drawing
mdeli
carrying this idea to the extreme.
Take drawing. You start with paper and something to draw with. Now
here is the model and the teacher in essence says "do" and everyone
proceeds.
The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you in front of the
piano and says "play." No scales, no lessons, no passing on of
knowledge. Now after two weeks of trial and error you have figured out
how to play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see, you can
play, now all you have to do is practice and you’ll do art."
You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge waste of time to
try to figure out the basic knowledge which took the best minds
centuries to figure out. It would be as stupid as everyone having to
reinvent the wheel for himself.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
peter nelson
>Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is taught today by
>carrying this idea to the extreme.
>
>Take drawing. You start with paper and something to draw with. Now
>here is the model and the teacher in essence says "do" and everyone
>proceeds.
>
>The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you in front of the
>piano and says "play." No scales, no lessons, no passing on of
>knowledge. Now after two weeks of trial and error you have figured out
>how to play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see, you can
>play, now all you have to do is practice and you’ll do art."
I agree. I've never understood this and yet it's what I've
run into in every drawing class I've ever taken (UMass Amherst,
Cambridge (Mass) Adult Ed., and the Decordova Museum
in Lincoln Mass), is almost exactly as mdeli describes.
The instructors all say that they are concerned about
imposing their vision on the students. They want the students
to be "free". I had an instructor jokingly remark last year that if
I would only loosen up I could be the next Picasso. (I DO have
an overly tight, tense approach to my work - it looks like art
done by an accountant). I responded that before Picasso
invented cubism he was an excellent conventional draughtsman.
i.e., he could DRAW accurately and consistently. THAT's what
I want to do - before I make "art" I want to have control over
my skills so that when the time comes I can get my artistic vision
onto the paper or canvas looking the way I envision it.
My wife is a classical pianist. And it is exactly as mdeli
points out: Although practice, practice, practice is essential,
without proper instruction you can practice till you're blue
in the face and all you'll be doing is wasting your time and
getting a blue face.
I disagree with whoever (mdeli?) suggested that it's because
the instructors themselves can't draw. I've seen the work
of several instructors and much of it is very good. The hard
part, I guess, is explaining how they got that way.
---peter
Valery
classes. And after a few weeks the teacher went around to see who was where
and who he needed to work with the most. I find no fault in that.
Otherwise, all of my classes the teachers were a very active force in
helping me understand the basics you talk about.
I completely see where you are coming from though and see a defiante problem
in todays teaching skills. I have taken classes with people going to teach
art and it is quite frightening. They cnsidered art to be a kit you can buy
at a craft store to make moccasins. Scary. That is not art. that is craft
and not even genuine craft at that.
I raise my hands in the air and think of starting my own artist colony,
valery
mdeli wrote in message <368ffe50...@news.interlog.com>...
>Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is taught today by
>carrying this idea to the extreme.
>
>Take drawing. You start with paper and something to draw with. Now
>here is the model and the teacher in essence says "do" and everyone
>proceeds.
>
>The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you in front of the
>piano and says "play." No scales, no lessons, no passing on of
>knowledge. Now after two weeks of trial and error you have figured out
>how to play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see, you can
>play, now all you have to do is practice and you’ll do art."
>
mdeli
>>Mani DeLi
>>...no skill no art
>
>
>
>Dear Mani,
>After one year (I think) I came back to read something in this and other
>newsgroups.
>What a surprise,you are still writing the same obsessions like year or more
>ago.
>You spent more time writing in newsgroups than you spent on your paintings.
You don't know a damned thing as to how I spend my time
>At last,you are very entertaining,little funny organism.
>Do yourself a favor,and work for a change...I want to see new paintings
>on your web site next year.
You will see some in about a week and you can buy my book if you
happen to be rich enough to spend $25. It will be advertised on my web
page.
V
>...no skill no art
Dear Mani,
After one year (I think) I came back to read something in this and other
newsgroups.
What a surprise,you are still writing the same obsessions like year or more
ago.
You spent more time writing in newsgroups than you spent on your paintings.
At last,you are very entertaining,little funny organism.
Do yourself a favor,and work for a change...I want to see new paintings
on your web site next year.
Yours truly,
V
Michael Van Kleeck
is that drawing is an ability you're born with. True, some people simply
have a knack for drawing, from the childhood years, and don't need real
basic instruction to produce good drawings.
However, I never had that gift, and when I started painting, I found
that I needed to learn to draw first, in order to get perspective and
accurate figures. Since I'm only a hobbyist, I'm not taking a class, but
I've rabbed a few step-by-step books, and now I feel that I can draw
decently, even though I don't have that drawing "gift".
The hardest part was overcoming this idea that drawing can't be
taught....
-Michael
mdeli wrote:
>
> Learn by doing sounds fine until you see how art is taught today by
> carrying this idea to the extreme.
>
> Take drawing. You start with paper and something to draw with. Now
> here is the model and the teacher in essence says "do" and everyone
> proceeds.
>
> The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you in front of the
> piano and says "play." No scales, no lessons, no passing on of
> knowledge. Now after two weeks of trial and error you have figured out
> how to play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see, you can
> play, now all you have to do is practice and you’ll do art."
>
> You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge waste of time to
> try to figure out the basic knowledge which took the best minds
> centuries to figure out. It would be as stupid as everyone having to
> reinvent the wheel for himself.
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
mdeli
<mich...@home.com> wrote:
>One mistaken perception I grew up with, and have only recently shaken,
>is that drawing is an ability you're born with.
How true. Few students realize this.
> True, some people simply
>have a knack for drawing, from the childhood years, and don't need real
>basic instruction to produce good drawings.
I disagree with this slightly.
I'll say it for music. Almost everyone has to learn the basics. People
who have a gift and the interest become better. A few become great
musicians. Those who don't have a gift choose other professions.
I find that most so called artists don't know the basics and have to
depend on Artspeak and long explanations to attract the viewer.
The problem for most students is that they don't realize that the
basics even exist. They think its all a matter of emotion, self
expression, compositional theory and eye training and a load of
slogans.
My book which will appear on my web site soon addresses this in detail
among other things.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
david_g...@hotmail.com
just draw.
if you get "bored"
then you are on to something.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
soul earth
develop further than that.
It's like all skills, you use it or you lose it.
I think that drawing is enhanced by learning the basics, e.g perspective,
volume, line, negative space etc, etc and is further improved by practice,
practice and more practice.
I think most people are not able to get over that "I can't draw" mind set.
Teachers are yet another field that some people are good at, and some are
just awful. Unfortunately, the good ones are hard to come by, and a lot of
teachers, like all humans, find it hard to impart their knowledge, skill
etc.
I have heard of teachers advising students that they don't need to be able
to draw to be successful. Judging by some of the art, this must be a
popular opinion.
My own opinion, is that you must have a good grasp of the fundamentals, and
be in control with the medium, then, you can launch into whatever style you
want to.
mdeli
>I disagree with whoever (mdeli?) suggested that it's because
>the instructors themselves can't draw. I've seen the work
>of several instructors and much of it is very good. The hard
>part, I guess, is explaining how they got that way.
>
I've had instructors who could draw and teach. My point is that they
are hard to find.
However, Instructors who can't draw, can't teach drawing and these
days they are easy to find.
Frederic Goudal
>
> However, Instructors who can't draw, can't teach drawing and these
> days they are easy to find.
You know art is not drawing. So if a drawing instructor don't know how
to draw it's a pity. But art has nothing to do with drawing.
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
peter nelson
Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
>>
>> However, Instructors who can't draw, can't teach drawing and these
>> days they are easy to find.
>
>You know art is not drawing. So if a drawing instructor don't know how
>to draw it's a pity. But art has nothing to do with drawing.
That's a rather sweeping statement. Don't you think
it depends on the art? If the artist is attempting to
create representational figure studies then drawing skills
might come in handy.
And it also depends on how broadly you define drawing.
Or painting for that matter. Are you suggesting that art
exists totally at the conceptual level, i.e., the art is realized
as soon as the thought of it enters the artist's head and
nothing more needs to be done?
Because if not, then the art has to be realized in the physical
world - drawn, painted, sculpted, etc. And if the artist does
not have the skill to get his idea into the physical realm AS
HE INTENDED IT, however that was - representationally,
abstractly, whatever - then he didn't make his art.
So to suggest that drawing or other basic skills have nothing to
do with art seems rather far fetched. Do you think you can
develop that thesis?
---peter
DFRussell
|> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
|> >
|> > However, Instructors who can't draw, can't teach drawing and these
|> > days they are easy to find.
|>
|> You know art is not drawing. So if a drawing instructor don't know how
|> to draw it's a pity. But art has nothing to do with drawing.
Odd.... one always finds books on drawing in the art section
of bookstores...
No wonder we're all confused.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
Frederic Goudal
> Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
> >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> >>
> >> However, Instructors who can't draw, can't teach drawing and these
> >> days they are easy to find.
> >
> >You know art is not drawing. So if a drawing instructor don't know how
> >to draw it's a pity. But art has nothing to do with drawing.
>
>
> That's a rather sweeping statement. Don't you think
> it depends on the art?
It's just a logical statement :
There are artists who don't draw
There are people who draw that are not artists,
So the only conclusion that we can get is : there is no logical connection between art
and drawing. In a more current languages : art has nothing to do with drawing.
> And it also depends on how broadly you define drawing.
> Or painting for that matter. Are you suggesting that art
> exists totally at the conceptual level, i.e., the art is realized
> as soon as the thought of it enters the artist's head and
> nothing more needs to be done?
No just simply that art has no relation with the medium. While reading
Man Ray autobiography, he came to the conclusion that painting was
more a life style than something else. So you can consider that in
this case art is permanently attached to the painter. I'm not a
painter, I'm a photorapher. For me this sentence means that art begins
when I see something. Maybe I'll do the photo another day, maybe it
will just gives me an idea for something else.
But that was only an easy example. I'm sure more intellectual
discussion could take place.
