The Abstract Expressionisim problem
mdeli
-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased it would be considered
worthless garbage.
-the public depends on critics to distinguish the so-called
masterpiece from the mere imitation.
-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in anyway unique.Vastly
superior abstract work (in terms of skill and attractiveness) can be
found in the decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel designs. (all of
which are flat images and were flat images long before AE made its
debut.)
-Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically oriented people to
imagine that these works have transcendental significance.
-in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all negative
criticisms are ultimately answered with cryptic appeals for the
understanding of the non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry can talk about
and sell to people with "Emperor’s New Clothes" syndrome. These
people in turn can claim deep but inexplicable understanding and feel
that they are more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
-The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is in fashion is
of little consequence. Remember, hated Salon painting made people feel
good throughout the 19th century. Today it is considered so bad that
hardly anyone is allowed to see it and judge for himself.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
iian_...@my-deja.com
> -The excuse that AE makes people feel good while it is in fashion is
> of little consequence. Remember, hated Salon painting made people feel
> good throughout the 19th century. Today it is considered so bad that
> hardly anyone is allowed to see it and judge for himself.
If you are interested in seeing examples of Salon painting for
yourselves, and, like Mani has suggested, you have had trouble finding
any, then why not visit my website, "The Renaissance Cafe", which
specialises in exhibiting paintings from the French and Royal Academies.
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
The Jean-Leon Gerome section has just been considerably renovated, and
the Alma-Tadema and Paul Delaroche sections will soon be updated.
-- Iian
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
andr...@my-deja.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> -AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
>
> -If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased it would be considered
> worthless garbage.
>
> -the public depends on critics to distinguish the so-called
> masterpiece from the mere imitation.
>
> -the abstract element in AE is neither new or in anyway unique.Vastly
> superior abstract work (in terms of skill and attractiveness) can be
> found in the decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
> rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel designs. (all of
> which are flat images and were flat images long before AE made its
> debut.)
>
> -Vast tracts of Artspeak praise lead mystically oriented people to
> imagine that these works have transcendental significance.
>
> -in a sense AE can not be rationally criticized and all negative
> criticisms are ultimately answered with cryptic appeals for the
> understanding of the non-existent so-called Language of Modern Art.
>
> -AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry can talk about
> and sell to people with "Emperor’s New Clothes" syndrome. These
> people in turn can claim deep but inexplicable understanding and feel
> that they are more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
> folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
>
> of little consequence. Remember, hated Salon painting made people feel
> good throughout the 19th century. Today it is considered so bad that
> hardly anyone is allowed to see it and judge for himself.
>
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
What you say about the artspeak industry is true in my opinion. However
I believe you are wrong to make a blanket statement about all Absract
Expressionism - which in actual fact is a term which covers a mutitude
of different strands of artwork and of artists intentions and outcomes.
If one were to look at the watercolour work of Turner for instance -
which some appear as entirely abstract images - then you would have
difficulty in determining its worth without seeing the tag of the
appending signature. By knowing the artist in this case enables one to
see a progression through a number of stages. I readily admit that in a
number of other examples of contemporary work - the signature becomes
the overarchingly important factor - in other words we are being sold a
personality with a market value. In the Turner example what is
presented to us is a masterful economy of means where representation is
stretched to its furtherest spatial representation. A depiction of pure
light.
In the case of Pollock, we perhaps see an interesting progression from
figurative images and forms - native american totemesc forms - reduced
to the expressive quality of charged marks. It was the art market that
created the hype of the type of mark making that Pollock did that led
the poor alcholic artist to repeat empty statements based on a style
tag. In my opinion there is the identifiable good with the bad. By
saying you like something you don't have to swallow the whole thing. I
join with you in believing that one has to preserve some discernment of
ones own thinking and feeling. In your understandable disrust of the
art hype industry I would implore you not to throw the baby out with
the bath water.
AndrewB
Sharon Barcone
mdeli wrote in message <395e314f...@news.psi.ca>...
>-AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
>
>-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased it would be considered
>worthless garbage.
>
I basically agree with this but the same could be said of some
representational art also.
>-the public depends on critics to distinguish the so-called
>masterpiece from the mere imitation.
>
>-the abstract element in AE is neither new or in anyway unique.Vastly
>superior abstract work (in terms of skill and attractiveness) can be
>found in the decorative arts from Tibetan sand painting to oriental
>rug patterns and even in floor covering and towel designs. (all of
>which are flat images and were flat images long before AE made its
>debut.)
>
>-AE is a PUT-ON which the intellectual kitsch industry can talk about
>and sell to people with "Emperor’s New Clothes" syndrome. These
>people in turn can claim deep but inexplicable understanding and feel
>that they are more sensitive and superior than ordinary inferior
>folk. This fulfills there need to feel exceptional.
>
>Mani DeLi
>
>Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>...no skill no art
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
I do agree with some of what you say here but... I believe that the problems
of abstract expressionism goes much deeper than that. It began many, many
years ago when some idiot erroneously decided that painting in a
representational manner was copying.
Those who bought this idea saw a way to escape judgment and now we have
years of "I meant to do that paintings" and "I'm new and different and
therefore great" artists. What a great way to escape into the big time.
Forget years of study and practice, forget learning the craft, do anything
except copy.
Sorry, I don't buy it. I cannot copy light, only record it's effects. If I
paint a tree, I do not use leaves and bark, only paint. It is all I have.
Paint. Paint and a vision of that beautiful apple tree which produces the
best tasting antique apples around. And that wonderful mountain behind it
and the stream that runs by. It must be organized to fit the support. I must
orchestrate all the elements to express what I feel and enjoy about the
scene in a way that is fresh and mine. I will not copy but conduct.
Copying? I just don't buy into it. And I am not alone.
sharon
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
mdeli
<sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote:
>
>mdeli wrote
>
>>-AE requires little skill and is mass produced.
>>
>>-If any AE masterpiece had the signature erased it would be considered
>>worthless garbage.
>>
>
>I basically agree with this but the same could be said of some
>representational art also.
There is lots of representational garbage around but so what. The
point is that AE is ranked by some as great art.
Sharon Barcone
> There is lots of representational garbage around but so what. The
>point is that AE is ranked by some as great art.
>
>Mani DeLi
>
>Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>...no skill no art
>Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
I don't believe that is the point. The point may be that many people today
have been duped into believing it is great art. It was perpetuated by a need
for profit and a skilled marketing job. Often AE can be produced much more
quickly than representational work, especially realism. It is marketable
much sooner in one's life, at least for most, requires little skill or
practice and is encouraged by governments both in educational funding and
purchasing because that's what governments do...promote markets and economic
growth to increase taxable income.
lake
expressionism, that the paintings themselves have little or no merit,
then why are they so sought-after now, a full half-century after they
were done?
Of course mdeli's "general public" will have nothing to do with them.
The general public scorned ab-ex when it was new, and they haven't
changed their opinions since, which is not exactly surprising.
Nonetheless, a core group of influential admirers continues to believe
that DeKooning, Pollack, Motherwell, et.al., were very important
painters.
Contrary to popular belief, ab-ex was never about "expressing oneself".
Its best examples demonstate a highly formal, highly disciplined,
albeit unconventional research into process, gesture and materials. It
was the public, not the artists themselves, who insisted on
personalizing this work, identifying it with the "mad-artist-syndrome".
The wonderful sponteneity of ab-ex, which defines it and drives it, was
a very serious and hard-won thing. It was not frivolous. Latter-day
commentators in this ng who think that an ab-ex painting "doesn't
require much skill, or take very long to do" demonstrate an appalling
lack of insight into the best of 20th-century thought.
- Lake
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Sharon Barcone
lake wrote in message <0ccb354d...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
>If it's true that people have been "duped" into accepting abstract
>expressionism, that the paintings themselves have little or no merit,
>then why are they so sought-after now, a full half-century after they
>were done?
>
thought that was the exact reason I expressed.
>Of course mdeli's "general public" will have nothing to do with them.
>The general public scorned ab-ex when it was new, and they haven't
>changed their opinions since, which is not exactly surprising.
>Nonetheless, a core group of influential admirers continues to believe
>that DeKooning, Pollack, Motherwell, et.al., were very important
>painters.
Think about it, the "general public" (this is really a poor reference) were
also the ones to embrace the arrival or surrealism. Why? Because they were
drawn in by "the irrational". They had to think about the sometimes shocking
juxtapositions before them, the double images, the surrealist objects and
the irrational statements. Give me Miro over deKooning, Pollack was too
repetitive, and at least Motherwell was expressing feeling. But I would
believe them to be truely important if they had led to greater works of art
instead of leading to conceptional art.
>
>Contrary to popular belief, ab-ex was never about "expressing oneself".
>Its best examples demonstate a highly formal, highly disciplined,
>albeit unconventional research into process, gesture and materials.
>It was the public, not the artists themselves, who insisted on
>personalizing this work, identifying it with the "mad-artist-syndrome".
Dali said "the only difference between myself and a madman is that I an not
mad". Dali offered a vision of a madman's world and gave a critical analsys
of it. I believe those first drawn to AE were still seeking the irrational.
Dali believed to define the irrational one must have at least one of one's
feet in the rational. If memory serves me correctly, this view was a
contributing factor to the falling out between Dali and Breton.
More and more core influentials are turning away from todays "modern art
movements" seeking that one foot in reality, not finding even a toe in
modern art.
>The wonderful sponteneity of ab-ex, which defines it and drives it, was
>a very serious and hard-won thing.
Look up spontaneity, the dictionary disagrees with you.
>It was not frivolous. Latter-day commentators in this ng who think that an
ab-ex >painting "doesn't require much skill, or take very long to do"
demonstrate an >appalling lack of insight into the best of 20th-century
thought.
>
>- Lake
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lack of insight? Well maybe but "the best of 20-century thought" is a direct
contradiction to what the term "abstract expressionism" implies and to the
meaning of the term spontaneity. And , I said "often doesn't require much
skill" not always.
Beyond that I believe our opinions of important artists of the modern age
are less important than the opinions of those who will follow 300 or 400
years from now. And 20th-century thought is less of a concern now than where
art is going in the 21st. century.
Thomas Ziorjen
Sharon Barcone wrote:
>
> More and more core influentials are turning away from todays "modern art
> movements" seeking that one foot in reality, not finding even a toe in
> modern art.
Please name some of these "core influentials".
Thanks,
Thomas
lake
in common with conceptual art. Conceptual art was a reaction AGAINST
ab-ex, a refutation of the premesis of ab-ex.
Abstract expressionism led to absolutely nothing - it occurred, and
then exploded, leaving only fragments. Short-sighted critics (among
them the principle champions of conceptual art) took this explosion to
signify the end of painting.
Dali's so-called critical analysis of madness was no more than the last
gasp of Cartesian rationality masquerading as objectivity. His
paintings are (perhaps) depictions of sponteneity, but there is not a
single spontaneous emotion in them. They are entirely calculated down
to the last brushstroke.
I suppose Barcone & Mdeli would say this is laudable, and demonstrates
mastery and skill. I find it unpleasantly lifeless. A certain lack of
adventure, an almost smug reiteration of perceptual truisms dressed-up
in pseudo-Freudian garb. Di Chirico said essentially the same thing as
Dali, but more clearly & without all the drippy window-dressing. And
far more spontaneously (&therefor honestly).
x1...@my-deja.com
Abstract expressionist heritage. But by the time I came along AE was in
it's old age. Still when I look around at what's being produced today I
can't find anything I can respond to. The last serious painting that I
like was produced around 1955. Since then it's been all down hill. And
don't even talk to me about conceptual art, performance art installation
and all that crap. If you're harkening back to good old representational
painting I'm afraid you were born about 100 years too late. And us poor
guys waiting for painting, AE or otherwise, to come back, well there's
always hope. I keep plugging away doing my own brand of AE because I
like doing it. Whether it's any good or not or if anybody likes it I
could care less. Well I take that back. I want people to like my work
but I'm not going to stop doing it just because I don't get a response.
