JACKSON POLLOCK IS HARD TO COPY....... ( Originality and Skill )
Dr. Slick
I saw a documentary on Pollock, and although there seemed
to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
thing quite the way he did.
So even if you don't like his work very much (and i certainly
don't), at the very least you have to admit that the guy
had tons of originality...which is not the same as having
"skill".
This is similar to Van Gogh or Picasso, where the "skill"
in the sense of realistic rendering may be a bit lacking (or
simply ignored), in exchange for a more unique style.
It would be a boring world indeed if all people ever
painted were works of realism or even surrealism, and
never ventured out into something new.
Dr. Slick
King Rundzap
> Hi,
Hi ;-)
> I saw a documentary on Pollock, and although there seemed
> to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
> the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
> no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
> plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
> thing quite the way he did.
> So even if you don't like his work very much (and i certainly
> don't), at the very least you have to admit that the guy
> had tons of originality...which is not the same as having
> "skill".
Right, originality is not the same as skill, but Pollock had skill,
also. It's just a different skill set than someone like Bouguereau
used.
> This is similar to Van Gogh or Picasso, where the "skill"
> in the sense of realistic rendering may be a bit lacking (or
> simply ignored), in exchange for a more unique style.
" 'skill' in the sense of realistic rendering" is a good way to put
it, because it helps qualify a particular set of skills rather than
conflating the term "skill", unqualified, with just one particular set
of skills. Of course, "No Skill iIn the Sense of Realistic Rendering,
No Art" isn't as catchy of a slogan as "No Skill No Art", and it
especially it wouldn't be as catchy if we had to qualify in even more
detail to capture what Mani wants to refer to (as I suppose we'd have
to do, but he's not talking about it), but it's at least handy to be
able to articulate what one wants to specifically talk about if asked.
> It would be a boring world indeed if all people ever
> painted were works of realism or even surrealism, and
> never ventured out into something new.
Yes, I agree with that.
--King Rundzap
Thur
"King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com...
For your interest, I saw a tv program where a painter copied the Pollock
painting process while being interviewed on art.
Although I believe it could not have been a copy of any individual work,
it might have fooled someone into believing it was a lost and uncatalogued
work, since it well represented his unique style.
Thur
William
That's how I view art, if it's original or not, being original is one
of the toughest things to do, with success. Anybody can copy from life
by traditional ways; it's a formula, like a recipe, something followed
with out originality, most of the time anyways.{I'm talking about the
majority of arists who learn technics}. Which is one of the reasons I
dislike traditional ways.
I like Pollock's work, because he was seeking new ways to paint in
expressing himself. I don't want to paint something that's already in
front of me, I'll take a photo instead & try to capture the feeling of
the moment, or create something from the unconscious state.
The ultimate skill to me is "Originality", which I'm still looking for
in terms of my art.
William
http://thevisualmind.com
DNALJM
>by traditional ways; it's a formula, like a recipe, something followed
>with out originality, most of the time anyways.
I wish you could suspend your bias and invest some time to find out this
isn't the case. Of course there are anatomical proportions and approaches that
help, but everytime an arm moves, or the light changes, the dynamics are
changed altogether. Drawing, like someone's signature, is unique to the
person, and a room full of highly developed draftspeople would all produce
different drawings of the same thing.
King Rundzap
> That's how I view art, if it's original or not, being original is one
> of the toughest things to do, with success. Anybody can copy from life
> by traditional ways; it's a formula, like a recipe, something followed
> with out originality, most of the time anyways.{I'm talking about the
> majority of arists who learn technics}. Which is one of the reasons I
> dislike traditional ways.
>
> I like Pollock's work, because he was seeking new ways to paint in
> expressing himself. I don't want to paint something that's already in
> front of me, I'll take a photo instead & try to capture the feeling of
> the moment, or create something from the unconscious state.
> The ultimate skill to me is "Originality", which I'm still looking for
> in terms of my art.
>
> William
> http://thevisualmind.com
There are some very interesting and tough to address philosophical
issues with originality. No two works are exactly the same, so there
is always some degree of uniqueness to any artwork. And on the other
extreme, it's practically impossible to create an artwork with no
stylistic precursors, influences, or that's not in at least some ways
derivative of something else. So just with those facts, the idea of
"originality" suddenly becomes very clouded.
Often people end up referring to whether a work seems very unique to
them when calling it "original", but there are problems with that in
that originality then hinges on what each individual conferring the
term on a particular work is familiar with, in terms of other
artworks, possible precursors, etc. There may very well be some
extant work(s) that the artist in question is familiar with and
influenced or inspired by, but that the person conferring the
"originality" designation is unfamiliar with. If the viewer then
becomes familiar with the precursor works, should the designation be
removed? In that case, the artist _was_ original, but now is not, and
it hinged on the viewer's knowledge. Or we might want to say that the
artist never was original, that the viewer just had it wrong. In that
case, it might be difficult to ever correctly confer the term
"originality", because it might always be the case that there are
precursor works that we're unfamiliar with.
Another possible answer might have to do with the artist's
intentionality--a work is original if the artist has in mind to do
something divorced from any influence, roughly. But there are similar
problems there--if the artist isn't familiar with Jackson Pollock,
say, and ends up creating something with the intention of originality
that looks to us very similar to Jackson Pollock, is the work very
original or unique? If we went with a positive response here, it
would require us to say that things that do not look very unique to us
are "original", if and only if the artist had originality in mind, in
which case to confer the term, we'd always have to interview the
artist or read statements of theirs to this effect, and we have to add
the problem of trusting the artist's claims on top of all of the other
problems.
Another problem with basing it on the artist's intentionality is
whether there can be unconscious, or just less conscious, influences.
Certainly someone trying to do an original painting isn't being
original by apply paint to canvas, say. They also aren't being
original by applying paint to canvas with a brush, or spraying with a
toothbrush, or straight from the tube, or with a palette knife, or a
rag, or just about anything else we can think of. And they can do
little else than apply patches or lines of color in some way. No
matter what the general approach to patches and lines of color, at
this point we can find something similar in approach. Additionally,
any artist, if working with something like tubes of paint and canvas,
is going to be living and interacting with some society or another,
where they've surely seen plenty of other art that may be in the "back
of their minds".
Since there are numerous problems with basing originality on personal
knowledge, and since every artwork is unique in some way, and since no
artwork is entirely unique, maybe what we want to say is that
originality is about a measure or degree of uniqueness. But in that
case, how are we proposing to measure something like uniqueness? We'd
have to be able to take an inventory of all of the properties that an
artwork has, but how do we do that, exactly? Can we really enumerate
"all of the properties" that anything has? And once we figure that
out, we'd have to have some way of measuring the difference of each
one of those properties with respect to two or more artworks, and that
measurement couldn't hinge on personal knowledge, because then we're
just inviting all of the problems already mentioned about personal
knowledge above. Could we invent something that independently
measures "all of the real difference" for all properties between one
painting and another? Maybe some properties we could do that
for--dimension might not be so difficult to do that for (although
there are philosophical problems with measurements of extension
(length, width, etc.), too).