> Because if not, then the art has to be realized in the physical
> world - drawn, painted, sculpted, etc.
What about poetry. If you just don't write the poem does it belongs to
the physical world ?
>And if the artist does
> not have the skill to get his idea into the physical realm AS
> HE INTENDED IT, however that was - representationally,
> abstractly, whatever - then he didn't make his art.
I agree with that. But... what about brute art as defined by Dubuffet ??
> So to suggest that drawing or other basic skills have nothing to
> do with art seems rather far fetched. Do you think you can
> develop that thesis?
It's not very difficult. The thesis of the skill is a very
ethnocentrist one, and further more centered on a very precise period
of history. Once you extend the limit, you see that it does not mean
anything. If you take people like Henry Michaud, his drawings don't
need any ability to "draw" (in the academic sence") and than it carry
a great emotion.
In another way it's a bit like if you said "only beautifull person are
intersting". (And here again we may consider that the definition of
beauty may vary dramaticaly with time and place).
DFRussell
|> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> writes:
|>
|> > Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
|> > >hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
|> > >>
|> > >> However, Instructors who can't draw, can't teach drawing and these
|> > >> days they are easy to find.
|> > >
|> > >You know art is not drawing. So if a drawing instructor don't know how
|> > >to draw it's a pity. But art has nothing to do with drawing.
|> >
|> >
|> > That's a rather sweeping statement. Don't you think
|> > it depends on the art?
|>
|> It's just a logical statement :
Really? :-)
|> There are artists who don't draw
Assume it to be true, this proves?
There are artists who don't paint.
|> There are people who draw that are not artists,
Assume it to be true, this proves?
There are people who paint who are not artists.
|> So the only conclusion that we can get is : there is no logical connection between art
|> and drawing. In a more current languages : art has nothing to do with drawing.
Using your "logic," painting is not art either.
The balance of your post was ignored. It seemed a waste of time to
read it.
Frederic Goudal
> I agree completely with your observations, Mani - I have experienced
> this kind of "teaching" myself at a previous university. Instruction
> consisted of blind contour drawing (looking away from the paper as
> one smears charcoal across it), drawing the model in circles,
> dipping sticks in ink and scrawling them across paper, etc.,
> everything, in fact, except effective instruction in how to *see*
> the human form, and how to render it poetically in two
> dimensions.
That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things. But
this way is time and place dependant. You don't *see* the human form
the same way depending on when and where you have been educated.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> writes:
>
> > I agree completely with your observations, Mani - I have experienced
> > this kind of "teaching" myself at a previous university. Instruction
> > consisted of blind contour drawing (looking away from the paper as
> > one smears charcoal across it), drawing the model in circles,
> > dipping sticks in ink and scrawling them across paper, etc.,
> > everything, in fact, except effective instruction in how to *see*
> > the human form, and how to render it poetically in two
> > dimensions.
>
> That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things. But
> this way is time and place dependant. You don't *see* the human form
> the same way depending on when and where you have been educated.
There may not be a "correct way of doing such things," but your "education"
matters little to the actual measurements of a physical object.
While your experiences may make you *react* differently to something, the
physical object appears the same to everyone.
A square is a square... even in la belle France.
Iian Neill
> carrying this idea to the extreme.
>
> Take drawing. You start with paper and something to draw with. Now
> here is the model and the teacher in essence says "do" and everyone
> proceeds.
>
> The equivalent in music would be; the teacher sits you in front of the
> piano and says "play." No scales, no lessons, no passing on of
> knowledge. Now after two weeks of trial and error you have figured out
> how to play "jingle bells" and the teacher tells you, "see, you can
> play, now all you have to do is practice and you’ll do art."
I agree completely with your observations, Mani - I have experienced this kind of "teaching" myself at a previous university. Instruction consisted of
blind contour drawing (looking away from the paper as one smears charcoal across it), drawing the model in circles, dipping sticks in ink and scrawling
them across paper, etc., everything, in fact, except effective instruction in how to *see* the human form, and how to render it poetically in two
dimensions. What can one expect when these "teachers" have - by and large - renounced the principles of art-practise that could give them the technical
skills necessary to instruct in drawing?
> You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge waste of time to
> try to figure out the basic knowledge which took the best minds
> centuries to figure out. It would be as stupid as everyone having to
> reinvent the wheel for himself.
Neverthless, this is what we must do, unless you find a Master. Working from reproductions (or the real works) by Old Masters can not but help our skills,
but the test comes when one is face-to-face with Nature. Until an effecient and effective means of art instruction is instituted on a wide scale, the
artists of this and the next generation will need to survive without teachers.
In case we are tempted to lose all hope, however, do not forget that it has been done before. The great 19th century painter Ernest Meissonier was
self-taught; true, a 19th century artist's definition of "self taught" may be less rigorous than ours, but it should at least prove to us that it is
possible to make it if you have the passion and the skill.
Best Regards,
Iian Neill.
_______________________________________________________________________________
If you are interested in fine art from the 19th century's greatest masters, feel free to visit the Renaissance Cafe in its two aspects:
http://www.fortunecity.com/westwood/galliano/293/index.html
http://members.spree.com/sip/gerome/index.html
mdeli
<gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> writes:
>
>> I agree completely with your observations, Mani - I have experienced
>> this kind of "teaching" myself at a previous university. Instruction
>> consisted of blind contour drawing (looking away from the paper as
>> one smears charcoal across it), drawing the model in circles,
>> dipping sticks in ink and scrawling them across paper, etc.,
>> everything, in fact, except effective instruction in how to *see*
>> the human form, and how to render it poetically in two
>> dimensions.
>
>That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things.
Whatever the way, everyone who learns music has to learn the scales.
Everyone plays slightly differently. In a higher level everyone
composes differently. The information content of rote information is
mostly the same.
> But
>this way is time and place dependant.
Only on higher levels
> You don't *see* the human form
>the same way depending on when and where you have been educated.
The process by which the image that falls on the retina is the same
for everyone. Everyone interprets it somewhat differently. An artist
has to know what to look for in order to make his image impress the
viewer. It has nothing much to do with seeing if you use the word in a
conventional sense.
Theories about hand eye coordination passed of as art teaching are
baloney. If you can't put the mark where you want it get another
profession.
mdeli
I wrote
>> You can practice till you drop. It would be a huge waste of time to
>> try to figure out the basic knowledge which took the best minds
>> centuries to figure out. It would be as stupid as everyone having to
>> reinvent the wheel for himself.
>
>Neverthless, this is what we must do, unless you find a Master. Working from reproductions (or the real works) by Old Masters can not but help our skills,
I don't believe this will help much if you don't know the basics.
>but the test comes when one is face-to-face with Nature. Until an effecient and effective means of art instruction is instituted on a wide scale, the artists of this and the next generation will need to survive without teachers.
>
There are teachers it is the business of the student to find them. One
can learn the basics from books. They are available
>In case we are tempted to lose all hope, however, do not forget that it has been done before. The great 19th century painter Ernest >Meissonier was self-taught; true, a 19th century artist's definition of "self taught" may be less rigorous than ours, but it should at least prove to us that it is possible to make it if you have the passion and the skill.
Meissonier wasn't self taught he studied with Jules Potier and Leon
Cogniet. Also take note of the fact that the basics were taught to
many young people at that time like music is often taught today.
Students studied geometry and architectural drawing, landscape etc.
Frederic Goudal
> On 13 Jan 1999 16:48:39 +0100, Frederic Goudal
> <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
> >Iian Neill <leon...@microtech.com.au> writes:
> >
> >> I agree completely with your observations, Mani - I have experienced
> >> this kind of "teaching" myself at a previous university. Instruction
> >> consisted of blind contour drawing (looking away from the paper as
> >> one smears charcoal across it), drawing the model in circles,
> >> dipping sticks in ink and scrawling them across paper, etc.,
> >> everything, in fact, except effective instruction in how to *see*
> >> the human form, and how to render it poetically in two
> >> dimensions.
> >
> >That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things.
>
> Whatever the way, everyone who learns music has to learn the scales.
Have you ever hear that there exist different scales ??? That the
scale is not the same depending on time and place ?? Are you so
unaware of what you are talking ?
Have you ever hear about atonal music ?
> The process by which the image that falls on the retina is the same
> for everyone. Everyone interprets it somewhat differently. An artist
> has to know what to look for in order to make his image impress the
> viewer. It has nothing much to do with seeing if you use the word in a
> conventional sense.
Example : in the middle age, the perspective was not used, but instead of that
the more important the character was the bigger it was on the painting.
Does that mean that the retina of middle age people was différent ?
No.
Does that mean that they had no skills ? Clearly no.
They just had a different way to represent things that was shared by every one.
The same thing happens for japanese traditional painting.
Here again you speak without any real knowledge. You know your little
world around you. But you have decided that YOUR vision was the only
one. And you are so unsure of yourself that you feel the need to spit
on everybody else just to affirmate your poor personality.
Frederic Goudal
> >That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things.
>
> Whatever the way, everyone who learns music has to learn the scales.
Hum we were speaking about drawing not music. It's very fun that you
switch subject when you see that you are wrong...
Bob C
>
> In article <ux1zkz5...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> >
> > this way is time and place dependant. You don't *see* the human form
> > the same way depending on when and where you have been educated.
>
> matters little to the actual measurements of a physical object.
>
> While your experiences may make you *react* differently to something, the
> physical object appears the same to everyone.
>
That may not be entirely true, but is probably close enough. But it
still does not relate to any concept of "correctness" as far as art is
concerned. As soon as you convert a real object into some representation
of it, what you call the "actual measurements" may or may not be
relevant. What we traditionally call realism in 2D visual arts is an
optically accurate projection of space as seen from a single viewpoint
at a single moment in time by a lens of fixed focal length. This
preserves many measurements but may lose others. Not only are there many
other different ways of projecting 3D space into 2D, but there is no
hard logic which tells us that any attempt at geometric projection at
all is necessarily the best way of representing.
