically)
> that is possible, maybe even probable.
>
I can't disagree - not to put to fine a point on it, but this sort of
conjecture is only that. I was replying in a kind of silly way.
> >See, to me the past isn't any different than the present - not in terms of
> >looking. Some dead guy's sensibility isn't getting in the way of some
> >living guy's. And keeping pace with what is happening in the present could
> >mean trying to keep up with gimmicry or cynicism. Not always - but
> >certainly in a lot of cases.
>
>
> but isn't that the point you were exactly trying to make with de Kooning and
> Michelangelo? the past does effect the present, not in looking but in
> perceiving. we are not scanners, but humans our past, the past effects us
> and the art we look at and the artist we admire.
>
> t aubuchon
Yes, absolutely, and I wasn't really trying to make a serious argument
with the Mike and Bill story.
Yes, absolutely, I agree with you.
Mark
mark webber
Out of respect for Gabriel's privacy, I won't post his email address here,
but I'll email it to you. I think he occasionally scans this group - every
once and a while I'll get an email from him with a useful scolding about
something I've written here.
> I looked under "zita" and nothing. Any other info? Laderman was at Queens
> but I think he's retired.
I think so, too.
> I know him, even got letter from him once for a
> grant application. His work was important in my development back in the
> 70s. I was never a formal student of his, but his work has -always- been
> interesting to me.
Some friends of mine studied with him. He critted my work, once in 1980, I
think. Devastated me. Helped a lot. Then again recently, looked at my
slides. He's very helpful, very generous.
> He's done some pretty hot work just recently. He
> represents a point of veiw that gets attacked regularly, and is even hated
> by some.
Right. Yes.
> This point of view I got a lot when I was teaching at Indiana U,
> but I've never really spoken to him in much depth. I would love to.
> My work has never been "figurative" like his, but his dialogue with the
> painting, to raise a question, is evident always and this is where we
> share space.
>
Well, I hope you two can connect. I'll email you.
Mark
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip) On the other hand, I can't entirely disagree with the way you've worded
<your reply... sticky little things, these words....
Yep, on both sides of the fence. Wording and making art are similar in some
respects, wouldn't you agree?
<The word does imply repetition, but it also seems to connote restatement
<of sorts. BT was the first to use it here, and I glommed onto it because I
<felt it was actually close enough to my feeling that many of the Big Guns
<were often replaying old ideas in new ways.
This is what puzzles me Mark. You've conveyed this idea several times and it
always sounds....oh, I don't know....sort of reactionary I guess. The
implication seems to be that restating past acheivements was somehow in the
forefront on the minds of these artists although I know you can't mean this.
Rehashing an old idea in a new way isn't necessarily how I might look at what
was retained in their works. There are certain concepts that simply become
absorbed into a tradition of process and becomes little more than an underlying
principle guiding a particular form perhaps. How do you see this differently?
Perspective and spacial composition may have been a new element to work with at
one time and certainly, like any new technology, if I can use that comparison,
there was active exploration of it's potential. Then that cumulative
experience simply regresses into the background and becomes little more than
another tool to use. The use of perspective in itself became almost a standard
for a while and paintings that ignored this principle may not have been
acceptable until a long time later. Still, I don't consider something like
this, for instance, to be a guiding principle to state that all the western
masters were bound to honor. If not perspective then what is it that sets
western painting apart from the rest of the world? This, to me was the one
unique unique feature that initiated a lineage in European art that culminated
in what we might now consider the highest form of achievement during the
Renaissance era.
When you say that all the "Big Guns" that are considered masters seemed to have
one thing or another in common and if these masters happen to be mostly
European then the most singular connections I can make at the moment are these.
First there were the efforts to synthesize the effects of the natural world
into a painted form that approximated, though not necessarily imitating, the
look of "reality". Realistic painting, if you like. Then perspective was
introduced and furthered these efforts. Those are the two most obvious
features that sets European art apart from the rest of the world in my opinion.
If this was an enduring component for creating masterpieces then why hasn't it
been furthered after the advent of photography? If realistic painting isn't
the major factor in creating masterpieces, yet most of the "Big Guns" you refer
to seem to have this common interest then is that something that has to be
factored in or not?
Use of composition, color, drawing, space and any other image making device you
want to add are simply basic tools in a process that is and has been practiced
everywhere at any time. There is no recapitulation of any of this, they are
simply tools to work with.
I will reinsert a portion again of what you said earlier above:
<I felt it was actually close enough to my feeling that many of the Big Guns
<were often replaying old ideas in new ways.
My question is doesn't everyone do that more or less in any form of artmaking?
I don't find this to be either enlightening nor very helpful. I'm not going to
ask for specific examples because it isn't necessary. If we are trying to
point out what a common denominator is that all the great masters shared, then
maybe we'll have to look beyond the physical aspects of works and into what
lies behind it instead. This then pushes us into the realm of creativity and
expression. What was the particular vision of an artist and how well did he
state it, but how do you make a comparative judgement based on that? I don't
know.
The other premise you hold to is that whatever is to be revealed can be seen
directly on or in the work of art we are considering. Well sure, that's
indisputable and the obvious way to see anything is to look at it. Okay, fine
but the reason a combination of elements put together elicites a response is
based entirely on the relationship of parts. It is the whole thing that's
working. If we are dissecting those components into separate entities then
that may be the failure of our approach. So far I haven't found that magic
bullet that gives us the clue that's being sought after. At best we can define
some common denominators but those can actually be applied to any work of art
regardless.
<(snip) We might niggle until we compare Cezanne to, say, Tintoretto- then I
bet
<we agree on what his issues are - then I bet they look evident.
Mark, we can compare any combination of artists and mark out similarities if we
choose. You and I have seen this done repeatedly and the best I get out of
these comparisons is an interesting dialectic (that's an art word I just had to
use to hear the sound of it). We can always prove an argument but not always
the truth.
>> Yes, it's permanently loaded in the back of my rig so don't despair, I ain't
>> givin' up.
>Full tank?
I never let it go below three quarters full.
Marilyn
My comment on the unfinished marbles of M. would be that
the chisel marks reveal his process. Unfinished works
reveal the artist's process, sometimes even the tools (the chisel)
and other materials. They are very important to the art historian,
so you artists out there, don't feel guilty about those unfinished
works. As for going back and "finishing work" if one waits
long enough, a completely new direction can be taken. It is also
very rewarding to go back and rework _finished_ work as well.
Marilyn
mark webber
On 6 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark writes:
> <(snip) On the other hand, I can't entirely disagree with the way you've worded
> <your reply... sticky little things, these words....
>
> Yep, on both sides of the fence. Wording and making art are similar in some
> respects, wouldn't you agree?
Yup.
>
> <The word does imply repetition, but it also seems to connote restatement
> <of sorts. BT was the first to use it here, and I glommed onto it because I
> <felt it was actually close enough to my feeling that many of the Big Guns
> <were often replaying old ideas in new ways.
>
> This is what puzzles me Mark. You've conveyed this idea several times and it
> always sounds....oh, I don't know....sort of reactionary I guess. The
> implication seems to be that restating past acheivements was somehow in the
> forefront on the minds of these artists although I know you can't mean this.
I do, sort of. I don't see it as a negative. I don't see art history as a
story of progress or improvements. And while I don't think my view of it
is the "only" way or the "right" way, it is the way that makes sense to
me.
> Rehashing an old idea in a new way isn't necessarily how I might look at what
> was retained in their works.
See, that has a slightly unfavorable tone to it. Along with the "new"
elements in the work of someone like Jacques Louis David, there was
clearly a desire to play with the same types of stability we see in Greek
Classical art - and I don't see that as "rehashing", I see it as problem
solving.
> There are certain concepts that simply become
> absorbed into a tradition of process and becomes little more than an underlying
> principle guiding a particular form perhaps. How do you see this differently?
Well, you know I like to illustrate with examples, but the phrase "little
more than" sounds like *your* view of what I think might be a primary
issue for many great artists.
And I'm not wanting to combat individual views. Your work thrives on a
type of inventiveness that is pretty uncommon - but some of the poses of
some of the mansects (do I have that word right?) seem very traditional.
In a good way, I think.
I don't think you must, then, have classical poses as a primary issue, but
some artists who use them do.
>
> Perspective and spacial composition may have been a new element to work with at
> one time and certainly, like any new technology, if I can use that comparison,
> there was active exploration of it's potential. Then that cumulative
> experience simply regresses into the background and becomes little more than
> another tool to use.
You could certainly be right, but I still think Cezanne, for example,
never let anything else become more important.
> The use of perspective in itself became almost a standard
> for a while and paintings that ignored this principle may not have been
> acceptable until a long time later. Still, I don't consider something like
> this, for instance, to be a guiding principle to state that all the western
> masters were bound to honor. If not perspective then what is it that sets
> western painting apart from the rest of the world? This, to me was the one
> unique unique feature that initiated a lineage in European art that culminated
> in what we might now consider the highest form of achievement during the
> Renaissance era.
I can certainly understand people seeing it that way - that perspective
was the most important achievement of the Renaissance. But I don't.
>
> When you say that all the "Big Guns" that are considered masters seemed to have
> one thing or another in common and if these masters happen to be mostly
> European then the most singular connections I can make at the moment are these.
> First there were the efforts to synthesize the effects of the natural world
> into a painted form that approximated, though not necessarily imitating, the
> look of "reality". Realistic painting, if you like. Then perspective was
> introduced and furthered these efforts. Those are the two most obvious
> features that sets European art apart from the rest of the world in my opinion.
>
I wouldn't argue with that, but I definitly see other things as common
threads besides the attempt to depict realisticly. I see that
awareness-of-the-relationships-of-the-parts deal to be a more important
common thread - and one that isn't exclusive to "Western Art", too.
>
> If this was an enduring component for creating masterpieces then why hasn't it
> been furthered after the advent of photography? If realistic painting isn't
> the major factor in creating masterpieces, yet most of the "Big Guns" you refer
> to seem to have this common interest then is that something that has to be
> factored in or not?
Do you mean you think "accurate representation" is the primary issue for
the Big Guns? More so than the design and use of color as a means of
composing? I don't see it that way, personally.
I'm not sure I understand the photography part of the question.
The commonalities that I'm refering to continue uninterrupted after the
advent of photography. Depiction, which is of varying degrees of interest
for different painters of different periods, continues to the present day,
and many artists may have felt liberated by photography, but others have
been unaffected.
>
> Use of composition, color, drawing, space and any other image making device you
> want to add are simply basic tools in a process that is and has been practiced
> everywhere at any time.
I agree, but...
> There is no recapitulation of any of this, they are
> simply tools to work with.
...this may just be word problems.
>
> I will reinsert a portion again of what you said earlier above:
>
> <I felt it was actually close enough to my feeling that many of the Big Guns
> <were often replaying old ideas in new ways.
>
> My question is doesn't everyone do that more or less in any form of artmaking?
Yes, it seems so. The question that interests me is always how well they
do it.
> I don't find this to be either enlightening nor very helpful.
I'm sorry - I'm not trying to be annoying. I think some people do feel
enlightened by it. I don't mean to push stuff at you that you already
know.
> I'm not going to
> ask for specific examples because it isn't necessary. If we are trying to
> point out what a common denominator is that all the great masters shared, then
> maybe we'll have to look beyond the physical aspects of works and into what
> lies behind it instead. This then pushes us into the realm of creativity and
> expression. What was the particular vision of an artist and how well did he
> state it, but how do you make a comparative judgement based on that? I don't
> know.
Well, that last bit, about "how well he states it" brings us right back
to the thing and his/her descisions again.
Comparative judgements are certainly tough, but people make them all the
time. And for me the best way is by looking at the work as a demonstration
of that particular vision, that sensibility.
>
> The other premise you hold to is that whatever is to be revealed can be seen
> directly on or in the work of art we are considering. Well sure, that's
> indisputable and the obvious way to see anything is to look at it. Okay, fine
> but the reason a combination of elements put together elicites a response is
> based entirely on the relationship of parts. It is the whole thing that's
> working. If we are dissecting those components into separate entities then
> that may be the failure of our approach.
Yes, I'm not in favor of only looking at one aspect of a work and
declaring it the successful part, if that's what you mean. I like looking
at the whole - that's what is enjoyable to me.
> So far I haven't found that magic
> bullet that gives us the clue that's being sought after. At best we can define
> some common denominators but those can actually be applied to any work of art
> regardless.
Well, the stuff I think of as common to all the great stuff is definitely
not in the crappy stuff.
>
> <(snip) We might niggle until we compare Cezanne to, say, Tintoretto- then I
> bet
> <we agree on what his issues are - then I bet they look evident.
>
> Mark, we can compare any combination of artists and mark out similarities if we
> choose.
Actually, there I was speaking of different issues between them. I meant
that Tintoretto might be deliberately trying to build very complex,
rhythmic, baroque compositions (in many cases) and Cezanne might be said
to be looking more at making space with color.
I was pointing that out because I think with most great art, the criteria
are there, right there on the surface of the painting.
> You and I have seen this done repeatedly and the best I get out of
> these comparisons is an interesting dialectic (that's an art word I just had to
> use to hear the sound of it). We can always prove an argument but not always
> the truth.
>
You're sounding a tad annoyed with me. Hope I'm misinterpreting. It is not
so much a search for truth for me as a tennis court.
> >> Yes, it's permanently loaded in the back of my rig so don't despair, I ain't
> >> givin' up.
