bringing the arts to the man on the street?
Ariane
On 5 Mar 1999, Teanga wrote:
> From: Teanga <tea...@aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.music.opera
> Subject: Re: bringing the arts to the man on the street ?
>
> You repeat the same old 20th modernist lies against Ingres. He was one of the
> greatest artists of all time. Just look at his portraits and drawings.
=== The greatest manner in which to compare the 19th century French
masters (of which Ingres was unquestionably one) is to see them all
displayed next to each other in the 19th century French wing of the Louvre
in Paris. Here, Ingres can't hide behind his expert draughtsmanship; and
although this talent and, more importantly, his academic position, got him
into the Louvre in the first place, (as the champion of French
academicism, he regularly won the Salon competitions held annually at the
Louvre, while using his political clout to keep other `non-academic' or
`romantic' masters from even being admitted to the competition), his work
pales beside the awesome talent of his contemporary and rival Delacroix,
(not to mention David). Compare anything by Ingres to Delacroix' `Death
of Sardanopolous' and in terms of passion, power, grace, beauty, in short,
everything that transcends mere draughtsmanship, it is unquestionably
evident as to who is the greater master. Ingres was replaced by the
camera. Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
the 19th. Interestingly enough, Delacroix readily embraced the
daguerrotype (a primitive form of the camera) as an aid in his art making
precisely because his art transcended photography and therefore this new
form of representation posed no threat to him. For Ingres, history has
shown that the invention of photography spelled the end of his overarching
influence.....thank god.
a la prochaine,
A.
mark webber
(snipping for brevity)
> Compare anything by Ingres to Delacroix' `Death
> of Sardanopolous' and in terms of passion, power, grace, beauty, in short,
> everything that transcends mere draughtsmanship, it is unquestionably
> evident as to who is the greater master. Ingres was replaced by the
> camera.
Ariane, I like a lot of what you have to say in this forum quite a bit,
but I think it's an error to think that Ingres wanted or achieved what the
camera has to offer.
And this is not to denigrate Delacroix in the least - he was marvelous.
But to say that Ingres was replaced by the camera, or that he was after
that sort of representation, his a bit off the mark. It is exactly like
saying that the 6th century B.C. Greeks were "realistic".
Neither Ingres, nor his chief influence, these Greeks, were realistic.
They were classicists, which meant that they idealized form; they lied.
I'm not saying one should not prefer Delacroix to Ingres - it's very
understandable that if one wants more vibrant, tumultuous form, one might
prefer D.
But many painters are of a more restful, measured sensiblity. This doesn't
equal "dry" or "overly rendered". But it does agree with Classicism.
In fact, it is a real delight to me that these two were contemporaries -
these two examples of opposing sensibility and formal inclination.
> Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
> with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
> Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
> the 19th.
And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
avec amitie,
Mark
Ariane
On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, mark webber wrote:
> From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: bringing the arts to the man on the street?
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> (snipping for brevity)
> > Compare anything by Ingres to Delacroix' `Death
> > of Sardanopolous' and in terms of passion, power, grace, beauty, in short,
> > everything that transcends mere draughtsmanship, it is unquestionably
> > evident as to who is the greater master. Ingres was replaced by the
> > camera.
>
>
> Ariane, I like a lot of what you have to say in this forum quite a bit,
> but I think it's an error to think that Ingres wanted or achieved what the
> camera has to offer.
>
> And this is not to denigrate Delacroix in the least - he was marvelous.
>
> But to say that Ingres was replaced by the camera, or that he was after
> that sort of representation, his a bit off the mark. It is exactly like
> saying that the 6th century B.C. Greeks were "realistic".
=== Fair enough, I see what you're saying and I tend to overstate my case
on this at times.
> Neither Ingres, nor his chief influence, these Greeks, were realistic.
> They were classicists, which meant that they idealized form; they lied.
=== I have to agree here.
> I'm not saying one should not prefer Delacroix to Ingres - it's very
> understandable that if one wants more vibrant, tumultuous form, one might
> prefer D.