- Bob
Frederic Goudal
> burnin...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > In article <ux1zkz5...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> > Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things. But
> > > this way is time and place dependant. You don't *see* the human form
> > > the same way depending on when and where you have been educated.
> >
> > There may not be a "correct way of doing such things," but your "education"
> > matters little to the actual measurements of a physical object.
What about all the oriental drawing tradition ? What about all the
middle age tradition, where the "measurements" where more spiritual than physical ?
Do you mean that you only consider a little period of time in a little place as valid ?
mdeli
>Have you ever hear that there exist different scales ??? That the
>scale is not the same depending on time and place ?? Are you so
>unaware of what you are talking ?
>
>Have you ever hear about atonal music ?
Atonal music involves scales and technique just like the other kind..
>> The process by which the image that falls on the retina is the same
>> for everyone. Everyone interprets it somewhat differently. An artist
>> has to know what to look for in order to make his image impress the
>> viewer. It has nothing much to do with seeing if you use the word in a
>> conventional sense.
>
>Example : in the middle age, the perspective was not used, but instead of that
>the more important the character was the bigger it was on the painting.
Perspective to the degree it was known was used. Most perspective
knowledge at this time along with most other knowledge was lost. The
attempt to paint form shows in medieval painting. Besides perspective
there is technique. Early painting shows mastery of the known
techniques. No early painting has the look of an untrained six year
old.
>Does that mean that the retina of middle age people was différent ?
>No.
>Does that mean that they had no skills ? Clearly no.
Where did I say they had no skills?
>They just had a different way to represent things that was shared by every one.
>
>The same thing happens for japanese traditional painting.
>
>
>Here again you speak without any real knowledge. You know your little
>world around you. But you have decided that YOUR vision was the only
>one.
Where did I do that? I have collected oriental as well as Western art.
I am also familiar with Persian, Mogul, Chinese and Japanese painting
etc,
> And you are so unsure of yourself that you feel the need to spit
>on everybody else just to affirmate your poor personality.
?
br...@wralaw.com
>
> Atonal music involves scales and technique just like the other kind..
Not always. A few of these involved rubbing a piece of paper on trees.
The musician just play what came out. It is hard for a violinist or
pianist who is playing this since it follows no natural progression.
Some study I cannot qoute now found that while normal music did
increase IQ scores atonal did not. Alors our natural reaction to
each is marketdly different in a measurable biological sense. (Also
I do think one should search out art that makes them think but not
try to use art as a so called smart-drug)
> >> The process by which the image that falls on the retina is the same
> >> for everyone. Everyone interprets it somewhat differently.
Visual thought is not limited to the retina it in fact involves a large
portion of our brains. Abstract art would for instance exclude that
part that deals with objects(a lot of which deals with faces).
> >> An artist
> >> has to know what to look for in order to make his image impress the
> >> viewer.
> >>It has nothing much to do with seeing if you use the word in a
> >> conventional sense.
Aren't you French? See has an ambigous meaning. See what I mean?
> >Example : in the middle age, the perspective was not used, but instead of
that
> >the more important the character was the bigger it was on the painting.
And that goes to show that Humans in any era simply conform.
> >They just had a different way to represent things that was shared by every
one.
Fredric writes to Mani:
> >The same thing happens for japanese traditional painting.
> >Here again you speak without any real knowledge. You know your little
> >world around you. But you have decided that YOUR vision was the only
> >one.
However I, Bryn Ayers of North America, am the really the egocentric one
here. I am almost certain that my vision is the closest to reality.
> Where did I do that? I have collected oriental as well as Western art.
> I am also familiar with Persian, Mogul, Chinese and Japanese painting
> etc,
So tell me do you think as I do that Sumi is Abstract Expressionism...
...Or at least I am certain that there is a calligraphy art of
esthetic sloppyness practiced in Japan...
> > And you are so unsure of yourself that you feel the need to spit
> >on everybody else just to affirmate your poor personality.
sticky!
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
Frederic Goudal
> However I, Bryn Ayers of North America, am the really the egocentric one
> here. I am almost certain that my vision is the closest to reality.
I love this one. But :
- what is reality ?
- what does art to do with reality ?
Frederic Goudal
> On 14 Jan 1999 10:00:40 +0100, Frederic Goudal
>
> >Have you ever hear that there exist different scales ??? That the
> >scale is not the same depending on time and place ?? Are you so
> >unaware of what you are talking ?
> >
> >Have you ever hear about atonal music ?
>
> Atonal music involves scales and technique just like the other kind..
>
> >> The process by which the image that falls on the retina is the same
> >> for everyone. Everyone interprets it somewhat differently. An artist
> >> has to know what to look for in order to make his image impress the
> >> viewer. It has nothing much to do with seeing if you use the word in a
> >> conventional sense.
> >
> >Example : in the middle age, the perspective was not used, but instead of that
> >the more important the character was the bigger it was on the painting.
>
> Perspective to the degree it was known was used. Most perspective
> knowledge at this time along with most other knowledge was lost. The
> attempt to paint form shows in medieval painting. Besides perspective
> there is technique. Early painting shows mastery of the known
> techniques. No early painting has the look of an untrained six year
> old.
Ok let's take another example : why the Christ was represented as baby
with "false" proportions ? It was not because they were technically unable to do that.
> >Here again you speak without any real knowledge. You know your little
> >world around you. But you have decided that YOUR vision was the only
> >one.
>
> Where did I do that? I have collected oriental as well as Western art.
> I am also familiar with Persian, Mogul, Chinese and Japanese painting
> etc,
Yes, but you don't have learn anything from that. Collecting is
simple. Understanding more complicated. Clearly you don't get any
experience from such things.
-N.
> So tell me do you think as I do that Sumi is Abstract Expressionism...
> ...Or at least I am certain that there is a calligraphy art of
> esthetic sloppyness practiced in Japan...
Although not addessed to me, I for one do not.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
-N.
modifications)].
DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM DRAWING
€Cabanne: What is taste for you?
Duchamp: A habit. The repetition of something already accepted. If you
start something over several times, it becomes taste, Good or bad, it's
the same thing, it's still taste.*
My personal experience has been that drawing is simply a manual skill. It
can be studied, it can be taught...like putting a horseshoe on a horse,
or becoming a plumber. It's mastery will not turn you into an artist, (nor
will being good with the tap and die or the welding torch necessarily make
you an accomplished engine mechanic, or typing quickly and accurately make
you a good writer) and it's lack will not deter your other innovations and
skill sets from developing. In addition, manual drawing ability in one
form of drawing, for example, tightly drawn Albertian linear perspective
figure drawing, does not ensure and may even quite commonly interfere with
the ability to develop other drawing languages. Many an artists has been
stifled in his growth because of a uncritical acceptance of the first
skill set introduced to him. With no further innovation, his development
as an artist is essentially crippled. If added to the students insecurity
and self doubt, the confusion of the choices involved in navigating and
understanding a myriad of artistic options available, heap onto that an
untempered pride at achieving a textbook likeness , and an unquestioning
relation to praise from uncritical sources (illustration has always been
the easy way to enlist audience sympathy**), and fear of moving outwards
from that comfortable position, and one can see how a manual skill set,
that of linear perspective and figuration, for example, can become a
detriment.
Personally, my education put me shoulder to shoulder with a wide spectrum
of sensibilities. In the students, I always remember a few that would
champion the notion of "drawing skills". In effect they were not
championing drawing skills, but rather a certain set of conventions, and
quite often because they didn't posses the insight and overview to see
beyond them. A couple did, and to their credit their art developed, albeit
within the loosely described perspective tradition. Others through, ,what
I would assume a deep insecurity about there own skills and a world which
had a frightening set of options and many traditions, retreated from all
that and gambled the entire nut on the acquisition of a single manual
skill, severely weakening the gray matter that is needed to run and
innovate within that skill. To an intimidated, frightened and harried Fine
Art student (as opposed to illustration student, although not exclusive) ,
embrace of a technique that had a centuries old authority and power is an
easy way out of the challenge of art, it immediately puts an end to a
certain kind of expressive search, and perhaps gives a false sense of
security. And really, if anyone decided that they wanted to learn to
render through perspective, it is not a difficult skill to learn if
practiced. There is no magic involved. Rather, it is more mechanics than
magic...one look through history at the mechanical perspective devices
used by artists and students will give proof. The manual skill set of
rendering of the human form through single point perspective, is in
certain company supported as the ne plus ultra of artistic
accomplishment. This misquided notion is only maintained through
mystification. The science, math, and techniques involved are no more or
less complicated than any other artistic endeavor. It is simply a formula
which one follows. It's ease is attested to by the proliferation of it's
effects over many centuries. After an introduction to the science, math,
and techniques, one studies other drawings, copies some of the latter,
copies from casts, learns to vary the line a little here and a little
there (if that is the effect they are after), and if finds it to be
helpful, studies anatomy, if one finds it additionally helpful...one digs
up corpses with their own hands like DaVinci did. Standard academic Beaux
Arts training. But why should one bother? This all can be a gross waste of
time, time better spent in other studies and practices. Perhaps an artist
is not interested in drawn arts at all and prefers manipulating collage,
reproductions, or other materials. Perhaps the drawing skills involve
non-objective abstract line(being better at drawing a fingernail will be
of no use, indeed one may be indeed too tight to get beyond it...if one
wants to be generate an artistic energy equal to an Elvis Presley as
opposed to a Perry Como). A walk in the park, will bring you into dozens
upon dozens of portrait draughtsmen, competent in their craft and skill
set, selling works to the tourist, for ten bucks a pop. What that
accomplished manual skill might have to do with what DaVinci,
Michelangelo, and Raphael were up to with their highly evolved multiple
skill sets and expressions on the cutting edge of their culture, I will
leave for you to decide...for you AND culture to decide, that is, as
meaning in art is shaped by cultural codes as much as or more than the
will of the artist. Perhaps a skill set valued in the past is perceived as
obsolete and useless, but how will it be applied? How incorporated? What
is the mind like that is running it? How is it responsive to the culture
and to the evolving tradition of art?