>
> >Full tank?
>
> I never let it go below three quarters full.
Speaking of that, I'm looking for a Smith Fuel gauge for an MG. Anybody
know where I might find one? I tried uk.rec.cars.mg, and they said they
didn't want any damn yanks in their group.
Always a pleasure, Chris,
Mark
mark webber
On 6 Oct 1998, it was written:
I agree with all of that, and I'll add that those "unfinished" slaves sure
work for me, and work better than a lot of "finished" work I've seen.
Mark
CROCUSDES
>As for going back and "finishing work" if one waits
>long enough, a completely new direction can be taken. It is also
>very rewarding to go back and rework _finished_ work as well.
Hmmm....I think this must be different for everyone. If I don't take an
unfinished work to its intended completion after a time lapse then it's not
uncommon for me to chop it up and recycle the parts. Done it often enough. Of
course the material I work with allows this.
setai
mark webber wrote in message ...
>Yes, but Setai, my friend - my question: No shared response with Berenson?
tracy, sorry i never gave my name.
i would but i think i overstepped, for that too i am sorry.
>I can't disagree - not to put to fine a point on it, but this sort of
>conjecture is only that. I was replying in a kind of silly way.
a bad habit from too many years of schooling, i take everything as a thought
experiment and examine them too closely. earnest was witty, i liked him, i
shouldn't have ripped him apart.
>Yes, absolutely, and I wasn't really trying to make a serious argument
>with the Mike and Bill story.
>
mea culpa
tracy aubuchon
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981005231647...@ng02.aol.com>...
>Creative to me means something innovative that is a personal contribution
to a
>work. Something unique but not necessarily dramatically different. Not
every
>unique act weighs in the same on a value basis though, because that is
>something determined by our individual sensibilities when viewing the
results
>produced by another.
then i agree, two words with the same definition.
><(snip) if art is the expression of the uncomprehendable form
><of universal truths, then even the artist can could not completely
><understand their own work.
>
>Oh how true that is sometimes. Haven't you done work which after it's
>completion you wonder just what it was that you just did? We work on all
>levels of consciousness sometimes and can never be sure just what pops out
and
>into the work.
of course i have or i wouldn't know this... every piece(that i feel is art
that is) actually.
><(snip) we are trying to accomplish the undoable, define the undefinable,
but
>as <artist that is what we are suited for.
>
>That's the magic of artmaking. We can do the undoable because what's done
>doesn't have to conform to the restrictions of reality. What we do is
>comparable to childrens play whereby we use our imagination to transform
>cardboard boxes into majestic castles. If that isn't a form of magic, then
I
>don't know what is.
one of my friends uses this metaphor for her poetry/art gallery, asylum's
recess.
i have to admit it is odd to find someone who agrees with me... perhaps it
is our common medium(sculpture that is, not bronze). now i am confused,
weren't we disagreeing about something?
t aubuchon
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<(snip) I don't see art history as a
<story of progress or improvements. And while I don't think my view of it
<is the "only" way or the "right" way, it is the way that makes sense to
<me.
You're probably right about that for the most part. I think there are new
inventions that come into play but not as often as we think. If we consider
performance or even video art as something relatively new I would disagree with
that in principle because it's basically a redressing of ideas drawn from other
traditions and restated in a different context. The context may be new, not
the essential idea.
I write:
>> Rehashing an old idea in a new way isn't necessarily how I might look at
what
?> was retained in their works.
Mark replies:
>See, that has a slightly unfavorable tone to it. Along with the "new"
>elements in the work of someone like Jacques Louis David, there was
>clearly a desire to play with the same types of stability we see in Greek
>Classical art - and I don't see that as "rehashing", I see it as problem
>solving.
Okay then. If I have to prod you unfairly then at least we can get a better
response as a result. Now I find your statement more palatable if it's
relating to problem solving. Then we aren't rehashing or recapitualting
anything really but are reinventing the wheel in a different way. Excuse the
pun but we might even be putting a new spin on an old idea. Of course that
might make us better politicians than artists.
<Well, you know I like to illustrate with examples, but the phrase "little
<more than" sounds like *your* view of what I think might be a primary
<issue for many great artists.
It is my view but most of what I write is anyway. Now please don't let me
inhibit you from using any examples to make whatever point you want. I noticed
that you seem to be doing a little less of this. It's certainly no problem for
me, you know. If I don't reciprocate in kind it's because I have to admit that
I really haven't spent much time in the last fifteen years or so looking at
paintings as I used to do. My interests are very parochial so I can only draw
upon my failing memory when trying to call up examples. Sometimes I get it
sometimes not. I'm having an awful time trying to keep up with you painters
but I never let my shortcomings stop me from engagement. Actually I prefer to
discuss the paintings rather than sculpture anyway because this is not what I
do.
>And I'm not wanting to combat individual views. Your work thrives on a
>type of inventiveness that is pretty uncommon - but some of the poses of
>some of the mansects (do I have that word right?) seem very traditional.
>In a good way, I think.
We are not in combat with each other Mark, we're only being contentious at
times but in the spirit of the excercise. Ever hear of friendly soccer teams
on the field? Afterwards everyone might be quaffing beer together at the
tavern but now is now and later is later.
Re: the poses in the Mansects. Well, I consider them to be more gestural to
support whatever it is they are supposed to express. Besides how many poses
can one imagine that hasn't been done before? None, I would suspect so of
course any pose is traditional, (unless your legs were bent backwards as they
are on my figures.) Let this be a lesson to those students who might be
tempted to take a nap during your anatomy classes.
I wrote:
>> Perspective and spacial composition may have been a new element to work with
at one time and certainly, like any new technology, if I can use that
>>comparison, there was active exploration of it's potential. Then that
>>cumulative experience simply regresses into the background and becomes
>>little more than another tool to use.
Mark wrote:
>You could certainly be right, but I still think Cezanne, for example,
>never let anything else become more important.
Oh, I certainly agree, in fact he may have been a bit obsessive with it but he
took a legitimate feature (as well as others, of course) of painting and was
pushing that exploration of space in a way others had not. But don't you think
that this approach becomes independent from the source? In other words, one
may look at other work to see what has been done and perhaps how. Afterwards
the interest becomes removed from it's ties to the past and takes on a life of
it's own. That's how I mean independent from the source. It becomes a thing
in itself without necessarily referencing itself to something other. I view
Cezanne's efforts at perspective as stripping away the obvious and trying to
rely on color and light alone to create space.
<(snip referring to perspective etc.) I wouldn't argue with that, but I
definitly see <other things as common
<threads besides the attempt to depict realisticly. I see that
<awareness-of-the-relationships-of-the-parts deal to be a more important
<common thread - and one that isn't exclusive to "Western Art", too.
Yes, we are certainly shoulder to shoulder on that point. Well at least I
think we've come up with one "universal" idea that applies to great art and it
also applies to every other level of art as well. In fact I have to wonder if
any great work has a component that isn't applicable to any other level of
work. I don't believe this is so though. It may simply be a matter of degree.
<Do you mean you think "accurate representation" is the primary issue for
<the Big Guns? More so than the design and use of color as a means of
<composing? I don't see it that way, personally.
Okay, then we are focusing on the abstract principle instead. I don't think
either of us is going to exclude "subject" as part of the abstract though, are
we? I'm not dismissing it although subject can mean many things, especially in
today's art.
I wrote:
> There is no recapitulation of any of this, they are
> simply tools to work with.
Mark replies:
>...this may just be word problems.
Hmmm....I'm going have to find a way to fix this nagging problem with words. I
guess you'll want some examples, right?
I wrote:
>>This then pushes us into the realm of creativity and
> >expression. What was the particular vision of an artist and how well did he
>> state it, but how do you make a comparative judgement based on that? I
>>don't know.
Mark replies:
>Well, that last bit, about "how well he states it" brings us right back
>to the thing and his/her descisions again.
>Comparative judgements are certainly tough, but people make them all the
>time. And for me the best way is by looking at the work as a demonstration
>of that particular vision, that sensibility.
I understand completely and you're right, it is helpful to have actual examples
to look at and compare. Unfortunately we have to do this over the internet and
we do not share the same reference material in our libraries, nor would it be
reasonable to expect others to either. For instance whenever you mention
Carravaggio, I simply nod my head in agreement as if I was familiar with his
work but I only have a vague recollection of it. Same might be true of other
references made either by you or myself. We are going to have to do the best
we can through this particular medium to get our ideas across. For me it's
words and little else.
There are on line sites we could use that have images to be referred to, in
fact Iian has one of them and there are others. But you may not be able to
access them from your home computer, and I don't think Marilyn has a browser
that supports images though perhaps it isn't a problem for others.
However doing things that way will take more time than I'm willing to spare and
the same is probably true for you as well. Let's just do the best we can and
by all means don't stop using the references you wish to use. If I'm familiar
with a particular work then fine, if not then I'm going to use slippery words
to get around the problem.
>You're sounding a tad annoyed with me. Hope I'm misinterpreting. It is not
>so much a search for truth for me as a tennis court.
Nope, nope, nope....if there's a misperception about attitude it's the result
of faceless writing. No body language to reinforce our words or meaning.
Unless we want to use a lot of smileys etc. :-) ~<:-] <(\->
CROCUSDES
t aubuchon writes:
>i have to admit it is odd to find someone who agrees with me... perhaps it
>is our common medium(sculpture that is, not bronze). now i am confused,
>weren't we disagreeing about something?
>
Oh, I forgot and just got carried away Tracy. If there was something we
differed on I now can't remember what it was. 'Tis the way it 'tis with us
sculptors, ya know. Painters seem to have better heads screwed on their
shoulders, or so I've heard.
mark webber
On 7 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
(snipping as usual)
>
> I write:
> >> Rehashing an old idea in a new way isn't necessarily how I might look at
> what
> ?> was retained in their works.
>
> Mark replies:
> >See, that has a slightly unfavorable tone to it. Along with the "new"
> >elements in the work of someone like Jacques Louis David, there was
> >clearly a desire to play with the same types of stability we see in Greek
> >Classical art - and I don't see that as "rehashing", I see it as problem
> >solving.
>
> Okay then. If I have to prod you unfairly then at least we can get a better
> response as a result. Now I find your statement more palatable if it's
> relating to problem solving.
Sorry I didn't make that clear - yes, old problems, new solutions.
> Then we aren't rehashing or recapitualting
> anything really but are reinventing ...
Reinventing, recapitulating, rehashing...
I think it is only the wording that may be difficult.
> ...the wheel in a different way.
(snip)
>
> Re: the poses in the Mansects. Well, I consider them to be more gestural to
> support whatever it is they are supposed to express. Besides how many poses
> can one imagine that hasn't been done before? None, I would suspect so of
> course any pose is traditional, (unless your legs were bent backwards as they
> are on my figures.) Let this be a lesson to those students who might be
> tempted to take a nap during your anatomy classes.
Fair enough.
>
> I wrote:
> >> Perspective and spacial composition may have been a new element to work with
> at one time and certainly, like any new technology, if I can use that
> >>comparison, there was active exploration of it's potential. Then that
> >>cumulative experience simply regresses into the background and becomes
> >>little more than another tool to use.
>
> Mark wrote:
> >You could certainly be right, but I still think Cezanne, for example,
> >never let anything else become more important.
>
> Oh, I certainly agree, in fact he may have been a bit obsessive with it but he
> took a legitimate feature (as well as others, of course) of painting and was
> pushing that exploration of space in a way others had not. But don't you think
> that this approach becomes independent from the source? In other words, one
> may look at other work to see what has been done and perhaps how. Afterwards
> the interest becomes removed from it's ties to the past and takes on a life of
> it's own.
Yes, it takes on a life of its own, but I don't think the ties to the past
are at all severed. Late in his career Cezanne said, "I want to redo
Poussin with nature." He didn't say, "To hell with Poussin." He wasn't
merely copying, but there were ties.
> That's how I mean independent from the source. It becomes a thing
> in itself without necessarily referencing itself to something other. I view
> Cezanne's efforts at perspective as stripping away the obvious and trying to
> rely on color and light alone to create space.
Yes, and he moves away from traditional approaches, but the problems are
old. it isn't as though he said "Enough of the old questions. Let's focus
on an entirely new set of issues."
>
> >(Mark) I wouldn't argue with that, but I
> >definitly see other things as common threads besides the attempt to
> >depict realisticly. I see that awareness-of-the-relationships-of-the-parts
> >deal to be a more important common thread - and one that isn't
> >exclusive to "Western Art", too.
>
> Yes, we are certainly shoulder to shoulder on that point. Well at least I
> think we've come up with one "universal" idea that applies to great art and it
> also applies to every other level of art as well. In fact I have to wonder if
> any great work has a component that isn't applicable to any other level of
> work. I don't believe this is so though. It may simply be a matter of degree.
>
Well, in lousy art it must be huge degrees.
> <Do you mean you think "accurate representation" is the primary issue for
> <the Big Guns? More so than the design and use of color as a means of
> <composing? I don't see it that way, personally.
>
> Okay, then we are focusing on the abstract principle instead. I don't think
> either of us is going to exclude "subject" as part of the abstract though, are
> we? I'm not dismissing it although subject can mean many things, especially in
> today's art.
>
> I wrote:
> > There is no recapitulation of any of this, they are
> > simply tools to work with.
>
> Mark replies:
> >...this may just be word problems.