>
> But many painters are of a more restful, measured sensiblity. This doesn't
> equal "dry" or "overly rendered". But it does agree with Classicism.
=== Yes agreed, but classicism is not a monolithic singular entity and one
could certainly point to cases of dry, overly rendered classicism.
Perhaps, to many, Ingres is a good example of this classical extreme.
> In fact, it is a real delight to me that these two were contemporaries -
> these two examples of opposing sensibility and formal inclination.
=== Absolutely. Their dialectic has set the tone for much of what has
come to follow. They each pushed the other to work harder so as not to be
outdone.
> > Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
> > with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
> > Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
> > the 19th.
>
> And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
> influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
=== If you mean that both were influenced in terms of positive influence
as well as in terms of negative reaction, then I am bound to agree.
> avec amitie,
>
> Mark
a la prochaine,
A.
Marilyn
>
> On 5 Mar 1999, Teanga wrote:
>
> > From: Teanga <tea...@aol.com>
> > Newsgroups: rec.music.opera
> > Subject: Re: bringing the arts to the man on the street ?
> >
> > You repeat the same old 20th modernist lies against Ingres. He was one of the
> > greatest artists of all time. Just look at his portraits and drawings.
>
> === The greatest manner in which to compare the 19th century French
> masters (of which Ingres was unquestionably one) is to see them all
> displayed next to each other in the 19th century French wing of the Louvre
> in Paris. Here, Ingres can't hide behind his expert draughtsmanship; and
> although this talent and, more importantly, his academic position, got him
> into the Louvre in the first place, (as the champion of French
> academicism, he regularly won the Salon competitions held annually at the
> Louvre, while using his political clout to keep other `non-academic' or
> `romantic' masters from even being admitted to the competition), his work
> pales beside the awesome talent of his contemporary and rival Delacroix,
> of Sardanopolous' and in terms of passion, power, grace, beauty, in short,
> everything that transcends mere draughtsmanship, it is unquestionably
> evident as to who is the greater master. Ingres was replaced by the
> with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
> Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
> daguerrotype (a primitive form of the camera) as an aid in his art making
> precisely because his art transcended photography and therefore this new
> form of representation posed no threat to him. For Ingres, history has
> shown that the invention of photography spelled the end of his overarching
> influence.....thank god.
>
> a la prochaine,
>
> A.
You say the end of his influence but it seems from this newsgroup
that there is a movement for his glorious ressurection. In fact
there are those who believe that there has been nothing since
Ingres. I enjoyed reading your
mark webber
(after I wrote)
> > I'm not saying one should not prefer Delacroix to Ingres - it's very
> > understandable that if one wants more vibrant, tumultuous form, one might
> > prefer D.
> >
> > But many painters are of a more restful, measured sensiblity. This doesn't
> > equal "dry" or "overly rendered". But it does agree with Classicism.
>
> === Yes agreed, but classicism is not a monolithic singular entity and one
> could certainly point to cases of dry, overly rendered classicism.
Absolutely - too many come immediately to mind.
> Perhaps, to many, Ingres is a good example of this classical extreme.
I can certainly understand that view - I hope anyone who shares it can
continue looking and perhaps eventually get past what may appear rigid
and see the poetry. And not all Ingres stuns me either. But many do.
>
> > In fact, it is a real delight to me that these two were contemporaries -
> > these two examples of opposing sensibility and formal inclination.
>
> === Absolutely. Their dialectic has set the tone for much of what has
> come to follow. They each pushed the other to work harder so as not to be
> outdone.
Yes, it seems they really benefited from it.
>
> > > Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
> > > with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
> > > Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
> > > the 19th.
> >
> > And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
> > influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
>
> === If you mean that both were influenced in terms of positive influence
> as well as in terms of negative reaction, then I am bound to agree.
>
Actually, I'm referring to specific visual ideas that Picasso and
DeKooning "borrow" from Ingres; specifically classical shape making and
composing and in some cases (in early DeKooning) line quality. These are
specific ways in which Ingres influenced them.
Ingres also had a pretty strong effect on Corot in a similar manner.