If that were the case I would have stopped painting 20 years ago. People
like me paint because we have to. I get dysfunctional if I don't.
Pete
Sharon Barcone
Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <3968DC8D...@sunshine.net>...
Actually I only used this phrase after Lake as some of his terms are a bit
ambiguous.
But I point to Thomas Wolfe's recent remarks in praise of contemporary
realism. (see American Artist, Aug2000). And don't you just wonder who
Lake's "core influentials" are?
Sharon Barcone
lake wrote in message <10405393...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
>Abstract expressionism did not lead to conceptual art. It has nothing
>in common with conceptual art. Conceptual art was a reaction AGAINST
>ab-ex, a refutation of the premesis of ab-ex.
>
as you say, than in the world of cause and effect ab-ex was it's cause.
>Abstract expressionism led to absolutely nothing - it occurred, and
>then exploded, leaving only fragments. Short-sighted critics (among
>them the principle champions of conceptual art) took this explosion to
>signify the end of painting.
>
If AE led to absolutely nothing then I might point to that alone as proof of
it's unimportance as an art movement. And far too often those still clinging
to AE are those who are involved with it in some monitary way.
>Dali's so-called critical analysis of madness was no more than the last
>gasp of Cartesian rationality masquerading as objectivity. His
>paintings are (perhaps) depictions of sponteneity, but there is not a
>single spontaneous emotion in them.
Dali's paranoia critical method acclaimed by the other surrealists. And it
led to Dali's growth as an artist and to his developement of the nuclear
mystical method. It led to a group of extremely emotional works based on
Spanish history, religion , science, and art concepts.
>They are entirely calculated down to the last brushstroke.
Of course, Dali was not painting abstract expressions. His work was planned.
However, Dali was a very emotional person and there is much emotion in his
work. Do you not feel a strange melencoly when you view "The Persistance of
Memory" or a strange presents of mortality when viewing "The Three Ages" are
you not moved by the glorious possibilities of art when viewing "The
Hallucinogenic Toreador".
>I suppose Barcone & Mdeli would say this is laudable, and demonstrates
>mastery and skill. I find it unpleasantly lifeless. A certain lack of
>adventure, an almost smug reiteration of perceptual truisms dressed-up
>in pseudo-Freudian garb. Di Chirico said essentially the same thing as
>Dali, but more clearly & without all the drippy window-dressing. And
>far more spontaneously (&therefor honestly).
>
>- Lake
>
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network
*
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Personally, I feel you place far too much importance on spontaneity. More
compelling artwork can be achieved with a little planning, a little input
from the inner impulses and desires.
lake
net?
Thomas Ziorjen
Sharon Barcone wrote:
> Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <3968DC8D...@sunshine.net>...
> >
> >
> >Sharon Barcone wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> More and more core influentials are turning away from todays "modern art
> >> movements" seeking that one foot in reality, not finding even a toe in
> >> modern art.
> >
> >Please name some of these "core influentials".
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Thomas
> >
>
> Actually I only used this phrase after Lake as some of his terms are a bit
> ambiguous.
> But I point to Thomas Wolfe's recent remarks in praise of contemporary
> realism. (see American Artist, Aug2000). And don't you just wonder who
> Lake's "core influentials" are?
> sharon
Actually, I don't wonder -- I *know* there is still plenty of support for the
work of DeKooning, Pollock [it is spelled with a second 'o'], Motherwell, and
those who followed -- and no, not all of it has ties to money. It is clear
that you don't see the greatness in that work, but nothing anyone is going to
say to you is going to change that, if you are not open to seeing it.
As for American Artist, it is publication I have very little respect for.
Thomas
bruceattah
..And far more spontaneously (&therefor honestly)...
There's nothing spontaneous about de Chirico's mystical
paintings - they are carefully planned and carefully executed.
Nor is there anything especially honest about spontaneity in
painting. After all, if you take care to express the truth about
something, you're being more honest than if you impulsively lie.
In any case, where paintings look spontaneous (and I do not
include de Chirico's work there), the appearance is usually an
illusion.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
bruceattah
>
>In the case of Pollock, we perhaps see an interesting
>progression from figurative images and forms - native american
>totemesc forms - reduced to the expressive quality of charged
>marks.
>It was the art market that created the hype of the type of mark
>making that Pollock did that led the poor alcholic artist to
>repeat empty statements based on a style tag. In my opinion
>there is the identifiable good with the bad.
This is about right. In the period of his career when Pollock
was in New York, but still relatively obscure, and painting
pictures based on imitation of Beckmann, Picasso, Miro, Masson
and others, and at the same time trying to integrate imagery
from Native American totemic art, he was actually producing
images that possessed some interest and vigour, in the
expressionist sense.
The "Action Painting" thing started with a single big money
commission, and it brought all his other explorations to an
abrupt halt. From the date of that first commission until
shortly before he died, Pollock continued with his giant,
lucrative doodles, but showed signs of dissatisfaction (long
periods of not painting, worse-than-ever drinking, actually
doing paintings in his previous style and then dripping all over
them, etc.) Those dribbles and splashes are pure kitsch - there
is nothing expressive about them.
x1...@my-deja.com
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> You're a man after my own heart Pete. Any way to see your work on the
> net?
>
> - Lake
>
>
>
then I've been discovering all of these crazy computer/internet
phenomenon, e-mail, digital photography, the internet and now I just
stumbled into this discussion group thing. I've got a lot to learn. Well
to get to the point I haven't yet set up a web page. But as I said I've
been taking digital photos of my work and when I can figure out how to
set up a web page I'll let you know.
By the way I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one bemoaning the apparent
death of painting. I just can't relate to this crap I'm seeing.
Sometimes I feel so irrelevant I should join the "blue hair set". I've
been out of art school for 20 some years. I intentionally moved out to a
little blue-collar hick town because I was sick and tired of all the
"art speak" that was going on in the city. I never understood any of
that Art Forum stuff from the start. I just bought those magazines for
the pictures, honest! Did you know you could get an advanced degree in
"art speak" from Yale University? God what a nightmare!
Erik A. Mattila
Must be pretty important nightmares, Pete. On the one hand, you use the
term "death of painting" as if were something real (or worthy of attention)
and the other hand decry 'artspeak.' I'm not faulting you for this
contradiction - I just wanted to draw attention to it to make the point
that 'death of painting' is nothing more than a fashion statement and
merely has a value of a sort of 'badge.' I mean, if I say "The Death of
Painting" then you automatically know that I"m speaking from a position of
"Art Forum" or other so-called avant garde pubs where this kind of language
is popular. You know, it's like when someone addresses you as "Dahling"
you know you've been magically transported to Hollywood.
I think "the death of painting" is a recycling of the older "death of the
author" or the "death of God" drawn from philosophy, only it drops the
philosophical underpinning entirely, and just becomes a slogan. The
writing in many art pubs is like this - it's full of a 'stock of phrases'
and 'catechistic declarations' (to quote Roland Barthes) that only intend
to convey a position or platform - an indication that the author is being
fashionable and in the 'in-crowd.' I have a pretty good background in
theory and criticism, and I can't read art rags either. Every once in a
while a gem of an essay crops up, of course, but for the most part it's
just, well, fashion statements.
What's obvious is that painting has not died. A minority interest group
that may have stolen the limelight became interested in other things, of
course, and created a sense that something else was going on, but it was
really just the work of the fashion industry diverting attention.
Throughout the entire periiods of any non-painting superstardom painting
has forged ahead, and I think it's pretty much of a lasting institution
that has staying power and a long future.
So not to worry. Keep on slinging the paint, I say!
Erik
x1...@my-deja.com
OK! I'm feeling much better. I'm just a plainspoken painter (to quote
that Dr. on Star trek "I'm just a country doctor, Jim") who can't help
but do anything else. I've been holed up in my studio for a couple of
decades, to tell you the truth scared of the art world. I take my trip
into the city once in a while to see the art and check things out and
then run back to my hole. Now it feels like I'm really coming out into
the light. I don't know if I can convey how it feels. But I'm truly
relived to now that there are others out there like me. This discussion
group thing is really something! I think I'm having an epiphany!
Wow this sounds real corny. It's embarrassing.
Pete
Peter H.M. Brooks
x1...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> OK! I'm feeling much better. I'm just a plainspoken painter (to quote
> that Dr. on Star trek "I'm just a country doctor, Jim") who can't help
> but do anything else. I've been holed up in my studio for a couple of
> decades, to tell you the truth scared of the art world. I take my
trip
> into the city once in a while to see the art and check things out and
> then run back to my hole.
>
phrase, though, Cassius in 'Julius Caesar' famously said 'I am just a
plain, blunt, man'!
>
> Now it feels like I'm really coming out into
> the light. I don't know if I can convey how it feels. But I'm truly
> relived to now that there are others out there like me. This
discussion
> group thing is really something! I think I'm having an epiphany!
>
> Wow this sounds real corny. It's embarrassing.
>
sound that much better when described to others. Don't let either of
these put you off, though, they are just as valuable as subjective
experiences - and, objectively, can be seen to have beneficent effects
on behaviour.
Yes, there are plenty of people who are tired of the aridity of the
current establishment, and have been for some time. The nice thing about
usenet is that it allows real people to have a voice without the filter
of what the editor thinks will sell (in Art, this boils down to wordy
'artspeak' that takes the conventional line of trying to be
contravercial).
I have been delighted to see rec.arts.fine starting to produce real,
interesting dialogue. Far too much crap was being spouted (and no doubt
will be again) for too long.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
Sharon Barcone
>> Thomas Ziorjen wrote in message <3968DC8D...@sunshine.net>...
>> >
>> >
>> >Sharon Barcone wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> More and more core influentials are turning away from todays "modern
art
>> >> movements" seeking that one foot in reality, not finding even a toe in
>> >> modern art.
>> >
>> >Please name some of these "core influentials".
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Thomas
>> >
the
>work of DeKooning, Pollock [it is spelled with a second 'o'], Motherwell,
and
>those who followed -- and no, not all of it has ties to money. It is clear
>that you don't see the greatness in that work, but nothing anyone is going
to
>say to you is going to change that, if you are not open to seeing it.
It is true that I do not see the greatness in AE. I do feel however that I
have been open to seeing the possibilities in it and they just aren't there
for me. But I wonder why it is important to you that I see it as a great art
movement. One of the nice things about painting is that there is such a wide
assortment of styles and movements and techniques available today that there
is something to please everyone, artist or collector. And personally I like
the abstract/reality mix showing up more and more.
For myself, I paint representationally (or objectively as is said now). That
doesn't mean that I expect everyone else to like it, but I certainly don't
expect to be attacked for it either. Alison said in a post a while back
something about people painting for either money or ego. I disagree with
this. I think many rep. painters are like me, still fascinated with the
world around them, still enjoying the observation involved in this type of
work and making personal statements about society, the environment, and the
possibilities of human imagination.
In particular, I do not understand all the interest in creating flat space.
I could do that at age six. For me representing a three deminsional world is
where it's at. As I strive to grow as an artist, the effort has not taked me
back to flat space and if I were to paint based solely on design expression,
it would probably be based on a geometric matrix. My current interest in
growth leads in the direction of the creative process, what it is and if I
controll it or it controlls me. Do I express my feelings in my work or do
feelings come about as the work is expressed. Do I have enough skill to get
my point across.
As I have said before, when I look at a work of art I want to see some
evidence of skill and I qualify that again by saying there are lots of
different skills involved in creating art so some evidence of it should
surface. I prefer work with a least one toe in reality, I do not appoligize.
I still prefer to see beauty expressed in painting, again, I do not
apologize. This is only my opinion.
>
>As for American Artist, it is publication I have very little respect for.
>
>Thomas
>
I have a great deal of respect for both the publication and the American
artists who share their inspiration and techniques. Your opinion does not
matter to me.
Jaxart
>>As for American Artist, it is publication I have very little respect for.
>>
>>Thomas
>>
>
>I have a great deal of respect for both the publication and the American
>artists who share their inspiration and techniques. Your opinion does not
>matter to me.