>
> Hmmm....I'm going have to find a way to fix this nagging problem with words. I
> guess you'll want some examples, right?
>
I think that always helps a lot. Don't you agree that sometimes we can
write something that, without examples, sounds plausible, but when asked
for examples, we are hard-pressed to come up with them?
And further, sometimes an example can be more to the point, more succinct,
than a proposition without one that relies on lots of supporting
arguments.
> I wrote:
> >>This then pushes us into the realm of creativity and
> > >expression. What was the particular vision of an artist and how well did he
> >> state it, but how do you make a comparative judgement based on that? I
> >>don't know.
>
> Mark replies:
> >Well, that last bit, about "how well he states it" brings us right back
> >to the thing and his/her descisions again.
(snip)>
> I understand completely and you're right, it is helpful to have actual examples
> to look at and compare. Unfortunately we have to do this over the internet and
> we do not share the same reference material in our libraries, nor would it be
> reasonable to expect others to either. For instance whenever you mention
> Carravaggio, I simply nod my head in agreement as if I was familiar with his
> work but I only have a vague recollection of it.
(more snippage)
This is true, and Iian has been toying with the idea of citing particular
works for discussion, which I would enjoy.
There's a site called the web museum that has such good quality
reproductions (including Caravaggio, Piero, Vermeer and many others we've
cited) that I actually download them for wallpaper.
I think if you and others have access to that site, and Marilyn and I
agree to use our own references, then everyone else can make it their own
responsibility to either look things up or find them on the web.
> If I'm familiar
> with a particular work then fine, if not then I'm going to use slippery words
> to get around the problem.
Maybe you were trying to tell us something when, above, you mention
politicians....
>
> >You're sounding a tad annoyed with me. Hope I'm misinterpreting. It is not
> >so much a search for truth for me as a tennis court.
>
> Nope, nope, nope....if there's a misperception about attitude it's the result
> of faceless writing. No body language to reinforce our words or meaning.
> Unless we want to use a lot of smileys etc. :-) ~<:-] <(\->
I detest those things - I'm glad I was wrong.
Now as I reread this, its beginning to look like we can summarize this
way:
We are in agreement on most things including the notion that how well the
thing is made is directly related to the relationships of the parts as a
whole. Which is what I call Form, and you call Looking.
This pleases me, naturally. At any rate, to turn to a related question:
If we see that the relationships formed by the parts of a work (and the
decisions involved in making those choices) are integral to something we
call quality or greatness, how do we evaluate something that has no
relationships, something like a Donald Judd piece, for example?
regards,
Mark
mark webber
On Tue, 6 Oct 1998, setai wrote:
>
> mark webber wrote in message ...
>
> >Yes, but Setai, my friend - my question: No shared response with Berenson?
>
> tracy, sorry i never gave my name.
>
Hello Tracy
> i would but i think i overstepped, for that too i am sorry.
Sorry? I don't know what you mean there by overstepping.
>
> >I can't disagree - not to put to fine a point on it, but this sort of
> >conjecture is only that. I was replying in a kind of silly way.
>
>
> a bad habit from too many years of schooling, i take everything as a thought
> experiment and examine them too closely. earnest was witty, i liked him, i
> shouldn't have ripped him apart.
>
>
> >Yes, absolutely, and I wasn't really trying to make a serious argument
> >with the Mike and Bill story.
> >
>
> mea culpa
No, no, not your fault. It did look serious.
But Earnest and Berenson - do they respond to some of the same things on
that ceiling?
Mark
CROCUSDES
Mark writes:
<Yes, it takes on a life of its own, but I don't think the ties to the past
<are at all severed. Late in his career Cezanne said, "I want to redo
<Poussin with nature." He didn't say, "To hell with Poussin." He wasn't
<merely copying, but there were ties.
Poussin is a good example to point out what you mean. I hadn't thought of that
painter and the influence he may have had on Cezanne. But even so, in terms of
the thrust of this dialog, does this have great relevance or is it secondary or
even less to the idea of "great art"? I mean many of us have our roots based
on the works of others, that's how we learn to walk forward, but recognizing
shadows in one's work is irrelevant to it's worthiness or not. By implication,
I'm drawing the conclusion from your hypothesis that all great artists have
revealed or recognizable features in their works that can be traced elsewhere.
<(snip) Yes, and he moves away from traditional approaches, but the problems
<are old. it isn't as though he said "Enough of the old questions. Let's focus
<on an entirely new set of issues."
Again, I'm not satisfied with this answer. There's nothing unusual about new
problems stemming from old ones. Nothing unusual about concentrating on an
entirely new set of issues either. I don't see where one idea contradicts the
other in terms of validity. I really don't.
From where I sit I would have to say that art isn't about reinforcing standard
ideas about art but is an exploratory process instead. However this brings up
the problem you are very interested in and that is: how does one judge the
value of unfamiliar efforts? That's a fair question and one that shouldn't be
ignored. I still hold to the idea that as new works develop, new rules are
developing as well. The only understandable tools we have to guage this value
with is based on precedence but that limits our understanding to the
understandable only.
We can't ask "Slick Willy" to help us out here with defining the subtleties of
meaning and insight because his expertise lies elsewhere. Someone like him
might be useful to include in this dialog though, because maybe we'll be
enlightened in ways we haven't thought of before.
<(snip)Don't you agree that sometimes we can write something that, without
<examples, sounds plausible, but when asked for examples, we are <hard-<pressed
to come up with them?
Not if we use our esteemed leader as a role model to follow. He seems to do
quite well with words alone. (example: "No senator, I did not paint that
painting because what I used was acrylic. My understanding of the use of that
medium is that I am gluing pigments to canvas instead. Therefore I was glueing
not painting.")
<And further, sometimes an example can be more to the point, more succinct,
<than a proposition without one that relies on lots of supporting arguments.
Examples are useful, I admitted that before. Open and unsubstantiated dialog
is also useful because it can lead to an unpredictible outcome which is not
necessarily predicated on example. The door swings wide open for anything to
happen and isn't that more exciting and interesting than being lead down some
dark and narrow corridor where there are no potholes to trip us up?
This isn't about being right, nor about absolutes but an investigation instead.
It's a query that we volunteered to undertake and in the spirit of academic
freedom I would think that the absurd as well as the logical can play an
interactive role here. I would encourage you to continue using examples Mark
because you're able to come up with some excellent ones. In fact I'm relying
on you for that. I'm still going to be a gadfly though...can't help it.
<This is true, and Iian has been toying with the idea of citing particular
<works for discussion, which I would enjoy.
Works for me.
<Maybe you were trying to tell us something when, above, you mention
<politicians....
See above.
<We are in agreement on most things including the notion that how well the
<thing is made is directly related to the relationships of the parts as a
<whole. Which is what I call Form, and you call Looking.
<This pleases me, naturally. At any rate, to turn to a related question:
Happy to oblige. By the way my definition of Form is the same as yours, it's
not Looking. Nice to get one thing out of the way, now for the rest.
<If we see that the relationships formed by the parts of a work (and the
<decisions involved in making those choices) are integral to something we
<call quality or greatness, how do we evaluate something that has no
<relationships, something like a Donald Judd piece, for example?
Now it gets interesting on a different level and we can float around in the
waters without our life preservers on. However, I have reservations about
discussing the works of specific living and currently professional artists,
especially if there are negative aspects which may come up. I may do it
privately but in a public forum I haven't fully resolved the propriety of doing
this, in my own mind.
The dilemma is that some of the new ideas we might want to discuss and in
relation to our discussions so far, would be very interesting indeed to work
on. Donald Judd would be a good example too because of the nature of his
particular approach. Well, I can try to be simply objective about it and
temper my personal feelings as best I can. So sure, fire away at will Mark.
CROCUSDES
> Donald Judd would be a good example too because of the nature of his
>particular approach.
This could be embarassing but I don't read the obituaries. Is he still around
or not? I assumed in my last post that he was but then I thought maybe I am
mistaken.
CROCUSDES
Sorry for reposting this message sent in by spot77 but I thought it might be a
good idea to retitle the subject line since it's very relevent to what we've
been talking about. Thanks for sending that in spot77.
From "Other Criteria" by Leo Steinberg, 1968 (when "the
critic" was still a he):
"One way to cope with the provocations of novel art is to
rest firm and maintain solid standards. The standards are
set by the critic's long-practised taste and by his
conviction that only those innovations will be significant
which promote the established direction of advanced art.
All else is irrelevant. Judged for "quality" and for an
"advancedness" measurable by given criteria, each work
is then graded on a comparative scale.
A second way is more yielding. The critic interested in a
novel manifestation holds his criteria and taste in
reserve. Since they are formed upon yesterday's art, he
does not assume that they are ready-made for today.
While he seeks to comprehend the objectives behind the
new art produced, nothing is a priori excluded or judged
irrelevant. Since he is not passing out grades, he
suspends judgment until the work's intention has come
into focus and his response to it is-in the literal sense of
the word-sym-pathetic; not necessarily to approve, but to
feel along with it as with a thing that is like no other.
I am aware that this second mode tends to be
expatiating and slow. It offers neither certitude nor
precise quality ratings. But I believe that both ways - the
will to empathize and the will to appraise have their use.
There must be an ideal combination of them, and
perhaps most critics strive to achieve it. But that
achievement lies beyond individual sensibility: the
capacity to experience all works in accord with their inward
objectives and at the same time against external
standards belongs rather to the collective judgment of a
generation, a judgment within which many kinds of critical
insights have been absorbed."
Or, as Donald Judd put it long before he died in 1994, "It
isn't necessary for a work to have a lot of things to look
at, to compare, to analyze one by one, to contemplate.
The thing as a whole, its quality as a whole, is what is
interesting."
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981007070827...@ng04.aol.com>...
>>weren't we disagreeing about something?
>>
>Oh, I forgot and just got carried away Tracy. If there was something we
>differed on I now can't remember what it was.
i am relieved that i am not alone.
> 'Tis the way it 'tis with us sculptors, ya know.
lately i have been focusing on computer collage.
i know ng art is rarely discussed, but i saw your work and i really enjoy
it. talent and intelligence
>Painters seem to have better heads screwed on their
>shoulders, or so I've heard.
it must be the fumes
tracy
Iian Neill
> is a grad student working on her Master's thesis. I would like her focus to
> be on either a mosaic or fresco artist from the 1400s to the 1640s, but my
> knowledge of art is rather limited to the big names and French
> impressionists. If anyone has any recommendations for a lesser known artist,
> maybe someone you believe deserves more respect than he gets, I'd appreciate
> a name, some general dates, and a few main works.
Here are some fresco painters you may wish to consider: Annibale Caracci, Pietro
da Cortona, Tiepolo - and I don't think Tiepolo was working before 1640, but
Cortona and Caracci certainly were.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
mark webber
On 7 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark writes:
> <Yes, it takes on a life of its own, but I don't think the ties to the past
> <are at all severed. Late in his career Cezanne said, "I want to redo
> <Poussin with nature." He didn't say, "To hell with Poussin." He wasn't
> <merely copying, but there were ties.
>
> Poussin is a good example to point out what you mean. I hadn't thought of that
> painter and the influence he may have had on Cezanne. But even so, in terms of
> the thrust of this dialog, does this have great relevance or is it secondary or
> even less to the idea of "great art"?
I think if Cezanne is a great artist, then whatever he considers to be a
primary issue is worth looking at. I see it as relevant.
> I mean many of us have our roots based
> on the works of others, that's how we learn to walk forward, but recognizing
> shadows in one's work is irrelevant to it's worthiness or not. By implication,
> I'm drawing the conclusion from your hypothesis that all great artists have
> revealed or recognizable features in their works that can be traced elsewhere.
If we can consider (and I do) the common thread of interest in form to be
a recognizable feature that can be traced back, then yes. That is exactly
what I'm proposing is the common thread - and specifically not the attempt
to reproduce nature; there are far too many great artists throughout
history who move away from nature, expand on it - with their formal
interests.
> <(snip) Yes, and he moves away from traditional approaches, but the problems
> <are old. it isn't as though he said "Enough of the old questions. Let's focus
> <on an entirely new set of issues."
>
> Again, I'm not satisfied with this answer. There's nothing unusual about new
> problems stemming from old ones. Nothing unusual about concentrating on an
> entirely new set of issues either. I don't see where one idea contradicts the
> other in terms of validity. I really don't.
I don't either. There is nothing unusual, I agree. But that isn't
Cezanne's approach. There isn't a contradiction, but that isn't the
original point. The point, unless I'm mistaken, is was Cezanne
recapitulating the successe of Poussin, and above it seems you feel he is.
This is getting a little confusing, isn't it.
>
> From where I sit I would have to say that art isn't about reinforcing standard
> ideas about art but is an exploratory process instead.
Well, I wouldn't want to tell someone else what their art should be about,
but personally, I agree - discovery is more important than formula or
illustration of concepts.
> However this brings up
> the problem you are very interested in and that is: how does one judge the
> value of unfamiliar efforts?
That's not quite how I would word my question, but until it is
problematic, I'll let it be.
> That's a fair question and one that shouldn't be
> ignored. I still hold to the idea that as new works develop, new rules are
> developing as well. The only understandable tools we have to guage this value
> with is based on precedence but that limits our understanding to the
> understandable only.
>
Well, suppose one of the new rules that arrises is: Do not evaluate.