The easiest thing to do is to forget the philosophical problems and
just say something like, "I know originality when I see it" (ignoring
that that's just the first problem described above), and not care when
someone else disagrees that a particular painting is original. If we
care when they disagree, though, and we do enough work on it, we'll
eventually reach at least some of the issues above.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
Hey, just when I ask for one, a rational argument from DNALJM! Must
have had the force of a royal decree.
--King Rundzap
William
Yes I agree that every person draws differently, but most schools
teach strict methods in this manner, meaning you follow this way of
drawing or its wrong, this is what I dislike about traditional ways &
I think that trying to being original is damaged with such teachings.
I think traditional teachings is good for learning the basics of
drawing & nothing more!
Electric Nachos
William wrote in message <61e6de19.0409...@posting.google.com>...
>Yes I agree that every person draws differently, but most schools
>teach strict methods in this manner, meaning you follow this way of
>drawing or its wrong, this is what I dislike about traditional ways &
>I think that trying to being original is damaged with such teachings.
>I think traditional teachings is good for learning the basics of
>drawing & nothing more!
I remember being in a drawing class where everyone attempted to (faithfully)
render a still life of torn and twisted fabric. One student however, decided
to use long single strokes to portray differences in value (verses the
typical circular strokes that everyone else used [to "shade in" a dark
area...).
It was kind of funny because everyone in the class whispered to each other,
"Is she gonna get away with that?"
Despite the unexpected technique of portraying value, her drawing was well
proportioned, colored, and in the proper perspective... so yeah - she "got
away with it."
Nothing was "damaged" in this traditional class - but our expectations.
DNALJM
>teach strict methods in this manner, meaning you follow this way of
>drawing or its wrong, this is what I dislike about traditional ways &
>I think that trying to being original is damaged with such teachings.
>I think traditional teachings is good for learning the basics of
>drawing & nothing more!
>
Exactly! School is the place to learn the basics, and where "right" and
"wrong" properly exist. You don't really need a teacher at all if you're
uninterested in learning fundamentals.
Drawing can be likened to the Amrican Chopper show on the Discovery
channel. Many people would like to build the Snap-On bike they made, where the
rims of the wheels had wrenches for spokes, etc. However, it would be foolish
to try to get to the glossy or imaginative parts of building a bike if you
didn't know the basic mechanics. Even if you got a bike from a second-hand
shop and were going to weld on wrenches that you paid someone else to bend into
spokes, it would make your task easier to understand how the bike operated,
what parts were most stressed or strained, etc.
King Rundzap
Now that's very interesting William, because Mani, Paul and DNALJM are
always claiming that that manner of traditional drawing isn't taught
at all in most schools. I've always been skeptical of the claim that
no schools, or almost no schools, teach traditional drawing, but
without any experience with art schools, I've not had much basis for
contradicting it. It's another matter where I think it would be
useful, but time consuming, to do a survey. It might not be so
difficult to do a rough e-mail survey, but the data wouldn't be as
reliable.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
Ah--there's another contradiction of the claim that no schools teach
traditional drawing. Thanks Electric Nachos. Let's keep these coming
:-)
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
But you wouldn't have to only learn realist drawing, and normally,
according to Mani, you and Paul, you claim that schools do not teach
realist drawing anyway. I agree it's a good idea to learn realist
drawing, although I don't agree that it's the foundation upon which
all art does or should rest. But there can be other ultimately
arbitrary limitations set on drawing classes that will teach you to
draw in other ways, too--they'll extend your vocabulary of mark making
with things like pencils, charcoal, pens, etc.
--King Rundzap
Electric Nachos
King Rundzap wrote in message
<425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>Ah--there's another contradiction of the claim that no schools teach
>traditional drawing. Thanks Electric Nachos. Let's keep these coming
>:-)
I believe the schools in the mid-west may be particular to traditional
curriculums. But as in every bunch, you have your far-out alien abducted
whacko type of instructor (with an abstract expressionist agenda, of
course).
Lol
Interesting - my father does both (abstract and realistic "like" things).
Maybe he's a hybrid.
>--King Rundzap
John Ng
> I saw a documentary on Pollock, and although there seemed
> to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
> the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
> no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
> plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
> thing quite the way he did.
I am sure of that. But could he drip the paint again in the same way!
Surely two pieces of accidental art cannot be the same. I smash a
tomato and nobody could quite smash the tomato the same way I did!!!!
That is skill.
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Dr. Slick
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
> > I saw a documentary on Pollock, and although there seemed
> > to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
> > the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
> > no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
> > plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
> > thing quite the way he did.
>
> I am sure of that. But could he drip the paint again in the same way!
> Surely two pieces of accidental art cannot be the same. I smash a
> tomato and nobody could quite smash the tomato the same way I did!!!!
> That is skill.
>
It's funny you mention this, because Pollock himself
once said, "There is no accident."
Certainly he could never recreate the same painting,
but then again, no one really can! Paintings are one
of a kind, and you always lose something when you
try to duplicate, even if you are the original
artist.
Point is, no one could emulate his STYLE well
enough, supposedly...there was certainly a method to
his madness.
Slick
King Rundzap
> radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
> > I saw a documentary on Pollock, and although there seemed
> > to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
> > the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
> > no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
> > plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
> > thing quite the way he did.
> I am sure of that. But could he drip the paint again in the same way!
> Surely two pieces of accidental art cannot be the same. I smash a
> tomato and nobody could quite smash the tomato the same way I did!!!!
> That is skill.
All art has some accidental properties, and most of the stuff commonly
talked about as art (just about anything you'd see in a museum as art,
for example) has a combination of intentional and accidental
properties--including Pollock, of course. No one could do something
identical to another work.
--King Rundzap
Bob C
> It's funny you mention this, because Pollock himself
> once said, "There is no accident."
I've always interpreted this to mean that because he created and was in
control of the conditions which engendered the accident, they weren't
really accidents. I've also heard it suggested that many of the things
he said were actually written for him by his wife, Lee Krassner, and so
this may well be one of them.
>
> Certainly he could never recreate the same painting,
> but then again, no one really can! Paintings are one
> of a kind, and you always lose something when you
> try to duplicate, even if you are the original
> artist.
>
I remember it being something of a surprise for me when first learning
that quite a few of the famous artists from the past actually did
multiple copies of their popular paintings purely for the income.
Doesn't quite mesh with our ideal of the creative artist. I doubt that
Pollock could have done such a copy, nor would he have ever wanted to.
- Bob C.
Thur
I agree.
Some of that art would require close inspection or even magnification though
to observe it.
So there are degrees of these properties.
When the accidental becomes dominant over the intended, then it must be fair
to comment that the skills required to make intentional marks have been
reduced.
My observation on much of this era is that while aspects of previously
conventional
art have been reduced, (like the oversimplification of objects, and the
rejection of
providing any depth to a scene), no new outlets for artistic interpretation
have been
opened to replace them
The results have become an ever increasing limitation on artistic
expression, and a
symbol of artistic degeneration, or to put it another way, instead of
artistic progress,
art found it's way into an ever narrowing cul-de-sac.
