The subject of another post ...
Nerd Gerl
So then... the argument over which is better: realistic art vs.
abstract art is silly... because both styles (any style) are mere
vehicles to "evoke" emotion.
Can I define "skill" as NOT technical ability, but instead, as the
manner in which the style is executed to evoke the emotion, PLUS the
degree of the emotion elicited? From this definition, disproportion
has a purpose... clashing colors have a purpose... asymmetrical
madness has a purpose...
This is dangerous. Has anyone started a conspiracy about this and mind
control?
LOL
============================
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<20021021155237.201$g...@newsreader.com>...
> nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
> > But what is being validated? Emotions? If I understand this right??
> > Like, when admirers purchase an abstract, it is because, the abstract
> > "validated" the emotions inside the collector?
>
> This is the heart of the matter. I'm not sure about the term 'validated' -
> I might use the term 'evoke.' When we look at a work of art - or hear music
> or see a dance piece, or read a novel, etc - it either evokes emotion in
> us, to varying degrees, or it doesn't. Same as looking at that rose I
> mentioned before. Abstract art evokes emotion in many people who view it.
>
> What makes a good work of art, of any kind, and how the quality of a piece
> affects a viewer's emotion, has to be the subject of another post.
>
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
within the constraints of representationalism while abstract is freed from
such constraint.
In traditional realism colour was subordinated to form. In abstract art
colour is free from the constraint of form. Colour is so powerful that it
can destroy form. Cezanne attempted to build form using colour in place of
the traditional grey scale form lighting. He had some success but it is a
complex process that few artists can manage to understand.
Another problem is differentiating colour concepts. Modern artists us the
chromatic colour circle. Nineteenth century artists used a tonal based
colour system. In the chromatic system violet is the darkest colour - in the
tonal based system blue is the darkest colour.
Turner as an example would not allow violet in his colour system - so you
have to understand him in terms of his particular system and he was a tonal
based painter.
Trying to understand the work of past artists becomes a complex matter
especially when the writings refer to black and white as having colour.
Colour in that case referred to simultaneous contrast. The idea of chromatic
colour is just an extension of simultaneous contrast.
The better modern artists study the old masters not for subject but for how
they handled form and simultaneous contrasts in relation to the types of
emotion generated. Naturally they will always look through their modern
eyes. It's not what you do but how you do it.
Understanding art is not a simple matter. The art made simple culture is a
pile of crap designed to protect the stupid from realising how stupid they
are.
keith
Nerd Gerl <nerd...@rcip.com> wrote in message
news:c45b61ca.02102...@posting.google.com...
Andrew D
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+============================
+Naked Angel Art
+http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
+
+Dan Fox <danf...@yahoo.com> wrote in article
+<20021021155237.201$g...@newsreader.com>...
+> nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+
+> > But what is being validated? Emotions? If I understand this right??
+> > Like, when admirers purchase an abstract, it is because, the abstract
+> > "validated" the emotions inside the collector?
+>
+> This is the heart of the matter. I'm not sure about the term 'validated' -
+> I might use the term 'evoke.' When we look at a work of art - or hear music
+> or see a dance piece, or read a novel, etc - it either evokes emotion in
+> us, to varying degrees, or it doesn't. Same as looking at that rose I
+> mentioned before. Abstract art evokes emotion in many people who view it.
+>
+> What makes a good work of art, of any kind, and how the quality of a piece
+> affects a viewer's emotion, has to be the subject of another post.
+>
+YES! YES! YES!! Thank you.
+So then... the argument over which is better: realistic art vs.
+abstract art is silly... because both styles (any style) are mere
+vehicles to "evoke" emotion.
And yet Dan says Rockwell's works were not art despite the fact they
evoked emotions in millions of people - and still do today. Dan dismisses
a lot of "emotional" art as "illustration" because it is too
representative so he is hardly a credible source of advice on the matter.
His argument remains inconsistent if not hypocritical.
Andy D.
"I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Lauri Levanto
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" wrote:
> Yes both are vehicles to "evoke" emotion but realistic art must operate
> within the constraints of representationalism while abstract is freed from
> such constraint.
In representative painting the artist can use the association of the forms or
subjects
like a poet is using metaphors. The abstract art is freed from such opportunity.
The vocabulary of abstract art is narrower, that is why it seems to be so much
more difficult.
Compare to music. It is easier with lyrics, mut much great music in instrumental
>
> Another problem is differentiating colour concepts. Modern artists us the
> chromatic colour circle. Nineteenth century artists used a tonal based
> colour system. In the chromatic system violet is the darkest colour - in the
> tonal based system blue is the darkest colour.