>
>sharon
Great response Sharon. Too much of this newsgroup is taken
up by snooty individuals with a one-dimensional view of
the art world. Trying to shut out those who do it strictly
in a "hobby" sense is both elitist and boorish. American
Artist, like the guys and gals who do those half-hour demos
on TV, serves a public that is hungry for "how to" knowledge.
--
============================================================
For a unique art experience visit:
http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
============================================================
Thomas Ziorjen
Jaxart wrote:
> In article <396c9...@corp.newsfeeds.com>, sha...@usadatanet.net says...
>
> >>As for American Artist, it is publication I have very little respect for.
> >>
> >>Thomas
> >>
> >
> >I have a great deal of respect for both the publication and the American
> >artists who share their inspiration and techniques. Your opinion does not
> >matter to me.
> >
> >sharon
>
> Great response Sharon. Too much of this newsgroup is taken
> up by snooty individuals with a one-dimensional view of
> the art world. Trying to shut out those who do it strictly
> in a "hobby" sense is both elitist and boorish. American
> Artist, like the guys and gals who do those half-hour demos
> on TV, serves a public that is hungry for "how to" knowledge.
>
>
Come on, citing *American Artist* in a discussion on the ongoing
support (or lack of support) for Abstract Expressionism is as
ridiculous as citing
*Reader's Digest* in an argument about literature. Please. And I
wasn't even rude about it.
There is nothing wrong with treating art as a hobby, but when you
start making sweeping statements about trends in contemporary
art, such as:
> >> More and more core influentials are turning away from todays "modern art
> >> movements" seeking that one foot in reality, not finding even a toe in
> >> modern art.
and back them up with references to American Art-Hobbyist you
just look silly.
--
Thomas
http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
Philip Stein
de Li sure make some excellent points! However,
I think that AE (and the even worse non-painting
that followed, like minimalism) should continue
to be studied if only to warn future generations
of the excess wrought by government-subsidized
culture.
In the 50's for chrissakes, art dealers were
paid off by the CIA! Evidently in their rabid
opposition to communism, the government
responded with their own form of communism. And
with predictable results. When the money is just
*there* and people find they don't have to work,
they will stop working and of course invent all
kinds of ridiculous justifications for their
non-work. Such as "I meant to do that", or the
glorification of "accidents" in whatever
pretentious artspeak they feebly muster. Think
about it, it takes a lifetime of study to draw
like Michelangelo, but all of twenty minutes to
spill ten buckets of paint on the canvas. Ten if
you're sober. What does that work out to, $3M/hr?
The successful con-artist has even the
"Millionare" contestant beat.
Fortunately things are looking up, as less
government money gets allocated for the arts.
People with visual skills are now learning to
apply them productively as Web designers. The
unusually talented become architects of graphics
rendering software. Their devotion is selfless,
so you won't recognize any of their names, but
people who combine a love of classical art
technique and computer skills are proud to make
an honest living.
On the other hand, those who pursue art for
societally useless reasons are finding themselves
forced out on the street. They could get any Web
programming job but they *refuse* to do so out of
misplaced "pride". Such "artists" depend like
heroin addicts on the government and their
subsidized mafia of galleries and art dealers. As
the economic situation turns meritocratic,
they're forced to go cold turkey: hey this may
destroy a few lives, but doesn't it improve
society as a whole? Their refusal isn't pride,
but moral failure. In a natural economy such as
ours, you can be certain people get what they
deserve.
On the bright side, I see great promise for art
in that it will be recognized not as some occult
rite practiced by the chosen few, but for what it
is: a harmless diversion, a form of entertainment
accessible to all. The future for artists is as
content providers for Web sites. The death of
artifice signals the rebirth of art.
Respectfully,
Philip (never Phil) Stein.
Sharon Barcone
>support (or lack of support) for Abstract Expressionism is as
>ridiculous as citing
>*Reader's Digest* in an argument about literature. Please. And I
>wasn't even rude about it.
>
>There is nothing wrong with treating art as a hobby, but when you
>start making sweeping statements about trends in contemporary
>art, such as:
>
>> >> More and more core influentials are turning away from todays "modern
art
>> >> movements" seeking that one foot in reality, not finding even a toe in
>> >> modern art.
>
>and back them up with references to American Art-Hobbyist you
>just look silly.
>
>http://artlives.homestead.com/Thomas.html
>
There you go Tommy, twisting things around.... My comment about "core
influentials" supporting rep art was a comeback to Lakes comment on " core
influentials" supporting AE. You asked for a name remember, I mentioned
Thomas Wolfe's remarks which were discussed in American Artist. That's a bit
different from what you imply. I least I provided a name for you, the name
of a supporter of rep art who doesn't make some kind of living off of it.
And by the way, neither of you have provided any names in this post of
supporters who don't make some kind living from it.
I began reading American Artist because I had several copies from the 20's
and 30's that had belonged to my Dad. I continue to read it because it
gives me the opportunity to see a wide range of American rep art by artists
who are academically trained and have successful careers. It provides info
on important exhibitions throughout the country and informative articles on
American Art History. But please don't think this is my only source for
information. I read a wide range of books and magazines, spent time in MOMA,
MET, the National Gallery in Wash, D.C. and my favorite the Hirshhorn.
I don't suppose it would occur to you that someone could study AE and
educate themselves about it and still REJECT it. Sorry about that.
And if you think I look silly now, I don't give a shit. You should see me in
my purple hat!
Sharon Barcone
>up by snooty individuals with a one-dimensional view of
>the art world. Trying to shut out those who do it strictly
>in a "hobby" sense is both elitist and boorish. American
>Artist, like the guys and gals who do those half-hour demos
>on TV, serves a public that is hungry for "how to" knowledge.
>For a unique art experience visit:
>http://www.zianet.com/jaxart/index.html
>============================================================
hobby but a life long ambition. Maybe semi-professional. I did make a living
selling my art at one time, both small marine paintings in oil and
decorative paintings on clocks. True not so impressive to some but I was
happy doing it and the money wasn't bad either.
I read my first art book when I was 10 (Taubes) and have been reading them
ever since. I have requests by buy my more recent painting and requests to
do commissions but I have to turn them down. I am on disability due to
spinal injuries and can't jeopardize my disability income right now. Sorry
for rambling...My point, I take my study of art very seriously, it is more
than a hobby to me.
Sharon Barcone
Philip Stein wrote in message <8kl5d6$u1b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>Bravo! Bruce Attah, Sharon Barcone, and Mani
>de Li sure make some excellent points! However,
>I think that AE (and the even worse non-painting
>that followed, like minimalism) should continue
>to be studied if only to warn future generations
>of the excess wrought by government-subsidized
>culture.
>
sources and points of view as possible the better. Marilyn recently pointed
me to the book by Paul Klee, "On Modern Art". I might not have found this
book on my own and found it refreshing, especially the remarks on the
classic elements use in modern art. The drawings were amazing.
This is good and bad. I believe we need more funding for the arts in our
schools. I became interested in art I am sure, though I don't remember,
because for as early in my childhood as I remember my father painted. I
think a love of art developes easily in children and will carry throughout
their life if they are educated about if in the elementary years.
>
>On the other hand, those who pursue art for
>societally useless reasons are finding themselves
>forced out on the street. They could get any Web
>programming job but they *refuse* to do so out of
>misplaced "pride". Such "artists" depend like
>heroin addicts on the government and their
>subsidized mafia of galleries and art dealers. As
>the economic situation turns meritocratic,
>they're forced to go cold turkey: hey this may
>destroy a few lives, but doesn't it improve
>society as a whole? Their refusal isn't pride,
>but moral failure. In a natural economy such as
>ours, you can be certain people get what they
>deserve.
>
>On the bright side, I see great promise for art
>in that it will be recognized not as some occult
>rite practiced by the chosen few, but for what it
>is: a harmless diversion, a form of entertainment
>accessible to all. The future for artists is as
>content providers for Web sites. The death of
>artifice signals the rebirth of art.
Ok, I do get your point but here, I think I will stick to oil on canvas. I
think it is also important to remember that many people can say this is art
or that is art but ultimately it is future generations who will decide which
of what is created today is truly Fine Art.
>
>Respectfully,
>Philip (never Phil) Stein.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
By the way, have you ever read "A Nation of Sheep"?
Chris
Thomas Ziorjen wrote:
>
> Come on, citing *American Artist* in a discussion on the ongoing
> support (or lack of support) for Abstract Expressionism is as
> ridiculous as citing
> *Reader's Digest* in an argument about literature. Please. And I
> wasn't even rude about it.
>
I do believe she was citing Thomas Wolfe - who (like him or not) is well
respected. His attitude towards modern art is well known and has been
widely discussed elsewhere; I am surprised you aren't familiar with it.
i.e.
"But I point to Thomas Wolfe's recent remarks in praise of contemporary
realism. (see American Artist, Aug2000)."
Cheers;
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
New Work - "Job and His Children" - http://www.gammarat.com/Job
Jaxart
>Thanks Jax, but please just one thing. I do not consider my work in art a
>hobby but a life long ambition. Maybe semi-professional.
My reply to you was in no way directed at you personally.
I haven't been reading all of the posts in this thread
since most are too lengthy and my time too short. My
response to you was not intended in any way to slight those
who consider themselves professionals.
It was intended to
slight those who are such elitists that
they denigrate hobby artists or others who
are novices -- they seem to forget that ALL of us were
novices at one time or another and sought help from some
source to learn what we didn't know -- whether it was
from magazines like American Artist or Reader's Digest
or from the hundreds of 'how-to' books or by more formal
art education.
I no longer read American Artist OR Reader's Digest.
But that doesn't mean I didn't find them useful once.
And I always got a big bang watching Alexander, Ross et al
on TV when they were demonstrating the "ease of painting."
I was a self-taught hobby artist long before I returned to school
to earn two formal university degrees in studio art.
--
Sharon Barcone
Jaxart wrote in message <396f1...@oracle.zianet.com>...
Understood.
By the way, I stopped by your web site again and got caught up in "Seat of
Power". I like it. I sense a sexual tension in this painting. Am I
obsessing?
Jaxart
>By the way, I stopped by your web site again and got caught up in "Seat of
>Power". I like it. I sense a sexual tension in this painting. Am I
>obsessing?
>
>sharon
Thanks for the complement, but 'sexual tension' in THAT
painting??? You could have said that about any number of
my other paintings, but can't imagine what would trigger
that in the viewer of Seat of Power. Whatever works
is okay with me though ;-)
Cody Childers
lake wrote:
> If it's true that people have been "duped" into accepting abstract
> expressionism, that the paintings themselves have little or no merit,
> then why are they so sought-after now, a full half-century after they
> were done?
>
> Of course mdeli's "general public" will have nothing to do with them.
> The general public scorned ab-ex when it was new, and they haven't
> changed their opinions since, which is not exactly surprising.
> Nonetheless, a core group of influential admirers continues to believe
> that DeKooning, Pollack, Motherwell, et.al., were very important
> painters.
>
> Contrary to popular belief, ab-ex was never about "expressing oneself".
> Its best examples demonstate a highly formal, highly disciplined,
> albeit unconventional research into process, gesture and materials. It
> was the public, not the artists themselves, who insisted on
> personalizing this work, identifying it with the "mad-artist-syndrome".
>
> The wonderful sponteneity of ab-ex, which defines it and drives it, was
> a very serious and hard-won thing. It was not frivolous. Latter-day
> commentators in this ng who think that an ab-ex painting "doesn't
> require much skill, or take very long to do" demonstrate an appalling
> lack of insight into the best of 20th-century thought.
>
> - Lake
>
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
> The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Lake-
I highly agree. I don't think that ab-ex was an especially important art
movement, insofar as it changed society or anything like that. But I do think
that ab-ex was a very visually appealing movement. If people like Mdeli try to
find deeper meaning beyond the aesthetics of ab-ex, then they are
over-analyzing.
