NO ABILITY to DRAW
Edward
----------------------------------------
Subject: RE: MINOR ABILITY to DRAW
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 04:40:14 -0800
----------------------------------------
SOME COMMENTS to useless conversation
----------------------------------------
> > >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
> > >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
> > >enhance their artistic development.
There is NOTHING in ART HISTORY to support this absurd statement. Not
all impressionists were the same, they had different background and
different skills. No need to generalize. Van Gogh is another story and
do not really belong to this assertion at all, because formally he is
not associated with Impressionism at all and second, he was a dauber and
too crazy to take seriously.
> > >Most of the Impressionists could
> > >not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
> > >functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
Another nonsense. People!!! Where you manage to pick up these wild
ideas?
French school was perfect.
They painted various salon stuff which was very boring and repetitive,
often tasteless and of low interest at all.
That's true. Nobody says it was great art pieces.
But all the time you are arguing about technique and skills - and that's
where French academy was very strong and reputable.
Academic techniques: slightest relations of light and shade, colour
tints and hues, perfect lines, unquestionable compositions (in academic
way, of course), balance between static and motion.... etc. And, no
stupid cameras or lenses, believe me.
That were requirements of study.
After all nobody twisted artists' hands after they graduated.
I don't see how mastering classic technique can kill an artist.
Everywhere and always it was on the contrary - good technical school
would benefit any artist and it's extremely difficult to pass through
it.
BTW, I am sure that 90% of modern artists will not meet technical
requirements of 1-year students of such an academy. But when you ask
such an ambitious modern "self-made artist" (i.e. dauber) about it -
you'd hear all about "dead art" and "useless burden of the past".
Sure, sure - looks like - the less you can do with your hands (the less
skills you have) - the more "talent" you preserve...
Umhu...
Nice Story for country bumpkins.
And if you learn more about art and artists of the past you'd see that
impressionists were AGAINST stale perception that French academics were
obtruding upon public. None of artists were ever AGAINST technique.
Technique was an attribute of boring salon art and it happened to be on
the way. Nothing wrong was with with classic technique itself.
But in order to liberate themselves and their art, impressionists turned
this perception upside down.
Denied it. Showed that new vision of art could be different. Optic
impression of picture. Fresh. Free.
Etc. Etc.
When we are talking about impressionists we imply more of manifestation
than technique, because the technique is extremely simple and for ONE
with ACADEMIC school behind - it's matter of days to master colour/optic
rendering of this sort.
The rest is TALENT (if one has it): vision, idea, manifestation,
language of images and forms...
And all these lazy simpletons, who somewhat got zombified by idea that
art is all in "talent" and "self-expression", deny everything that goes
close to FINE art, nice technique, and subtle & proficient RENDITION
artist's own IDEA. To spread dirty spots of paint over huge canvases and
hide behind fake pose of truly modern "artist" is much more easier that
to learn HOW to EXPRESS own ideas in proper way. Or maybe majority of
abstract painters have no idea to express?
> Hockney's work shows how Ingres superior "talent" was
> probably not constituted in an apelike ability to follow a shape in
> nature free-hand, for it now appears that Ingres used tools.
It can be more ape-like to smear canvases WITHOUT following anything at
all.
Except for following instinctive maintaining of colour balance and spots
on canvas.
Eyes and hands working, brain is asleep (if it's still functional on the
whole).
> The heroism of the Impressionists was that they found an alternative
> to photographic reproduction and thus saved art from premature
> extinction. Of course, you're trying to destroy art.
More of nonsense.
William Blake and Francisco Goya (for example) made this achievement
some 50 years before impressionists made their first exhibition in
Paris...
It's always advisable to look in history first before coming out with
erroneous statements.
> If you had half an eye, you'd see that Corot had more art in his
> little finger than Bouguereau or Ingres. Some of the latter's work is
> just ugly because it presents overstuffed people dishonestly posing
> for their picture in a moment of vain-glory. They literally belong
> with the rest of the canaille from which they emerged (by way of
> sweating work men in primitive factories) in a photographer's studio.
Revolutionary ideas? Hmmm. What's good in complaining about that. Tell
me WHEN art was affordable for poor people? Then? Now?
Many people are still agonizing in manual labour and factories at these
days. What improvements you can see after so many years?
Who is buying expensive pictures and art pieces now?
Corporate lawyers and house wives of stock-exchange dealers.