Likewise works that have the conventions of single point perspective are
immediately digestible, at least in style, by most people in western
countries. This is because the conventions are so common, and their
pictorial and artistic intelligence so common, that it is easy to look at.
It's fun to recognize an onion in a work of art, at whatever stage of
accomplishment, for the uninitiated. These same viewers confronted with a
powerhouse job of non-objective drawing, very likely would have a hard
time liking it...there is nothing to find and identify; simple and common
manual illustrative skills, even poorly employed seem to please and
delight the uncritical masses no end. At it lowest form, it is a child's
game of recognizing and identifying. At its highest level, it is also a
game of recognizing and identifying something, but perhaps no longer a
childąs game. What are the rewards?
Surely great art innovative and responsive to the codes of a culture can
be made by applying the skill set of single point perspective drawing, but
I highly doubt that a pedestrian mind will be the one to pull it off.
Shifting cultures opens other vantages. There is the tradition of the arts
in the east, China for example, which developed entirely without recourse
to Western Albertian-related perspective. I do not know if cones, and
cubes were rendered from life within this tradition, but if they were, I
am quite certain they were rendered differently, and that the subsequent
aestheitc results yielded a different expression compared to
contemporaneous drawing made with western codes.
Those that don't possess the common skill set of the majority or don't
utilize it, and with respect to students, those who are in the process of
acquiring it, or those who find it not suited to them, often are
recipients of guilt, ridicule, and hatred lavished upon them by their less
insightful peers or mentors. Witness the Third Reich's "Degenerate Art"
exhibition, and refer to the speech delivered by Adolph Hitler at it's
opening reception. Not merely dismissive or spitefully critical, the
speech was laden with hatred and unsubstantiated criticism. There is a
part of the artistic community, and even more dangerous, the artistic
educational community, that thrives on psychological terrorism and levered
coercion (whether this stems from fear or insecurity, or both, in the
face of personal performance and historical weight is difficult to say) in
an ill conceived and uncritical attempt to devalue certain manifestations
of art.
Erroneous appeals to primal, foundational, and historical myths
notwithstanding, some educators have limited the artistic options of the
students in an attempt to regain singularity and centrality to the skill
sets of Albertian linear perspective and its derivatives. Were the dark
psychological cloud lifted, and skill sets developed and pursued as
desired in the production of art, the educational institution would allow
more diverse talents to flourish, which indeed, is occurring now in more
art departments. An understanding of the different traditions now
available to artists in the West will give the student and educational
institute a clearer basis with which to devise curriculum.
*Cabanne, Pierre, Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp, Da Capo Press, NY, 1979, p.39.
**Thanks Frank.
-N
br...@wralaw.com
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> In article <77mmp0$gm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > So tell me do you think as I do that Sumi is Abstract Expressionism...
> > ...Or at least I am certain that there is a calligraphy art of
> > esthetic sloppyness practiced in Japan...
A typical well though out terse response...
> Although not addessed to me, I for one do not.
Why?
Certainly the relevant esthetic sloppyness, and Idea of
fast and active creation, and expressing emotion Are about
the same. (i also don't know if the expressive form of
japanese calligraphy based on esoteric Buddism is the same
as Sumi - I have just know that that is an kind of ink and
a general name given to some Japanese calligraphy -sorry)
Carpetry was previously(amoungst many forms)a well developed and old
abstract art. Some Modernism has been considering art-forms that
are very old applied to oil painting(MADE NEW AND DECLARED PASSE').
> -N.
> --
> N
> To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Bryn Ayers
br...@wralaw.com
I do not reject *your* personal experience but it is not my personal
experience. Drawing for me has been a trinity of the esthetic, the
perceptual, and the scientific (or technical).
*Assertion that drawing is only scientific deleted* (like plumbing)
> it's lack will not deter your other innovations and
> skill sets from developing.
There are a considerable number of good Ideas that are impossible
because the science and technology do not allow it. Just look
outside of the artworld and then look in it.
A good Idea is to paint photorealistically by imagination with
every detail modified and considered abstract as intently as we
believe Mondrian would have.
>In addition, manual drawing ability in one
> form of drawing, for example, tightly drawn Albertian linear perspective
> figure drawing, does not ensure and may even quite commonly interfere with
> the ability to develop other drawing languages.
If we consider the brain to be like a computer I can see the
justification that learning one thing would preclude another.
> Many an artists has been
> stifled in his growth because of a uncritical acceptance of the first
> skill set introduced to him.
Is it the skill or innate tendancy towards conformity that is to blame
if this does actually occure?
Learning technique Inhibits creativity or it often
reveals that the artist might have none or the critic(whomever)
sees none. Bad technique is a good way to hide nearly
everything, especially a tendancy towards wildlife and
landscape painting without imagination(and imagination or
creativity is the primary in art).
(And here it is...
> With no further innovation, his development
> as an artist is essentially crippled.
> If added to the students insecurity
> and self doubt, the confusion of the choices involved in navigating and
> understanding a myriad of artistic options available, heap onto that an
> untempered pride at achieving a textbook likeness , and an unquestioning
> relation to praise from uncritical sources (illustration has always been
> the easy way to enlist audience sympathy**),
Illustration has many meanings now, the base word is to lustre, which
means light, but illustrate has come to mean reveal...
> and fear of moving outwards
> from that comfortable position, and one can see how a manual skill set,
> that of linear perspective and figuration, for example, can become a
> detriment.
This is of course the long argument for obfuscation that I heard in
art-school. If you want to paint like Rockwell paint like Pollack
no one will ever know.(I don't reject Rockwell but I prefer Wyeth)
> Personally, my education put me shoulder to shoulder with a wide spectrum
> of sensibilities. In the students, I always remember a few that would
> champion the notion of "drawing skills". In effect they were not
> championing drawing skills, but rather a certain set of conventions, and
> quite often because they didn't posses the insight and overview to see
> beyond them.
Did you notice any artists who had neither?
>A couple did, and to their credit their art developed, albeit
> within the loosely described perspective tradition.
Are those who did a smaller percentage of the artist who had
skill?
>Others through, ,what
> I would assume a deep insecurity about there own skills and a world which
> had a frightening set of options and many traditions, retreated from all
> that and gambled the entire nut on the acquisition of a single manual
> skill, severely weakening the gray matter that is needed to run and
> innovate within that skill. To an intimidated, frightened and harried Fine
> Art student (as opposed to illustration student, although not exclusive) ,
> embrace of a technique that had a centuries old authority and power is an
> easy way out of the challenge of art,
The easy way out has always been suicide a la Van Gogh...
> it immediately puts an end to a
> certain kind of expressive search, and perhaps gives a false sense of
> security. And really, if anyone decided that they wanted to learn to
> render through perspective, it is not a difficult skill to learn if
> practiced. There is no magic involved. Rather, it is more mechanics
Generative skill is more magic than Mechanics, photomechanical skill
is more science.
>than
> magic...one look through history at the mechanical perspective devices
> used by artists and students will give proof.
Of course how did they find these technique except from a divine will!
A big snip!
> recipients of guilt, ridicule, and hatred lavished upon them by their less
> insightful peers or mentors.
This has been the primary modivation, of both. The emotional motivation
is at a base level anti-artistic.
>There is a
> part of the artistic community, and even more dangerous, the artistic
> educational community, that thrives on psychological terrorism and levered
> coercion (whether this stems from fear or insecurity, or both, in the
> face of personal performance and historical weight is difficult to say) in
> an ill conceived and uncritical attempt to devalue certain manifestations
> of art.
And I agree... However if you went back to skill you would find that
the tables are now skewed. Also this runs through all-forms of art.
> Erroneous appeals to primal, foundational, and historical myths
> notwithstanding, some educators have limited the artistic options of the
> students in an attempt to regain singularity and centrality to the skill
> sets of Albertian linear perspective and its derivatives.
Albertian perspective is not the art teachers human cruelty.
> Were the dark
> psychological cloud lifted, and skill sets developed and pursued as
> desired in the production of art, the educational institution would allow
> more diverse talents to flourish, which indeed, is occurring now in more
> art departments. An understanding of the different traditions now
> available to artists in the West will give the student and educational
> institute a clearer basis with which to devise curriculum.
> *Cabanne, Pierre, Dialogues With Marcel Duchamp, Da Capo Press, NY, 1979,
p.39.
> **Thanks Frank.
Who did I respond to?
> -N
> N
> To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
br...@wralaw.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> br...@wralaw.com writes:
> > However I, Bryn Ayers of North America, am the really the egocentric one
> > here. I am almost certain that my vision is the closest to reality.
>
> I love this one. But :
>
> - what is reality ?
A collection of particles that sometimes behave as waves
>
> - what does art to do with reality ?
Art is the accumilation and representation of these forms for the
wialing of critics. And the collections of insider traders. (As
long as each is called art via symbolic resperatory vibrations)
> f.g.
Marilyn
>
> [Below is a repost of an article I wrote to this NG in 1996 (with slight
> modifications)].
>
> DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM DRAWING
To -N:
Having read your essay on drawing today, it seems to me that
you have summed up miles of debate here on the ng for the last
couple of years. I really appreciated it.
I would emphasize that the insistence on competent drawing to produce
a likeness is not only coming from some art educators but also
from a large group of practicing conventional artists and the
majority of the public.
It starts early, when parents ask the child, "what is that?"
insisting that the child's first crayon marks be something
recognizable.
Perhaps the key words in your essay could be "pedestrian mind."
The example of a painter judged "degenerate" by the Nazis, who
came to my mind, is Emile Nolde. His forbidden paintings are
unequaled in their saturated colour and their emotion. Many
of the people in groups mentioned above would say that
Emile Nolde could not draw.