I guess I could consider myself an abstract expressionist painter, and I find it
very difficult to come up with something original, creative, and pleasing to the
eye, so whoever says abstract work takes no skill is also misinformed.
lake
Still, it doesn't do any harm to say why:
1. It is real painting - artist and artwork are viscerally united in
the process of painting, as they are in Constable, in Rembrandt,
Van Gogh.......and others.
2. It is gestural - and therefore warm and human, in an age when
anti-emotional inhumanity is prevalent.
3. It is materialistic - in the best sense of that word. It honors
materials without being subservient to them, in an age when
material is generally considered as little more than tomorrow's
trash.
4. It is intelligent - recognizing the relevance of self-awareness
to any contemporary artistic endeavor.
5. It is wholistic - a genuine attempt to see the universe as a
unity. (This is a very un-postmodern sentiment)
6. It is joyful - where else in new painting do we see so clearly the
painter's pure pleasure in his work?
I don't mean to say that all other styles of painting leave me cold....
only that MOST of them do. And since ab-ex bit the dust of critical
scorn, painting itself has taken a terrible tumble.
lake
proffessional art is not so very clear-cut. I think it's a question of
focus, more than anything else. The life of a serious, or
"proffessional" artist is focused on his own art - while the amateur is
mainly concerned with a different career or a family, or whatever, and
thinks of art as something to do when he finds the time.
Some people are able to maintain a dual focus - like William Carlos
Williams, who was a skilled and successful surgeon, and simultaneously
one of the best writers of the century. Though that sort of successful
duality is not common, or normal - there is very little about fine art
that is common or normal.
Now those TV teachers, who show how to pull a piney horizon out of a
pallette of greens and grays... there's MAGIC there, pure & simple,
like the magic of the carnival sideshow of bygone days. Over-educated
art snobs may scoff, but the magic remains. The magic of painting.
-Lake
Sharon Barcone
Cody Childers wrote in message <39736F95...@hotmail.com>...
>I highly agree. I don't think that ab-ex was an especially important art
>movement, insofar as it changed society or anything like that. But I do
think
>that ab-ex was a very visually appealing movement. If people like Mdeli
try to
>find deeper meaning beyond the aesthetics of ab-ex, then they are
>over-analyzing.
I think at least part of the point "people like Mdeli" are making is that
ab-ex was not "an especially important art movement" and you seem to be
agreeing. You must admit that a "visually appealing movement" is a bit
different that "great art".
>
>I guess I could consider myself an abstract expressionist painter, and I
find it
>very difficult to come up with something original, creative, and pleasing
to the
>eye, so whoever says abstract work takes no skill is also misinformed.
>
Can we see you work over the net?
Jaxart
lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid says...
>
>Well yes. I too like ab-ex instinctively, rather than analytically.
>Still, it doesn't do any harm to say why:
Thanks. I'm going to copy that to my very successful
AE artist friends. I think I'll correct wholistic to holistic
first though, with your permission. ;->
Sharon Barcone
lake wrote in message <1679190c...@usw-ex0107-050.remarq.com>...
>Well yes. I too like ab-ex instinctively, rather than analytically.
>Still, it doesn't do any harm to say why:
I shall take an opposing view, based on your arguements...
>
> 1. It is real painting - artist and artwork are viscerally united in
> the process of painting, as they are in Constable, in Rembrandt,
> Van Gogh.......and others.
The term "real painting" is a bit ambiguous for me, this group could argue
what is real painting for months. I get the feeling that the true "process
of painting" is often rejected by the ab-ex artist in favor of physical laws
of gravity and dispersion where paint is thrown, poured and splattered and
the artist has little control over the effort. Constable, Rembrandt and Van
Gogh appeared to have much more control over the process of painting.
>
> 2. It is gestural - and therefore warm and human, in an age when
> anti-emotional inhumanity is prevalent.
Then why does so much of it leave me cold and unmoved? True, this may say
more about me and the artwork.
>
> 3. It is materialistic - in the best sense of that word. It honors
> materials without being subservient to them, in an age when
> material is generally considered as little more than tomorrow's
> trash.
I believe art created without concern for the physical properties of the
medium does not honor it. Ignoring things like the oil absorbsion rates of
pigments, permenance of materials and supports, material stability,
lightfastness and the like will reduce the statis for the work below the
level of fine permenant art.
>
> 4. It is intelligent - recognizing the relevance of self-awareness
> to any contemporary artistic endeavor.
Though I believe it is true that most artists express a certain amount of
self in their art, I also think art is an endevor to reach beyoud oneself
and move away from self-awareness. I do not see intelligence revealed in
ab-ex.
>
> 5. It is wholistic - a genuine attempt to see the universe as a
> unity. (This is a very un-postmodern sentiment)
>
It appears to me more an expression of chaos.
> 6. It is joyful - where else in new painting do we see so clearly the
> painter's pure pleasure in his work?
I see very little joy in ab-ex. More often I feel the artist's anger and
confusion from this kind of work. Again I realize this may be me and not the
art. But ovbiously the impression I get will effect how I feel about the
work.
>
>I don't mean to say that all other styles of painting leave me cold....
>only that MOST of them do. And since ab-ex bit the dust of critical
>scorn, painting itself has taken a terrible tumble.
>
>- Lake
>
I believe that painting today has more possibilities than ever, that the
human spirit and imagination of the artist are not dead. The voice that
speaks of human vision will not be silenced.
Sharon Barcone
Jaxart wrote in message <3971b...@oracle.zianet.com>...
>painting??? You could have said that about any number of
>my other paintings, but can't imagine what would trigger
>that in the viewer of Seat of Power. Whatever works
>is okay with me though ;-)
I will say this, an empty chair on canvas invites me to sit there and absorb
the view. To say any more would probably express more about me than the
painting. Enough said!
Cody Childers
Sharon Barcone wrote:
> Cody Childers wrote in message <39736F95...@hotmail.com>...
>
> >I highly agree. I don't think that ab-ex was an especially important art
> >movement, insofar as it changed society or anything like that. But I do
> think
> >that ab-ex was a very visually appealing movement. If people like Mdeli
> try to
> >find deeper meaning beyond the aesthetics of ab-ex, then they are
> >over-analyzing.
>
> I think at least part of the point "people like Mdeli" are making is that
> ab-ex was not "an especially important art movement" and you seem to be
> agreeing. You must admit that a "visually appealing movement" is a bit
> different that "great art".
>
> >
> >I guess I could consider myself an abstract expressionist painter, and I
> find it
> >very difficult to come up with something original, creative, and pleasing
> to the
> >eye, so whoever says abstract work takes no skill is also misinformed.
> >
>
> Can we see you work over the net?
>
> sharon
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Sharon-
I do agree that aesthetically appealing art is different than great art. I
don't think ab-ex radically changed all levels of society or anything like
that. As for seeing my art over the net, the problem is when I take photos,
it never looks very good, you can see the background of the photo and the
lighting doesn't do my paintings justice, any suggestions?
Chris
Cody Childers wrote:
>
> Sharon-
>
> I do agree that aesthetically appealing art is different than great art. I
> don't think ab-ex radically changed all levels of society or anything like
> that. As for seeing my art over the net, the problem is when I take photos,
> it never looks very good, you can see the background of the photo and the
> lighting doesn't do my paintings justice, any suggestions?
Well, I'm not Sharon but if you are looking to discuss photographing
work, & displaying it digitally, I'm always happy to through my two
cents in, and hear from others doing the same...There's lots of options,
depending on your pocketbook & how critical you are of the reproduction,
and how effectively your work translates to a small screen (or even how
big your work is) or even how reproducible your colours are on various
monitors.
For basic photography - are you using an SLR? Smaller cameras - and
especially smaller lenses - are a problem, as you are more likely to get
various forms of distortion. I find using a relatively slow professional
film, shooting the painting in a brightly sunlit (but indirect sunlight)
room, mounted on a black background (cheapo fabric from Walmart) works
ok; usually one and two stops below the nominal value. You'll need a
tripod & shutter release cable, while a good level, square, & tape
measure come in handy to make sure the painting & camera line up
correctly. You can then either scan the photo's, or the negatives - or
have the developer put the pictures on-line (or on CD) for you; cost
varies, as do the results (alas).
In anycase, you'll also need at least an inexpensive (~50$ US) photo
processing program to do the basic jobs of colour tuning, image cropping
& rotation, etc. I use photoFinish - nowhere near as classy as the
PhotoShop & it's brethren, but it's suitable & affordable.
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com
New Work: "Job and His Children": http://www.gammarat.com/Job
Jaxart
>As for seeing my art over the net, the problem is when I take photos,
>it never looks very good, you can see the background of the photo and the
>lighting doesn't do my paintings justice, any suggestions?
Don't you have any photo editing software on your machine?
If not you can download free programs for limited times,
like Paintshop Pro. If you have photo editing software,
even the most basic programs have cropping tools where
you can delete the background. And I don't know of a
one that doesn't allow you to put a simple black frame
around the work. As for lighting your work when
photographing it, if nothing else take your photos in
open shade against a black cloth background with nothing
highly reflective -- like window glass -- to cast
secondary light on the work.
Sharon Barcone
Cody Childers wrote in message <39749EBE...@hotmail.com>...
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
>
>Sharon-
>
>I do agree that aesthetically appealing art is different than great art. I
>don't think ab-ex radically changed all levels of society or anything like
>that. As for seeing my art over the net, the problem is when I take
photos,
>it never looks very good, you can see the background of the photo and the
>lighting doesn't do my paintings justice, any suggestions?
>
Without going to a great deal of expense, use two light sources for your
work (at the sides and about 45 degrees angle). If you can hold a pencil
close to the center of the painting and get no shadow you should get better
lighting. Arrange your work perpendicular to camera and use a white or black
cloth background (a white wall maybe). Use a tripod or steady surface for
the camera. I use a Sony digital camera and get good color and good results
for someone with no photography background. It also has a timed auto
shutter release so no shaky camera. See examples at
http://communities/msn.com/sharonsartpage
Hope this helps some.
Ryno
> take your photos in
> open shade
No professional with all the fancy lights can do better than this.
But you will need to crop and to skew your pictures to make them look good.
Normally you should get the right software for this with your scanner, if
that is what you use.
Ryno.
Simon's Town
http://users.iafrica.com/s/sw/swartart/LoveOfArt.html
Frederic Goudal
> mdeli wrote:
> > Mani's Law:
> > If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
That's why mdeli does very long sermons to proclaim his art...
ROTFL
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
Web: http://www.filh.org e-mail gou...@enserb.fr
FAQ fr.rec.photo : http://frp.parisv.com/
Sitafoto la photo a Bordeaux : http://sitafoto.free.fr/
mdeli
<lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
>Well yes. I too like ab-ex instinctively, rather than analytically.
>Still, it doesn't do any harm to say why:
Check out the reasons. Read them carefully and ask yourself what they
really mean. Its really Lake's Artspeak way of saying little more
than, "I like it." Of course lake is a lame patzer at this. If you
want real vitamin enriched Artspeak try Artforum mag. for starters and
graduate to a five pound Rothko tome. The average artzy fartzy
fundamentalist is nurtured on this sort of meaningless gas.
>
> 1. It is real painting - artist and artwork are viscerally united in
> the process of painting, as they are in Constable, in Rembrandt,
> Van Gogh.......and others.
Meaningless baloney. What's "real" painting?
>
> 2. It is gestural - and therefore warm and human, in an age when
> anti-emotional inhumanity is prevalent.
Like in Rockwell. Nice to know its warm, luke warm.
>
> 3. It is materialistic - in the best sense of that word.
Whatever that means. I think its just plain stupid, in the best sense
of the word.
>It honors
> materials without being subservient to them, in an age when
> material is generally considered as little more than tomorrow's
> trash.
It is tomorrow's trash.
> 4. It is intelligent - recognizing the relevance of self-awareness
> to any contemporary artistic endeavor.
Its seems intelligent for stupid people who think that your sort of
convoluted babble actually means something.