Is that your "working class" that can afford art nowadays?
> >An view of artistic skill sickens artzy fartzies because it serves to
> > remind them that they have none.
Quite so.
--------------------------------
EDWARD
Andrew Werby
"Edward" <dx...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > > >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
> > > >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
> > > >enhance their artistic development.
>
> There is NOTHING in ART HISTORY to support this absurd statement. Not
> all impressionists were the same, they had different background and
> different skills. No need to generalize. Van Gogh is another story and
> do not really belong to this assertion at all, because formally he is
> not associated with Impressionism at all and second, he was a dauber and
> too crazy to take seriously.
[While it's true that "Dauber" Van Gogh wasn't a member of the Impressionist
circle, he was an excellent draftsman, as one can readily confirm by
inspecting some of his earlier drawings. "Pollard Birches"
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/drawings/p_1240.htm isn't reproduced very
sharply on the Web, but in real life I found it very impressive. The Van
Gogh gallery site above has a large collection of this work- look it over
and see if it was made by someone with "no ability to draw".
Whether or not copying existing works is bad or good for an artist is worth
debating. Van Gogh did his share of it, but since he had a strong graphic
sense of his own, I can certainly sympathize with his wanting to work
directly from nature, rather than at second-hand.
As for his mental condition, I think that's irrelevant to the evaluation of
his art, which speaks eloquently for itself. Or do you think any
consideration of an artist's work should be preceded by the reading of
biographical materials, statements, etc. before one decides whether or not
to take it seriously?]
> It's always advisable to look in history first before coming out with
> erroneous statements.
> EDWARD
[I agree- then one can't be called ignorant, just mendacious.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Edward
> As for his mental condition, I think that's irrelevant to the evaluation of
> his art, which speaks eloquently for itself. Or do you think any
> consideration of an artist's work should be preceded by the reading of
> biographical materials, statements, etc. before one decides whether or not
> to take it seriously?]
Actually it's NOT always irrelevant.
We know that ANY publicity is advantageous for people who know how to
use it.
Van Gogh's alienation and behavioural quirks attracted many people and,
in time, his tragic life created quite specific aura around his works.
Even though I can not say the whole Van Gogh's art is blown up due to
his strange actions and sufferings, but history of his life added up
general interest.
Clear example is Salvador Dali.
His art is remarkable by itself, and he was extraordinary creative
person of XIX century.
And yet his eccentrics kept even attention of public on his personality
and art and in the long run it helped to multiply prices of his works...
Edward
Bob & Dale Ford
Edward wrote:
> as of:
> ----------------------------------------
> Subject: RE: MINOR ABILITY to DRAW
> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001 04:40:14 -0800
> ----------------------------------------
>
> SOME COMMENTS to useless conversation
> ----------------------------------------
>
> > > >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
> > > >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
> > > >enhance their artistic development.
>
> There is NOTHING in ART HISTORY to support this absurd statement. Not
> all impressionists were the same, they had different background and
> different skills. No need to generalize. Van Gogh is another story and
> do not really belong to this assertion at all, because formally he is
> not associated with Impressionism at all and second, he was a dauber and
> too crazy to take seriously.
First of all Van Gogh did copy other works. Secondly Van Gogh while being a
post impressionist, was not a dauber. Thirdly any person who dares call
themselves an artist in this day and age is probably too "crazy" to meet
your criteria for sanity. Now talk about this amongst yourselves as I am
about to suffer a coronary.
Dale
Peter H.M. Brooks
Bob & Dale Ford <bdf...@mb.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>
> First of all Van Gogh did copy other works. Secondly Van Gogh while
being a
> post impressionist, was not a dauber. Thirdly any person who dares
call
> themselves an artist in this day and age is probably too "crazy" to
meet
> your criteria for sanity. Now talk about this amongst yourselves as I
am
> about to suffer a coronary.
>
You might be right that artists are by definition not sane - or belong
to a particular sub-category of sanity.
--
The truth is an ambition which is beyond us.
Peter Ustinov
RBrac53660
>BTW, I am sure that 90% of modern artists will not meet technical
>requirements of 1-year students of such an academy.
Haveing been there and done that I can say for sure. It is the option of the
student and if they wish to follow that they can. Such as anatomical drawing
from dissected cadivors.
Andrew Werby
"Edward" <dx...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C2E6816...@yahoo.com...