Thanks,
Marilyn
mdeli
<gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
>> >That implies that there exist a correct way of doing such things.
>>
>> Whatever the way, everyone who learns music has to learn the scales.
>
>Hum we were speaking about drawing not music. It's very fun that you
>switch subject when you see that you are wrong...
Ok Hope this makes you happy. Everyone who wants to draw well has to
aquire the basics.
mdeli
wrote:
Large snip
>Shifting cultures opens other vantages. There is the tradition of the arts
>in the east, China for example, which developed entirely without recourse
>to Western Albertian-related perspective. I do not know if cones, and
>cubes were rendered from life within this tradition, but if they were, I
>am quite certain they were rendered differently, and that the subsequent
>aestheitc results yielded a different expression compared to
>contemporaneous drawing made with western codes.
Oriental art uses axanometric perspective. Orientals learned far more
formularized rules that do western artists.
>
>Those that don't possess the common skill set of the majority or don't
>utilize it, and with respect to students, those who are in the process of
>acquiring it, or those who find it not suited to them, often are
>recipients of guilt, ridicule, and hatred lavished upon them by their less
>insightful peers or mentors. Witness the Third Reich's "Degenerate Art"
>exhibition, and refer to the speech delivered by Adolph Hitler at it's
>opening reception. Not merely dismissive or spitefully critical, the
>speech was laden with hatred and unsubstantiated criticism. There is a
>part of the artistic community, and even more dangerous, the artistic
>educational community, that thrives on psychological terrorism and levered
>coercion (whether this stems from fear or insecurity, or both, in the
>face of personal performance and historical weight is difficult to say) in
>an ill conceived and uncritical attempt to devalue certain manifestations
>of art.
This guy's a paranoid. Hitler criticized modern art on the basis of
the claim that it was an instrument of Jews and communists. Learning
perspective or not liking Modern Art isn't dangerous and has nothing
to do with Hitler.
>
>Erroneous appeals to primal, foundational, and historical myths
>notwithstanding, some educators have limited the artistic options of the
>students in an attempt to regain singularity and centrality to the skill
>sets of Albertian linear perspective and its derivatives. Were the dark
>psychological cloud lifted, and skill sets developed and pursued as
>desired in the production of art, the educational institution would allow
>more diverse talents to flourish, which indeed, is occurring now in more
>art departments.
"What dark cloud?"
> An understanding of the different traditions now
>available to artists in the West will give the student and educational
>institute a clearer basis with which to devise curriculum.
There is little understanding of other traditions. What passes itself
as Art history today is a cockeyed, incomplete and historically
erroneous truncated view..
What is really worth preserving from the past is that technical
knowledge which is universal and can be put to use in executing any
style or subject matter. We need never worry that Art will run out of
styles.
Crabbing about perspective is as silly as cranking at people who
happen to know algebra.
Marilyn
>
> However I can't believe you mentioned the Nazi's without
> revealing the obvious objection.
If it is obvious why mention it?
>
> Bryn Ayers
> "Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
> discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
> is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
No he cannot grow truffles, nor can he even find truffles without the
noses and intelligence of his truffle-searching pigs.
Marilyn
br...@wralaw.com
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
> -N. wrote:
> I would emphasize that the insistence on competent drawing to produce
> a likeness is not only coming from some art educators but also
> from a large group of practicing conventional artists and the
> majority of the public.
> It starts early, when parents ask the child, "what is that?"
> insisting that the child's first crayon marks be something
> recognizable.
This is interesting I will consider that there may be a parental
prejudice towards objectification.
> Perhaps the key words in your essay could be "pedestrian mind."
Of course this is on the same level that the educators are
accused of being. Everyone wants to believe that they are
part of the cognoscienti, and not of merely a pedestrian
mind.
One can never escape the problems of artistic skill as an
isolated issue.
(degenerate art and nazi's deleted)
> His forbidden paintings are
> unequaled in their saturated colour and their emotion.
Eloquent I hope you write my reviews.
However I can't believe you mentioned the Nazi's without
revealing the obvious objection.
>Many
> of the people in groups mentioned above would say that
> Emile Nolde could not draw.
> Thanks,
> Marilyn
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
zi...@interport.net
of the more obtuse members of the group. And it was Marcel Duchamp.
I would like to comment only on one sentence or so in this paragraph.
He describes drawing as a skill which can easily be learned after some
hours of work. But the kind oif thing he is thinking of as drawing is
merely copying, not drawing.
Many years ago I thought that I understood how the great German school
of pianists practiced and studied new pieces. There were long quotes
from Karl Schnabel on how when he practiced he did not practice the
same way but each time he played the piece he varied his
interpretation, trying to see what new meaning a variation could bring
out. This also meant variation in technique, trying different ways of
playing the same passage, for the same set of reasons. I was sure,
back then, because I did not always feel happy about his
interpretations, that Vladimir Horowitz must practice the other way.
That is decide on the interpretation and the fingering and then
practice towards it, never letting himself change or be aware of the
new possibilkities which would always be turning up.
I was very surprized to hear him describe his method of practicing and
of studying new music. It was exactly like Schnabel's!
So, both the Russian school of piano playing AND the German school
[and pf course the French with such artists as Alfred Cortot]
understand that technique cannot be separated from interpretation and
intelligence. For some some reason Duchamp does not.
Do any of you remember the beginning anecdote in Gombrich's Art and
Illusion? It is about two German draftsmen sitting right next to each
other and drawing in the Roman Forum. Both using hard pencils, both
hard nosed, technique driven neoclassicizing draftsmen. And when they
are done they compare their sketches and everything is different,
proportions, choice of details, Etc.
It is just such poor thinking which makes it clear what a dunce Marcel
Duchamp was and why he should not be regarded with any respect.
And it makes clear what poor hands the art world is in right now.
Gabriel
On Fri, 15 Jan 1999 05:26:15 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
wrote:
>[Below is a repost of an article I wrote to this NG in 1996 (with slight
Peter H.M. Brooks
hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> Ok Hope this makes you happy. Everyone who wants to draw well has to
> aquire the basics.
>
Interestingly enough, this is not quite true. It has been found that
autistic children draw extremely well, producing remarkably accurate
and realistic drawings of great detail.
The reason proposed for this (and an interesting theory that argues
that the cave paintings of early humans are a result of a similar
mental deficiency) is that one of the key problems with autism is
an inability to generalise. So, every single chair is seen as a
distinct and separate object, there is no generalisation into
a class of chairs. This means that every chair is drawn exactly
as it is seen, no iconic chair is used to represent a chair as
normal children do.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
-N.
> In article <redirect-150...@1cust130.tnt5.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
> > In article <77mmp0$gm4$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> > > So tell me do you think as I do that Sumi is Abstract Expressionism...
> > > ...Or at least I am certain that there is a calligraphy art of
> > > esthetic sloppyness practiced in Japan...
>
> A typical well though out terse response...
>
> > Although not addessed to me, I for one do not.
>
> Why?
>
> Certainly the relevant esthetic sloppyness, and Idea of
> fast and active creation, and expressing emotion Are about
> the same. (i also don't know if the expressive form of
> japanese calligraphy based on esoteric Buddism is the same
> as Sumi - I have just know that that is an kind of ink and
> a general name given to some Japanese calligraphy -sorry)
Rather than write a thesis, let me just throw out some points of
difference off the top of my head. There is little that is abstract about
the calligraphic tradition you refer to, indeed, ideographic characters
form a language (although not a phonic one); this is a different
experience than that of abstract pictorial imagery in AbEx works. On that
note, if you are going to rebut with "but the characters have an abstract
quality to them,"...well what DOESN'T? By that criteria everything is
abstract, hence abstract expressionism...that kind of logic just doesn't
float.
Spatially, the calligraphic tradition need and privileges a figure/ground
distinction. Now, AbEx is admittedly a catchword for varied approaches to
painting, but there is in many of the works that form its historical
corpus a large tendency to the dissolution of figure/ground, indeed, much
of Abstract art during and after AbEx pursued this tangent wholeheartedly
(just to hit upon some bigger names: Pollock [allover composition],
DeKooning, Rothko, Morris Lewis [ex, pours functioning as immaterial
color]).
Tintoretto was involved with ideas of "fast and active creation," but he
was not an AbEx'er. I do not think that sumi ink calligraphy functions
pictorially, emotively, of experientially similar to AbEx paintings. The
calligraphy is structured around a literary reading, a particular scanning
movement, has a major appeal to the literary eye as it follows the shape
of the character and its links to other characters in a grammatical
structure. The AbEx paintings function more to the pictorial eye, to be
felt rather than to be read. Access to the gut as opposed to the literary
mind, indeed, a possibility to bypass the literary and read elements of
painting was a central ideological rallying point. The structure of the
ideoform in the calligraphy traps and binds the best examples of that
tradition (with respect to pictorial powers: this is not by any means a
condemnation of calligraphy...I am rather elucidating some differences):
the creators who deemed their calligraphy "flew like birds" actually never
got off the 'ground' (plane) as the AbEx'ers did...the figure was too
distinct from the ground, so the dimensional atmospherics, the materiality
and pigment load, and at the other end of the spectrum, the radiating
fields of immaterial color were all unavailable to those calligraphers.
Abstraction is a huge arena: it develops much that is latent in
representational and figural art, and through its history has allowed
itself very potent and incisive explorations of constituent pictorial
elements (at least in the hands of its more talented practitioners).
Calligraphy just did not have access to all of that abstract
pictorialism...traditionally, in choosing to focus upon the ideogram
rather than the abstract pictorialism, calligraphy shut down its own
options, with respect to the fullness and focus that pictorialism had
yielded in the AbEx'ers hands. The problematic arises when 'abstraction'
is lumped into an indistinct mass...indeed, the unsophisticated and
visually under-educated tend to not be able to locate a myriad of diverse
and sustained traditions in pictorialism: whether this deficiency stems
from an over-emphasis on the literary, the reading of the space of
painting rather than feeling or entering it optically, or possibly from a
pictorial model already crimped and delimited from the outset and for
whatever reasons, unavailable to further development, is hard to say.