> 5. It is wholistic - a genuine attempt to see the universe as a
> unity. (This is a very un-postmodern sentiment)
Its the usual put-on attempting to get a richy to imagine that he is
more sensitive than another. Anybody here see the universe as a unity?
If so tell us about it.
>
> 6. It is joyful - where else in new painting do we see so clearly the
> painter's pure pleasure in his work?
That's why so many were juice junkies.
>I don't mean to say that all other styles of painting leave me cold....
>only that MOST of them do. And since ab-ex bit the dust of critical
>scorn, painting itself has taken a terrible tumble.
The stuff you call painting since AE is the same old put-on with a new
song and dance added.
Mani's Law:
If it needs a long sermon to proclaim its art its probably bullshit.
Mani DeLi
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
picasso89p
could paint like Ingres, his work would not be sent straight to
the Louvre.
Mani likes to think that places like the Louvre honor and
cherish art for art's sake. But those museums play the
same "name-game" as the modern museums.
Many artists can paint (or imitate) like Rothko or Pollock. The
reason the paintings are worth so much is because they were the
*first* artists to paint in that style. The same applies to
Ingres and Rembrandt. The work isn't priceless because the
craftmanship is so exquisite, Mani. They are priceless because
their signatures can be found somewhere on the painting.
Anyways, why does the monetary value of art have to correlate
with its technical quality?? The value of anything is determined
by supply and demand, essentially. So let's see-- a finite
number of Pollocks + a great demand=HIGH PRICES.
And yes, the astronomical prices of Modern Art are partly a
result of a scheme between collectors, dealers, and museums. So
quit using that to attack the artists themselves-- those things
are a result of the system. If classical art was the prevailing
style of recent years, those artists would also have
astronomical prices. There is nothing inherent in Modernism
which makes for big price tags, but rather in modern society.
Fine, attack the art and artists-- but stick to the art.
Everything else is irrelevant and shows a poorly thought-out
argument.
Justin
http://www.angelfire.com/oh2/picasso
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
mdeli
wrote:
>Socrates was executed for his 'modern ideas.' The Committee of 30 in Athens
>wanted to re-establish conventional ideas.
The idea that I wish to "re-establish conventional ideas" is nothing
short of ludicrous.
> In the progression of time there
>have always been stubborn individuals like Mani who set themselves up as
>stumbling blocks to any kind of evolution or progression.
Stupidity, incompetence and hype aren't "any kind of evolution or
progression."
> But time keeps
>ticking away, ideas keep evolving, change is the Universal imperative. You
>can't stop time, Mani.
The last resort of the ignorant Artzy Fartzy is to claim that those
who offer reasons to reject their style of art are somehow living in
the past.
>Nor can you regurgitate artistic standards (according to you) from the time
>of Ingres.
To a lame brain like Marilyn who probably never took a close look at a
painting in her life, Dali and Rockwell etc. do nothing but
"regurgitate artistic standards (according to you) from the time
of Ingres." That is unless you are referring to fine craftsmanship,
draftsmanship and technique, all features astoundingly absent in the
small facet of Modern art to which you ascribe.
>The usual stupidity snipped
>You might think of yourself as an oracle proclaiming that the emperor has no
>clothes and that only you, the clever one are aware of this. And it is your
>duty, of course to warn everyone of this Fact.
>You are only a stumbling block, incessantly repeating the same old, same old.
>Move on, change the tape.
Old indeed.
Nothing in art is more geriatric then the Modern Academic feeble
receptions of Dada which was antiquated 70 years ago. The fact is that
the average Artzy Fartzy is totally unfamiliar with most modern art
and art history. All they see and praise is that which is allowed into
the sacred modern sections of museums and all they read conforms to
the dogmatic Modern Academic Art Theology into which they were
indoctrinated. The best they can come up with when their hopeless
Artspeak is criticized is a mantra which amounts to saying that you
are living in the past.
Among the Artzy Fartzies who attempt to paint, the incompetence, the
nothingness and the double talk of AE, the culmination of Modern
Academic stupidity, is the best they can imitate. The most creative
thing they come up with are some new names and an occasional manifesto
in an attempt to excuse the glaring incompetence of the same old crap
which they are forced to endlessly imitate.
Modern Academic Art is a name game. What counts here is a signature,
the Artspeak crutch that supports it and a phoney price tag. The
artwork is really of little or no interest. WIth good reason.
BTW anyone here can go to see the work on my website and tell me where
I "regurgitate artistic standards from the time of Ingres."
Jiri Borsky
Dali had painting skills but he was more
> intent on fame than good works in the end.
He is therefore regarded by some (justly, IMHO) as a direct precursor of today's so
called Artists: both eyes on publicity, playing to the media.
Jiri Borsky
--
remove all zzz from address
http://www.borsky.dial.pipex.com/
mdeli
<picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In *all* art, the signature counts, Mani. If an unknown artist
>could paint like Ingres, his work would not be sent straight to
>the Louvre.
If it was anywhere close to Ingres it would maintain some value.
However if any AE work is found to be a forgery or an imitation it
would be branded as crap and be totally worthless. You can see tons of
AE style crap which is no worse and usually better than that in
museums (usually not as large) in any outdoor art show .
The best AE examples I ever saw were exhibited in a McDonalds. The
color was really clever and the illusion of depth was beyond anything
I ever saw in museums and art schools. Whoever did them had no chance
of Artzy Fartzy success because it looked like nice design rather than
a put-on.
>
>Mani likes to think that places like the Louvre honor and
>cherish art for art's sake. But those museums play the
>same "name-game" as the modern museums.
Never said anything about the Louvre here.
>Many artists can paint (or imitate) like Rothko or Pollock.
No kidding!
>The
>reason the paintings are worth so much is because they were the
>*first* artists to paint in that style.
They weren't the first. This is modern art theology baloney.
>And yes, the astronomical prices of Modern Art are partly a
>result of a scheme between collectors, dealers, and museums.
Indeed!
>So
>quit using that to attack the artists themselves-- those things
>are a result of the system.
Besides criticizing the system, I criticize these artists because
their work is crap.
mdeli
<bor...@dialz.pipexz.comz> wrote:
>Marilyn wrote:
>
> Dali had painting skills but he was more
>> intent on fame than good works in the end.
>
>He is therefore regarded by some (justly, IMHO) as a direct precursor of today's so
>called Artists: both eyes on publicity, playing to the media.
>
>Jiri Borsky
What counts is what's on the wall not the artists intent, whatever
that was.
lake
mdeli. Since you seem unwilling, or perhaps unable to grasp the sense
of my premeses, I'll try to be more specific:
1 - When I say, "real painting" I mean painting that has spirit.
Painting with a sense of adventure and risk. As opposed to the
copyist's mentality. Constable, Rembrandt and Van Gogh, and certainly
Turner, were explorers. Essentially, they were explorers and not
maestros - whereas Bougereau and Ingres were not explorers, they were
maestros. Can you dig the difference, mdeli?
2 - When I say, "it is gestural" I mean that the actual movements of
the painter's brush are integral to the meaning of the painting. Is
that too complicated for you, mdeli? Is it "artspeak"? Again, compare
Constable,et. al. to Ingres, et.al. and you will see what I mean.
3 - When I say, "it is materialistic", I mean that ab-ex painting is
tightly bound to the long tradition of surface and coating. In this
sense it has much more in common with Ingres than it does with say,
Carl Andre.
4 - When I say, "it is intelligent", I refer to the neccessity of
introspection in the modern world. I don't know why you call this
convoluted babble. A contemporary painter who still thinks there is a
big difference between what's "out there" and what's "in here" - needs
a cup of strong coffee.
5 - Wholistic or holistic, the universe is in fact a unity, and there
are plenty of people who don't just think it, they KNOW it. I myself
would be glad to tell you about it - if you could only refrain from
insulting me for a few minutes.
6 - Joy: yes, well there is joy in juice, as well as death, as
Dionysius once said. But I don't think we should try to eliminate it
altogether, do you?
- Lake
Sharon Barcone
Jiri Borsky wrote in message <397BAC...@dialz.pipexz.comz>...
>Marilyn wrote:
>
> Dali had painting skills but he was more
>> intent on fame than good works in the end.
>
>He is therefore regarded by some (justly, IMHO) as a direct precursor of
today's so
>called Artists: both eyes on publicity, playing to the media.
>
>Jiri Borsky
It is obvious from reading here that a good many people have not seen Dali's
work from his later years specifically the sixties. The works referred to as
his masterworks are brilliant. After his trips to Italy to study classical
technique he dropped his fame game and when on to produce paintings with a
modern flair and theme. Paintings like "The Discovery of America by
Christopher Columbus" "Valasquez Painting the Infantana Margarita in the
Lights and Shadows of His Own Glory" are good examples. His later works are
not as well known because they were not accompanied by his flamboyant
efforts to achieve fame and glory. These works also receive less publicity,
it seems any story about Dali must by illustrated by the surreal.
paulpar
Why bother condemning an art movement that ended 50 years ago?
--Paul
http://www.retro-rocket.com
Boston's journal of arts and film
Scarlett
Thanks!
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
paulpar wrote in message <125d6825...@usw-ex0106-044.remarq.com>...
:Why make sweeping generalizations about any art movement?
:
iian_...@my-deja.com
> Marilyn <wq...@victoria.tc.ca>
> wrote:
>
> >Socrates was executed for his 'modern ideas.' The Committee of 30 in
Athens
> >wanted to re-establish conventional ideas.
I recently read a book called "The Trial of Socrates" which proposed
the opposite theory. The thesis of the book was that Socrates, far from
being considered a public nuissance because of his "modern ideas", was
actually the proponent of an antiquated totalitarian model of politics
which he passed on to his student Plato, and which is given its most
elaborate form in the latters "The Repbulic". The author gathered an
impressive body of speculation and evidence to support his contention
that Socrates despised democracy and preferred the rule of the few, and
perhaps the ideal philosopher king. There are also recorded incidents
of Socrates' refusal to fight for democracy when it was under threat by
the Council of Thirty, and his overbearing arrogance in the trial which
decided his fate.
So, are you comparing Mani to Socrates, to the Council of Thirty, or to
the democratic institutions of Athens? Since it appears you are
contrasting him with Socrates, and the modern nature of Socrates'
political ideals have been thrown into doubt, then we can only conclude
that Mani, unlike Socrates, is actually progressive.
I can't help but admire the sophistication of your back-handed
compliment.
> > In the progression of time there
> >have always been stubborn individuals like Mani who set themselves
up as
> >stumbling blocks to any kind of evolution or progression.
>
> Stupidity, incompetence and hype aren't "any kind of evolution or
> progression."
What some posters may not realise - granted, many will realise it - is
that modern theories and aesthetics are solidly entrenched in all the
key junctures of our societies. Modernist or Postmodernist values
dominate universities, secondary level schools, government museums,
libraries, galleries, radio, television, etc. To claim that Mani,
because he opposes particular forms of modern art is a stumbling block
to progression is to suppose that modernist art represents progression.
It doesn't. It may have fifty or sixty years ago, but right not IT has
become the stumbling block and caused more harm to the training of
great artists than the French or Royal Academies ever did. It is
against these conservative elements in modernist-dominated institutions
that Mani is lambasting, and while you and me may or may not agree with
his particular views about artists, it seems silly to accuse someone
who is attacking conservatism of being a conservative!
> > But time keeps
> >ticking away, ideas keep evolving, change is the Universal
imperative. You
> >can't stop time, Mani.
"Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair ...."
> >You might think of yourself as an oracle proclaiming that the
emperor has no
> >clothes and that only you, the clever one are aware of this.
Not at all. Mani has mentioned on many occasions that most people are
aware of some imperial nudity. He just claims that most modern artists
aren't aware of it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ryno
> period like Modernism in with Postmodernism (circa 1968 to the present)
> means you are again building a weak base in order to present your
> favourite theories.
Dear me, are you trying to suggest that Postmodernism is anything other than
Modernism? It is the same old rubbish as incompetently done as ever by the
same old dears as ever.