If you want to reduce a landscape to a series of cubes or other geometric
shapes,
then it is a poor thing to make those shapes with a single stroke of a
brush, and
a poor thing to produce something far less interesting than what a simple
photograph
might have done.
I think my general point refers to Mr.Pollock just as well as for Cezanne.
Thur
King Rundzap
> "King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote in message
> > news:<d1bb492a.0409...@posting.google.com>...
> > All art has some accidental properties, and most of the stuff commonly
> > talked about as art (just about anything you'd see in a museum as art,
> > for example) has a combination of intentional and accidental
> > properties--including Pollock, of course. No one could do something
> > identical to another work.
> > --King Rundzap
> > All art has some accidental properties,
> I agree.
> Some of that art would require close inspection or even magnification though
> to observe it.
> So there are degrees of these properties.
> When the accidental becomes dominant over the intended, then it must be fair
> to comment that the skills required to make intentional marks have been
> reduced.
Well, I think that enumerating skills would be very tough.
> My observation on much of this era is that while aspects of previously
> conventional
> art have been reduced, (like the oversimplification of objects, and the
> rejection of
> providing any depth to a scene), no new outlets for artistic interpretation
> have been
> opened to replace them
I see anything different as something new. So if oversimplification
is different, that a new outlet for artistic interpretation.
> The results have become an ever increasing limitation on artistic
> expression,
You're looking at artists as being persons who have to follow some
trend or another, basically? I'm not sure I understand that.
> and a
> symbol of artistic degeneration, or to put it another way, instead of
> artistic progress,
> art found it's way into an ever narrowing cul-de-sac.
That sounds like what you're saying here, too.
> If you want to reduce a landscape to a series of cubes or other geometric
> shapes,
> then it is a poor thing to make those shapes with a single stroke of a
> brush,
Why a poor thing?
> and
> a poor thing to produce something far less interesting than what a simple
> photograph
> might have done.
Yeah, if you think you're producing something far less interesting
than a photograph, you should probably stick with photography (from
the viewing aspect, as well).
> I think my general point refers to Mr.Pollock just as well as for Cezanne.
> Thur
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> pigsm...@hotmail.com (John Ng) wrote in message news:<d1bb492a.0409...@posting.google.com>...
> > radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
> > > I saw a documentary on Pollock, and although there seemed
> > > to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
> > > the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
> > > no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
> > > plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
> > > thing quite the way he did.
> >
> > I am sure of that. But could he drip the paint again in the same way!
> > Surely two pieces of accidental art cannot be the same. I smash a
> > tomato and nobody could quite smash the tomato the same way I did!!!!
> > That is skill.
> >
>
> It's funny you mention this, because Pollock himself
> once said, "There is no accident."
Maybe he believed that strong determinism was true? That would make sense, then.
--King Rundzap
Dr. Slick
>>
> I remember it being something of a surprise for me when first learning
> that quite a few of the famous artists from the past actually did
> multiple copies of their popular paintings purely for the income.
> Doesn't quite mesh with our ideal of the creative artist.
Seems totally reasonable to me. Artists have to eat and
pay the rent too, so why not make another version of the same
painting? Each one will be unique anyways, if you look closely.
I doubt that
> Pollock could have done such a copy, nor would he have ever wanted to.
>
_No one_ (not just Pollock) can duplicate a painting perfectly.
It's impossible really. Every brush stroke has random elements in it.
Slick
Thur
Less is still less, and just another avenue that is not available to the
artist.
It seems to be so when the artist attempts to convey a more simple
and less ambitious effort.
If we look at more conventional art, unfettered by a narrowed range
of techniques, then the best works can show greater complexity not
only in simply showing off technique but in the conveyance of
a complex of narrative and expression.
>> The results have become an ever increasing limitation on artistic
>> expression,
>
> You're looking at artists as being persons who have to follow some
> trend or another, basically? I'm not sure I understand
The trend being the simplification process by rejecting the said techniques.
I spoke recently of how I saw the works of Matisse moving into this area,
where the results showed objects which were painted in solid, ungradated
colour, where the objects were reduced in number to a single figure which
looked like they had been cut from coloured paper and stuck on the
background. They still had some attraction in that they still had a style to
their
design, but nothing else.
Less might mean something to those who look for it, but it cannot add to
art, since it cannot be repeated to mean anything else. So an artist might
make some philosophical statement about minimalism, but the next painting
can only say exactly the same.
Where can the subtlety come from?
Mani has referred to this before, and I cannot make it clearer:-
If you take the Minimalist trend to it's ultimate, then you begin to
get canvases painted black, or white.
Why not go further and do away with the frame, then the paint,
then the canvas, then the artist?
I am looking for the limits of where you see your support for the
Minimalist message. After all, there has to be somewhere where
you feel it might have gone into the ridiculous?
Pollock's drip painting is part of this trend. Trying to see where he
has used paint in a skilful way is difficult, because we have to
ignore the accidental.
Critics have in the two cases I have seen, tried to suggest that the
Pollock works should be looked at from way back, seeing the general
colours and overall "pattern".
Never does anyone suggest that we look closer. This confirms my
case of a reduced complexity.
Thur
King Rundzap
> "King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425a3330.04092...@posting.google.com...
> > I see anything different as something new. So if oversimplification
> > is different, that a new outlet for artistic interpretation.
> Less is still less, and just another avenue that is not available to the
> artist.
I don't understand why it's "another avenue not available to the
artist". That someone is simplifying forms doesn't mean one _has_ to
do that. If no one else thought of it before, it's just another thing
in the potential repertoire, then.
> It seems to be so when the artist attempts to convey a more simple
> and less ambitious effort.
As a viewer, I don't see simplicity or complexity as more or less
ambition or effort. Of course, not all viewers would be the same.
> If we look at more conventional art, unfettered by a narrowed range
> of techniques, then the best works can show greater complexity not
> only in simply showing off technique but in the conveyance of
> a complex of narrative and expression.
Wait, more conventional art does have a narrowed range of techniques,
when we consider the entire set of possible techniques. For example,
you can't do conventional art splatter paintings (to do so would make
it not conventional). So given the whole set of possible things you
could do, we have to take a narrower set to do particular styles,
including "conventional art".
> >> The results have become an ever increasing limitation on artistic
> >> expression,
> > You're looking at artists as being persons who have to follow some
> > trend or another, basically? I'm not sure I understand
> The trend being the simplification process by rejecting the said techniques.
You're not answering the question I asked though. You're saying what
the trend is. I'm asking if you're looking at artists as being
persons who _have to follow some trend or another_. That's basically
a yes or no question. If yes, and you see them as having to follow
some trend, why do you see it that way? If no, and you do not see
them as having to follow some trend, then the fact that someone
simplified something in their art doesn't mean that anyone else has to
do that, right?