All three of these later artists had little or no use for the degree of
polish that Ingres was fond of, but if you look at Picasso's
"neo-classical" women of the twenties, for example, and DeKooning's
seated women of the 40s as well as earlier drawings, and Corot's
figures, well there are some pretty striking similarities.
In addition, I know a number of painters working today who eschew Ingres
level of attention to detail but find his color and form to be first rate.
There are a few folks in this group for whom, as Marilyn has rightly
pointed out, Ingres is the last great painter. Unfortunately for them,
they haven't the faintest idea *why* he is great.
sincerely,
Mark
P.S. It could also be argued that it wasn't only early DeKoonings in which
one can see the sort of energetic and lyrical line one finds in Ingres -
it is certainly easier to identify Delacroix' brushwork as a precurser.
But seeing Ingres is not at all impossible.
Bill
b-n-dpatters
bringing-art-to-the-man-in-the-street postings no longer have anything to
do with opera - or even common sense, at this point. Enough already!
Bill <re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<36E13D48...@ix.netcom.com>...
mdeli
>> > > Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
>> > > with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
>> > > Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
>> > > the 19th.
Delacroix's legacy is one of ever increasing sloppiness in drawing,
color and technique. This is labeled by modern critics as "self
expression,." instead of what it really is. Namely a lack of
knowledge.and technique. This is why D, is so attractive to the modern
incompetent.
He had no influence on Dali whatever.
>> >
>> > And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
>> > influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
And what is "Shapemaking?" Picasso spent his life being envious of
Ingres because he couldn't imitate even a nose in an Ingres. The
closest de Kooning came to anything in Ingres was when he stood next
to one.
>>
>> === If you mean that both were influenced in terms of positive influence
>> as well as in terms of negative reaction, then I am bound to agree.
>>
>
>Actually, I'm referring to specific visual ideas that Picasso and
>DeKooning "borrow" from Ingres;
Which never went further than owning paints and brushes.
>specifically classical shape making and
>composing and in some cases (in early DeKooning) line quality. These are
>specific ways in which Ingres influenced them.
Didn't help any, did it?
>Ingres also had a pretty strong effect on Corot in a similar manner.
Are you referring to the the most famous bore of the 19th century? If
Corot were born fifty years later he might have actually been as bad
as that great missshapen-maker, fumleklotz, Cezanne.
>
>All three of these later artists had little or no use for the degree of
>polish that Ingres was fond of,
The best they could substitute was formless schmier.
> but if you look at Picasso's
>"neo-classical" women of the twenties, for example, and DeKooning's
>seated women of the 40s as well as earlier drawings, and Corot's
>figures, well there are some pretty striking similarities.
... to the blind.
>
>In addition, I know a number of painters working today who eschew Ingres
>level of attention to detail but find his color and form to be first rate.
...because like you they can't paint detail or anything to any degree
of finish.
>There are a few folks in this group for whom, as Marilyn has rightly
>pointed out, Ingres is the last great painter. Unfortunately for them,
>they haven't the faintest idea *why* he is great.
Neither do you.
>P.S. It could also be argued that it wasn't only early DeKoonings in which
>one can see the sort of energetic and lyrical line one finds in Ingres -
>it is certainly easier to identify Delacroix' brushwork as a precurser.
>But seeing Ingres is not at all impossible.
>
De Kooning's cat vomit finish doesn't contain any lines.
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/
Ariane
> From: mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.fine
> Subject: Re: bringing the arts to the man on the street?
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> (after I wrote)
> > > I'm not saying one should not prefer Delacroix to Ingres - it's very
> > > understandable that if one wants more vibrant, tumultuous form, one might
> > > prefer D.
> > >
> > > But many painters are of a more restful, measured sensiblity. This doesn't
> > > equal "dry" or "overly rendered". But it does agree with Classicism.
> >
> > === Yes agreed, but classicism is not a monolithic singular entity and one
> > could certainly point to cases of dry, overly rendered classicism.
>
> Absolutely - too many come immediately to mind.