It provides the perfect excuse for lack of talent, lack of ability, and lack
of humanity. ("But I don't want it to be good")
If you can see enough of the modern era to know that it has brought our
planet to the verge of collapse in the fields of armaments, pollution,
family structure, music, human reproduction, architecture, town planning,
education, and the food industry, why do you find it so difficult to see the
same rottenness in the art of the 20th Century (or would you like to argue
the merits of each of the categories?)
And do not pretend that the modernist (post or not), are registering their
revulsion of some of the current trends by producing that very filth. An
artist can only show us one thing: what he or she loves. And the vicious
mind that can produce a self portrait in frozen blood, is in love with
exactly that, his own repulsive self.
The few herioc figures who stood up to this movement, like the Ashcan
school, the Kitchen Sink artists, and Kathe Kollwitz, have been condemned as
communists, and still await critical recognition. Do they, too, fit into
your category of reactionary conservatives "being anachronistic in trying
to revive 19th century theories, methods, and artistic intent"?
Wake up, Marilyn. Good art is not based on the set of rules of the 20th
century, nor of the 19th century, nor of any other century, but on the love
and caring observation of nature.
The movement towards "fine art" based on the love of nature, is the same
movement that responds to the love of nature in environmentalism.
Modernists, for their own neurotic reasons, disapprove of beauty, in art as
elsewhere. If you love these things, rethink.
Ryno.
Simon's Town
http://users.iafrica.com/s/sw/swartart/LoveOfArt.html
By the way, won't somebody please change the subject line?
p_...@hotmail.com
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
I think you're right. And you could find a compromise with
Mani if you admit that in this historical process, some skills
are gone lost. Today it would be anachronistic
the struggle to acquire the old academic techniques
that Mani regret. Today different skills seems to be required.
It's a fact, not reducible to a great conspiracy of charlatans.
Modern, or postmodern, artists don't surpass their ancestors,
because they don't want, perhaps they can't afford,
to reach them. They simply do different jobs.
>Look upon classical art, and move on, boy!
>Like someone else posted,
>you are opposing a period of art which ended about 50 years ago. So move
>on and tell us what you think of postmodern contemporary art and how all
>these talented, knowledgeable, exciting people can be wrong, and you and
>Mani are right. Contemporary artists like Jessica Savage and Anne Hamilton
>don't bother condemning classical academic art, they wouldn't say there is
>no beauty there. They used art history as a base and moved on. Why would
>they want to do art work replicas of 19th century art while living in the
>21st century? It's fine for you to have chosen a period of art which you
>relate to and admire and to do the amazing research that you have done on
>that period. It's not fine when you try to stop the clock. You can't
>ignore the horrific 20th century events that have changed history forever,
>and you can't ignore the fact that human beings are on a genocidal course.
>It's the first time in history that the entire population of the world is
>in danger. This over-riding anxiety affects how people think and how
>people look at art. Therefore you are being anachronistic in trying
>to revive 19th century theories, methods, and artistic intent. The beauty
>of some of these works is enduring, no one disputes that.
>
>Marilyn
>
>
>Marilyn
>>
>>
>>
ARTdeals
Just a humble opinion of mine:
ART by itself is Defined by each individual...
It doesn't matter whether it's a masterpiece, surealism,
abstract, expressional..etc..etc.
The Main Point is that If it draws a meaning to 'That'
Individual who feels appreciated by it, and have a passion for
it, a simple phrase to put it - "I Like It" !
It's the same feeling as to colors, some people like Red
flowers, some like white, some like blue, and some like
pink...etc... And just because some people don't like blue
Doesn't mean that it's not a good color...etc.
Something similar to "...in the eyes of the beholder" !
.. ;-)
--------------------------------------------
~ Original Oil Painting Wholesaler ~
~ OPEN TO PUBLIC ~
Buy paintings at 70% Off Retail !
--------------------------------------------
mdeli
>:Why bother condemning an art movement that ended 50 years ago?
>:
>:--Paul
>:
Why do you bother writing about anything?
>Ahh! Finally - someone is aware of this very important fact!!!!
>
>Thanks!
>
>Scarlett
What "fact?"
mdeli
Lake wrote:
>I'm glad you took the trouble to respond to my points one by one,
>mdeli. Since you seem unwilling, or perhaps unable to grasp the sense
>of my premeses, I'll try to be more specific:
>1 - When I say, "real painting" I mean painting that has spirit.
>Painting with a sense of adventure and risk. As opposed to the
>copyist's mentality. Constable, Rembrandt and Van Gogh, and certainly
>Turner, were explorers. Essentially, they were explorers and not
>maestros - whereas Bougereau and Ingres were not explorers, they were
>maestros. Can you dig the difference, mdeli?
No, I can't. Apparently you believe "real painting"= Painting with a
sense of adventure and risk. Which says your usual nothing. Why not
just say you like a particular technique.
>
>2 - When I say, "it is gestural" I mean that the actual movements of
>the painter's brush are integral to the meaning of the painting.
So explain the "meaning." I if it means something as you claim,
explain it. Bet I get the usual double talk. What do de Kooning's
brush movements mean?
> Is
>that too complicated for you, mdeli? Is it "artspeak"? Again, compare
>Constable,et. al. to Ingres, et.al. and you will see what I mean.
Well just explain what you mean.
>
>3 - When I say, "it is materialistic", I mean that ab-ex painting is
>tightly bound to the long tradition of surface and coating. In this
>sense it has much more in common with Ingres than it does with say,
>Carl Andre.
Surface coating! I suggest you send this idea to modern art scholars.
It should be a new term for them to babble about. Is Alison's work
surface coating? Do you practice surface coating?
>
>4 - When I say, "it is intelligent", I refer to the neccessity of
>introspection in the modern world. I don't know why you call this
>convoluted babble. A contemporary painter who still thinks there is a
>big difference between what's "out there" and what's "in here" - needs
>a cup of strong coffee.
I'm sure this suggestion will do a lot to improve contemporary
painting.
>5 - Wholistic or holistic, the universe is in fact a unity, and there
>are plenty of people who don't just think it, they KNOW it. I myself
>would be glad to tell you about it - if you could only refrain from
>insulting me for a few minutes.
Don't tell me, just send this cosmological revelation to a physics
journal. I'm sure they will be fascinated.
>6 - Joy: yes, well there is joy in juice, as well as death, as
>Dionysius once said. But I don't think we should try to eliminate it
>altogether, do you?
>
I hope Scarlet reviews this important Post Modern revelation.
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>Look upon classical art, and move on, boy!
Marilyn thinks a room full of bananas or a bunch of crap lying on a
gallery floor is fine artwork because it is new. She imagines that
this constitutes moving on.
> Contemporary artists like Jessica Savage and Anne Hamilton
>don't bother condemning classical academic art, they wouldn't say there is
>no beauty there. They used art history as a base and moved on. Why would
>they want to do art work replicas of 19th century art while living in the
>21st century?
Artzy Fartzies imagine that anything modern that they dislike in
contemporary art is 19th century etc. and that this justifies the
utter incompetence of majority of holy critic approved artwork.
> You can't
>ignore the horrific 20th century events that have changed history forever,
>and you can't ignore the fact that human beings are on a genocidal course.
>It's the first time in history that the entire population of the world is
>in danger. This over-riding anxiety affects how people think and how
>people look at art.
It effects you. Speak for yourself. I believe that hardly any of this
comes to mind when most anyone looks at looking at AE. Its no
justification for claiming that an incompetent put-on which is
produced by an inflation of self proclaimed artists imitating what was
antiquated by 1923 has anything to do with great art.
The last resort of the ignorant Artzy Fartzy is to claim that those
who offer reasons to reject their style of art are somehow living in
the past.
Here are points which Marilyn always fails to address:
-Nothing in art is more geriatric then the Modern Academic feeble
receptions of Dada which was antiquated 70 years ago.
-The average Artzy Fartzy is totally unfamiliar with most modern art
and art history. All they see and praise is that which is allowed into
the sacred modern sections of museums and all they read conforms to
the dogmatic Modern Academic Art Theology into which they were
indoctrinated. The best they can come up with when their hopeless
Artspeak is criticized is a mantra which amounts to saying that you
are living in the past.
-Among the Artzy Fartzies who attempt to paint, the incompetence, the
nothingness and the double talk of AE, the culmination of Modern
Academic stupidity, is the best they can imitate. The most creative
thing they come up with are some new names and an occasional manifesto
in an attempt to excuse the glaring incompetence of the same old crap
which they are forced to endlessly imitate.
Mani DeLi
Cody
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Why can't you stop insulting everyone for a minute like you are the end
all and be all of the art world. People don't listen to you Mani
because you are rude and obnoxious. Let people like the art they like
and paint in the style they like.
Deidra
not an artist. A few silly Dali things on his web page and a big
frigging chip on his sholder. That doesn't make him an artist:
Thats like saying because I took a few pianolessons as a kid and
fool around on the keyboard that I am a pianist. This man's kick
is insulting people, he obviously knows nothing about art. Does
he muck around on alt.ballet and pretend to be a dancer too? Wake
up.
Deidra
Cody <codych...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why can't you stop insulting everyone for a minute like you are
the end
>all and be all of the art world. People don't listen to you
Mani
>because you are rude and obnoxious. Let people like the art
they like
>and paint in the style they like.
>
>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scarlett
I'm concerned that he is so desirous of my opinion...
I might have something to say to him if he ever actually *says* anything of
interest instead of repeating the same excessive verbiage he is famous
(infamous?) for.
Scarlett
http://ScarlettDecker.homestead.com
Cody wrote in message <39833EB3...@hotmail.com>...
:
:
:
:
:Why can't you stop insulting everyone for a minute like you are the end
lake
they look at it. Like the Mona Lisa - it gives people a certain buzz
that's hard to put into words. Or rather, it's easy to put into words,
but not to surround with words.
Same with De Kooning. I could easily describe the "meaning" of a
DeKooning, by saying that the nervous hypersensitivity of his line
registers every single moment of creation, so that the process of
image-making supercedes the image itself. But that would be only an
explanation - my own explanation - of what De Kooning means.It wouldn't
sum up the whole meaning.
Obviously many people, yourself included, get no significant feeling
whatever from De Kooning. That's OK, many people don't like opera
either, or jazz, or rock& roll, or whatever. But it's not to say that
these forms don't HAVE any meaning. It's not neccessarily a hoax, just
because you don't like it, or understand it, or you oppose it for some
moral principle or other.
There have always been adventurous painters - painters who take the
medium to places it has never been before. They risk censure, and
usually get it. Late Rembrandt was adventurous, early Rembrandt was
not. Same with Goya. Turner was extremely adventurous. Manet was
adventurous, Courbet was not. Durer wasn't the least bit adventurous.
Corot was adventurous, but luckily, accepted anyway. Winslow Homer was
very adventurous, Hopper and Rockwell were not. Whistler was
adventurous. Beardsley was adventurous, and so was Escher, though they
weren't really painters.
Breakers of the mold, like Giotto, like Vincent. Of course in the 20th
century, it became merely fashionable to break molds, until there
weren't any molds left to break. Molds went the way of the buffalo.
That's what gives Mdeli his charm - he pretends they still exist.
- Lake
lake
what painting actually IS, empirically speaking. That's what
differentiates a painting from say, an ashtray. It's really quite
simple Mdeli, & I don't see why you must think of this idea as being so
academic. It applies to ALL paintings, regardless of style or skill -
it even applies to house-painting, or sign-painting. Painting is dried
gook on a flat surface - that's what painting is, and always has been.
Even your own masterpieces fall under this definition.
Alison's work is most definitely surface coating, of a very
sophisticated kind, as is my own work. It is worthwhile to distinguish
painting from other more recent forms of contemporary visual art, such
as installation and video-art, and digital-art. That is, it's
worthwhile for people who like to think about what they say......people
who make an effort to understand opposing viewpoints before they
denounce them. Do you know any people like that Mdeli? Or maybe I
should say, DID you know them.