> I spoke recently of how I saw the works of Matisse moving into this area,
> where the results showed objects which were painted in solid, ungradated
> colour, where the objects were reduced in number to a single figure which
> looked like they had been cut from coloured paper and stuck on the
> background. They still had some attraction in that they still had a style to
> their
> design, but nothing else.
You said something to me in an earlier post about me not addressing
questions, points brought up, etc. I'd like you to answer the
question I asked above before we go on to something else.
> Less might mean something to those who look for it, but it cannot add to
> art, since it cannot be repeated to mean anything else.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You seem to believe
something like "X means Y" in some objective way when it comes to art.
That makes little sense to me.
> So an artist might
> make some philosophical statement about minimalism,
I do not believe that _art_ can make any philosophical statement,
really. You'd have to convince me that it can.
> but the next painting
> can only say exactly the same.
But I don't think that paintings say things. You mentioned me not
supporting something, where's the support for that?
> Where can the subtlety come from?
Subtlety is a kind of value judgment. That comes from viewer's minds
ultimately.
> Mani has referred to this before, and I cannot make it clearer:-
> If you take the Minimalist trend to it's ultimate, then you begin to
> get canvases painted black, or white.
That was done awhile ago. It's not exactly something we have to worry
about happening.
> Why not go further and do away with the frame, then the paint,
> then the canvas, then the artist?
That's been done, too. Especially in music. John Cage 4'33"
> I am looking for the limits of where you see your support for the
> Minimalist message.
I wasn't supporting any "minimalist message". So I'm not sure what
you're talking about there.
> After all, there has to be somewhere where
> you feel it might have gone into the ridiculous?
I feel that some of the things you're saying, like "if an artist
simplifies something, that takes away from the available vocabulary of
other artists", are ridiculous, at least.
> Pollock's drip painting is part of this trend.
I wouldn't call Pollock minimalism, lol. Maybe some people would, but
it would be very unusual.
> Trying to see where he
> has used paint in a skilful way is difficult, because we have to
> ignore the accidental.
There are obviously patterns in Pollocks. Those would be very
unlikely accidentally.
> Critics have in the two cases I have seen, tried to suggest that the
> Pollock works should be looked at from way back, seeing the general
> colours and overall "pattern".
Funny you say that right after I mention the word pattern. Do the
quotes mean that you see no pattern in Pollocks works? That could be,
but it would be unusual, too.
> Never does anyone suggest that we look closer. This confirms my
> case of a reduced complexity.
So complexity is a matter of what people say to look at? What??
I'm basically lost in this conversation, I think (possibly entirely my
fault). What would you say your basic thesis is here? It seems like
you're trying to argue to some conclusion, but I'm lost at what the
conclusion is.
--King Rundzap
Thur
Last thing first. I am arguing about Minimalism.
I contend that works which reject techniques to such a degree (it's
a judgement of mine on how much :-) then they are Minimalist and
they are self limited in their ability to convey more than a very simple
visual idea. The Minimalist label given to such as Rothko or the
Black canvas work, is of course not defined by me.
Now Pollock, when using the drip technique has to allow an accidental
element into his work, just as those who use spatulas, or in watercolours,
wet in wet techniques, cannot wholly predict the outcome, however
skilful the artist.
Pollock adopted a technique where the accidental dominated the intentional
part of his work. He could not introduce delicate variations of tone, and
complicated subjects like "School of Athens" which can be studied and
enjoyed in many ways, from many different aspects.
> Wait, more conventional art does have a narrowed range of techniques,
> when we consider the entire set of possible techniques.
I do not mean to imply that conventional art Must use all possible
techniques.
In fact some art passes my judgement which clearly uses less than all
possibilities.
E.g. monotone figurative studies, and work that is meant for
a final oil painting is sometimes regarded as better.
The Leonardo "Cartoon" which was a preparatory study for the finished oil
now in the Louvre is claimed by some to be the better artwork. I agree.
What I am getting at is that there is a level of reduction under which the
artist
is tied to a more simple visual construction, and has less chance of
artistic
expression, depending upon the limitations imposed by the artist.
> I'm asking if you're looking at artists as being
> persons who _have to follow some trend or another_.
Well they do for the most part.
An artist has the choice to follow whatever path they like.
Art is not just the creation of something, it is, in spite of the
individualist
and creative artist, a process involving those who are meant to view it.
Criticism, whether informed and qualified or simply an expression based
upon an immediate emotion from a first viewing, is part of that process.
> I do not believe that _art_ can make any philosophical statement,
> really. You'd have to convince me that it can.
I always thought of some types of Chinese and Japanese art as instruments
carrying philosophical ideas.
Renaissance art that projected the Christian ideals also tried it.
But this has become a diversion.
> But I don't think that paintings say things.
There are many examples of paintings that really do try to say things.
An artwork can make a statement on pretty much anything it likes if it
uses a storyline.
> I feel that some of the things you're saying, like "if an artist
> simplifies something, that takes away from the available vocabulary of
> other artists", are ridiculous, at least.
>
I am saying something slightly different.
That if the simplification becomes oversimplification then yes, I really
am saying it. It's a matter of degree where there comes a point where the
artist is denied the tools to create art.
Thur
King Rundzap
> "King Rundzap" <kingr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:425a3330.04093...@posting.google.com...
> Last thing first. I am arguing about Minimalism.
> I contend that works which reject techniques to such a degree (it's
> a judgement of mine on how much :-) then they are Minimalist and
> they are self limited in their ability to convey more than a very simple
> visual idea. The Minimalist label given to such as Rothko or the
> Black canvas work, is of course not defined by me.
Of course I disagree that minimalist works are rejecting technique.
They're just using (sometimes) different techniques. But I definitely
do not agree that if something is rejecting traditional or
conventional technique that it's necessarily minimalist, which it
sounds like you might be implying (maybe I'm just misreading that,
though).
> Now Pollock, when using the drip technique has to allow an accidental
> element into his work, just as those who use spatulas, or in watercolours,
> wet in wet techniques, cannot wholly predict the outcome, however
> skilful the artist.
That goes for anyone you can name. There are accidental properties to
all works. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle kind of guarantees
that, for one.
> Pollock adopted a technique where the accidental dominated the intentional
> part of his work.
That's one interpretation at least, okay.
> He could not introduce delicate variations of tone, and
> complicated subjects like "School of Athens" which can be studied and
> enjoyed in many ways, from many different aspects.
Well, that's just interpretation, too, though, right? Some people
think Pollock is complex and can be studied and enjoyed in many ways,
from many different aspects, too. And I know people who would say
there are "delicate variations of tone" in Pollock, too. I might even
say that, but I'd have to look at him again and think about it, as I
would for Shool of Athens, too.
Also, I know people who think that works like School of Athens can't
be studied and enjoyed in many ways, from many different aspects
(you'd think they're just as mistaken as others would think you're
mistaken about Pollock in that regard). And I know people who think
it's not better or worse to be more complex, more nuanced, etc. as
well as people who think it's better to be simpler, less nuanced, and
so on. There are all different kinds of folks thinking all kinds of
different things about these kinds of issues. That underscores that
the value judgment aspects are subjective. There's nothing we can
appeal to "in the world" that's a value judgment that would lead to an
objective correctness to any of these kinds of judgments. They're
just about different people thinking different things, where the
things are only thoughts, and don't correspond to something else.