>
>
> > Perhaps, to many, Ingres is a good example of this classical extreme.
>
> I can certainly understand that view - I hope anyone who shares it can
> continue looking and perhaps eventually get past what may appear rigid
> and see the poetry. And not all Ingres stuns me either. But many do.
=== Fair enough. An open mind is not to be despised after all.
> > > In fact, it is a real delight to me that these two were contemporaries -
> > > these two examples of opposing sensibility and formal inclination.
> >
> > === Absolutely. Their dialectic has set the tone for much of what has
> > come to follow. They each pushed the other to work harder so as not to be
> > outdone.
>
> Yes, it seems they really benefited from it.
> > > > Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
> > > > with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
> > > > Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
> > > > the 19th.
> > >
> > > And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
> > > influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
> >
> > === If you mean that both were influenced in terms of positive influence
> > as well as in terms of negative reaction, then I am bound to agree.
> >
> Actually, I'm referring to specific visual ideas that Picasso and
> DeKooning "borrow" from Ingres; specifically classical shape making and
> composing and in some cases (in early DeKooning) line quality. These are
> specific ways in which Ingres influenced them.
=== You've made a good point here. A draughtsman of the calibre of Ingres
could not simply be dimissed out of hand by any `serious' artist. I do
see your point but at the same time I feel that they rejected the overall
`finish' (if I can use that term) that characterizes much of Ingres work.
> Ingres also had a pretty strong effect on Corot in a similar manner.
>
> All three of these later artists had little or no use for the degree of
> polish that Ingres was fond of,
=== oops, I seem to be re-iterating your points. sorry.
but if you look at Picasso's
> "neo-classical" women of the twenties, for example, and DeKooning's
> seated women of the 40s as well as earlier drawings, and Corot's
> figures, well there are some pretty striking similarities.
=== True enough. Perhaps I could benefit from this example
of `artistic selectivity' in my own work. Thanks.
> In addition, I know a number of painters working today who eschew Ingres
> level of attention to detail but find his color and form to be first rate.
>
> There are a few folks in this group for whom, as Marilyn has rightly
> pointed out, Ingres is the last great painter. Unfortunately for them,
> they haven't the faintest idea *why* he is great.
>
> sincerely,
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. It could also be argued that it wasn't only early DeKoonings in which
> one can see the sort of energetic and lyrical line one finds in Ingres -
> it is certainly easier to identify Delacroix' brushwork as a precurser.
> But seeing Ingres is not at all impossible.
=== I'll enjoy looking for him (if not at his work per se) in the work of
DeKoonings. I've enjoyed reading your post, and have benefitted from
your comments. Apologies for taking so long to respond.
a la prochaine,
A.
zi...@interport.net
> mark webber wrote:
>>> > > Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
>>> > > with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
>>> > > Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
>>> > > the 19th.
>
>Delacroix's legacy is one of ever increasing sloppiness in drawing,
>color and technique. This is labeled by modern critics as "self
>expression,." instead of what it really is. Namely a lack of
>knowledge.and technique. This is why D, is so attractive to the modern
>incompetent.
>
>He had no influence on Dali whatever.
Then you do not know the Delacroix still - lifes which are placed in a
landscape and which play games with the scale of the hunters' trophies
and tools against the trees, landscape features, Etc. Di Chirico who
was the most important influence on Dali's mature work was also
directly influenced by those paintings. Later on, of course Di Chirico
tried to paint pastiches of Delacroix and Gericault iwth some
classical imagery thrown in which were just awful.
>
>>> >
>>> > And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
>>> > influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
>
>And what is "Shapemaking?" Picasso spent his life being envious of
>Ingres because he couldn't imitate even a nose in an Ingres. The
>closest de Kooning came to anything in Ingres was when he stood next
>to one.
I do understand Mark's "shape making" sentence, but I would also say
that the neoclassic period was the least realized work by Picasso. Let
me make it plain. It was awful. Also he never did a portrait qua
portrait which was a success. The Gerturde Stein was an abandoned
failure. And Picasso was right in thinking so.