Please do not read into my words a personal attack. Put quite simply (on
this forum at least) there is little by way of informed reading of
pictorialism or for that matter abstract art. A great majority of what one
reads here makes one want to wince: often times the postings serve only as
an announcement of the ineptness of the poster. Abstraction is then
reduced, as is art and visuality, to the level of fiddle-faddle. A morass
of vague murmurings. On the contrary, a truly buoyant inspired exegesis of
abstraction and pictorialism (even a strictly formal analysis) can be
tremendously insightful (I am not referring here to the turgid lumbering
convoluted efforts parading as sophistication or, on the other hand, the
endlessly tiring sentimental rubbish bolstered only by an indefatigable
verbal diarrhea that passes for criticism). Solid critique based on visual
intelligence, openness, and experience can take one far.
What are you getting from that calligraphy in relation to the AbEx'ers?
Cheers,
_N.
--
-N.
> I began reading this and thought that I was reading the words of one
> of the more obtuse members of the group. And it was Marcel Duchamp.
Sorry, the word are all mine, save for a quote refering to taste at the
beginning.
> I would like to comment only on one sentence or so in this paragraph.
> He describes drawing as a skill which can easily be learned after some
> hours of work. But the kind oif thing he is thinking of as drawing is
> merely copying, not drawing.
> Many years ago I thought that I understood how the great German school
> of pianists practiced and studied new pieces.
((hang on to your seat folks, here we go!))
>There were long quotes from Karl Schnabel
Lets stick to the visual arts if you don't mind.
I do not understand the plethora of dead end threads that try to deal with
visual arts and end up talking about music. The word "focus" stand for
anything these days?
>There were long quotes from Karl Schnabel on how when he practiced he did
not >practice the same way but each time he played the piece he varied his
>interpretation, trying to see what new meaning a variation could bring
>out.
((and Andy Warhol did the opposite, made things the same, to see what
multiplicity, repetition, and mecahnisation could bring out of things
trapped by variation.))
((snip more music fiddle-faddle))
>always feel happy about his interpretations, that Vladimir Horowitz...
((oy vey))
>method of practicing and of studying new music...
((Drawing anyone?))
> Russian school of piano playing
((cough))
> understand that technique cannot be separated from interpretation and
> intelligence. For some some reason Duchamp does not.
((((??????))))
[sound of satellite orbiting a distant star and emmiting indistinct,
cryptic, beep-like transmissions]
What does Duchamp not understand?
> Do any of you remember the beginning anecdote in Gombrich's Art and
> Illusion? It is about two German draftsmen sitting right next to each
> other and drawing in the Roman Forum. Both using hard pencils, both
> hard nosed, technique driven neoclassicizing draftsmen. And when they
> are done they compare their sketches and everything is different,
> proportions, choice of details, Etc.
Was there a point in there somewhere?
I'll have a go: no two people will do the exact same thing?
(((((????)))))
> It is just such poor thinking which makes it clear what a dunce Marcel
> Duchamp was and why he should not be regarded with any respect.
What "poor thinking" are you refering to?
Are we even on the same planet?
Nothing is made clear in your post. The waters are getting muddier.
Why is Duchamp a dunce, and, uh, why should he not be regarded with any
respect? [Btw, have you issued an edict?]
> And it makes clear what poor hands the art world is in right now.
> Gabriel
.......Insert long quote by Karl Schnabel here........
Draw your own conclusions.
-N.
Marilyn
>
> I began reading this and thought that I was reading the words of one
> of the more obtuse members of the group. And it was Marcel Duchamp.
>
What I really admire about Duchamp is his "Nude Descending the
Staircase." The second thing I admire, is the fact that he quit
painting & art, and sat around enjoying himself, playing chess etc.
Marilyn
br...@wralaw.com
Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> wrote:
br...@wralaw.com .sig file
> > "Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
> > discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
> > is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
: No he cannot grow truffles, nor can he even find truffles without the
: noses and intelligence of his truffle-searching pigs.
Do not cast pearls before swine or truffles before humans...
Bryn Ayers
gwen_...@cybergal.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <369f91e2...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
> >
> > Ok Hope this makes you happy. Everyone who wants to draw well has to
> > aquire the basics.
> >
> Interestingly enough, this is not quite true. It has been found that
> autistic children draw extremely well, producing remarkably accurate
> and realistic drawings of great detail.
>
produced amazing architectural drawings, but couldn't speak.
>
> The reason proposed for this (and an interesting theory that argues
> that the cave paintings of early humans are a result of a similar
> mental deficiency) is that one of the key problems with autism is
> an inability to generalise. So, every single chair is seen as a
> distinct and separate object, there is no generalisation into
> a class of chairs. This means that every chair is drawn exactly
> as it is seen, no iconic chair is used to represent a chair as
> normal children do.
>
Fascinating! It makes sense to me. The art of drawing has been explained to
me as not so much about techniques with the hands, but more about ways of
seeing. It has made sense to me, the best drawings that I have produced have
been when I have drawn exactly what I really see, not what I think that I
have seen. In a way, this is just what you describe an autistic child to do.
I am not sure that this is true of cave paintings. A lot that I have seen
have been vivid and accurate as far as the people, poses and animals have
been concerned, but the layout has been all over the place, with no
understanding of perspective. I imagine that the drawings of autistic
children would show perspective - as that results from an accurate view of
the scene (as a photograph shows).
Gwen Jones
There is almost nothing Welsh women have not done.
br...@wralaw.com
gwen_...@cybergal.com wrote:
> In article <916475...@psyche.demon.co.uk>,
> pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > In article <369f91e2...@news.interlog.com>
> > hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
> > The reason proposed for this (and an interesting theory that argues
> > that the cave paintings of early humans are a result of a similar
> > mental deficiency)
The pictures are reduced generalized abstractions. They are not
evidence for Mental deficiency unless you compare them to the
paintings of Carravaggio.
Also some cave paintings are thought to be by Neanderthals, and
may not be human in origin.
> > is that one of the key problems with autism is
> > an inability to generalise. So, every single chair is seen as a
> > distinct and separate object, there is no generalisation into
> > a class of chairs.
> understanding of perspective. I imagine that the drawings of autistic
> children would show perspective - as that results from an accurate view of
> the scene (as a photograph shows).
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Philip Ayers
"Drawing is simply a manual skill." Life and nature are simplistic it
would seem. The geometry of "having ones head up ones ass". I think, after
reading this that if you had simply defined for yourself what the word
"manual" means, you would get back to painting or what ever you do if
anything and leave thinking to those who have the good will to do it
justice.
article <redirect-150...@1cust130.tnt5.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>child¹s game. What are the rewards?
Philip(never Phil)Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/r/a/mrayers/Home.html
p.a...@mindspring.com.
Philip Ayers
I thought that Gabriel's reply was right on target and his analogy
perfectly suited for his point. Duchamp's ideas, while original, where a
form of artistic suicide and as Gabriel has pointed out his thinking was
not that accomplished. I know this isn't a popular position.
In article <redirect-160...@1cust155.tnt8.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>In article <36a0462b...@news.interport.net>, zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
>> I began reading this and thought that I was reading the words of one
>> of the more obtuse members of the group. And it was Marcel Duchamp.
>
some bullshit sniped
>Are we even on the same planet?
>Nothing is made clear in your post. The waters are getting muddier.
>Why is Duchamp a dunce, and, uh, why should he not be regarded with any
>respect? [Btw, have you issued an edict?]
>
>> And it makes clear what poor hands the art world is in right now.
>> Gabriel
>
> .......Insert long quote by Karl Schnabel here........
>
>Draw your own conclusions.
>-N.
>
>--
>N
>To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Yawn.
zi...@interport.net
Dear Mr. Brooks. I have seen the drawings of autistic children. I
would not call it good drawing. The disease is drawing the personm
afflicted. The drawings are in no sense controlled. There is no
direction which is conscious, noir has anyone found it possible to
communicate with these children and teenagers sothat anything can be
taught.
Art is a cultural artifact like cooking. I would not want to eat a
dish cooked by an autistic child. If we have a taste for that sort of
work it comes by way of the conscious andcontrolled work by modern
artists which this child work reminds us of. Klee, Dubuffet, or even
Bernard Buffet.
Talent is wonderful and most people have some. When it becomes
meaningful is after it has been trained. Skill at drawing detail and
the need to do it all the time IF put to the service of art might be
wonderful. But in this case it is not put to that service.
Why are all of you so ruled by the idea that some sort of innate skill
means anything?
Cezanne was probably, innately the least talented great artist ofthe
past several hundred years. And There is pretty unanimous belief in
his greatness.
Gabriel
On Sat, 16 Jan 99 08:37:55 GMT, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk ("Peter H.M.
Brooks") wrote:
>In article <369f91e2...@news.interlog.com>
> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
>
>>
>> Ok Hope this makes you happy. Everyone who wants to draw well has to
>> aquire the basics.
>>
>Interestingly enough, this is not quite true. It has been found that
>autistic children draw extremely well, producing remarkably accurate
>and realistic drawings of great detail.
>
>The reason proposed for this (and an interesting theory that argues
>that the cave paintings of early humans are a result of a similar
>mental deficiency) is that one of the key problems with autism is
>an inability to generalise. So, every single chair is seen as a
>distinct and separate object, there is no generalisation into
>a class of chairs. This means that every chair is drawn exactly
>as it is seen, no iconic chair is used to represent a chair as
>normal children do.
>
>--
>Peter H.M. Brooks
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Why are all of you so ruled by the idea that some sort of innate skill
> means anything?
>
I am not. I am interested in this phenomenon, that is all.
>
> Cezanne was probably, innately the least talented great artist ofthe
> past several hundred years. And There is pretty unanimous belief in
> his greatness.