> > Wait, more conventional art does have a narrowed range of techniques,
> > when we consider the entire set of possible techniques.
> I do not mean to imply that conventional art Must use all possible
> techniques.
I didn't think you meant to imply that. I was just pointing out that
it's not only minimalism, say, that has a narrowed range of
techniques. So if that's a problem with minimalism, because there's
something bad about a narrowed range of techniques in itself, then
that's a problem with conventional art, too.
> In fact some art passes my judgement which clearly uses less than all
> possibilities.
All art would use less than all possibilities, lol. Is there a work
that you think uses all possibilities?
> E.g. monotone figurative studies, and work that is meant for
> a final oil painting is sometimes regarded as better.
We could find someone in the world who regards almost anything we can
think of as better than something else we can think of, whatever those
things are.
> The Leonardo "Cartoon" which was a preparatory study for the finished oil
> now in the Louvre is claimed by some to be the better artwork. I agree.
> What I am getting at is that there is a level of reduction under which the
> artist
> is tied to a more simple visual construction, and has less chance of
> artistic
> expression, depending upon the limitations imposed by the artist.
Where, in the external world, are you getting the fact, "more simple
visual constructions have less chance of artistic expression"? Where
are you observing that particular statement? Note that I'm not asking
you about observing more simple visual constructions and asking what
you think about them. I'm asking where you're observing that who
sentence.
> > I'm asking if you're looking at artists as being
> > persons who _have to follow some trend or another_.
> Well they do for the most part.
Where are you getting this from?
> An artist has the choice to follow whatever path they like.
Then they don't _have_ to follow some trend or another. I don't see
how you can have it both ways.
> Art is not just the creation of something, it is, in spite of the
> individualist
> and creative artist, a process involving those who are meant to view it.
Who are meant to view it??
> Criticism, whether informed and qualified or simply an expression based
> upon an immediate emotion from a first viewing, is part of that process.
> I always thought of some types of Chinese and Japanese art as instruments
> carrying philosophical ideas.
Okay, but that certainly doesn't convince me that they do, lol.
> Renaissance art that projected the Christian ideals also tried it.
> But this has become a diversion.
> > But I don't think that paintings say things.
> There are many examples of paintings that really do try to say things.
But I don't think they do. If you think that paintings say things,
obviously you'd think there are examples, right? And I wouldn't think
there are examples of paintings that try to say things. How would you
show that I'm wrong? You thinking that I'm wrong wouldn't do it.
> An artwork can make a statement on pretty much anything it likes if it
> uses a storyline.
I don't agree with this, obviously.
> > I feel that some of the things you're saying, like "if an artist
> > simplifies something, that takes away from the available vocabulary of
> > other artists", are ridiculous, at least.
> I am saying something slightly different.
> That if the simplification becomes oversimplification then yes, I really
> am saying it.
Okay, but it doesn't make any sense. If someone produces a white
canvas, I can still attempt to paint like Bouguereau if I want to. So
their white canvas took nothing away from my available vocabulary.
> It's a matter of degree where there comes a point where the
> artist is denied the tools to create art.
It sounds like you're talking about Nazi program or something . . . I
have to say I'm still a bit confused.
--King Rundzap
John Ng
> All art has some accidental properties and most of the stuff commonly
> talked about as art (just about anything you'd see in a museum as art,
> for example) has a combination of intentional and accidental
> properties
No, that is what has been written about for decades before Modern Art
came about. There is a concurrence, amongst artists and critics, that
accidents in art should be avoided. And if there accidents in the
paintings of good artist, it is NOT a good thing
> No one could do something identical to another work.
For a good artist like Bouguereau, there is no detectable accident.
He can reproduce his own work such that the result is so similar that
they elude detection. There are jpgs of Bouguereau's original and
Bouguereau's reproduction floating around but very few people actually
know the difference. I myself was fooled even when comparing them in
detail side by side. I was assured of their difference only when I
noticed the location of the signature!
John Ng
> > > to be an admission by some that he was mostly about fame and
> > > the trappings of the media, I thought it was interesting that
> > > no one could really mimic his art well...he certainly had
> > > plenty of copy-cats, but no one could do the drip painting
> > > thing quite the way he did.
> >
> > I am sure of that. But could he drip the paint again in the same way!
> > Surely two pieces of accidental art cannot be the same. I smash a
> > tomato and nobody could quite smash the tomato the same way I did!!!!
> > That is skill.
> >
>
> It's funny you mention this, because Pollock himself
> once said, "There is no accident."
Yeah, Pollock can make such a claim, and would be stupid if he had
not. It is totally foolish for another to believe in this subterfuge
without making up one's one mind. Why, I myself should make the same
claim. Believe me, I smashed the tomato and created the splutter
exactly the way I wanted it. It was no accident I tell you.
> Certainly he could never recreate the same painting,
> but then again, no one really can! Paintings are one
> of a kind, and you always lose something when you
> try to duplicate, even if you are the original artist.
Reproduction may loose something but it shows the skill of the
artist... that he/she is in command of his/her output. Why can't
Pollock reproduce his own art? Is it because he relied on accident?
> Point is, no one could emulate his STYLE well
> enough, supposedly...there was certainly a method to
> his madness.
Nobody is mad enough to try! It is hard as well to emulate a
graffitti or forge a signature. The are neither art nor skill.
Dr. Slick
>
>
> > No one could do something identical to another work.
>
> For a good artist like Bouguereau, there is no detectable accident.
> He can reproduce his own work such that the result is so similar that
> they elude detection.
It's still impossible to reproduce a painting exactly.
If you look close enough, you'll see the variation of the brush
strokes, etc...
There are jpgs of Bouguereau's original and
> Bouguereau's reproduction floating around but very few people actually
> know the difference. I myself was fooled even when comparing them in
> detail side by side. I was assured of their difference only when I
> noticed the location of the signature!
>
>
But jpgs have notoriously bad resolution, so that's no big
deal.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> Yeah, Pollock can make such a claim, and would be stupid if he had
> not. It is totally foolish for another to believe in this subterfuge
> without making up one's one mind. Why, I myself should make the same
> claim. Believe me, I smashed the tomato and created the splutter
> exactly the way I wanted it. It was no accident I tell you.
>
I appreciate realism and surrealism more than i appreciate
the abstract, for certain.
But if you watch the Pollock footage, you can see that
there is definitely a determinism in the way that he
applies the paint. It may be more random that a realists
style, to be sure, but there is still a conscious placement
of the area that he is trying to hit, etc...
>
> Reproduction may loose something but it shows the skill of the
> artist... that he/she is in command of his/her output. Why can't
> Pollock reproduce his own art? Is it because he relied on accident?
>
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the whole human
race is an accident?
>
> > Point is, no one could emulate his STYLE well
> > enough, supposedly...there was certainly a method to
> > his madness.