> We can't ask "Slick Willy" to help us out here with defining the subtleties of
> meaning and insight because his expertise lies elsewhere. Someone like him
> might be useful to include in this dialog though, because maybe we'll be
> enlightened in ways we haven't thought of before.
>
Are you talking about Clinton? Please let's not drag that shit in here!
This is so enjoyable and politics will spoil it!
> <(snip)Don't you agree that sometimes we can write something that, without
> <examples, sounds plausible, but when asked for examples, we are <hard-<pressed
> to come up with them?
>
> Not if we use our esteemed leader as a role model to follow. He seems to do
> quite well with words alone. (example: "No senator, I did not paint that
> painting because what I used was acrylic. My understanding of the use of that
> medium is that I am gluing pigments to canvas instead. Therefore I was glueing
> not painting.")
Oh God, you're loosing me, Chris.
>
> <And further, sometimes an example can be more to the point, more succinct,
> <than a proposition without one that relies on lots of supporting arguments.
>
> Examples are useful, I admitted that before. Open and unsubstantiated dialog
> is also useful because it can lead to an unpredictible outcome which is not
> necessarily predicated on example.
Can you give me an example? (Kidding)
> The door swings wide open for anything to
> happen and isn't that more exciting and interesting than being lead down some
> dark and narrow corridor where there are no potholes to trip us up?
>
Is citing the Sistine Ceiling really a dark and narrow corridor?
> This isn't about being right, nor about absolutes but an investigation instead.
> It's a query that we volunteered to undertake and in the spirit of academic
> freedom I would think that the absurd as well as the logical can play an
> interactive role here.
I'm on board with that, Senator!
> I would encourage you to continue using examples Mark
> because you're able to come up with some excellent ones. In fact I'm relying
> on you for that. I'm still going to be a gadfly though...can't help it.
>
But occasionally you WILL answer a question or two, won't you? I mean, I
try to answer some now and then, and that's the most fun.
> <This is true, and Iian has been toying with the idea of citing particular
> <works for discussion, which I would enjoy.
>
> Works for me.
OK, Iian, get out of that macabre genre stuff, (or take it to
alt.startrek) and tell us what paintings we can argue about!
>
> <We are in agreement on most things including the notion that how well the
> <thing is made is directly related to the relationships of the parts as a
> <whole. Which is what I call Form, and you call Looking.
>
> <This pleases me, naturally. At any rate, to turn to a related question:
>
> Happy to oblige. By the way my definition of Form is the same as yours, it's
> not Looking.
I'll accept even minor successes....
>
> <If we see that the relationships formed by the parts of a work (and the
> <decisions involved in making those choices) are integral to something we
> <call quality or greatness, how do we evaluate something that has no
> <relationships, something like a Donald Judd piece, for example?
>
> Now it gets interesting on a different level and we can float around in the
> waters without our life preservers on. However, I have reservations about
> discussing the works of specific living and currently professional artists,
> especially if there are negative aspects which may come up. I may do it
> privately but in a public forum I haven't fully resolved the propriety of doing
> this, in my own mind.
>
I understand - I have the same reservations; it doesn't seem right
somehow.
But, as we now know, (and to quote Gordon McCrae, in Rogers and
Hammerstein's "Oklahoma") Poor Judd is Dead.
(That is just about the most awful joke I've ever made, and in about the
worst taste, and I apologize. I couldn't stop myself.)
> The dilemma is that some of the new ideas we might want to discuss and in
> relation to our discussions so far, would be very interesting indeed to work
> on. Donald Judd would be a good example too because of the nature of his
> particular approach. Well, I can try to be simply objective about it and
> temper my personal feelings as best I can. So sure, fire away at will Mark.
Well, to repeat a question I've asked a few times here, how would Judd
decide which of his pieces would be the more successful ones?
Have fun, now!
Mark
mark webber
Tiepolo was an 18th century painter.
Some others that might work well: Luca Signorelli, who was one of the more
successful students of Piero della Francesca (also an excellent choice -
maybe even better because his images are so difficult to decipher.)
However, the Lippis, Fra Angelica, Masaccio, and Masolino might be among
the best choices, because so many of their most important works are right
there in Florence, which would explain your protagonist's presense there.
Hope this helps.
Mark
CROCUSDES
>i know ng art is rarely discussed, but i saw your work and i really enjoy
>it.
Thank you Tracy. Wish you had a site on line or do you? If so would you mind
posting your url?
>lately i have been focusing on computer collage.
Seems that these digital machines are affecting all of us these days in one
form or another. Are you working with it strictly as a graphics medium or are
the collages intended to be incorporated into your sculptural works somehow?
The potential of realizing some ideas that may have been difficult to achieve
in the past is certainly being exploited these days with the help of
computers. I'm even caught up in it as well.
CROCUSDES
Mark: I'll be going out of town this afternoon for a few days so I'll try to
make whatever reply to your last post as simply answers if I can, no more
questions added for the time being until I get back.
<I think if Cezanne is a great artist, then whatever he considers to be a
<primary issue is worth looking at. I see it as relevant.
What his influences were is certainly a factor to be considered, that's true,
but it would be anyway, whether he was great or not great. Influences have a
bearing on the direction and interest we infuse in our work and it may affect a
kind of standard around which ideas and technical goals may be measured against
sometimes. However, I don't accept the notion that great artists have only
seriously considered other great artists which influences their interest. I
don't think you are implying that though, but just to be clear about that
concept, I include it here anyway.
I write:
>By implication,
> I'm drawing the conclusion from your hypothesis that all great artists have
> revealed or recognizable features in their works that can be traced
elsewhere.
Mark replies:
>>If we can consider (and I do) the common thread of interest in form to be
>>a recognizable feature that can be traced back, then yes. That is exactly
>>what I'm proposing is the common thread - (snip)
I think I understand what you are suggesting which is a kind of lineage that a
great artist may have followed and then continued in his/her own fashion. But
this seems to imply that greatness follows greatness in a sense. I don't want
to distort what you are saying Mark, but this is how I understand what you are
saying. Now I know you don't mean this as an absolute but might be suggesting
the idea as something that has to be considered on some level. I personally
think it may have some relevance but not at the level that adds to the
determination of what it is that sets a great artist apart from others.
Afterall, many artists before, during and after the tenure of a great artist
being considered have pretty much done the same thing.
<The point, unless I'm mistaken, is was Cezanne
<recapitulating the successe of Poussin, and above it seems you feel he is.
<This is getting a little confusing, isn't it.
It is indeed because we are each interpreting Cezanne's use of a former
tradition much differently. I'm sorry but you still seem to be saying that
Cezanne was restating differently, some of the problems that Poussin offered up
in his work. I'm suggesting that although Poussin may have been an initial
influence that he was later forgotten in the process and Cezanne was not
interested in recapitulating Poussin at all but focused on different problems
instead.
Yes those problems may have related to what Poussin was working on but at the
same time the real thrust of Cezanne's work went beyond the limits of Poussin
(not necessarily better or greater, simply in another direction). Therefore
the problems and resolutions became an independent search based on it's own set
of parameters. This isn't recapitulation in my opinion. Of course we may see
Poussin in the large painting of the "Bathers" for instance and in several
other large and deep space paintings perhaps. Well, why not when similar
problems do occur, look elsewhere for further clues to help resolve a problem.
This is how we use traditional sources sometimes. I wouldn't say this was
recapitulating the success of Poussin's efforts though because the approach to
the final problems were different.
Well, maybe it's all simply a matter of words Mark and how we interpret the
nuances.
I write:
>> However this brings up
>> the problem you are very interested in and that is: how does one judge the
>> value of unfamiliar efforts?
Mark replies:
<That's not quite how I would word my question, but until it is
<problematic, I'll let it be.
Okay, but for me it is a problem, not problematic necessarily but one to learn
how to resolve in the best way we can. There are new ideas and propositions
that occur which I find has potential value. I don't quite know how to view or
experience some of these things but find myself very interested and engaged in
trying to aborb and understand it's place within the realm of artmaking.
Mark writes:
>Well, suppose one of the new rules that arrises is: Do not evaluate.
Yeah, now that's an interesting thing that seems to come up these days. It's a
cop out rule in my opinion if one expects their work to participate in the
three ring circus of the art world. My slick quip to such a slick proposal is
to dismiss if that's what's being asked for. Accept the experience as a
momentary thing then just let it go. What else can one do? It's not worth
spending time on for contemplation is it? Or is it?
It is interesting though that some of the folks who subscribe to the idea of
not evaluating also ask that their efforts be written about, praised, shown in
the museums and promoted in the press. An awful lot of bother about an awful
lot of nothing, don't you think? If you want to walk the high wire then you'd
better learn to rosin your slippers.
<Oh God, you're loosing me, Chris.
Get used to it friend.
I write:
>> The door swings wide open for anything to
>> happen and isn't that more exciting and interesting than being lead down
>>some dark and narrow corridor where there are no potholes to trip us up?
Mark replies:
>Is citing the Sistine Ceiling really a dark and narrow corridor?
For me the bulbs are dimming when constantly turned on. Yes there is enduring
value in works of the past and I hope that will never change. However, when we
investigate issues about art and if part of that effort is to find some clues
that might be applicable to the concerns of living artists, then maybe some of
the old standards may not apply in the same degree as they once did. Not an
absolute by any means, simply an expression of preference by myself, I guess.
<But occasionally you WILL answer a question or two, won't you? I mean, I
<try to answer some now and then, and that's the most fun.
As you've gathered by now, I have more questions than answers and prefer to
leave some things more open ended. Once in a while though, I actually might
have a glimmer of something that can be offered as an answer. If that rarity
does happen, I'll certainly share the insight with you. We really do need
another participant or two here Mark. I think at best, I can only frustrate
you.
>But, as we now know, (and to quote Gordon McCrae, in Rogers and
>Hammerstein's "Oklahoma") Poor Judd is Dead.
>(That is just about the most awful joke I've ever made, and in about the
>worst taste, and I apologize. I couldn't stop myself.)
Yes I have to agree with you for a change, it was an awful joke. I can
understand the implusiveness though.
>Well, to repeat a question I've asked a few times here, how would Judd
>decide which of his pieces would be the more successful ones?
Of course we don't know what went through his mind but the only conclusion I
can draw is one piece may have looked nicer to him than another. That's really
unfair though. I'm sure that if he subscribe to the artspeak notion of raising
issues that one work or another enlightened us on the idea of flatness best, or
raised our consciousness about the idea of corner or who knows what else was
considered important. Simply raising issues that many of us are already
subconsciously aware of does seem to be important in the minds of some dealers,
critics and curators. Who am I to question their judgment. In fact who am I
to say anything about what art is about, I just know what I like and like what
I know. No different than our hypethetical Earnest A. Looker, really.
Well, I'll be back in a few days so in the meantime Mark I hope you can lure
some others into this thread who will be more interesting. I'm looking forward
to reading some better answers to your perplexing questions.
spo...@my-dejanews.com
why in the world do you two keep bringing up Judd when
neither of you seems to be remotely informed about his
work? I'm no great fan, but it's not difficult to find Judd's
own writings, and shouldn't your discussion of his work
depart from having read some of this? To that extent,
you CAN know what went through an artist's mind. Surely
you would want the same respect for your own work.
Having scolded you, I'll just throw in about 2 cents worth
that I know about Judd's intentions.
As I'm sure you're aware, he "emerged" in the shadow of
Abstract Expressionism. Much like Rauschenberg and
Johns, Judd (with many other "anti-form" sculptors of the
time), was working against the reign of Clement
Greenberg's Modernism . This era was (and still is) really
the only time in art's history where critical theory truly
dominated artistic promotion. The dominating forces
now? A whole other nasty can of worms, but Judd's main
motivation, as I understand and reduce it, was (as ever)
to begin anew. Greenberg's formalist program, to which
the art world heartily subscribed and which, for the most
part, was responsible for moving "the art world" from
Europe to New York, was based largely on the concept of
the autonomy of form. Greenberg believed that painting
should be "pure," completely separate from sculpture,
from illusionism, from anything that could be construed
as separate from painting. Painting was about painting.
Period. Nothing else. And sculpture, the same. Judd,
then, introduced "3-dimensional work," as unique from
both sculpture and painting. He and his cronies (Flavin,
Oldenburg, et al) aimed to free art from all conventions
of illusionism, form and literal space, and, in the process,
to create real space, anti-form. They intended the work to
be seen not as a whole comprised of separate parts, but
as open, extended, environmental. A big part of their
efforts was the use of unconventional and not readily
available materials. They never hoped to eliminate
painting or sculpture, but believed that both had become
limited through conventional forms.
From there, it doesn't seem that difficult to deduce how
Judd decided which of his works was more successful than
others. Though the work now seems (to me) mostly ugly,
cold and empty, it is theoretically correct and it was quite
radical in an era when theoretical exploration as an
explicit and exclusive art goal was both new and valid.
If we reduce the value of "raising issues that many of us
are already subconsciously aware of"
to "simply," what does that leave us to do? Do you
presume to be raising issues about which no one is yet
aware? Maybe this is all a bunch of hooey, and I'm
mighty glad to be working in the post-theoretically-correct
era, but I certainly wouldn't applaud some young scientist
who emerged tomorrow from 30 years locked in a lab to
pronounce, triumphantly, that e=mc squared.
spot
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981008104117...@ng-fa1.aol.com>...