>>>
>>> === If you mean that both were influenced in terms of positive influence
>>> as well as in terms of negative reaction, then I am bound to agree.
>>>
>>
>>Actually, I'm referring to specific visual ideas that Picasso and
>>DeKooning "borrow" from Ingres;
Picasso borrowed fromIngres, but did he ever fulfill the borrowings?
When Picasso used neoclassicism as one part of a painting which dealt
with ideas, like the late scultpure versus painting still life, then
the somewhat classicizing portion of the paintingmakes sense and the
painting is intellectually as well as artisticall satisfying. But of
all the neoclassicizing paintings by Picasso I have only seen one
success. About 15 years ago there was a ten or fifteen gallery Picasso
show in New York. In the gallery which had the bulk of the neoclassic
paintings [it was on 79th street, but I don;t remember the name] therr
was one overvolumetric green apple [seen from several viewpoints and
combined in one form] which I thought an unqualified success.
>Which never went further than owning paints and brushes.
>
>>specifically classical shape making and
>>composing and in some cases (in early DeKooning) line quality. These are
>>specific ways in which Ingres influenced them.
>
>Didn't help any, did it?
I am afraid that I think that Picasso expressed the influence of
traditional painters like Ingres best when he used their works as a
take off paint for relatively abstract work. The Ingres "classicizing
drawings and paintings are almost uniformly unsatisfying and
unfulfilled.>
>>Ingres also had a pretty strong effect on Corot in a similar manner.
>
>Are you referring to the the most famous bore of the 19th century? If
>Corot were born fifty years later he might have actually been as bad
>as that great missshapen-maker, fumleklotz, Cezanne.
>Here You show your limitations , Mani Deli.> I also believe that you have not seenmuch Corot in the flesh.
The late Corot of a nude sitting out of doors under the trees being
waited on by other nudes is a marvelously great painting by the
standards of 18th century and 17th century painting as well as of my
standards. I would easily put it in a room with a great Poussin and it
would hold its own. It is, by the way, one of the very few great ;late
figure paintings which is still in private hands, in Paris, no less.
I believe that you have never seen a large group of Corot's works.
And I believe that if you did, yoj would change your mind somewhat.
There would still be things you don;t like,but I think ther would be a
lot you would like. That ius if you are open minded enough to follow
your eyes, rather than an a priori position.
>>All three of these later artists had little or no use for the degree of
>>polish that Ingres was fond of,
>
>The best they could substitute was formless schmier.
Ingre's polish worked just fine with him. And he is not the
conservative artist you think he is MD, his paintings hide all sorts
of pictorial surprizes. But he hides his radical ideas under smooth
surfaces and neoclassicizing subjects and appearances. You err in
locating the porblem with 19th century painting in sloppiness. Ingres
is just as peculiar, unanatomical, distorted, against the status quo
in his work as any of the brushy romantics. In fact, even mpore so. I
prefer Ingres, often to Delacroix. Not only becauyse of the fineness
of his hand but because it hides such a subversive pictorial
intelligence. Muchmore so than often is the case in Delacroix.
Although I loved the smallish Delacroix show in Philadelphia, too.
MD I think you are looking at Ingres and finding what you want to
find. And you are purposefully overlooking what would bother you if
it were there. But, that doesn;t change things it is there. And it
is why I lovre him.
>> but if you look at Picasso's
>>"neo-classical" women of the twenties, for example, and DeKooning's
>>seated women of the 40s as well as earlier drawings, and Corot's
>>figures, well there are some pretty striking similarities.
>I don;t see any similarities to Corot. OItherwise I agree with you in spades!
>... to the blind.
>
>>
>>In addition, I know a number of painters working today who eschew Ingres
>>level of attention to detail but find his color and form to be first rate.
>
>...because like you they can't paint detail or anything to any degree
>of finish.