>
> Nobody is mad enough to try! It is hard as well to emulate a
> graffitti or forge a signature. The are neither art nor skill.
>
Keith Haring started and ended as a Graffiti artist, so
this point gets to the old, "what is Art" question.
Forging a signature well requires tons of skill!
Slick
Thur
"Dr. Slick" <radi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1d15af91.04100...@posting.google.com...
I assume that you are referring to manual attempts to copy?
Fakery of this sort rarely has to be compared with the original.
In fact part of the fakery is to present the fake to people who
for one reason or another are not aware of the existence of
any other copy.
Todays technology has provided the ability to copy almost
undetectable copies of currencies.
Laser reading and mechanised modelling allows for almost exact
copies of sculptures, although I expect this excludes producing
in the same limestone or granite.
Given a demand, I would expect technology could provide a copy
of an oil painting, showing surface texture too. This would not stand
up to testing, though.
Fakers use what technology is available and affordable.
Buying an old frame and reworking an old canvas, formulating
old oil mixtures etc.
The fairly recent case of penetrating an art database and inserting
fake data to make forgeries above suspicion is just about how far
they go when money is available.
Finally, I agree that when you get down to a certain magnification,
even with B., then you must be able to see brush strokes of such
complexity making it impossibly complex to make an exact copy.
Thur
Mani Deli
wrote:
>there is no lack of schools that teach drawing, painting, design, etc., and
>never has been. this is just an ignorant rant on mani's part.
there is no lack of schools that That have courses labled drawing,
painting, design, etc., and never has been.
They teach none of this. The results are all over the place.
Bimbo's stuff is a good example.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
"The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
combined with the stupidity of our people."
- Bill Maher
Mani Deli
>
> But if you watch the Pollock footage, you can see that
>there is definitely a determinism in the way that he
>applies the paint.
Who applies paint without determinism.
> It may be more random that a realists
>style, to be sure, but there is still a conscious placement
>of the area that he is trying to hit, etc...
Big deal!
> Forging a signature well requires tons of skill!
Its one of the easiest things to forge.
John Ng
Even God is not so perfect as to produce exactly identical twin... so
are painters. If two paintings are so close as to be difficult to
identify even at close examinationbut without going through
microscopic details, that is good enough for me.
> But jpgs have notoriously bad resolution, so that's no big
> deal.
That may be so, but it is all you got!
King Rundzap
> kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote in message
>
> > All art has some accidental properties and most of the stuff commonly
> > talked about as art (just about anything you'd see in a museum as art,
> > for example) has a combination of intentional and accidental
> > properties
>
> No, that is what has been written about for decades before Modern Art
> came about. There is a concurrence, amongst artists and critics, that
> accidents in art should be avoided.
It really doesn't matter what they agree about. You can't avoid
accidents. I already noted that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
guarantees this. Physics really doesn't care what a bunch of art
critics think.
> And if there accidents in the
> paintings of good artist, it is NOT a good thing
There are accidents in the paintings of all artists. Even forgetting
HUP, you can't even control everything on a macro scale. It's simply
impossible, because there are too many variables going in to exactly
how paint ends up looking on a support.
> > No one could do something identical to another work.
> For a good artist like Bouguereau, there is no detectable accident.
You'd have to know his intentionality. You don't. But accidental
properties include the exact way that paint adheres to canvas, the
exact way that wet oil colors mix on the canvas with other wet oil
colors, etc. There are many categories of elements that are mostly
accidental in the fine details.
> He can reproduce his own work such that the result is so similar that
> they elude detection.
Depends on who is doing the detecting, probably.
> There are jpgs of Bouguereau's original and
> Bouguereau's reproduction floating around but very few people actually
> know the difference.
I don't doubt that. I don't think that most experts are spending a
lot of time looking primarily at jpegs.
> I myself was fooled even when comparing them in
> detail side by side.
Are you a recognized expert, though?
> I was assured of their difference only when I
> noticed the location of the signature!
My mom might not be able to tell much difference between a Bouguereau
and an Alma-Tadema, but that says a lot more about her than it does
about the paintings.
--King Rundzap
Dr. Slick
> On 5 Oct 2004 02:51:19 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
> >
> > But if you watch the Pollock footage, you can see that
> >there is definitely a determinism in the way that he
> >applies the paint.
>
> Who applies paint without determinism.
>
Someone who accidentally bumps into a can of black
paint in the dark, and the paint happens to spill on a
nearby canvas. This would be a "true" accident to me.
> > It may be more random that a realists
> >style, to be sure, but there is still a conscious placement
> >of the area that he is trying to hit, etc...
>
> Big deal!
>
Fuck You!
> > Forging a signature well requires tons of skill!
>
> Its one of the easiest things to forge.
>
You mean you think you can "accidentally"
forge a signature well? No way!
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> Even God is not so perfect as to produce exactly identical twin... so
> are painters. If two paintings are so close as to be difficult to
> identify even at close examinationbut without going through
> microscopic details, that is good enough for me.
>
My point is this:
Someone who accidentally bumps into a can of
black paint in the dark, and the paint happens to spill on a
nearby canvas.....his would be a "true" accident to me.
Pollock is still very deliberate, and it's likely
that he had a unique "stoke" or arm-motion for flinging
the paint a certain way...Just like Van Gogh has a VERY
unique brush stroke! I saw some Klimt landscapes that
were very impressionistic like Van Gogh, but it still
wasn't the same.
True, there are very skilled forgers out there,
but it's not easy to do this.
>
> > But jpgs have notoriously bad resolution, so that's no big
> > deal.
>
> That may be so, but it is all you got!
>
Point is...All painting are unique.
Slick
Mani Deli
>Mani Deli <ma...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:<fj46m05mrvq5cjrc7...@4ax.com>...
>> On 5 Oct 2004 02:51:19 -0700, radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote:
>> >
>> > But if you watch the Pollock footage, you can see that
>> >there is definitely a determinism in the way that he
>> >applies the paint.
>>
>> Who applies paint without determinism.
>>
>
> Someone who accidentally bumps into a can of black
>paint in the dark, and the paint happens to spill on a
>nearby canvas. This would be a "true" accident to me.
>
So determinism is nothing special.
>
>> > It may be more random that a realists
>> >style, to be sure, but there is still a conscious placement
>> >of the area that he is trying to hit, etc...
>>
>> Big deal!
> Fuck You!
>
Nice to know you're on F. U. Cheney's level.
>
>> > Forging a signature well requires tons of skill!
>>
>> Its one of the easiest things to forge.
>>
>
> You mean you think you can "accidentally"
>forge a signature well? No way!
>
This guy is too stupid to read his own sentence.
Mani Deli
wrote:
>My mom might not be able to tell much difference between a Bouguereau
>and an Alma-Tadema, but that says a lot more about her than it does
>about the paintings.
My mom might not be able to tell much difference between a your
painting and garbage, that says a lot more about your painting then
her.