>Thank you Tracy. Wish you had a site on line or do you? If so would you
mind
>posting your url?
my work was up on a communal gallery which is now down, i am working on my
own site. i have been spending too much time engrossed in these dialogues
that i haven't gotten very far. some of my work is up on a friend's site, i
will e-mail you the url if you wish. i must admit, i am afraid my work
wouldn't be well taken.
>Seems that these digital machines are affecting all of us these days in one
>form or another. Are you working with it strictly as a graphics medium or
are
>the collages intended to be incorporated into your sculptural works
somehow?
graphic medium... to be honest, it isn't graphic at all, i have no interest
in graphic art. digital art as fine art, this will get me in trouble. my
intent was not to focus on this medium, but it really has sucked me in. i
do hope to incorporate it into sculpture, that is when the current 3-D
modeling technology improves. i am not a technology freak, i love
traditional sculpture and my hands in clay is an unreplacable feeling.
however, this new medium is fascinating and wide open for creative minds.
>The potential of realizing some ideas that may have been difficult to
achieve
>in the past is certainly being exploited these days with the help of
>computers. I'm even caught up in it as well.
even for traditional mediums, the exposure and control over your own art
will be a revolution for artist and should be exploited. in this little box
we have control, it is our world to do with just as we wish... it is our
canvas!
tracy
Marilyn
Your post was interesting to me, as is anything which
attempts to explain our contemporary "art scene" context.
(art scene: one of those art-related word which
makes me cringe because of overuse & misuse. )
The only thing which you wrote which grates, is giving
Greenberg the credit for moving the modern art centre
from Europe to New York. I thought Hilter was responsible
for that. Think of how many major art figures
were refugees from Nazi Germany...
But that wasn't the point. Modern art and postmodern art
have alienated many artists who try to keep their heads in
the proverbial sand of 19 century art. Weren't Cezanne
& Picasso saying "It's all been done before, let's move on..."
so cubism breaks the conventions & the rules, not as a style
to continue but simply as a break with the past. So we
begin a new century without rules and that is terrifying.
What I don't understand is not that people don't accept
modern art & postmodern art, but rather that they actually
hate it . (although one could argue that hate is at least
a reaction). Wouldn't it be better to hate something like
nuclear waste?
M.
mark webber
On 8 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> Mark: I'll be going out of town this afternoon for a few days so I'll try to
> make whatever reply to your last post as simply answers if I can, no more
> questions added for the time being until I get back.
Sure enough.
>
> <I think if Cezanne is a great artist, then whatever he considers to be a
> <primary issue is worth looking at. I see it as relevant.
>
> What his influences were is certainly a factor to be considered, that's true,
> but it would be anyway, whether he was great or not great.
I might disagree here - personally I have no interest in studying the
influences on mediocre art.
> Influences have a
> bearing on the direction and interest we infuse in our work and it may affect a
> kind of standard around which ideas and technical goals may be measured against
> sometimes. However, I don't accept the notion that great artists have only
> seriously considered other great artists which influences their interest. I
> don't think you are implying that though, but just to be clear about that
> concept, I include it here anyway.
Right, I don't see it that singularly either.
>
> Chris writes:
> >By implication,
> > I'm drawing the conclusion from your hypothesis that all great artists have
> > revealed or recognizable features in their works that can be traced
> elsewhere.
>
> Mark replies:
> >>If we can consider (and I do) the common thread of interest in form to be
> >>a recognizable feature that can be traced back, then yes. That is exactly
> >>what I'm proposing is the common thread - (snip)
>
> I think I understand what you are suggesting which is a kind of lineage that a
> great artist may have followed and then continued in his/her own fashion. But
> this seems to imply that greatness follows greatness in a sense.
In a very general way, I think there is something to that notion.
> I don't want
> to distort what you are saying Mark, but this is how I understand what you are
> saying. Now I know you don't mean this as an absolute but might be suggesting
> the idea as something that has to be considered on some level. I personally
> think it may have some relevance but not at the level that adds to the
> determination of what it is that sets a great artist apart from others.
I think it may well be a key to understanding what sets great artists
apart from lesser ones. I think if most great artists share an interest,
it is useful to try to fully appreciate that interest.
> Afterall, many artists before, during and after the tenure of a great artist
> being considered have pretty much done the same thing.
But how well?
>
> <The point, unless I'm mistaken, is was Cezanne
> <recapitulating the successe of Poussin, and above it seems you feel he is.
(snip)
> I wouldn't say this was
> recapitulating the success of Poussin's efforts though because the approach to
> the final problems were different.
>
> Well, maybe it's all simply a matter of words Mark and how we interpret the
> nuances.
Although I snipped most of what you say, I think it is, largely, semantics
at this point, because the more detailed your explanation, the more I
agree.
>
> Chris writes:
> >> However this brings up
> >> the problem you are very interested in and that is: how does one judge the
> >> value of unfamiliar efforts?
> Mark writes:
> >Well, suppose one of the new rules that arrises is: Do not evaluate.
>
> Yeah, now that's an interesting thing that seems to come up these days. It's a
> cop out rule in my opinion if one expects their work to participate in the
> three ring circus of the art world. My slick quip to such a slick proposal is
> to dismiss if that's what's being asked for. Accept the experience as a
> momentary thing then just let it go. What else can one do? It's not worth
> spending time on for contemplation is it? Or is it?
>
> It is interesting though that some of the folks who subscribe to the idea of
> not evaluating also ask that their efforts be written about, praised, shown in
> the museums and promoted in the press. An awful lot of bother about an awful
> lot of nothing, don't you think? If you want to walk the high wire then you'd
> better learn to rosin your slippers.
I'm on board with that, big guy.
> Chris writes:
> >> The door swings wide open for anything to
> >> happen and isn't that more exciting and interesting than being lead down
> >>some dark and narrow corridor where there are no potholes to trip us up?
>
> Mark replies:
> >Is citing the Sistine Ceiling really a dark and narrow corridor?
>
> For me the bulbs are dimming when constantly turned on. Yes there is enduring
> value in works of the past and I hope that will never change. However, when we
> investigate issues about art and if part of that effort is to find some clues
> that might be applicable to the concerns of living artists, then maybe some of
> the old standards may not apply in the same degree as they once did. Not an
> absolute by any means, simply an expression of preference by myself, I guess.
>
The more people insist that things are different now, the more the same
they seem, to me.
> <But occasionally you WILL answer a question or two, won't you? I mean, I
> <try to answer some now and then, and that's the most fun.
>
> As you've gathered by now, I have more questions than answers and prefer to
> leave some things more open ended. Once in a while though, I actually might
> have a glimmer of something that can be offered as an answer. If that rarity
> does happen, I'll certainly share the insight with you. We really do need
> another participant or two here Mark. I think at best, I can only frustrate
> you.
>
Oh I like questions too!
I always enjoy more good faith participants, but you really aren't
frustrating me. I'll stop playing before it gets tiresome.
>
> >Well, to repeat a question I've asked a few times here, how would Judd
> >decide which of his pieces would be the more successful ones?
>
> Of course we don't know what went through his mind but the only conclusion I
> can draw is one piece may have looked nicer to him than another. That's really
> unfair though. I'm sure that if he subscribe to the artspeak notion of raising
> issues that one work or another enlightened us on the idea of flatness best, or
> raised our consciousness about the idea of corner or who knows what else was
> considered important. Simply raising issues that many of us are already
> subconsciously aware of does seem to be important in the minds of some dealers,
> critics and curators. Who am I to question their judgment. In fact who am I
> to say anything about what art is about, I just know what I like and like what
> I know. No different than our hypethetical Earnest A. Looker, really.
Hmmmmm.
>
> Well, I'll be back in a few days so in the meantime Mark I hope you can lure
> some others into this thread who will be more interesting. I'm looking forward
> to reading some better answers to your perplexing questions.
Have some good time off Chris! Look forward to your return.
By the way, do you remember a sculptor named Bob Griffith?
Mark
mark webber
Glad you've joined us.
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998 spo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> I honestly don't mean to be insulting anyone here, but
> why in the world do you two keep bringing up Judd when
> neither of you seems to be remotely informed about his
> work?
I can't speak for Chris, but I do feel familiar with Judd's work and
that's why I'm asking. And since you may not have been following our
dialogues for a long time, I'd like to point out that just because
someones asks a question here, it doesn't mean they expect only one
answer or have none of their own.
> I'm no great fan, but it's not difficult to find Judd's
> own writings, and shouldn't your discussion of his work
> depart from having read some of this?
I've read some but certainly not all of his writings - can you tell me
where he writes of an evaluative process?
I don't find this line of inquiry to be irrelevant.
First, thank you for your summary. There are some finer points that I
might quibble with, but on the whole it is in agreement with things I've
written here as well.
But based on what you've written, it doesn't seem clear or easy to
deduce how Judd would determine how one work was better than another.
If you'd like to give it a try, I'd be pleased to hear what you have to
say. Perhaps I'm being dimwitted and you could show me how it is clear.
> Though the work now seems (to me) mostly ugly,
> cold and empty, it is theoretically correct and it was quite
> radical in an era when theoretical exploration as an
> explicit and exclusive art goal was both new and valid.
If all of the work was theoretically correct (fortunately I doubt I'm
alone when I express how silly this sounds) then are some *more*
theoretically correct than others?
And I don't argue against the historical fact that this sort of
exploration was a valid goal; and when first encountering that kind of
work I found it very intriguing and exciting.
>
> If we reduce the value of "raising issues that many of us
> are already subconsciously aware of"
> to "simply," what does that leave us to do?
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question - is there a word missing, or a
typo? It looks like part of a great question, though.
> Do you
> presume to be raising issues about which no one is yet
> aware?
No, and I don't mean to be rude at all, but if you haven't been following
these threads for a while, it might be unfair of you to characterize this
that way.
And even if absolutely everyone who participates in this has already
raised these issues long ago, is wrong for some of us to ask esthetics
questions in an art discussion group?
> Maybe this is all a bunch of hooey, and I'm
> mighty glad to be working in the post-theoretically-correct
> era, but I certainly wouldn't applaud some young scientist
> who emerged tomorrow from 30 years locked in a lab to
> pronounce, triumphantly, that e=mc squared.
>
The discussion of minimalism is part of a larger discussion about pomo.
Many folks have dropped in to this group to announce that pomo has changed
everything about "serious" art. Some have hung around for some dialogue,
others appear to be trying to simply convince themselves.
Some of us have been interested enough to keep the discussion going.
I don't think anyone that I've been reading is triumphantly stating
anything. It has just been some discourse, really.
again, thanks for joining us,
Mark
spo...@my-dejanews.com
>... I'd like to point out that just because
>someones asks a question here, it doesn't mean they expect only one
>answer or have none of their own.
Of course. I assume that goes for new posters as well.
>I don't find this line of inquiry to be irrelevant.
I don't find it at all irrelevant. I am only suggesting that
when an artist states the intentions, goals, working
parameters, etc, for the work, it seems reasonable to
assume that that the artist would then evaluate the
relative success of the work in relation to those stated
goals. Isn't the evaluative process implied?
>Perhaps I'm being dimwitted and you could show me how it is clear.
Dimwitted? No. A little defensive maybe.
Again, I only mean to say that the evaluative process is
implied in the goals of the work. If I tell you that it is my
express goal to create work that is made entirely from
edible materials (just pretend that I'm obsessed with
consumption, say, and /or decay), and then I present a
lovely yellow mess that has, buried in its loveliness, a
bright blue chiquita banana sticker. You could either
spend endless hours quibbling over the word "edible," or
you could assume I would have to judge this particular
work as unsuccessful.
>If all of the work was theoretically correct (fortunately I doubt I'm
>alone when I express how silly this sounds) then are some *more*
>theoretically correct than others?
I don't believe there are
degrees of correctness. It meets the criteria or it
doesn't. Which brings to mind my second-least favorite
phrase of the day, "somewhat problematic."
>I'm sorry, I don't understand the question - is there a word missing, or a
>typo? It looks like part of a great question, though.
I was quoting Chris Ray (posted Oct 8)
who said, "Simply raising issues that many of us are
already subconsciously aware of does seem to be
important in the minds of some dealers, critics and
curators." I'm sorry that was unclear. The context was
artspeak and artspeak-derived issues and Ray's tone
sounded dismissive. I was questioning the use of the
word "simply" which seems to imply that raising
issues (in art, not in newsgroups!) about which people are
already aware is a small thing and not, in fact, what
pretty much every working artist is doing.
>And even if absolutely everyone who participates in this has already
>raised these issues long ago, is wrong for some of us to ask esthetics
>questions in an art discussion group?
Heck no. I don't mean to complain about raising
esthetics issues. No way. But a newbie here doesn't have
to read very far back to see that you are not only
informed about and interested in art history. That implies
that you do, in fact, view art through some sort of art
historical perspective. And you're obviously brightwitted
enough to know that esthetics issues have not always, in
the continuum of art history, been evaluative issues. My
question, then, though I'm pretty inept at posing it, is
something like this: Why are you trying to impose
esthetic judgment on work that was not created with
esthetic value as its intent?
>I don't think anyone that I've been reading is triumphantly stating
>anything. It has just been some discourse, really.