>
I think he is pretty good too.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
DFRussell
|> In article <369f91e2...@news.interlog.com>
|> hug...@interlog.com "mdeli" writes:
|>
|> >
|> > Ok Hope this makes you happy. Everyone who wants to draw well has to
|> > aquire the basics.
|> >
|> Interestingly enough, this is not quite true. It has been found that
|> autistic children draw extremely well, producing remarkably accurate
|> and realistic drawings of great detail.
|>
People with other types of abnormalities can play musical instruments
extremely well with little/no training, others are very good at
mathematical calculations.
While interesting, this is hardly relevant to the discussion of "normal"
artists.
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
br...@wralaw.com
d...@nospam.com (DFRussell) wrote:
> In article <916475...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk
("Peter H.M. Brooks") writes:
> |> autistic children draw extremely well, (snipage)
> People with other types of abnormalities can play musical instruments
> extremely well (snip)
> While interesting, this is hardly relevant to the discussion of "normal"
> artists.
Are Geniuses "normal" artist? Often we end up talking about artists
like Picasso or Dali for instance, who are presumed Geniuses. Are
their accomplishments esp. non-technique applicable to 'normal' artists.
> Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
br...@wralaw.com
pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk wrote:
> In article <36a2d3b5...@news.interport.net> zi...@interport.net writes:
> > Why are all of you so ruled by the idea that some sort of innate skill
> > means anything?
The Art-estabolishment relys on a theory of 'innate' talent to justify
it's artists who do not meet the criteria of technical excelence.
Ineffible skills even beat spoken talents such as breaking with
tradition, composition, interest etc.
> > Cezanne was probably, innately the least talented great artist ofthe
> > past several hundred years.
> > And There is pretty unanimous belief in
> > his greatness.
I think the belief is less than unanimous. I for one consider him
famous and thats about it. I don't know what he was trying to
accomplish. The pre-cubism is one thing, but I did notice that
this element was heavy in El Greco's work. The colors prior to
getting to the canvas were pretty, but turn a bit into a mess on
the canvas. I don't think the psychological element justifies the
mess. Unless I am missing something he is doing this without
Cynicism or an appeal to the Bizaar. As if he is a Bouguereau
but creats such a disaster that it appeals to the tastes of the
next generation of Cynical, Disaster, Absinth-obsessed artists.
I do not deny his influence, in word, on the History of art.
> I think he is pretty good too.
> Peter H.M. Brooks
DFRussell
|> In article <77vfgb$18hq$1...@rtpnews.raleigh.ibm.com>,
|> d...@nospam.com (DFRussell) wrote:
|> > In article <916475...@psyche.demon.co.uk>, pe...@psyche.demon.co.uk
|> ("Peter H.M. Brooks") writes:
|>
|> > |> autistic children draw extremely well, (snipage)
|>
|> > People with other types of abnormalities can play musical instruments
|> > extremely well (snip)
|>
|> > While interesting, this is hardly relevant to the discussion of "normal"
|> > artists.
|>
|> Are Geniuses "normal" artist? Often we end up talking about artists
|> like Picasso or Dali for instance, who are presumed Geniuses.
Since I was referring to groups of individuals with genetic/other
know defects/syndromes, I assumed it was understood that I used
"normal" in a **biological** sense.
Therefore, your response doesn't relate. However.....
Possibly, they are *presumed* "genuises" by some people.
The only factual usage for the term "genuis" is scoring over a
set level on a standard IQ test (often around 140). Using the
term for anything other than that only implies that one thinks
very highly of something.
When you say that "Picasso was a genuis," you aren't saying that
he scored over a set score on an IQ test (fact), you are saying
that you really like his work (opinion).
Opinion: we're all entitled to one, subject to change at any time.
--
-N.
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> N-
>
> "Drawing is simply a manual skill."
An example.
Industrial and/or architectural drawing (i.e, technical drawing, i.e,
drafting) are manual skills and can be taught. Whether they are art
(capital 'A') or not, I will leave to the individual to decide. I think it
safer to say that they are a vmanual skill set. When incorporated with
conceptual material, the drawing can contribute to the production of art.
[I am not arguing here for the hierarchy or aesthetics of differing
approaches to, or manifestations of, drawing (one can draw with a car
tire, or can draw in a field of wheat, a pencil on 8 1/2" x 11" paper).
Preference for one form of drawing over another amounts to subjective
taste].
>Life and nature are simplistic it would seem.
Philip, I am not sure what you are getting at here.
The geometry of "having ones head up ones ass". I think, after
> reading this that if you had simply defined for yourself what the word
> "manual" means, you would get back to painting or what ever you do if
> anything and leave thinking to those who have the good will to do it
> justice.
Again, I'm not following you. Please elaborate.
-N.
-N.
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> What ever your name is-
> I thought that Gabriel's reply was right on target and his analogy
> perfectly suited for his point. Duchamp's ideas, while original, where a
> form of artistic suicide
How so?
>and as Gabriel has pointed out his thinking was not that accomplished. I
know >this isn't a popular position.
I do not believe that Gabriel has done anything other than to insult
Duchamp. I would not call that a critique,
literally, a verbatum quote of the meat of Gabriels "critique" (I call it
a critique only to expedite the post):
>It is just such poor thinking which makes it clear what a dunce Marcel
>Duchamp was and why he should not be regarded with any respect.
>And it makes clear what poor hands the art world is in right now.
WHY is Duchamps thinking "poor"(I find examples and characterizarions of
Duchamps thinking NOWHERE in Gabriels post. Rather,I find some obscure
example of musicians and of some poorly presented Gombrich anecdote, of
which I can not discern the context for) and why is Duchamop a "dunce"
(again, no material whatsoever to support the charge).
Sorry, but I didn't even find a 'target' in the entire post. Please fill me in.
Why an artistic suicide?
If you understood that post either you are a mind reader (of Gabriel) or
you know far less about Duchamps work than I do.
On the other hand, the ideas in my post were not attributable to Duchamp:
I am uncertain if he would agree or not. The only affinity to Duchamp was
the notion of taste, of which I used as a lead-in quote. If Gabriel has
managed to distill an definition of Duchamp from my post, I would be
interested to learn how...
Gabriel, as is often the case, has left me completely baffled.
I get the inpression that he is responding to something hidden away in his
mind that is of importance to him, rather than to anything that can be
shown to have been discussed in the post. I have no idea WHATSOEVER how
the musicians or the Gombrich anecdote relate. None whatsoever.
Cheers,
Chris Pelletier
Duchamp was absolutely no dummy. He saw the sad direction the art world
was headed and said okay people, I'm gonna throw a urinal in a gallery
and call it "art" ......let's see if you're dumb enough to believe
me......
later,
chris
Frederic Goudal
> -N. wrote:
> >
> > [Below is a repost of an article I wrote to this NG in 1996 (with slight
> > modifications)].
> >
> > DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM DRAWING
> > (for text see previous post of -N's)
>
> To -N:
>
> Having read your essay on drawing today, it seems to me that
> you have summed up miles of debate here on the ng for the last
> couple of years. I really appreciated it.
>
> I would emphasize that the insistence on competent drawing to produce
> a likeness is not only coming from some art educators but also
> from a large group of practicing conventional artists and the
> majority of the public.
A lot of people are affraid by freedom.
> It starts early, when parents ask the child, "what is that?"
> insisting that the child's first crayon marks be something
> recognizable.
I'm not sure of what you mean here. I seems to me that my daughters
have never had any problem with describing something about their
drawings. But I have never had the idea to say they were "wrong" (what
ever could that mean).
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
Frederic Goudal
> Lets stick to the visual arts if you don't mind.
> I do not understand the plethora of dead end threads that try to deal with
> visual arts and end up talking about music. The word "focus" stand for
> anything these days?
The problem is simply that theese people are not aware that the same
things existes in music as in plastic art.
Let's speak about free jazz, about rap, about electro-acoustic, about
punk, about techno.... and you'll hear the same "that's not correct...."
Frederic Goudal
>Everyone who wants to draw well has to aquire the basics.
Yeahhh what a man you KNOW the TRUTH !!!
mdeli
>It is just such poor thinking which makes it clear what a dunce Marcel
>Duchamp was and why he should not be regarded with any respect.
>And it makes clear what poor hands the art world is in right now.
Duchamp's Nude Descending a Staircase is better in technique,
composition and ideas than anything Cezanne, Matisse or Picasso ever
did.
Duchamp had the intelligence to quit when he was ahead. He always
expressed surprise at critical appraisal of his work. He became a PR
success to the degree that it interested him. He realized early on
that people prefer bullshit and gave them what they wanted.
Bravo Duchamp.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments.
at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
DFRussell
|> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
|>
|> >Everyone who wants to draw well has to aquire the basics.
|>
|> Yeahhh what a man you KNOW the TRUTH !!!
:-)
"Those of you who think they know it all annoy those of us who do."
Marilyn
>
> Marilyn <m...@britishcolumbia.ca> writes:
>
> > -N. wrote:
> > >
> > > [Below is a repost of an article I wrote to this NG in 1996 (with slight
> > > modifications)].
> > >
> > > DRAWING CONCLUSIONS FROM DRAWING
> > > (for text see previous post of -N's)
> >
> > To -N:
> >
> > Having read your essay on drawing today, it seems to me that
> > you have summed up miles of debate here on the ng for the last
> > couple of years. I really appreciated it.
> >
> > I would emphasize that the insistence on competent drawing to produce
> > a likeness is not only coming from some art educators but also
> > from a large group of practicing conventional artists and the
> > majority of the public.
>
> A lot of people are affraid by freedom.
>
> > It starts early, when parents ask the child, "what is that?"
> > insisting that the child's first crayon marks be something
> > recognizable.
>
> I'm not sure of what you mean here. I seems to me that my daughters
> have never had any problem with describing something about their
> drawings. But I have never had the idea to say they were "wrong" (what
> ever could that mean).