There are many traditions which come out of the past MD. When you
locate one and say it, and it aloner is the right one, you are back
doing the batgtles of the Poussinistes versus the rubenists in the
17th century. Now I sometimes like that century a lot. But they were
full of it on that one. They are both great artists. It is possible
to be a great artist and not paint much detail. It can be suggested,
it can be imagined by the view er if necessary, as long as the artist
makes imagining it possible. Some great aretists do just that. For
example Tiepolo andvceronese in their mural paintings, or Tintoretto
in "Scuola San Rocco" and across the street in the church. Or in the
two paintings behind the high Island in the church on that island in
the lagoon. Rembrandt also does it all the time. remeber I also like
the great Florentines and the noeclassicizing artists. I think that
argument with one side or the other having the moral high ground is
dumb.
>>There are a few folks in this group for whom, as Marilyn has rightly
>>pointed out, Ingres is the last great painter. Unfortunately for them,
>>they haven't the faintest idea *why* he is great.
Mani, are you sure you do? Of course you are sure of all your
opinions. c That is why you only like one side ofthe coin. But in
reality being insecure enough to accept that the other people who
don;t share all of your views might have a piece of the truth is the
mature position. When I wasa tight relaist/surrealist I was very much
impressed by and interested in the brushy painters, asfter a while.
And I am far from unique. It is not just the people who paint loose
wholike great tight painters. There are painters whpo paint tightly
who like them too. Such as Bill Bailey, David Carbone, Richard
Chiriani, Bruno Civitico [a neoclassicizing painter], Susan Walp,
Jean Duval. These are real living people with plenty of tight skill.
Look at the people who show at the Hackett Friedman gallery in SF,
which is on the net. All of those tight still life painters Etc. are
people who like gthe tradition you decry. AND they have the technique,
in spades, you approve of. Are they sall misguided?
>Neither do you.
>
>>P.S. It could also be argued that it wasn't only early DeKoonings in which
>>one can see the sort of energetic and lyrical line one finds in Ingres -
>>it is certainly easier to identify Delacroix' brushwork as a precurser.
>>But seeing Ingres is not at all impossible.
>>
>De Kooning's cat vomit finish doesn't contain any lines.
As you know, I was adeKooning student. Amnd I liked the man. I also
liked the artist and found him a fund of information about working
from the motif. He did , in fact suggest that I go back to paointing
from nature. On the other hand I do not see him exceptthrough the
example of big brush strokes, as connected to Delacroix.
Gabriel
mark webber
Hi Gabriel,
This is posted to the group as well as mailed privately.
Glad to see you back. I'd like to point out though that I didn't write
some of what it seems you are attributing to me. Some of it is, I believe,
Ariane and some is Idle Hands (the delicatessen, as you call him.)
Perhaps it was clear to you who wrote what, but by the time I read your
post, I was confused.
I'll try to sort through it and identify who wrote what:
(I believe this first bit is Ariane's)
> >>> > > Delacroix' legacy went on to infuse the entire twentieth century
> >>> > > with inspiration and contributed to the 20th century masters' (yes, even
> >>> > > Dali) liberation from the stifling academicism and protracted realism of
> >>> > > the 19th.
> >
(this next bit could be by no one but the Idler himself.)
> >Delacroix's legacy is one of ever increasing sloppiness in drawing,
> >color and technique. This is labeled by modern critics as "self
> >expression,." instead of what it really is. Namely a lack of
> >knowledge.and technique. This is why D, is so attractive to the modern
> >incompetent.
> >
> >He had no influence on Dali whatever.
(so when Gabriel writes the following he is, I think, replying to
Professor Deli)
> Then you do not know the Delacroix still - lifes which are placed in a
> landscape and which play games with the scale of the hunters' trophies
> and tools against the trees, landscape features, Etc. Di Chirico who
> was the most important influence on Dali's mature work was also
> directly influenced by those paintings. Later on, of course Di Chirico
> tried to paint pastiches of Delacroix and Gericault iwth some
> classical imagery thrown in which were just awful.
(This next sentence is one of mine, taken out of context.)
> >>> > And so did Ingres. To name two, Picasso and DeKooning were very much
> >>> > influenced by the shapemaking of Ingres.