> Van GOGH ? Mmmmm.
>
> > As for his mental condition, I think that's irrelevant to the evaluation
of
> > his art, which speaks eloquently for itself. Or do you think any
> > consideration of an artist's work should be preceded by the reading of
> > biographical materials, statements, etc. before one decides whether or
not
> > to take it seriously?]
>
> Actually it's NOT always irrelevant.
> We know that ANY publicity is advantageous for people who know how to
> use it.
[I wouldn't include Vincent among them. And this is an entirely separate
issue from the evaluation of his work as art. Or do you include an artist's
publicity in some post-modern gestalt theory of art appreciation? ]
>
> Van Gogh's alienation and behavioural quirks attracted many people and,
> in time, his tragic life created quite specific aura around his works.
[During his life , these quirks didn't do him a bit of good. The aura is
there, but it's in the work itself- the paintings much more than the
drawings, which he considered preparatory sketches more than artworks in
themselves. ]
> Even though I can not say the whole Van Gogh's art is blown up due to
> his strange actions and sufferings, but history of his life added up
> general interest.
[Certainly a fascinating biography is a hook for people who have no concept
of art, but the example of Van Gogh is not one I personally would like to
follow, even if it would be helpful to my posthumous fame (I like my ears
right where they are, thank you very much). I wonder, though, if artists
today don't feel a certain pressure to act out, in hopes of impressing the
public with their outrageous personalities so it might take notice of their
art. Sure, everybody likes a good story, but isn't it enough anymore to be a
good artist? Alas, a survey of the famous artists of the last century or so
would lead one to believe it's not.]
>
> Clear example is Salvador Dali.
> His art is remarkable by itself, and he was extraordinary creative
> person of XIX century.
[That would be the XXth century- we've crossed that bridge to theXXIst by
now...]
>
> And yet his eccentrics kept even attention of public on his personality
> and art and in the long run it helped to multiply prices of his works...
>
>
> Edward
[Yes, but even though he got crazier towards the end, it's his earlier works
that are (justly) more prized.]
Andrew Werby
http://unitedartworks.com
Edward
INCOMPETENCE (which inevitably ensues) is NEVER an OPTION.
It is FAILURE.
[I have seen these students and I had quite a bad luck to teach some
of the laziest freaks in art classes.]
Edward
-- HAPPY NEW YEAR --!
----------------------
Holly Daize
>INCOMPETENCE (which inevitably ensues) is NEVER an OPTION.
>It is FAILURE.
I suggest that there are artists who might
disagree with you - Philip Guston, for example!
His latter-day "incompetent" renderings are
hardly considered failures from what I've seen.
RBrac53660
that for a living and can draw a bone a muscle or skin or eyeball or really any
part includeding techniques shuch as forshorting excatley as it looks in real
life. However it is not what she considers "art".
mdeli
>In article <3C303D64...@yahoo.com>, dx...@yahoo.com says...
>>INCOMPETENCE (which inevitably ensues) is NEVER an OPTION.
>>It is FAILURE.
>
>I suggest that there are artists who might
>disagree with you - Philip Guston, for example!
I'm sure you are right. Why would someone who is utterly incompetent
support competence?
>His latter-day "incompetent" renderings are
>hardly considered failures from what I've seen.
Guston had no talent or skill. When he stopped painting politically
correct Abstract expressionism, his biggest mistake, and tried to
paint subject matter the critics yawned. His abilities at this were
nil.
Guston is a "has been" mostly relegated to the museum basement because
his auction prices are nothing special. He produced "thousands of
major works," one worse than the next. Some museums still hang a
Guston or two in memory of the idiot curator who spent money
purchasing that crap.
Twombly has filled in all of Guston's former space. He may last longer
than Guston if he sticks to his chicken scratches and stays away from
anything that will reveal his lack of ability and dies early enough to
make his output rare enough for dealers to ration the crap .
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli
Edward
I am talking about ABILITY not about talent, gift, charisma... or art
itself!
What kind of attention is that?
What is this NG ?
You are just a perfect example of person I refered to (in my personal
email I sent you some time ago) - who write only to express something
they want to without any relevance to the topic whatsoever.
It reveals INCOMPETENCE even in writing to usenet groups...
Edward.
-----------------
RBrac53660
>itself!
>
Then go away old man
Since you have nothing to talk about. what do you need viagara?