This takes care of my points 1,2 and 3.......your responses to points
4,5 and 6, unfortunately were so stupidly adolescent, that I won't
bother to address them.
lake
easy way out, like Hitler when he said that the Jews weren't human.
Think again, please.
lake
influenced NYC painting in the post-war years. Even today we don't yet
fully understand, to what extent. When Mdeli looks at AE, of course he
sees none of this. He believes that painters can be blissfully
skillful, come hell or high water.....that they can paint the
post-atomic landscape the same way that Caspar Friedrich would have
done.......that as long as you have studied anatomy, you'll be
alright...... you'll get a job for sure.....
Peter H.M. Brooks
lake <lakeNO...@plateautel.net.invalid> wrote:
> You're wrong Deidre, Mdeli IS an artist. You are trying to take the
> easy way out, like Hitler when he said that the Jews weren't human.
> Think again, please.
>
everybody is an artist.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Beethoven was an innovator of form, Mozart an innovator of substance.
lake
clarity of my writing?
lake
preferred to jump around and dance while they painted. In the second
place, whether your "five-pound-books" go into it or not, the suicidal,
wholesale slaughter of WWII, when the most advanced cultures on the
planet tried their best to eradicate one another, did in fact have a
strong effect on painting. Maybe you just missed it somehow. You said,
"Besides, the main point I made is that Modern Art isn't new..."
which in itself is a totally idiotic statement. ALL art is new, you
dumkopf! It doesn't matter what style, it's new, all of it! It's the
horizon that we meet on our journey, as a culture, as a species. Art is
both new and old - that's part of its definition.
But "fine craftsmanship, draughtsmanship and technique" are qualities
which I suspect, you have not bothered to analyse very carefully, in
relation to the society which gives them meaning. Therefor you find it
convenient to categorize your opponents with terms like "lame-brain",
rather than thoughtfully respond to them.
- Lake
br...@wralaw.com
picasso89p <picasso10...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
> If an unknown artist
> could paint like Ingres, his work would not be sent straight to
> the Louvre.
In the Vatican there are paintings by unknown artists, same in the
Louvre().
> Many artists can paint (or imitate) like Rothko or Pollock.
In most ways most, in all ways none.
> The
> reason the paintings are worth so much is because they were the
> *first* artists to paint in that style.
The artist who first painted in that style is very unpopular, complete
all drip abstract art dates from before 1915, that I've seen in art
history books. Both Dali and Picasso did action ink drawings before
Pollack or Motherwell. Dali in fact lived in New York at that time, if
you look at Pollacks enamle drawings you'll see its intent to copy the
style of Salvadore Dali(and not Picasso), it is true critical
paranoia. Motherwell, who is the only real Abstract Expressionist,
started out trying to be a surrealist, so did Pollack and Rothko.
Pollack could handle Sur, Rothko could not, neither could do Realism
very well, and there is no doubt about that.
Bryn
br...@wralaw.com
"Sharon Barcone" <sha...@usadatanet.net> wrote:
>
> Jiri Borsky wrote in message <397BAC...@dialz.pipexz.comz>...
> >Marilyn wrote:
> It is obvious from reading here that a good many people have not seen
Dali's
> work from his later years specifically the sixties. The works
referred to as
> his masterworks are brilliant. After his trips to Italy to study
classical
> technique he dropped his fame game and when on to produce paintings
with a
> modern flair and theme. Paintings like "The Discovery of America by
> Christopher Columbus" "Valasquez Painting the Infantana Margarita in
the
> Lights and Shadows of His Own Glory" are good examples.
Most of these works also end up either of the Dali Museums in Figures
Spain and St. Petersburg Florida. Neither of these destinations
(especially) Figeures has anything but the Museum. I was at the Dali
Museum in Florida in fact two days ago. The large scale pieces like
the ones you mention above took nearly one whole year each, The
painting "discovery of America by Christopher Columbus" is as far as I
can tell entirely without technical flaws, bumps or anything, the work
is entirely detailed better than his early bread paintings, is very
large (over 10'x8' I'd say) (- and what I mean is that at one foot from
the canvas the detail is finer than the bread paintings by a lot).
Dali is in fact the only painter that I've seen to do this much smooth
fine detail on such a large painting(there are small Dutch paintings
that are entirely like this). Of this Genre I like the Hallucinogenic
Toredo the best.
> His later works are
> not as well known because they were not accompanied by his flamboyant
> efforts to achieve fame and glory. These works also receive less
publicity,
> it seems any story about Dali must by illustrated by the surreal.
Bryn Ayers
god...@my-deja.com
> you are opposing a period of art which ended about 50 years ago. So
move
> on and tell us what you think of postmodern contemporary art and how
all
> these talented, knowledgeable, exciting people can be wrong, and
I think that a common mistake people make is assuming that somehow art
is not simular to everything else. Today we are finding out that some
Folk Medicines work!
I am all for artistic freedom, of all kinds. I believe that Acedemia
discourages rather than encourages free thought and expression.
I am especially critical of a Bizaar temperment where Teachers
encourage a Faux Rebellion but end up being nearly as oppressive(some
would say more) as the Catholic Church or the Academy.
> Contemporary artists like Jessica Savage and Anne Hamilton
> don't bother condemning classical academic art, they wouldn't say
there is
> no beauty there. They used art history as a base and moved on. Why
would
> they want to do art work replicas of 19th century art while living in
the
> 21st century?
I don't think that the major proponents of "highskill" art are
suggesting doing past replicas.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> >Oh, yes, you sure that Mondrian, Hoffman and other refugees living
in
> >NYC during AE's hay days never thought about the holocaust or WWII.
Their
> >lives were SHAPED by these events.
Their lives may very well have been shaped by the Holocaust and the
Second World War. But how was their art shaped by it? What is there
intrinsic about mass slaughter on the battlefield and genocide that
should suddenly make an artist paint in smears, blobs or splashes? What
is there about torture and gas chambers that should make an artist
paint primary-coloured squares?
If you ask me, this sort of painting is merely reactionary. When
artists like Mondrian could have been making a difference in the world,
drawing people's attention to the horrors of the Holocaust, the
bestiality of war, instead they chose to paint to a pseudo-intellectual
elite. When they could have been painting moving narrative works about
the stories of soldiers in the War, about moments of heroism or
cowardice, of self-sacrifice or callous murder, they instead chose to
withdraw utterly from the realm of narrative painting and isolate
themselves in a world of pure colour and line.
How advanced. How progressive. All of this was done, in essence, in
Whilster's time and done a thousand times better. But even Whistler
with his gospel of aestheticism would have blanched at the monstrous
idiocies of abstract expressionism, and he would have laughed at its
pretentious and offensive claim to represent the modern psyche.
What does modern art know about heroism in war, the feeling in the
soldier's guts as he leaps over the trenches and on to the battlefield?
What did modern art ever do to preach against war?
Nothing.
Instead of bravely standing up and making a message, it retreated into
its action-painted shell and decided to grow fat off government grants
and to hunt more elephants for its ivory tower.
What a bunch of hypocrites. When they could have been out there
painting the real world - like the Social Realists and Naturalists
before them - they decided to take a comfortably a-political approach -
and what could be more a-political than an art that has no realistic
imagery? - in a time when standing up against war could have done
something for the world's collective spirit.
Don't talk to me about modern art and how progressive it is. Show me
one realist painter who is tackling a tough subject today, a painter
who risks imprisonment or exile, not because he's smugly painting
something shocking for the sake of it, but because he really believes
in it and wants to change the way other people think. Show me such a
realist painter, and all of the other abstract expressionists and
conceptualists can be forgotten by history.
At least an artist like Jacques-Louis David had the guts to stand up
and paint what he believed in. Today's abstract expressionists paint
nothing and so can't be attacked for it. How very courageous, how very
noble.
-- Iian
Deidra
Must admit I wasnt expecting this response from you. First let me
address the artist thing. Yea, you can say that anyone is an
artist, etc etc. You can base it on what they create: artist
or illustrator and so on (mdelight thinks illustrators are fine
artists!) What I should've added was my working definition - to
be an artist you have to have making art as a primary focus of
your life over a period of time: including the present (otherwise
you *were* an artist). Doesnt' mean you make good or bad art
or make a living at it etc. Just that this is who you are.
I tried to make this clear with the piano example: anyone can
plink a few keys for fun now and then, it doesn't make them a
pianist or musician. I dont see evidence that mdeli is or was an
artist by that definition: just that he had done a few paintings
sometime in the past and has a big mouth and a lot of
crackbrained opinions (most of the time he gets the names of
paintings wrong and his art history wrong too)
Now the other thing: you have a right to disagree with my opinion
and Ive seen many really fine posts from you here - so I am
tempted to think that you equating me with Hitler was a lapse or
mistake on your part: you are smarter and kinder than that. I
expect it from mdeli and his sort but not you, Lake.
Deidra
andr...@my-deja.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> >:
> >:Why bother condemning an art movement that ended 50 years ago?
> >:
> >:--Paul
> >:
>
> Why do you bother writing about anything?
>
> >Ahh! Finally - someone is aware of this very important fact!!!!
> >
> >Thanks!
> >
> >Scarlett
Mani I have requested before but you have not answered. What artists or
paintings by well known artists from whatever period do you like or
hold as the model of what you call art?
It is easier to chart a tiraid against a form of anything including art
but it is so much more difficult to express the positive.
Your failure to answer this question clearly in this forum will
inevitably expose the weakness in your arguments - and clearly show you
as an anti.
Andrewmb.
>
> What "fact?"
>
> Mani DeLi
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
> ...no skill no art
> Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page!
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
>
lake
been a painter's business to explain what's right and what's wrong with
public policy. Oh sure, certain painters have tried to turn righteous
indignation into good painting, but the results have been by and large
pretty dismal. Like the communist "Realism" of recent history:
extremely laudable from a moralistic standpoint, but simply boring, as
art.
I'm at least as anti-war as the next fellow, as I suspect most abstract
painters are. And there are many ligitimate avenues by which propaganda
can, and should be exercised - but painting is not one of them.
Painting is at its best, and strongest, when it affirms, not when it
criticizes. The late portraits of Rembrandt for example, were
completely apolitical - they didn't criticize the materialism of the
age - yet they made a political statement by their affirmation of
humanity.
You casigate abstract painting for not being involved with politics,
and yet you totally fail to see the intense search for meaning, with
which these men have been involved. Perhaps you think it has been
fruitless, or frivolous, but more likely you don't think very much at
all about it.
It's easier to get on a PC high horse and lead the charge into battle
against the evil powers of the world. Abstract art is just another form
of decadence right?
lake
when I wrote that one, my appologies.
Maybe there are good reasons for denying Mdeli the title of "artist",
but if we start quibbling about who has a right to be called artist and
who has not, we run into big problems. So I think if someone SAYS
they're an artist, and BELIEVES they're an artist, it's best to take
them at their word. Whether they're any good or not is another
question. But being an artist is at least 50% a matter of belief -
there are no absolute standards. Mdeli himself would like to THINK that
there are fixed standards, but mdeli is a bit blind.
lake
he likes. Unfortunately the work was so pathetic that, even if one
accepts mdeli's philosophy, one must question his taste. Witness his
current eulogy of Eyvind Earle, under the heading "Other Art".
mdeli
<wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>Oh, yes, you sure that Mondrian, Hoffman and other refugees living in
>NYC during AE's hay days never thought about the holocaust or WWII. Their
>lives were SHAPED by these events.
>I am not an isolate like you.
>
>Marilyn
>
I suppose you imagine that when an AE artist sat down to paint he
thought of the Holocaust etc. and those who view it think of that. I
see no evidence for that. Furthermore few five pound books on AE stars
go into that.
Besides, that the main point I made is that Modern Art isn't new and
that you are ignorant of that fact.