I don't really see why you would take my dumb scientist
analogy as a comment on the newsgroup. It was meant
as an encouragement for artists to understand their
predecessors. If, on the other hand, your artistic goal is
to express yourself without any interest in the funky
dialectic that is art history, none of this matters a hoot.
spo...@my-dejanews.com
>
>The only thing which you wrote which grates, is giving
>Greenberg the credit for moving the modern art centre
>from Europe to New York. I thought Hilter was responsible
>for that. Think of how many major art figures
>were refugees from Nazi Germany...
Hitler? I'm glad you recognized that wasn't the point. I
hope we don't have to go all the way through the list of
possible ultimate powers. I am intrigued by your use of
the positive and negative, with Greenberg getting "credit,"
and Hitler "responsibility." I would lean more toward
giving Greenberg responsibility as well. I think Greenberg
pioneered the whole critic as celebrity mess. Consider his
leading man, the Wild Wild West anti-hero Jackson
Pollock. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't get more American
than these big male action figures. I suspect the art
superhero could not have happened in Europe, Hitler or
no. And I certainly consider that, in every possible way,
a criticism of Americanism, not a cheer.
>So we begin a new century without rules and that is terrifying.
I find it exciting. Although, I don't think there are any
fewer rules than ever before. The rules they are a
changing. That remains the constant.
>What I don't understand is not that people don't accept
>modern art & postmodern art, but rather that they actually
>hate it .
I suppose it's completely human to hate what we don't
understand and , thus, fear.
I don't really mind people who don't love art hating
difficult work. If they like pretty pictures, they like pretty
pictures. Sometimes, art has produced pretty pictures.
More often, of course, only history has made those
pictures pretty.
What I do mind is people who call themselves artists who
refuse to accept that art is a dynamic, changing, evolving
process. Contemporary art, for lack of a better label, has
always, in every era, been about redefining itself. The
only question has always been, What is Art? And artists
have always worked on answering that question. The
exploration continues, even beyond every
pronouncement that painting is dead, that everything is
art, that there are no rules... Still, we get up and go to
work.
spot
G*rd*n
| ...
| modern art & postmodern art, but rather that they actually
| a reaction). Wouldn't it be better to hate something like
| nuclear waste?
Well, one wants to spend one's hatred on something
worthwhile. It may turn into love. Once upon a time I
hated the dark Satanic mills of North Jersey, but then
their supernal if deadly beauty broke upon me. (I still
have not captured it, but I'm working on it. For the
beauty of waste, possibly nuclear, consult Richard
Misrach's photography in _Violent_Legacies_.)
The energy people have expended on hating 20th-century
art is a great testament of its power. Imagine, ab-ex
_still_, after seventy or eighty years, elicits diatribes
and rages!
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/8} <-adv't
Andrew Werby
<se...@geocities.com> wrote:
> graphic medium... to be honest, it isn't graphic at all, i have no interest
> in graphic art. digital art as fine art, this will get me in trouble. my
> intent was not to focus on this medium, but it really has sucked me in. i
> do hope to incorporate it into sculpture, that is when the current 3-D
> modeling technology improves. i am not a technology freak, i love
> traditional sculpture and my hands in clay is an unreplacable feeling.
> however, this new medium is fascinating and wide open for creative minds.
>
> >The potential of realizing some ideas that may have been difficult to
> achieve
> >in the past is certainly being exploited these days with the help of
> >computers. I'm even caught up in it as well.
>
>
> even for traditional mediums, the exposure and control over your own art
> will be a revolution for artist and should be exploited. in this little box
> we have control, it is our world to do with just as we wish... it is our
> canvas!
>
>
> tracy
[I think you're right, Tracy. And before you give up on the idea of 3-d
modeling with the tools available right now, you owe it to yourself to
check out Rhino, which I think is the best tool available for the PC
platform (and there's nothing comparable for the Mac, sorry to say). You
can still download a time-limited but fully functional (not save-disabled)
beta copy from the Rhino site < http://www.rhino3d.com > which is good
until October 31st. This program has been a long time in development, and
it shows. The interface is much more intuitive than on most programs this
powerful, and operations that bog down other programs, like boolean
difference calculations, work fairly smoothly.
I was so impressed by this program I signed up to be a reseller, and, at
$400.00 for a commercial copy with manual, I seem to be offering the best
price on the planet. (I'd hoped to ignite a world-wide price war,but no
such luck- nobody seems willing to take a lower dealer margin than me.)
Check my site for more details. I'll be launching a secure server with
credit card acceptance facility sometime next week, at
http://www.computersculpture.com > so I should be taking orders by the
time it's ready to ship.
I'm sorry if this reads like an ad, but I got into this because I tried a
lot of 3d programs that promised things they couldn't deliver, then tried
Rhino, which delivered features as they were requested (by a large and
diverse group of beta-testers using it for everything from animation to
ship refitting) truly a revolutionary approach to product development. Once
I got started with it, I felt the urge to tell the rest of the world.
Perhaps, I thought, putting these powerful new tools in the hands of artists
might even help art rise from the marginalized position it has been mired
in lately. So I consider myself more an activist than a salesman, although
I suppose they are more or less the same thing.]
Andrew Werby
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
New- Artworks Computer Tools for 3d Design and Realization
Andrew Werby
> Marilyn:
> | ...
> | What I don't understand is not that people don't accept
> | modern art & postmodern art, but rather that they actually
> | hate it . (although one could argue that hate is at least
> | a reaction). Wouldn't it be better to hate something like
> | nuclear waste?
>
> Well, one wants to spend one's hatred on something
> worthwhile. It may turn into love. Once upon a time I
> hated the dark Satanic mills of North Jersey, but then
> their supernal if deadly beauty broke upon me. (I still
> have not captured it, but I'm working on it. For the
> beauty of waste, possibly nuclear, consult Richard
> Misrach's photography in _Violent_Legacies_.)
[Anybody painting glow-in-the-dark pictures with radium any
more? If so, people could hate both at once...]
>
> The energy people have expended on hating 20th-century
> art is a great testament of its power. Imagine, ab-ex
> _still_, after seventy or eighty years, elicits diatribes
> and rages!
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 10/8} <-adv't
[I think GCF has a point here. I'm always amazed how, in a city
full of huge ugly boxes devoid of the slightest esthetic value
whatever, people can focus on a comparatively small, cheap, and
unobtrusive work of art to make a fuss over. Is this why the
smarter developers always put that "turd in the plaza"- to deflect
criticism? Since controversy is pretty much the only force
propelling the careers of artists anymore, is it surprising that
artists deliberately court it? What is there about art that cuts
through the apathy most people display toward their environment,
and rouses them to fury? Is this a force that can be harnessed
for good purposes?]
Andrew Werby
Andrew Werby
mark webber
On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 spo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >I don't find this line of inquiry to be irrelevant.
>
> I don't find it at all irrelevant. I am only suggesting that
> when an artist states the intentions, goals, working
> parameters, etc, for the work, it seems reasonable to
> assume that that the artist would then evaluate the
> relative success of the work in relation to those stated
> goals. Isn't the evaluative process implied?
One can and should be aware of what, if anything, an artist needs to tell
us about their work if one is going to discuss it, yes. One can and
should also remember that artists may not be entirely truthful about
intent or may not realize some issues the works raises. Sometimes a peice
says something different than what the artist says.
>
> >Perhaps I'm being dimwitted and you could show me how it is clear.
>
> Dimwitted? No. A little defensive maybe.
> Again, I only mean to say that the evaluative process is
> implied in the goals of the work. If I tell you that it is my
> express goal to create work that is made entirely from
> edible materials (just pretend that I'm obsessed with
> consumption, say, and /or decay), and then I present a
> lovely yellow mess that has, buried in its loveliness, a
> bright blue chiquita banana sticker. You could either
> spend endless hours quibbling over the word "edible," or
> you could assume I would have to judge this particular
> work as unsuccessful.
I mean specifically Judd's work. If the evaluative process is implied in
Judd's work, can you give me an example of how that process might have
worked for Judd - how he might have said which piece was more effective,
for example? I ask because it appears to me that his goals are pretty
consistently met.
>
> >If all of the work was theoretically correct (fortunately I doubt I'm
> >alone when I express how silly this sounds) then are some *more*
> >theoretically correct than others?
>
> I don't believe there are
> degrees of correctness.
Do you believe there are degress of quality or success?
I'm not sure I remember Judd writing of correctness. I do remember
Greenberg evoking that sort of notion.
> It meets the criteria or it
> doesn't. Which brings to mind my second-least favorite
> phrase of the day, "somewhat problematic."
I haven't checked my recent posts, but I'll certainly try to avoid future
usage.
>
> >I'm sorry, I don't understand the question - is there a word missing, or a
> >typo? It looks like part of a great question, though.
>
> I was quoting Chris Ray (posted Oct 8)
> who said, "Simply raising issues that many of us are
> already subconsciously aware of does seem to be
> important in the minds of some dealers, critics and
> curators." I'm sorry that was unclear.
Ok, no problem - I see what you mean.
> The context was
> artspeak and artspeak-derived issues and Ray's tone
> sounded dismissive. I was questioning the use of the
> word "simply" which seems to imply that raising
> issues (in art, not in newsgroups!) about which people are
> already aware is a small thing and not, in fact, what
> pretty much every working artist is doing.
>
I won't try to speak for Chris, but when I read it, it didn't seem
dismissive to me. If it was intended that way, then once again I
misunderstood Chris. And if that's the case, I do agree with your point.
> >And even if absolutely everyone who participates in this has already
> >raised these issues long ago, is wrong for some of us to ask esthetics
> >questions in an art discussion group?
>
> Heck no. I don't mean to complain about raising
> esthetics issues. No way. But a newbie here doesn't have
> to read very far back to see that you are not only
> informed about and interested in art history. That implies
> that you do, in fact, view art through some sort of art
> historical perspective.
I don't know how not to - and I don't think you really mean I shouldn't,
either.
> And you're obviously brightwitted
> enough to know that esthetics issues have not always, in
> the continuum of art history, been evaluative issues.
That could be debated - all of it, in fact. However, even if I were sure
that there was no kind of evaluative process that crept into the looking
taking place in any period - even periods such as Neo-lithic or Aegean or
Byzantine - even if I were convinced that no one was saying "this is
better than that" at even one particular time - that still has no effect
on how we look now.
Especially since there is no way to know for sure how people from another
culture in the distant past viewed their art.
> My
> question, then, though I'm pretty inept at posing it,
I think you're doing very well!
> is
> something like this: Why are you trying to impose
> esthetic judgment on work that was not created with
> esthetic value as its intent?
An excellent question, and my only answer, as feeble as it may be, is
because it's called art, and because we have this sort of thing called art
criticism. And I don't mean that sarcasticly at all - I really think
sometimes we all have to back away from the dogma and look at what it is
we're talking about.
>
> >I don't think anyone that I've been reading is triumphantly stating
> >anything. It has just been some discourse, really.
>
> I don't really see why you would take my dumb scientist
> analogy as a comment on the newsgroup.
My mistake - it followed a remark about me raising issues here in the
group and I threaded the two together. Sorry.
> It was meant
> as an encouragement for artists to understand their
> predecessors.
I, for one, am encouraged. Thank you. I will continue to try.
> If, on the other hand, your artistic goal is
> to express yourself without any interest in the funky
> dialectic that is art history, none of this matters a hoot.
>
Not my goal, that's why I was asking for some help with this question of
evaluation.
Thanks,
Mark
Iian Neill
> | modern art & postmodern art, but rather that they actually
> | hate it . (although one could argue that hate is at least
> | a reaction). Wouldn't it be better to hate something like
> | nuclear waste?
Often it is the case that those who truly 'hate' Modern Art are responding to
more than just its ugliness, vapidity or intellectual tomfoolery. They are
responding to the philosophical basis which allows things like it to exist, at
the expense of other forms of expression. Whenever someone exaults a crude
painting of some horrific scene, claiming that it is 'poignant' and 'very real'
(in social terms), they are confirming the artist's interpretation of reality.
Whenever a critic rhapsodizes over the pigment pyrotechnics of Pollock, they are
championing conceptual chaos over conceptual clarity. Whenever a reviewer cheers
a symphony which shrieks to the night winds like a human soul flayed to the
bare, hideous flesh ... they are crying to the world, "This is what should be!"
Those who hate Modern Art despise what it has come to stand for, as well as that
which has allowed its worst excesses to flourish.
> The energy people have expended on hating 20th-century
> art is a great testament of its power. Imagine, ab-ex
> _still_, after seventy or eighty years, elicits diatribes
> and rages!
Hitler was powerful. The Nazis were powerful. Superstition is powerful.
I am not equating Modern Art with Fascism, of course, but what I am pointing out
is that just because something has great power doesn't make it good, or right.
Murder and rape still has the power to shock and horrify us today - does this
mean that all who fear it are giving "testament of its power"? - I very much
doubt that they would see it that way.
Returning to Modern Art. By opposing Modern Art - and the philosophical
system(s) which allow and encourage it - one is not conceding to the other a nod
of respect at their power; respect is to be earnt, and raw, ugly, senseless
power is to be despised when it could have been turned to good uses. With regard
to Modern Art, opposing it is not a form of tacit approval, or a means of
self-contradiction (ie., by opposing it you grant it greatness). By NOT opposing
the negation of your values you end up encouraging them to spread.