DNALJM
>are painters. If two paintings are so close as to be difficult to
>identify even at close examinationbut without going through
>microscopic details, that is good enough for me.
http://imagesource.allposters.com/images/SLV/NR0026.jpg
I'm sure that if you cut out part of this painting and part of Pollock's not
even an expert could tell the difference. So it doesn't even matter anyway.
John Ng
> > > But if you watch the Pollock footage, you can see that
> > >there is definitely a determinism in the way that he
> > >applies the paint.
Even a child applies paint deterministically... and so would an
elephant. If an elephant suddenly paints a triangle, it does not mean
it NOT getting results by accident. If the elephant repeats that
drawing, then you can say that the elephant truly know what it is
doing.
For a full grown human like Pollock, I can only be sure that he is
purposefully creating if I can see a second copy somewhat
indistinguishable from the first. Is there such a painting? I am
sure there aren't... as sure as I am sure that Pollock's work is an
accident.
> Someone who accidentally bumps into a can of black
> paint in the dark, and the paint happens to spill on a
> nearby canvas. This would be a "true" accident to me.
If somehow, someone purposefully walks into the can of paint in one
specific direction and spills the paint onto the canvas, then the
result is not an accident? You are being very simple minded.
Dr. Slick
> >> >style, to be sure, but there is still a conscious placement
> >> >of the area that he is trying to hit, etc...
> >>
> >> Big deal!
>
> > Fuck You!
> >
> Nice to know you're on F. U. Cheney's level.
Bottom line is, Pollock has infinitely
more originality style wise than you, Mani Dali Copy.
You ape Dali's style so much that you
even changed your name to Deli to match Dali,
right?
Bwaa haha!
No dick, no art.
Slick
Dr. Slick
>
> Even a child applies paint deterministically... and so would an
> elephant. If an elephant suddenly paints a triangle, it does not mean
> it NOT getting results by accident. If the elephant repeats that
> drawing, then you can say that the elephant truly know what it is
> doing.
>
> For a full grown human like Pollock, I can only be sure that he is
> purposefully creating if I can see a second copy somewhat
> indistinguishable from the first. Is there such a painting? I am
> sure there aren't... as sure as I am sure that Pollock's work is an
> accident.
>
I ain't arguing that the drip style has more
randomness in it, it's just that it is not
COMPLETELY random, which is what you seem to
be claiming.
Sure, his works are very individual, but
it's still his style.
>
> > Someone who accidentally bumps into a can of black
> > paint in the dark, and the paint happens to spill on a
> > nearby canvas. This would be a "true" accident to me.
>
> If somehow, someone purposefully walks into the can of paint in one
> specific direction and spills the paint onto the canvas, then the
> result is not an accident? You are being very simple minded.
>
The key word is "purposefully", so that this would
indeed NOT be an accident. Sure, the details may
be out of the artist's control, but the direction
and amount, and color, and speed of the drip CAN
be controlled.
You are being extemely close-minded.
Slick
King Rundzap
> purposefully creating if I can see a second copy somewhat
> indistinguishable from the first. Is there such a painting? I am
> sure there aren't... as sure as I am sure that Pollock's work is an
> accident.
Using this argument, you'd have to conclude that most artworks are
accidental, since the original artists didn't execute "somewhat
indistinguishable copies" of most of them.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> On 5 Oct 2004 16:52:25 -0700, kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap)
> wrote:
> >My mom might not be able to tell much difference between a Bouguereau
> >and an Alma-Tadema, but that says a lot more about her than it does
> >about the paintings.
> My mom might not be able to tell much difference between a your
> painting and garbage, that says a lot more about your painting then
> her.
No, that still says more about her. It would if she could tell the
difference between "a my painting" and garbage, too.
> No skill no art!
Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Tired of Mani Deli? Pay him a "visit" on Wellesley West in Toronto.
> "The true axis of evil in America is the brilliance of our marketing
> combined with the stupidity of our people."
> - Bill Maher
"I studied philosophy of science. Quine who?" --Mani Deli
John Ng
> The key word is "purposefully", so that this would
> indeed NOT be an accident. Sure, the details may
> be out of the artist's control, but the direction
> and amount, and color, and speed of the drip CAN
> be controlled.
"Sure, the details may be out of the artist's control" <== this
sentence sounds like accident to me.
How do you know that Pollock could control the "amount, and color, and
speed"? Is there something concrete or real that could give you a
clue as to his correctness?
Electric Nachos
John Ng wrote in message ...
>radi...@aol.com (Dr. Slick) wrote in message
>
>> The key word is "purposefully", so that this would
>> indeed NOT be an accident. Sure, the details may
>> be out of the artist's control, but the direction
>> and amount, and color, and speed of the drip CAN
>> be controlled.
>
>"Sure, the details may be out of the artist's control" <== this
>sentence sounds like accident to me.
>
>How do you know that Pollock could control the "amount, and color, and
>speed"? Is there something concrete or real that could give you a
>clue as to his correctness?
I bee leave the DOCTOR SAID HE WATCHED THE MOTHER FUCKER PAINT ON A
TELEVISION PROGRAM!!!!!!!
(Would you be so kind as to walk out in the hall and take a hit of acid?)
You're POINTLESS
Blechh!!
BORING
Yucch!!
Eeeww!
GO WAY
BzzzzzzzT
Electric Nachos
Biljo White wrote in message <20041007183427.510$W...@newsreader.com>...
>I think you'll be right at home in this group.
>
>Artist <Art...@asylum.com> wrote:
>> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>>
>> If you put random musical notes on paper, it's not music.
It IS to DEAF people!
>> If you dump building materials randomly in a pile, you don't have a
>> house.
It IS to MICE, BUGS, and BACTERIA!
>> If you type random words, you don't have a novel.
It IS to BLIND FUCKERS!
>> If you drip paint randomly on canvas, it's not art.
STEVIE WONDER DISAGREES!
>> What Pollack did is not art. It shows us what a sick, sad, degenerate
>> state the world of visual art has come to.
Well, you're ugly.
>> -----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
>> http://www.newsfeed.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>> -----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----
Electric Nachos
>Artist <Art...@asylum.com> wrote:
>> *** post for FREE via your newsreader at post.newsfeed.com ***
>>
>> If you put random musical notes on paper, it's not music.
>> If you dump building materials randomly in a pile, you don't have a
>> house.
>> If you type random words, you don't have a novel.
>> If you drip paint randomly on canvas, it's not art.
>>
>> What Pollack did is not art. It shows us what a sick, sad, degenerate
>> state the world of visual art has come to.
>>
John Ng
> Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
Is that right? What about Pollock? Maybe you are right... he could
skilfully walk around his canvas holding a paint can without tripping.
Dr. Slick
>
> > The key word is "purposefully", so that this would
> > indeed NOT be an accident. Sure, the details may
> > be out of the artist's control, but the direction
> > and amount, and color, and speed of the drip CAN
> > be controlled.
>
> "Sure, the details may be out of the artist's control" <== this
> sentence sounds like accident to me.
>
But the other elements are in his control.
I'm talking about less control, but still
contolled. Degrees of. Not black or white,
but a grey area.