(This next, I imagine, is one of Deli's again. I can't be sure because I
never read his drivel anymore, but it certainly sounds like him.)
> >And what is "Shapemaking?" Picasso spent his life being envious of
> >Ingres because he couldn't imitate even a nose in an Ingres. The
> >closest de Kooning came to anything in Ingres was when he stood next
> >to one.
(And here, again, is Gabriel...)
> I do understand Mark's "shape making" sentence, but I would also say
> that the neoclassic period was the least realized work by Picasso. Let
> me make it plain. It was awful. Also he never did a portrait qua
> portrait which was a success. The Gerturde Stein was an abandoned
> failure. And Picasso was right in thinking so.
While this remark of Gabriel's becomes a tad tangential, I don't disagree.
Ariene:
> >>> === If you mean that both were influenced in terms of positive influence
> >>> as well as in terms of negative reaction, then I am bound to agree.
Me:
> >>Actually, I'm referring to specific visual ideas that Picasso and
> >>DeKooning "borrow" from Ingres;
Gabriel:
> Picasso borrowed fromIngres, but did he ever fulfill the borrowings?
I see your point, Gabriel, but there are some pieces from this period -
especially some small sketches that I saw in the Musee Picasso in Paris,
which I found very beautiful. Do they all succeed? No, certainly not.
> When Picasso used neoclassicism as one part of a painting which dealt
> with ideas, like the late scultpure versus painting still life, then
> the somewhat classicizing portion of the paintingmakes sense and the
> painting is intellectually as well as artisticall satisfying. But of
> all the neoclassicizing paintings by Picasso I have only seen one
> success. About 15 years ago there was a ten or fifteen gallery Picasso
> show in New York. In the gallery which had the bulk of the neoclassic
> paintings [it was on 79th street, but I don;t remember the name] therr
> was one overvolumetric green apple [seen from several viewpoints and
> combined in one form] which I thought an unqualified success.
Me, again:
> >>specifically classical shape making and
> >>composing and in some cases (in early DeKooning) line quality. These are
> >>specific ways in which Ingres influenced them.
> >
> Didn't help any, did it?
> I am afraid that I think that Picasso expressed the influence of
> traditional painters like Ingres best when he used their works as a
> take off paint for relatively abstract work. The Ingres "classicizing
> drawings and paintings are almost uniformly unsatisfying and
> unfulfilled.>
In both cases, Picasso and DeKooning, the routes the artists chose and the
influences they absorbed are simply that - where interests lay. I'm not
disagreeing with you; simply saying that there are connections and
confluences that are not readily noticable if one approaches Ingres as the
"end" of the academic and Delacroix as the "beginning" of the modern.
My only point was that two of the big guns of modernism were influenced by
Ingres as much as by Delacroix.
Me, again:
> >>Ingres also had a pretty strong effect on Corot in a similar manner.
> >
And here, in this next sentence... (bearing in mind the annual relaxation
of Tabu in which we might, in a high spirited manner, acknowlege and
even take part in such indecency) ... in this next sentence we have proof
that Mani Deli is, in fact, not even human, only a "program" used to draw
new readers of this group to a web page for financial renumeration (see in
dejanews algebraic proof of this theorum under the thread "To Idle Hands")
can not possibly be human if "he" can produce the following response to
the paintings of Camille Corot, one of the reasons life is worth living:
> >Are you referring to the the most famous bore of the 19th century? If
> >Corot were born fifty years later he might have actually been as bad
> >as that great missshapen-maker, fumleklotz, Cezanne.
Now, to post in a public forum such obvious evidence of complete and utter
insensate existence is so pitiful that it is only laughable.
In your reply to him, Gabriel, you pay him a compliment by implying he
will even understand you:
> Here You show your limitations , Mani Deli.
> I also believe that you have not seenmuch Corot in the flesh.
> The late Corot of a nude sitting out of doors under the trees being
> waited on by other nudes is a marvelously great painting by the
> standards of 18th century and 17th century painting as well as of my
> standards. I would easily put it in a room with a great Poussin and it
> would hold its own. It is, by the way, one of the very few great ;late
> figure paintings which is still in private hands, in Paris, no less.