Regards,
Iian Neill
> ________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in the Old Masters, and 19th century art
in particular, feel free to visit my new archive, THE RENAISSANCE CAFÉ:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
My personal home-page (with my own art work) can be found here:
http://student.uq.edu.au/~s367558/index.html
tlo...@cci-29palms.com
Dear M, I just got back from three weeks in Manhattan, scouring the museums
and galleries and studios for something that would inspire me rather than
throw the same nervous disenchantment I have as an artist back onto me. Your
posting has rung a bell for me. I wonder if all this "breakthrough"
modernism/postmodernism is just a break with the past, but vis-a-vis the
nuclear age, also a break with the future as well?
Good arting,
tom
http://members.tripod.com/~TomLoretta
G*rd*n
| Dear M, I just got back from three weeks in Manhattan, scouring the museums
| and galleries and studios for something that would inspire me rather than
| throw the same nervous disenchantment I have as an artist back onto me. Your
| posting has rung a bell for me. I wonder if all this "breakthrough"
| modernism/postmodernism is just a break with the past, but vis-a-vis the
| nuclear age, also a break with the future as well?
As I see it, the break is between Modernism and
"postmodernism." Late Modernism was the last gasp of the
attempt to rationalize and classicize the Western plastic
arts into a single system. When its hold over critics,
collectors, and museums was broken, art reverted to being
a matter of personal preference. Much of the old system
remains, of course, because people with a lot of money
want things to collect and they want them to be valuable.
But I think everyone recognizes that there's something
fictive about it.
Andrew Werby
> Dear M, I just got back from three weeks in Manhattan, scouring the museums
> and galleries and studios for something that would inspire me rather than
> throw the same nervous disenchantment I have as an artist back onto me.
[So after all that scouring, did you find anything inspirational? If so,
I'd like to hear about it. I've certainly seen my share of the other.]
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981011210239...@ng143.aol.com>...
>
>Yeah, well it can be an eye opener when you begin to tool around with some
>digital work then start to realize that this is a medium that has it's own
>integrity. It's a matter now of learning just what it is and if it has any
>potential for engaging your interest. I'm approaching the medium on it's
own
>terms and trying to see just what it can say for me without imitating
another
>form bit for bit.
>I'm trying to keep an open mind about it and make whatever efforts I can to
>push this virtual stuff around in some manner or other. It may come to
nothing
>but in the meantime I don't know that yet.
i couldn't agree more, and considering most of the people involved with
digital art hate fine art and artists... there is plenty of room to discover
on your own. the lack of rules and boundaries allows me the freedom to push
what i would do in traditional mediums. i do not how you feel about it, but
much of what i love in sculpture is still applicable for digital art and it
seems rather natural. i thought it would be similar to other 2d art which
has been rather frustrating and unfulfilling medium for me, but it was quite
the opposite. i am not sure if it is the lack of preconceived notions(on my
end) or the medium itself, but for now(who knows in six months) i find it
holding my interest exclusively.
tracy
galen01@concentric.net galen
However, for organic modeling, there is another program called Organica that
may be better suited for the beginner. It is cheap (about $200 or so), has
an evaluation version, and is easier to use than spline and nurb based
packages. It uses a method that can best be described as modeling with balls
of mercury ("metaballs"). Try it out at:
http://www.coolfun.com
Galen
(traditional painter/sculptor, digital artist)
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
CROCUSDES
>I honestly don't mean to be insulting anyone here, but
>why in the world do you two keep bringing up Judd when
>neither of you seems to be remotely informed about his
>work?
You're not insulting anyone Spot and I'm glad you're joining in. If I needed a
correction then I actually welcome it. Personally I have absolutely no
interest in Judd, never had and maybe someday will but not right now. I'm not
qualified to answer the question posed before but somehow there was a tone
about it that seemed to require some sort of response. As indifferent as I am
about the work I made a comment and that's about the limit of my interest or
involvement for the time being. If side issues do arise centering around the
work then yes, I'll probably engage myself with a bit more seriousness.
CROCUSDES
>graphic medium... to be honest, it isn't graphic at all, i have no interest
>in graphic art. digital art as fine art, this will get me in trouble. my
>intent was not to focus on this medium, but it really has sucked me in.
Yeah, well it can be an eye opener when you begin to tool around with some
digital work then start to realize that this is a medium that has it's own
integrity. It's a matter now of learning just what it is and if it has any
potential for engaging your interest. I'm approaching the medium on it's own
terms and trying to see just what it can say for me without imitating another
form bit for bit.
I'm trying to keep an open mind about it and make whatever efforts I can to
push this virtual stuff around in some manner or other. It may come to nothing
but in the meantime I don't know that yet.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://members.aol.com/crocusdes
CROCUSDES
<By the way, do you remember a sculptor named Bob Griffith?
<Mark
Sorry Mark, I have no idea who he is.
CROCUSDES
Tracy writes:
>(snip)i do not how you feel about it, but
>much of what i love in sculpture is still applicable for digital art and it
>seems rather natural. i thought it would be similar to other 2d art which
>has been rather frustrating and unfulfilling medium for me, but it was quite
>the opposite.
I approach the digital medium from another direction, I suppose. I use it in a
conceptual sense which is something I consider an augmentation of other works
that I do in a different medium. I'm trying to add this medium as a
complimentary component to the work now in progress.
The interesting challenge in the work is to see how well this medium can
modulate some of the basic concepts that lie beneath the overall work in
progress. It's the interactive qualities that I find particularly interesting
and have been putting together a piece to be burned into a cdrom. I'm not
particularly pleased with my initial efforts but it's a start.
Some of the kinetic visuals that I've seen done by others is another
fascinating aspect of the medium. A bit different than what can be done with
video. There is a kind of tension in the experiments and efforts made by
others that I rather enjoy, not knowing what will eventually evolve from this
medium. It's not going to replace any other form currently in use, of course,
but it may eventually become accepted as a norm, similar to photography and
film. Although some may not question it's validity, there are still some
lingering doubts, which is understandable.
tlo...@cci-29palms.com
> [So after all that scouring, did you find anything inspirational? If so,
> I'd like to hear about it. I've certainly seen my share of the other.]
>
> Andrew Werby
>
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for your interest. Frankly, I had to find my own inspiration. After
spending time in various museums I was able to sit with the works of artists
that first inspired me to be an artist a lifetime ago...and ask myself if it's
all been worthwhile. Of course, just being an artist, by definition, I'll find
something worthwhile in everything. But the aesthetic climate is so much
different from the optimism I set out with ... to me, most of what I see is
simply a different kind of coca-cola, as if it's all been done ... and the
message seems to be that the only thing we can do is just become simulated
reproductions. But, we know about that, I suppose.
Be happy,
mark webber
once, maybe two decades ago. He wasn't sure if the two of you had met or
not, but he knew your work. He's chair of Sculpture at Marywood
University.
Glad to see you're back.
On 12 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> <By the way, do you remember a sculptor named Bob Griffith?
> <Mark
>
> Sorry Mark, I have no idea who he is.
>
CROCUSDES
>A colleague of mine; says the two of you were in a catalogue of metal work
>once, maybe two decades ago. He wasn't sure if the two of you had met or
>not, but he knew your work. He's chair of Sculpture at Marywood
>University.
Okay, I had to check to jog my memory and Bob Griffith is an absolute master of
Damascus metalwork. Incredible pieces worked in a fashion that requires a
skill that only a few can truly achieve. I don't think we've ever actually met
although it might have been possible during one of the national conferences
that either of us might have attended over the years.
mark webber
On 12 Oct 1998, CROCUSDES wrote:
>
> >A colleague of mine; says the two of you were in a catalogue of metal work
> >once, maybe two decades ago. He wasn't sure if the two of you had met or
> >not, but he knew your work. He's chair of Sculpture at Marywood
> >University.
>
> Okay, I had to check to jog my memory and Bob Griffith is an absolute master of
> Damascus metalwork. Incredible pieces worked in a fashion that requires a
> skill that only a few can truly achieve.
He'll be pleased to have been descibed so.
> I don't think we've ever actually met
> although it might have been possible during one of the national conferences
> that either of us might have attended over the years.
>
His thoughts also.
So did you ever see Soutine?
Mark
CROCUSDES
>So did you ever see Soutine?
>
>Mark
No, not yet and I'm not sure if I can take the time off for the rest of this
month but the show isn't over yet so who knows. I still have a couple of other
out of town committments and that fractures my month too much.
setai
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>[I think you're right, Tracy. And before you give up on the idea of 3-d
>modeling with the tools available right now, you owe it to yourself to
>check out Rhino, which I think is the best tool available for the PC
>platform (and there's nothing comparable for the Mac, sorry to say). You
>can still download a time-limited but fully functional (not save-disabled)
>beta copy from the Rhino site < http://www.rhino3d.com > which is good
>until October 31st. This program has been a long time in development, and
>it shows. The interface is much more intuitive than on most programs this
>powerful, and operations that bog down other programs, like boolean
>difference calculations, work fairly smoothly.
andrew,
thank you for the information, i have downloaded rhino, but really haven't
had an opportunity to really go over it.
i was wondering if you have done any "fine art" work with this program? i
saw some impressive graphic work on the rhino site, but that is not where my
interest is. i was also wondering how simple is the interface for a
beginner? i jumped in completely cold to photoshop, but i do not see that
happening with 3d modeling. if you have any images or hints i would be
extremely grateful.
>I'm sorry if this reads like an ad, but I got into this because I tried a
>lot of 3d programs that promised things they couldn't deliver...
don't worry, would rather hear about a new program from another artist.
>So I consider myself more an activist than a salesman, although
>I suppose they are more or less the same thing
i guess you are right, but i don't think activist would be happy to hear
that.
tracy
setai
CROCUSDES wrote in message <19981012073652...@ng07.aol.com>...
>I approach the digital medium from another direction, I suppose. I use it
in a
>conceptual sense which is something I consider an augmentation of other
works
>that I do in a different medium. I'm trying to add this medium as a
>complimentary component to the work now in progress....
> It's the interactive qualities that I find particularly interesting
> and have been putting together a piece to be burned into a cdrom. I'm not
> particularly pleased with my initial efforts but it's a start.
are you talking about your quadreverz series? i spent sometime on your
webpage and read about the series. i would love to hear your ideas, are you
going to narrate it?
> It's not going to replace any other form currently in use, of course,
>but it may eventually become accepted as a norm, similar to photography and
>film. Although some may not question it's validity, there are still some
>lingering doubts, which is understandable.
i agree, i don't see digital art replacing an traditional art but it
definitely has a place. with a few established pioneers(as yourself) and
plenty of rebels without a brush, i think that digital art will be finding
its place much sooner than most think. its graphic nature and the
technological edge has already led it into many mainstream magazines and
institutions, which is a large step considering how relatively new of a
medium it is.
tracy
ps
i tried to e-mail you my url, but my server denied
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/8361/
Philip Ayers
comp.sys.mac.zform or nt or w95 something with this stuff. Three-D/
rendering or Cad programs have very little to do with art. They could be
used as elements but those guys never do it that way. We artists make
things by HAND, not by Machine!
In article <6vudsc$a...@dfw-ixnews5.ix.netcom.com>, "setai"
<se...@geocities.com> wrote:
: > Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
CROCUSDES
>> particularly pleased with my initial efforts but >>it's a start.
>>
>are you talking about your quadreverz series? i spent sometime on your
>webpage and read about the series. i would love to hear your ideas, are you
>going to narrate it?
No, the digital work is sort of a conceptual component to the Quadreverz Series
but maybe not even that, it's hard to explain right now. Actually the
narrative part is contained in the Quadreverz Journals which is sort of like an
exploratory quest taken on by a character created to be a sort of archeologist
who discovers over time, what this thing is about.
Essentially the digital portion is based on random associations and it's very
interactive. I'm using images, animation and writings in the piece and the
run time engine is html. I'm using this code rather than something like
MacroMedia Director because if there should ever be a time when the
transmission rate increases dramatically over the internet then this piece
could be used on line as well as a cdrom.
I've deliberately kept the file sizes on the images large to maintain the
detail so it's not practical for on line viewing right now, although everything
loads very quickly if kept within the computer itself.
To briefly describe what I'm attempting to do with the Quadreverz Series is to
consolidate a total concept bringing different media into a cohesive whole. In
other words, the sculptures are one component, the drawings, photos and other
images make up another, then the writings, performance/installations and
finially the electronic music compositions. It's a kind of theater sort of
piece I guess, but I'm still working on the concept. Not easy for me since I'm
delving into something I've never done before, or at least to this extent.
The way the work is made up is that it's in a constantly variable state so that
I can combine and recombine any or all of the components into variations of the
general concept. In other words I can just use the sculptures alone in a
setting and that will say one thing, or place selected sculptures with some
other components to create another varient on the concept
(installation/performance). Everything is interchangable and at the same time
it all relates to one central idea (the realm of Quadreverz is a metahor for
the total Universe as I understand it).