Think about it for a while...
> How do you know that Pollock could control the "amount, and color, and
> speed"? Is there something concrete or real that could give you a
> clue as to his correctness?
>
Yeah, like he could chose red or black or white or whatever
color he wanted. And he could drip a little or a lot or something
in between. And he could vary the speed he applied it with.
Get it?
I never said anything about "correctness", just that
there is some determinism in a Pollock.
Slick
King Rundzap
> Who the hell wrote this shit??????
I don't know. I don't even know how you saw it. I can only see your
response.
> Biljo White wrote in message <20041007183427.510$W...@newsreader.com>...
I can't see any of this person's posts. I never killfile anyone.
Something odd about Google, maybe?
> >> If you put random musical notes on paper, it's not music.
> It IS to DEAF people!
Plenty of composers have used various methods of choosing elements,
including notes, randomly. This includes John Cage and Milton
Babbitt. That stuff is usually considered music.
> >> If you dump building materials randomly in a pile, you don't have a
> >> house.
> It IS to MICE, BUGS, and BACTERIA!
Right, and the person is ignoring the fact that not all elements of
the art objects in question are random. Pollock's canvases were not
randomly attached to stretcher bars, for example.
> >> If you type random words, you don't have a novel.
> It IS to BLIND FUCKERS!
People have used randomness in literature, too. And Ulysses reads
like that to me (even if elements aren't really random). Lots of
people like it. I don't. But I do think it's a novel.
> >> If you drip paint randomly on canvas, it's not art.
> STEVIE WONDER DISAGREES!
I like how you're separating art from literature and music, lol.
Those are arts, too. Anyway, just as your analogies to randomness in
other arts only showed your ignorance of those arts, so does this
aphorism.
> >> What Pollack did is not art.
I consider what "Pollack" did art. Let's hear why I'm wrong now.
> >>It shows us what a sick, sad, degenerate
> >> state the world of visual art has come to.
If you were more educated about the other arts, you'd realize that
what you're complaining about isn't exclusive to the visual arts.
--King Rundzap
King Rundzap
> kingr...@hotmail.com (King Rundzap) wrote in message
> > Everything conventionally called art displays skill.
> Is that right?
Yes.
> What about Pollock?
His works display skill. "Skill" wouldn't mean just a particular
skill set and not some other skill set, right? Mani frequently makes
that mistake--believing that only one particular skill set, or only a
particular set of skill sets (generously), count as "skill".
> Maybe you are right... he could
> skilfully walk around his canvas holding a paint can without tripping.
Well, and he applied paint in particular ways that he intended.
--King Rundzap
Electric Nachos
>"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>> Hi Richard, the COOL ARTISTE.
>
>
>God, that's not 'Richard the Stupid,' is it??
I think it is!
>The most infamous braindead
>psycho on the net here at RAF?
>
>Say it's not!!
>
>Biljo
Agathena
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 05 Oct 2004 11:04:05 GMT, biljowhit...@yahoo.com(Biljo White)
> wrote:
>
>>there is no lack of schools that teach drawing, painting, design, etc., and
>>never has been. this is just an ignorant rant on mani's part.
>
>
> there is no lack of schools
double negative
that That have courses labled drawing,
> painting, design, etc., and never has been.
>
> They
They? could you be a little specific. Like name three.
teach none of this.
The results
Could you name three artists who graduated from three
schools that list courses drawing, painting, design etc.?
Can you list the works of these artists and links to
jpg 's to prove your point?
Your point is, the old whine:
"art schools don't teach drawing, painting, design ever
since the great Ingres died. No one can draw except
Ingres and me." Mani Deli
Never mind.
The questions were rhetorical anyway.
are all over the place.
>
> Bimbo's stuff is a good example.
>
>
>
> No shill no art!
>
> Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
>
John Ng
> Anybody can copy from life
> by traditional ways; it's a formula, like a recipe, something followed
> with out originality, most of the time anyways.{I'm talking about the
> majority of arists who learn technics)
You can't be serious. I know you have NEVER painted traditionally.
Do you know that a painter could try all he/she likes, learn all
he/she could, but still never be able to paint classical because IT
DEMANDS TALENT. Matisse, who got expelled from an atelier because he
couldn't draw, is one such example. In the second half of the 20th
and 21st Century, there are no painters who could parallel even
average 19C artists.
On the other hand, ANYONE could paint abstract or naive or the
Moderns. Just dump paint here and there... no right no wrong. I
could paint a better abstract then you... mark my words... because it
is just subjective. So what is your goal!
John Ng
Advocates an art renewal and the return to sensible art
Leave graffiti to the scoundrels
http://community.webshots.com/user/pigsmayfly
Electric Nachos
John Ng wrote in message ...
>
>> Anybody can copy from life
>> by traditional ways; it's a formula, like a recipe, something followed
>> with out originality, most of the time anyways.{I'm talking about the
>> majority of arists who learn technics)
>
>You can't be serious. I know you have NEVER painted traditionally.
>Do you know that a painter could try all he/she likes, learn all
>he/she could, but still never be able to paint classical because IT
>DEMANDS TALENT.
Wow - talk about doing the Kerry Flip Flop!
>Matisse, who got expelled from an atelier because he
>couldn't draw, is one such example. In the second half of the 20th
>and 21st Century, there are no painters who could parallel even
>average 19C artists.
Brain Damage. This guy obviously hasn't cracked open an art history book
published in the last 5 years.
>On the other hand, ANYONE could paint abstract or naive or the
>Moderns. Just dump paint here and there... no right no wrong. I
>could paint a better abstract then you... mark my words... because it
>is just subjective. So what is your goal!
So why aren't you doing it?
Funny - they complain that abstract art is attracting all the fame and
raking in the money...
They say anyone can make modern art...
Yet they just don't seem too capable of really DOING either one of those
things themselves...
Why Is That?
klunk
those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it....
attitudes such you've (as well as of the other insipid morons who claim to
know truth in art) displayed are actually the real testament to the sick,
sad, degenerate state the world of visual art has come to...
here's a hint... try reading abit... something substantial... like chaos
theory... or even art history... learn abit about the role the camera has
played in the evolution of art... before you decide to stand up on your
soapbox and prove your ignorance.
just because you have the ability to spout off, doesn't mean your ideas have
any value other than to stir up shit... you and several other idiots are
only demonstrating extreme depths of stupidity disguised as narrow-minded
prejudice... what are you so afraid of?
this message includes you as well deli-sandwhich... grow a brain fuckhead...
or shut the fuck up... (normally I ignore idiots such as you, but some days
I just get fed up and feel the need to inform you that you should dump your
shit in the toilet and not on those who participate in these groups because
they're searching for meaningful discourse... Art doesn't require skill...
any idiot can be trained to imitate anything... that doesn't mean they
understand what they're doing nor does it make them original, creative or
artistic)... and just because you have an opinion (see below), doesn't mean
it has any value other than to demonstrate your own limitations....
"Opinions are like assholes... everyone has one... the trouble is that some
are bigger than others." - unattributed