>
> I believe that you have never seen a large group of Corot's works.
> And I believe that if you did, yoj would change your mind somewhat.
> There would still be things you don;t like,but I think ther would be a
> lot you would like. That ius if you are open minded enough to follow
> your eyes, rather than an a priori position.
Now this time, Gabriel, I have to point it that the following is me, not
the pig-latin anagramatic Idle Hands:
> >>There are a few folks in this group for whom, as Marilyn has rightly
> >>pointed out, Ingres is the last great painter. Unfortunately for them,
> >>they haven't the faintest idea *why* he is great.
Gabriel:
> Mani, are you sure you do?
It was Mani, among a few others, to whom I refered, and for, I think, the
same reasons as you.
I hope I've made a little clearer this four-way converstaion, and I hope
navigating it was half as much fun for everyone else as it was for me.
welcome back, Gabriel and best regards,
Mark
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
>>>they haven't the faintest idea *why* he is great.
>Mani, are you sure you do? Of course you are sure of all your
>opinions. c That is why you only like one side ofthe coin. But in
>reality being insecure enough to accept that the other people who
>don;t share all of your views might have a piece of the truth is the
>mature position. When I wasa tight relaist/surrealist I was very much
>impressed by and interested in the brushy painters, asfter a while.
>And I am far from unique. It is not just the people who paint loose
>wholike great tight painters. There are painters whpo paint tightly
>who like them too. Such as Bill Bailey, David Carbone, Richard
>Chiriani, Bruno Civitico [a neoclassicizing painter], Susan Walp,
>Jean Duval. These are real living people with plenty of tight skill.
>Look at the people who show at the Hackett Friedman gallery in SF,
>which is on the net. All of those tight still life painters Etc. are
>people who like gthe tradition you decry. AND they have the technique,
>in spades, you approve of. Are they sall misguided?
..and along these lines please include me. I was just amazed by a Manet at
the Glyptotek here in Copanhagen. A painting I've seen in books but never
really looked at. Manet was brilliant at painting nothing! This painting
was as close to nothing as one can get but the subject is the vocabulary
of painting! itself on a poetic plane. A very out of focus man in a top
hat with a wine glass floating in space to the right more
focused...actually focused but simple! Such a beautiful and strange image
and it works just as well now as it did over a hundred years ago.
Paris for 10 days next week and after that the Amsterdam!
Philip Ayers
p.a...@get2net.dk
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/r/a/mrayers/Home.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
p.a...@get2net.dk "Philip (never Phil" writes:
> ..and along these lines please include me. I was just amazed by a Manet at
> the Glyptotek here in Copanhagen. A painting I've seen in books but never
> really looked at. Manet was brilliant at painting nothing! This painting
> was as close to nothing as one can get but the subject is the vocabulary
> of painting! itself on a poetic plane. A very out of focus man in a top
> hat with a wine glass floating in space to the right more
> focused...actually focused but simple! Such a beautiful and strange image
> and it works just as well now as it did over a hundred years ago.
>
You are lucky to be there! I only had a few hours in the Glyptotek and
lapped it up - I love that huge open atrium in the middle. I was very
impressed with the Dega pastels and sculptures upstairs too.
>
> Paris for 10 days next week and after that the Amsterdam!
>
That's nice, I shall be in Amsterdam next week, but I don't think that
I will have much time for galleries.
--
Peter H.M. Brooks
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
The Roman portraits HERE at the Glyptotek are very well displayed, really
the best I've seen, but alas only a shadow of what you find in Rome or
Naples museums.
..and I didn't mean "image" as in "such a strange and beautiful image" but
it should be "painting"! "Image" really is a bad word..and over used.
Please excuse the slip. I really do mean this because the brush work isn't
translatable in terms of image except...if you go to some awfull example
like Warhol or that fellow at Yale.......can't remember his name but it's
like robert Smith or John Doe..shows a Max Protecht?