It's going to take years to realize which is how I prefer to work on any of my
series anyway and the interesting thing for me to be engaged in a risk of this
sort is that it may fail to work in the end. Kind of like walking along the
edge of disaster all the time but that's what pushes my buttons.
setai
WHAT YOU QUOTE
i clearly stated i was not interested in graphic applications of the digital
medium(actually in any medium). if you are still uncertain, i have left
that portion of YOUR post for you to read. also, the rendering program was
offered by andrew werby, who i am sure can speak for himself, so direct your
purest, fanatic, fearful rant in his direction. i am not familiar enough
with him to know if he enjoys some easy fodder to rip apart, but i am
certain that he is more than capable to handle your ridiculous little
assaults.
i am not sure where to start with your statement about artists making things
by hand, there is so much wrong with this statement. first, both andrew and
i are sculptors, so we do make things with our hands... do you finger paint,
or were you just implying that a brush(which is more than likely made by a
machine) was your hand? also, since when did making things with your
hand(even if it is a paint brush) make you an artist. my grandmother would
be happy to know that her chocolate chip cookies were now exalted art, since
they are made all by hand. maybe i am taking your drivel too literally,
since you implied i am not an artist then perhaps i just don't understand
your complicated art terms...."we artists make things" perhaps you meant by
the term "things" you meant "art", i couldn't find it in the glossary of any
of my art books, so i am not sure. ok, i will use art for now, since when
did the medium you use make the art invalid? since photography uses
"machines" then i guess photographers are not artist either, what century do
you live in? unless you are grinding your own pigments and spinning,
bleaching, and weaving your own canvas, don't pull that artists don't use
machines. your on a machine when you read this, your art is displayed on a
machine, your probably pray everday to get in an art book which is printed
by a machine. come on you are posting to a newsgroup, this isn't a some aol,
you got mail process, you my friend are just as technologically dependent as
the rest of us. you can't have it both ways and expect me to take your
purist shit about me or andrew or anybody else not being an artist,
hypocrite!
t aubuchon
Philip Ayers wrote in message ...
>This is a fine arts Newsgroup. I'd try going over to something like
>comp.sys.mac.zform or nt or w95 something with this stuff. Three-D/
>rendering or Cad programs have very little to do with art. They could be
>used as elements but those guys never do it that way. We artists make
>things by HAND, not by Machine!
1
Philip Ayers
<se...@geocities.com> wrote:
i outa......
You shouldn't compare a 'program' to brushes, it's more comparable to the
hand. If you sculpted then you know how much information comes from the
human hand which wasn't intended...the surprises. Everyone is different.
If you have twoo sculptors carving two piece of stone or wood to the
exact same shape and demensions
each one would be different. a 3-d /rendering program would make the
exact same coppy..no difference. I'm not a purist ******..I'm simple
stating the obvious. Hell I use the computer as a tool all the time...but
the end product is machine made if it comes from the computer, which is
fine if you want that but it isn't a substitute for what people make by
hand. Go ahead and discuss this computer tstuff alday..but try graphics
newsgroups..you'll be among friends.
: > how can i put this clear enough for even you to correctly comprehend... READ
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Marilyn
> Newsgroups:
> [2]rec.arts.fine
> Followup to: [3]newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [4]<361d8...@news.victoria.tc.ca>
> [5]<6vqfot$n1m$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
> [6]<drewid-1110...@coat2.ppp.lmi.net>
>
>
>
>different from the optimism I set out with ... to me, most of what I see is
>simply a different kind of coca-cola, as if it's all been done ... and the
>message seems to be that the only thing we can do is just become simulated
>reproductions. But, we know about that, I suppose.
>
>Be happy,
>tom
>
Isn't that what Picasso was saying, what Cezanne was saying ?
"it has all been done before." So we try to break new ground,
inspired by the art historical heritage, or not, armed with
training in equipment and materials, open to new ideas,
in touch with the world around us. As long as we keep away
from "neutral comfort" a place some people find so cozy.
Marilyn
Andrew Werby
> Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>
> >[I think you're right, Tracy. And before you give up on the idea of 3-d
> >modeling with the tools available right now, you owe it to yourself to
> >check out Rhino, which I think is the best tool available for the PC
> >platform (and there's nothing comparable for the Mac, sorry to say). You
> >can still download a time-limited but fully functional (not save-disabled)
> >beta copy from the Rhino site < http://www.rhino3d.com > which is good
> >until October 31st. This program has been a long time in development, and
> >it shows. The interface is much more intuitive than on most programs this
> >powerful, and operations that bog down other programs, like boolean
> >difference calculations, work fairly smoothly.
>
>
> andrew,
>
> thank you for the information, i have downloaded rhino, but really haven't
> had an opportunity to really go over it.
> i was wondering if you have done any "fine art" work with this program? i
> saw some impressive graphic work on the rhino site, but that is not where my
> interest is. i was also wondering how simple is the interface for a
> beginner? i jumped in completely cold to photoshop, but i do not see that
> happening with 3d modeling. if you have any images or hints i would be
> extremely grateful.
>
[I have done some fine art with Rhino, and I'm planning on putting some of
these graphics up on my new computersculpture site soon. But for me,
graphics aren't my main focus; what really excites me is the possibility
of doing sculpture; particularly the combining and transforming of natural
objects, and although I've done enough of this to prove it works, I haven't
got all the way to a finished product I'm thrilled with. This is my fault,
not Rhino's.
Unlike some modeling programs, Rhino is not that hard to get started in.
You can begin by drawing some curves, then lofting a surface between the
curves, then transforming the surface in different ways, then using
Boolean operations, etc. to combine the various surfaces you've built. If
you get stuck, take a look at the "Rhinotes" on my site. These are helpful
hints given in response to various specific problems, gleaned from the
last year or so of the Rhino Digest.]
>
> >I'm sorry if this reads like an ad, but I got into this because I tried a
> >lot of 3d programs that promised things they couldn't deliver...
>
> don't worry, would rather hear about a new program from another artist.
[I'm glad you feel that way. I think artists should use the model of science,
freely sharing their results, instead of alchemy, in which everything was a
deep dark secret. This way we can build on each other's discoveries, instead
of each having to start from scratch.]
>
> >So I consider myself more an activist than a salesman, although
> >I suppose they are more or less the same thing
>
>
> i guess you are right, but i don't think activist would be happy to hear
> that.
[Would you prefer "apostle"?]
Andrew Werby
Andrew Werby
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> You shouldn't compare a 'program' to brushes, it's more comparable to the
> hand. If you sculpted then you know how much information comes from the
> human hand which wasn't intended...the surprises. Everyone is different.
> If you have twoo sculptors carving two piece of stone or wood to the
> exact same shape and demensions
> each one would be different. a 3-d /rendering program would make the
> exact same coppy..no difference. I'm not a purist ******..I'm simple
> stating the obvious.
[Actually, I like "surprises" in art processes, (see my contribution to an
earlier thread, "the Accidental in Art") but I've found no lack of them in
my exploration of 3-d modeling. When I put things together in virtual space,
I don't know how they will look until I've done it. When I modify a form,
it is an interactive process; I keep changing it until it is right. If you
put two different artists to work in Rhino, telling them to make a complex
form like a tree, for instance; it would be highly unlikely for them to come
up with exactly the same thing. It's not like all you have to do is type in
"tree" for it to spit out the same one for everybody.]
Hell I use the computer as a tool all the time...but
> the end product is machine made if it comes from the computer, which is
> fine if you want that but it isn't a substitute for what people make by
> hand.
[I'm not trying to substitute the machine-made for the hand-made, which is
a tricky distinction to try to make in any case. Very little in our society
is entirely hand-made, and it is difficult to use any machine without ones
hands. It sounds like you are fantasizing an art process which is totally
automatic displacing the artists who make art in some timeless age-old way,
but is this really the case?
3d modeling tools make it possible to create things we could only dream of
before, but we still need the dreamers. I don't see a piece of art being
necessarily less valuable, interesting, or even "fine" because it was made
possible by a particular tool. And modern "fine" artists are free to use any
means at their disposal, including photography, which was subjected to much
the same sort of criticism 100 years ago.]
Go ahead and discuss this computer tstuff alday..but try graphics
> newsgroups..you'll be among friends.
[Perhaps, but it's more stimulating to meet some opposition- isn't that what
we're here for?]
Andrew Werby
> : > >: > i was wondering if you have done any "fine art" work with this
program?
> : > i
> : > >: > saw some impressive graphic work on the rhino site, but that is not
> : > where my
> : > >: > interest is.
>
> Philip (never Phil) Ayers
> http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> p.a...@mindspring.com.
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
setai
Andrew Werby wrote in message ...
>> >So I consider myself more an activist than a salesman, although
>> >I suppose they are more or less the same thing
>>
>>
>> i guess you are right, but i don't think activist would be happy to hear
>> that.
>
>[Would you prefer "apostle"?]
andrew,
i e-mailed you before i read this thread.
gadfly is the definitely the appropriate word.
tracy
setai
Philip Ayers wrote in message ...
> i outa......
>You shouldn't compare a 'program' to brushes, it's more comparable to the
>hand. If you sculpted then you know how much information comes from the
>human hand which wasn't intended...the surprises. Everyone is different.
>If you have twoo sculptors carving two piece of stone or wood to the
>exact same shape and demensions
>each one would be different. a 3-d /rendering program would make the
>exact same coppy..no difference. I'm not a purist ******..I'm simple
>stating the obvious. Hell I use the computer as a tool all the time...but
>the end product is machine made if it comes from the computer, which is
>fine if you want that but it isn't a substitute for what people make by
>hand. Go ahead and discuss this computer tstuff alday..but try graphics
>newsgroups..you'll be among friends.
first, a brush is a tool and so is a computer. man invents tools to be used,
artist use tools to create. what do only simple tools count? if a tool is
created to allow man to reach a specific goal more readily, then the better
the tool is at doing this the, better you can reach your intent.
ok, here is the challenge
for the second time you have said that the work i do is not art and implied
i should go else where... you say that a computer makes a copy, not art, not
suitable. then i ask you to prove it.
i have told you i don't use 3d modeling,but digital college, but you won't
listen so i assume you think it is one and the same. you say you use a
computer all the time, but the work isn't art. you claim that their is no
individuality with a computer, just a copy. i am giving you an opportunity
to prove this.
i will give you the dimensions and every jpg that i have used on a specific
piece and we can let the others judge the individuality or the exact
likeness of the two pieces. i don't use filters, so that won't be a problem.
if you don't use photoshop that shouldn't matter, because any paintprogram
should be able to accomplish collage. i do use the rubber stamp, but you can
use cut and paste with opaque layers for the effect(if you need any further
advice or examples on this particular technique i am more than willing to
explain).
if you prove me wrong, i will bow down to your painter god wisdom and
gracefully leave the fine art forum, as you have suggested twice. i will
admit what i am doing is not art and i am not an artist, and your fine art
forum will no longer be sullied. if i prove you wrong, then all i ask is
for you to admit that a computer is a valid tool for creating art, i would
never ask anyone to leave an open forum. oh, and apologize to andrew for
saying he wasn't an artist, that was rude... i don't care what you call me,
but i respect andrew and found it insulting
if you aren't willing to do this experiment, then you are just full of hot
air and none of your words deserve any credit.
tracy aubuchon
Gene Olson
>
> In article <p.ayers-1410...@ip220.princeton3.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
> p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> Go ahead and discuss this computer tstuff alday..but try graphics
> > newsgroups..you'll be among friends.
>
> [Perhaps, but it's more stimulating to meet some opposition- isn't that what
> we're here for?]
>
> Andrew Werby
> he,he, hee, heee!
tell em Andy! Luddites. . .
Rhino is pretty neat.
But then some of the Olde machines are pretty neat to.
Have you caught any of the artmetal discussion of the english wheel?
-
The last three chat sessions have been about the English Wheel.
Edited, illustrated transcripts of the sessions are currently at:
http://www.artmetal.com/gene-olson/chat/wheel-chat01.htm
and
http://www.artmetal.com/gene-olson/chat/wheel-chat02.htm
I just got the third one which is about a collaborative project, part
formed sheet and part cast.
(All of the E-wheel sessions will be combined and moved once we complete
this series)
I was over at Don Hammer's shop on Thursday and checked out his wheel.
It almost has to be seen to truely appreciate it. Watching somebody who
really knows what they are doing is really a treat.
Don had a little forming block that looked like a tailor's ham. That he
started a lot of his forming work on.
I started to appreciate a whole new vocabulary.
crimp, trap, shrink, planish, planishing hammer, and lots of wheeling.
Don said the hardest thing that blacksmiths had to deal with was,
easy. . . .
take it easy
a little bit at a time over the whole surface being worked.
He said every blacksmith he'd tried to work with wanted to clobber it
good and beat it into submission. Doesn't work.
It looked more like coaxing than out and out forming.
By using the sheet as a scaffold to work against, small changes are made
in limited areas, as the changes start to add up the piece moves.
A bend or something will be put into the surface and then locked
(trapped) by putting a crease across it. Then the bend can be planished
out in a way that upsets the metal, shrinking the surface area,
thickening it and making it stiffer.
It was real neat to watch.
Gene
--
Gene Olson,
Resident member of ArtMetal project
http://www.artmetal.com/gene-olson
Webmaster - Guild of Metalsmiths:
http://www.metalsmith.org
Glen Gardner
I'm new to this group. I am a metalsmith/sculptor. I work with, hammers and
stakes, a Tig welder and a plasma torch, oxy/ acetylene,propane
coal/coke and I know how to make metalurgical grade charcoal if "the lights
go off." If a tool helps me get it done, I'll use it. If I can't buy it or find it, I make it.
I also have and use a computer. It's just, in my "tool box". What makes it a little
different (than most tools) perhaps is, that it's only as good as what you put
through the interface ie. shit in - shit out.
You dam well better belive if Mike Angelo had stereo lithography on hand,
he would have used it (and diamond tools as well).
What's the problem here? Art is in the BRAIN . How it leaks out is not important.
Flame c/o: Glen Gardner Pgh. PA