I repeat:
To a lame brain like Marilyn who probably never took a close look at a
painting in her life, Dali and Rockwell etc. do nothing but
"regurgitate artistic standards (according to you) from the time
of Ingres." That is unless you are referring to fine craftsmanship,
draftsmanship and technique, all features astoundingly absent in the
small facet of Modern art to which you subscribe
mdeli
>And,well yeah - surface and coating of a surface. After all, that's
>what painting actually IS, empirically speaking. That's what
>differentiates a painting from say, an ashtray. It's really quite
>simple Mdeli, & I don't see why you must think of this idea as being so
>academic. It applies to ALL paintings, regardless of style or skill -
>it even applies to house-painting, or sign-painting. Painting is dried
>gook on a flat surface - that's what painting is, and always has been.
>Even your own masterpieces fall under this definition.
True but the statement contains no information.
>
>Alison's work is most definitely surface coating, of a very
>sophisticated kind, as is my own work. It is worthwhile to distinguish
>painting from other more recent forms of contemporary visual art, such
>as installation and video-art, and digital-art. That is, it's
>worthwhile for people who like to think about what they say......people
>who make an effort to understand opposing viewpoints before they
>denounce them. Do you know any people like that Mdeli? Or maybe I
>should say, DID you know them.
You said, "It is worthwhile to distinguish painting from other more
recent forms of contemporary visual art" All the other stuffing was
unnecessary. Why not write clearly?
mdeli
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 08:35:57 -0700, Marilyn Welch
><wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
>I think you're right. And you could find a compromise with
>Mani if you admit that in this historical process, some skills
>are gone lost. Today it would be anachronistic
>the struggle to acquire the old academic techniques
>that Mani regret.
I don't regret it at all. The more incompetent artists the mork work
for those who know their craft.
>Today different skills seems to be required.
True, PR and Artspeak skills.
>It's a fact, not reducible to a great conspiracy of charlatans.
>Modern, or postmodern, artists don't surpass their ancestors,
>because they don't want, perhaps they can't afford,
>to reach them. They simply do different jobs.
True, however most are failures.
iian_...@my-deja.com
> One word:
>
> Photography
I take it your silence on abstract expressionism means you agree with
me. Yes, you're quite right that photographers had the guts to deal
with war-time subjects, to unearth the stories of soldiers, generals
and civilians. Yes, photographers took on the job that was
traditionally the painter's. The job that earned painters respect.
I'm surprised to find that we agree, but it must be that the fallacy
that abstract expressionists were "modern" or "daring" finally became
obvious to you.
-- Iian
--------------------------------------
> > > >Oh, yes, you sure that Mondrian, Hoffman and other refugees
living
> > in
> > > >NYC during AE's hay days never thought about the holocaust or
WWII.
> > Their
> > > >lives were SHAPED by these events.
> >
Chris
iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>
> At least an artist like Jacques-Louis David had the guts to stand up
> and paint what he believed in. Today's abstract expressionists paint
> nothing and so can't be attacked for it. How very courageous, how very
> noble.
>
Well, quite the noble & stirring bit of melodrama. But David - aside
from actively supporting one of the most blood-crazed revolutionary
movements known, only wound up spending, what 6 months? - in what really
amounted to little more than house arrest. You should go look up Evgene
Rukhin instead.
As for artists putting their lives on the line to put an end to war - as
Marilyn pointed out, photographers have played a leading role.
Historically the notion of war as portrayed by artists has primarily
focussed on propagation of obscene myths like chivalry , fatherland, and
war's nobility; but it didn't take long after the invention of the
camera for those like Matthew Brady to bring out - artistically - the
truth of war (even if he did have his assistants arrange the bodies at
times for aesthetic effect).
Chris
--
"Art is the supreme manifestation of individualism" - Oscar Wilde
Artwork: http://www.gammarat.com/
iian_...@my-deja.com
[ ... snip a thoughtful reply ...]
> Painting is at its best, and strongest, when it affirms, not when it
> criticizes. The late portraits of Rembrandt for example, were
> completely apolitical - they didn't criticize the materialism of the
> age - yet they made a political statement by their affirmation of
> humanity.
While I agree with the gist of what you're saying - that fervently
political painting can easily degenerate into propaganda - it is
possible to paint scenes from a war without "taking sides". The artist,
of course, takes sides, but the painting itself can condemn the
atrocities of war rather than a particular military decision. Saying
that war paintings can not ascend beyond propaganda is a little like
saying that a painting from the nude can never be more than
pornography. It all depends on how you treat the thematic material.
Norman Lindsay's cartoons in the First World War are propaganda.
Leonardo da Vinci's "The Battle of Anghiari" is a universal anti-war
statement.
> You casigate abstract painting for not being involved with politics,
> and yet you totally fail to see the intense search for meaning, with
> which these men have been involved. Perhaps you think it has been
> fruitless, or frivolous, but more likely you don't think very much at
> all about it.
I'm only castigating Marilyn's excessive claim that abstract painting
reflected the horrors of war. I'm not disregarding the possibility that
these paintings were very personal statements that were intended purely
as subjective confession. What I do reject is her claim that they are
significant comments against the atrocities of the Second World War. It
is impossible to tell whether a Mondrian is condemning the Holocaust.
Whereas a realist trained in life-drawing, etc., and rooted in the
narrative tradition could make a universally profound statement that
transcends the limitations of subjective contemplation, and
communicates an anti-war message across cultures. My criticism is not
limited only to abstract painters, but to those trained realists who
did not risk themselves in standing up against tyranny. Literature has
its "The Gulag Archipelago". What does twentieth century painting have?
> It's easier to get on a PC high horse and lead the charge into battle
> against the evil powers of the world. Abstract art is just another
form
> of decadence right?
Only abstract art that pretends to be politically profound while hiding
behind the beautifully anonymous shield of abstraction. It's easy
enough to title an abstract painting, "War is hell" and depict a bloody
mess of reds, yellows and browns. How could one possibly be prosecuted
for such a painting? No one is being implicated. Nothing objective is
being said. It takes real courage to paint an objective statement
against a real catastrophe.
Chris
lake wrote:
>
> Good politics usually, makes lousy art. It's not now, and it never has
> been a painter's business to explain what's right and what's wrong with
> public policy. Oh sure, certain painters have tried to turn righteous
> indignation into good painting, but the results have been by and large
> pretty dismal. Like the communist "Realism" of recent history:
> extremely laudable from a moralistic standpoint, but simply boring, as
> art.
>
I guess the one thing that continually surprises me is the delight some
people take in broad vapid generalizations without any regard for
historical accuracy. Political and social art has a very rich history;
Goya, Millet, Messonier, Daumier, Hogarth, and Lautrec are a few
'classics' that spring readily to mind.
As far as I can tell, the 'business' of visual artists is the expression
of visual ideas; what they choose to express, why they choose to express
it, and the manner in which they choose to carry it out is as individual
as any other field of human endeavor.
iian_...@my-deja.com
Marilyn <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
>
>
> iian_...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > One word:
> > >
> > > Photography
> >
> > I take it your silence on abstract expressionism means you agree
with
> > me.
>
>
> The impressionists accepted that photography might replace
illustrative
> painting.
> They said "Now we can paint poetry." Poetry is ambiguous, abstract,
> distilled language.
> Painting does not NEED to be illustration, although it can be.
>
> Painting takes a back seat today, behind photography, film, and video
as far
> as historical documentation goes. Face that fact and make a plan,
preferably
> not a plan to continually deny a century or more of modern art.
> end of story,
You resuscitated the impressionists' thoughts on painting poetry as
opposed to literal reality. Don't forget that the academics of the same
period - on both sides of the Channel - were not only approving of
photography, but many of the notable ones used it enthusiastically in
their work. Artists as diverse as Bastien-Lepage, Dagnan Bouveret,
Lawrence Alma-Tadema, John Everett Millais all collected photographs
and used them as reference now and then. These artists were either neo-
classicists, pre-raphaelitists or french naturalists. None of them were
impressionists. They used photography to further articulate their
language, to lend their productions greater immediacy and visual
accuracy. Narrative painting may well have said, "Rumours of my death
were greatly exaggerated."
Nevertheless, you won't find me arguing with your later observations,
that painting takes a backseat to photography, film and video. When it
comes to voting with their wallets, the public has demonstrated what
kind of art it admires. It admires an art rooted in the real world, one
which addresses contemporary problems rather than esoteric aesthetic
doctrines, it admires, above all, a narrative art - which cinema and
video are - that tackles real contemporary problems and not pseudo-
contemporary verbocrap invented by art theologians. But, perhaps you
would rather we retreat from such a comparison, from the grossly
material attack of comparing the size of our wallets, and instead look
at art divested of its popular appeal. After all, there are plenty of
art-house films produced world-wide that never approach blockbuster
status but are undoubtedly subtle and profound creations.
I'm a supporter of the idea that there is no real innovation in art
except in the development and refinement of a theme, subject and its
expression. As Peter Brooks' signature hints at, what we call technical
innovation is really innovation of form; whereas the only really
enduring quality of art is its innovation of substance. At any one
point in history there are dozens if not hundreds of artists, writers
and composers who are extending the formal dimensions of their medium
with all kinds of ingenious innovations. By and large, however, such
pioneers of form are not remembered when history comes to its
stocktake. Only those artists who combined formal flexibility with
substance are carried over into the next cycle. In brief, only those
artists who have something to say to an alien culture (the future) are
considered worthy of preservation and veneration; which is another way
of saying that they have said something universal.
The art of the abstract expressionists speaks an aesthetic language of
colour, line, tone and mass, but it is a subjective and deeply personal
language whose full meaning can only be savoured by the artists
themselves. They lack entirely a universal dimension. It is only the
art of the objective painters that will survive in the alien soil of
the future because it communicates in stark outlines ideas that will
never perish. This is not to denigrate the work of any abstractionist,
designer, potter, etc. Of course such aestheticism has its place. But
there is a scale of values in art just as there is in literature and in
music. A nocturne can be a beautifully formed and expressive piece of
its kind, but when it comes to weighing it on the scales with a
Beethoven or a Mahler symphony then there is something awry with our
perceptions if we throw out the symphony.
Something is similarly out of whack if we sacrifice the genre of
narrative painting in favour of an antiquated abstractionism. Something
is not considered antiquated merely because of its age, but rather
because of its relevancy to our generation. By voting for cinema,
video, television and photography, the public has demonstrated its
unquenchable thirst for concrete images, indeed it has shown that it
finds such images MORE profound and stirring than what is offered to it
by abstractionism. Narrative art has just been elected into office
again, and reaffirmed that it will always be up for government so long
as people continue to vote.
This isn't to belittle the achievements of the abstractions, the
aestheticists, etc., but the more enduring statements are the concrete
ones. Life, after all, is composed of concrete images. Its what mold
you pour the concrete into that is important.
Ryno
> wholesale slaughter of WWII, when the most advanced cultures on the
> planet tried their best to eradicate one another, did in fact have a
> strong effect on painting. Maybe you just missed it somehow.
Let's look at the artists who cared about war, and death, and suffering.
Jackson Pollock? Pollock cared about only one person, Jackson Pollock. Or
maybe that other great abstract expressionist, er... who was it again...? Oh
dear, I cannot think of any one...
You have fallen for a big joke, Lake. I know of only one 20th century artist
who at all dealt with the anguish of war in an artistically significant
way.. and that is Kathe Kollwitz, whom I would unreservedly nominate as the
greatest artist of the 20th century.
It might of course be somewhat embarassing for you if you have never heard
of her, but when you eventually see her work, please remember that the ones
responsible for her obscurity are you, and your fellow modern academics, who
reject the love of humanity in this kind of memorable phrase:
> ....as long as you have studied anatomy, you'll be
> alright...... you'll get a job for sure.....
I shall try to put up a page on Kathe Kollwitz tonight. (See below)
Ryno.
Simon's Town
http://users.iafrica.com/s/sw/swartart/LoveOfArt.html
lake
first, but consider this: abstract art was banned under Stalin, as it
was under Hitler. Why? Also, abstract art has been almost universally
despised by the most reactionary, or war-prone elements within the USA.
Again, why? It's worth thinking about.