>
>
> --
> FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
> New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
> e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
> FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
Hi Frederic,
Welcome to you from France
to this male-dominated, USA-dominated newsgroup.
What I meant about children's early drawings was that parents
(in our western culture)
usually encourage children to make something recognizable,
narrative, a likeness of something rather than allowing
"the pencil to take a walk" as Klee advised. So abstraction,
non-objectivity, colour field painting are discouraged at
an early age.
Marilyn
Philip Ayers
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>Why an artistic suicide?
When your ideas lead you up to thinking that all expression is just an
act. That progress is finished, that there is nothing left to discover.
That the only thing left of art is "the act".
Philip Ayers
In article <36a3f9a0...@news.interlog.com>, hug...@interlog.com
(mdeli) wrote:
Philip(never Phil)Ayers
-N.
p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
> In article <redirect-180...@1cust246.tnt9.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>
> >Why an artistic suicide?
>
> When your ideas lead you up to thinking that all expression is just an
> act. That progress is finished, that there is nothing left to discover.
> That the only thing left of art is "the act".
What leads you to the conclusion that this was Duchamp's position and
practice as an artist? He was certainly a contradictory personage.
Nutshells don't do so well when you start entering this terrain. A mind
fast and loose able to hold contradictory notions in perfect balance,
exciting any number of artistic and phiosophical investigations seems to
be the lingua franca. The beauty of Duchamp is that one's reaction to him
has more to do with defining and describing oneself than to encompassing
him. A not unproductive excersise, would be to go back into your response
and restate it with respect to your own most deeply felt biases,
irrespective of anything Duchamp may or may not be about.
Assuming, for the sake of arguement, that your reading of Duchamp is the
definition of his existence and achievement as an artist, why would your
concept of the "act" be a step down rather than a step up the artistic
ladder?
What do you mean by "all expression is just an act"? That progress is
finished?, that there is nothing left to discover? I am not clear firstly
on this idea of the "act," secondly the latter's relation to Duchamp, and
thirdly the relation of artistic suicide to these terms & practices.
Please explain. I am always open to a Duchamp dialogue: the concepts and
inspirations that flow forth from such an enterprize [and subsequent art
that such exposure urges into existence] are so overwhelmingly fertile
that they have always seemed to me the very antithesis of artistic
suicide. Duchamp has been, if anything, a great inspiration to "the
impulse to art."
[Even in his posterity, he continues to retain his power, so as to wring
and provoke some genuinely inspired artistic responses...even from some of
the dunces among us!]
YMMV.
Suicidal Extraodinare
-N.
(bathing in an excess of postmortum emotion)
P.S. Don't worry Philip, you can still paint.
If anything, Duchamp gives even more license to painters than they ever
had before. There is a doctrinaire reading of Duchamp that insists on
incarnating him as an unyielding implacable enemy of painting (which
ironically, is some of the best painting fuel you can get your hands on if
you know how to process it).
Duchamps intervention into art and painting is one of the most fertile
fields with which to grow your painting.
Don't allow yourself to become so intimidated by the small minded readings
of cultural operators who wouldn't know how to wield a paintbrush inspired
by Duchamp (in whatever manner deemed personally significant) even if
Duchamp were standing over their shoulder barking instructions. I cannot
envision a Duchamp who would look approvingly upon such lack of
daring,invention,initiative, and slavishness to trend as an excuse for
being unable to put painting in service of one's highest aspirations
(whatever they might be).
Yes, lets talk suicide Ayers.
(and Gabriel, get your fossilized ass out of the woodwork, your beaten
down art poser-operators pride back on track and open your eyes to the
possibilites instead of the continuous disintegration of your own
unwavering ossified demands).
You've all nothing to fear.
Good God!
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) writes:
N.:
> > Lets stick to the visual arts if you don't mind.
> > I do not understand the plethora of dead end threads that try to deal with
> > visual arts and end up talking about music. The word "focus" stand for
> > anything these days?
> The problem is simply that theese people are not aware that the same
> things existes in music as in plastic art.
>
> Let's speak about free jazz, about rap, about electro-acoustic, about
> punk, about techno.... and you'll hear the same "that's not correct...."
Frederic, you touch a point I have been thinking lately.
In music world different genre, be it jazz, opera, pop or chamber music
have their own niche, with different audience, different values.
In Fine Arts we pretend to believe in one consistent history and
one concept of art. Sure there are -isms, but within the same frame of
reference.
People here are worried that Caravaggio does not stay forever on the Top Ten
list. For me MoMa and Louve represent two different but interesting cultures.
- lauri
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
http://www.netti.fi/~laurleva/index.html
The prejudices and mistakes here are mine, not my employer's
Frederic Goudal
> In article <redirect-180...@1cust246.tnt9.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>
> >Why an artistic suicide?
>
> When your ideas lead you up to thinking that all expression is just an
> act. That progress is finished, that there is nothing left to discover.
> That the only thing left of art is "the act".
There is no progress in art : can seriously somebody say that Ingres
is better than DaVinci which is better than Fra Angelico ??
There is movement, but no progress.
Philip Ayers
In article <redirect-190...@2cust18.tnt7.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>In article <p.ayers-1901...@ip229.princeton.nj.pub-ip.psi.net>,
>p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) wrote:
>
>> In article <redirect-180...@1cust246.tnt9.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
>> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>>
>> >Why an artistic suicide?
>>
>> When your ideas lead you up to thinking that all expression is just an
>> act. That progress is finished, that there is nothing left to discover.
>> That the only thing left of art is "the act".
>
Philip(never Phil)Ayers
Philip Ayers
<gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>p.a...@mindspring.com (Philip Ayers) writes:
>
>> In article <redirect-180...@1cust246.tnt9.nyc3.da.uu.net>,
>> redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.) wrote:
>>
>> >Why an artistic suicide?
>>
>> When your ideas lead you up to thinking that all expression is just an
>> act. That progress is finished, that there is nothing left to discover.
>> That the only thing left of art is "the act".
>
>There is no progress in art : can seriously somebody say that Ingres
>is better than DaVinci which is better than Fra Angelico ??
>
>There is movement, but no progress.
>
Sorry I made a mistake.
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
>
> Hi Frederic,
>
> Welcome to you from France
> to this male-dominated, USA-dominated newsgroup.
Didn't anyone explain to you that the French think as little of
French-Canadians as anyone else....... maybe even less.
>
> What I meant about children's early drawings was that parents
> (in our western culture)
> usually encourage children to make something recognizable,
> narrative, a likeness of something rather than allowing
> "the pencil to take a walk" as Klee advised. So abstraction,
> non-objectivity, colour field painting are discouraged at
> an early age.
And a terrible thing that is!!!!!! :)
mdeli
<gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>There is no progress in art : can seriously somebody say that Ingres
>is better than DaVinci which is better than Fra Angelico ??
>
>There is movement, but no progress.
>
Progress does not infer that art can't be compared and that some art
is better and some worse.
Ingres is somewhat better than Rothko.
And some towel designs are far better than Rothko. Monkey painting is
more interesting than Motherwell. But monkey work isn't permitted in
better museums. I guess the monkeys that run these places don't want
competition.
-N.
> >
> > Let's speak about free jazz, about rap, about electro-acoustic, about
> > punk, about techno.... and you'll hear the same "that's not correct...."
>
> Frederic, you touch a point I have been thinking lately.
> In music world different genre, be it jazz, opera, pop or chamber music
> have their own niche, with different audience, different values.
> In Fine Arts we pretend to believe in one consistent history and
> one concept of art. Sure there are -isms, but within the same frame of
> reference.
>
> People here are worried that Caravaggio does not stay forever on the Top Ten
> list. For me MoMa and Louve represent two different but interesting cultures.
I have no issue with attempting to make comparisons between different
medias, art forms, and/or other order of experience in the
world/imagination.
It is satisfying when the critique does not become lost in these myriad of
analogies, and can return to the subject at hand, and with a renued force
for having deemed it necessary to take the detour...unfortunately that
doesn't often seem to be the outcome. It can be worthwhile to reflect
incisively on a work of art, artist, or activity in the visual arts,
withgout allowing oneself the escape hatch of unfocused drift. It is not
the only way to go, but it can be useful to sustain a critique as such.
The deficit of this deep directed focus (drift into music discussion,
drift to field-day-of-name-calling, drift to useless one liner chirpings
from those off in left field) are partially responsible for the amatuer
feel of this newsgroup.
Particularly here, it is refreshing when someone can sustain a line of
reasoning, bringing more and more to bear on their subject, absorb and
integrate attacks, and end up with something actually useful.
That having been said, is no reflection upon the state of music, past or
present, or affinities that may or may not exist between diverse
practices.
-N.
Frederic Goudal
>
> And some towel designs are far better than Rothko. Monkey painting is
> more interesting than Motherwell. But monkey work isn't permitted in
> better museums. I guess the monkeys that run these places don't want
> competition.
In french we call that "gâtism" you know, when you begin to repeat
again and again the same thing... Maybe you should consult.
Btw, the problem with you is that you are totaly unable to accept that somebody
can see the thing differently then you. THis is too a sign that your brain is
freezed.
Marilyn
Oh Gee thanks for pointing out to me the existence of animosity
towards French-Canadians.
What I was pointing out is that this is an INTERNATIONAL newsgroup,
but you would never know it. "The Art World" here usually means
Art in the USA.
Enter someone from Europe, and it serves to enrich the discussion.
Don't you think?
Marilyn
CROCUSDES
>Monkey painting is
>more interesting than Motherwell. But monkey work isn't permitted in
>better museums. I guess the monkeys that run these places don't want
>competition.
Monkey work isn't better than Motherwell but I can accept how you see things.
More importantly Mani, you're getting better and better each day with your
postings and I'm even beginning to enjoy them. You CAN lighten up at times and
I hadn't realized that was possible.
Chris Ray - sculptor
http://www.chrisray.com