>
"Tonal based color system" is a new concept to me. Keith, can you give me
some source for further reading?
-lauri
Noumenon
[ that is what drugs are for... :) ]
Generally, this approach is simplified to ridiculous extreme.
If it were so, all art we would have had were just piles of comic
strips.
Abstract art, since it's deprived of everything else
[meaning, sense, objects, forms, shapes, depth and conceptions],
is compelled to operate with "emotional" row only.
Abstract does not deliver anything, except emotions of a creator,
and appeal to nothing, but to emotions of a spectator...
Whereas "Realistic" art is virtually boundless.
And emotional perception of realistic art is
the lowest level of perception.
Weaving the Conundrum
-=| NOUMENON |=-
keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com
As you know tonal painters create their images with a grey scale
understructure used to control the location of their planes in pictorial
space. A nine sometimes eleven tone system was normal usage. The argument
being that no more than eleven tones are required as the human eye does not
significantly differentiate above that number.
The range of colours from yellow to blue are mapped onto the tonal range. In
one system yellow and blue are mapped as lightest and darkest. Red and Green
are assigned the same tonal value.
In the chromatic system the yellow and violet are mapped as lightest and
darkest. Red and green are assigned the same tonal value.
The tonal colour system is based upon the traditional natural tonal range of
the pigments. The chromatic colour system is based upon the scientific
exploration of complementary colours - it follows the rainbow series.
When you create a chromatic colour wheel the natural tone of the blue is
made lighter than its normal location.
In the tonal colour wheel the violet is lighter in tone than the blue.
In the tonal colour system the intensity of colours are traditionally
equalised brought into balance such that they maintain the same plane on the
colour wheel. This system of balancing colours allows the artist control
over keeping planes in their proper pictorial space position.
Note: colours purchased from a colour maker are not intensity balanced.
Using colours straight from the tube is popular very experienced artists
select those with similar intensities not just any colour.
Also in use with this system was a colour relationship system based upon a
pythagorean triplet and allowed the artist to select complete pallets of
colours which could then be applied to a variety of paintings.
As you can see this system is more appropriate to the thinking artist and
it is more costly to train artists in this system - if you can find artist
willing to teach.
You will recall that many impressionist paintings have a narrow tonal range
as they were more interested in defining difference by colour than by tonal
planes.
keith
Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi> wrote in message
news:3DB50488...@netti.fi...
Nerd Gerl
> No, skill IS technical ability. Good art requires skill, plus imagination
> and creativity. But as you said, disproportion, clashing colors, etc., all
> have a purpose - but the difference between artistic success and failure
> hinges on skill.
>
Yes, I recall an art teacher (one that spoke!) saying, "If you're
going to skew, then skew on purpose, and make it look like you meant
to skew." Well, something like that anyway.
> People who are hung up on schlock art insist that abstraction requires no
> skill. They assume artists like me can't draw conventionally because they
> are visually naive and can't see the evidence of it in my work. Abstract
> art, to succeed, requires all the knowledge of drawing, color, and
> composition as figurative work - it is just not as explicit. It is not that
> people like Mani make a totem of skill; rather, that they make a totem of
> skill as it is applied to a very narrow range of art.
Would you mind explaining "Water Planet II" to me? Maybe you could
give me a hint towards what you want me, as a viewer, to respond to?
Please... Or what you are trying to say? I haven't the faintest idea
of where to start in this piece.
I will tell you that I favor the darkness and white cross pattern in
the left bottom corner, the gradation of blue into white (I do
appreciate the multi-colored white), and then the largest red
splotches that fade into the white. I think I like these areas because
they appear soft.
But I don't understand the lines at all. I don't understand the
multiple circles either. :-(
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> --
> Dan
> http://www.danfoxart.com
>
Nerd Gerl
> Realistic art was NEVER confined to evoking emotions.
> [ that is what drugs are for... :) ]
>
> Generally, this approach is simplified to ridiculous extreme.
> If it were so, all art we would have had were just piles of comic
> strips.
Aren't they?
> Abstract art, since it's deprived of everything else
> [meaning, sense, objects, forms, shapes, depth and conceptions],
> is compelled to operate with "emotional" row only.
>
> Abstract does not deliver anything, except emotions of a creator,
> and appeal to nothing, but to emotions of a spectator...
>
> Whereas "Realistic" art is virtually boundless.
> And emotional perception of realistic art is
> the lowest level of perception.
There are boundaries all over the place in realistic art. What are you
talking about?
Andrew D
"keith o'connor (tinmangallery.com" <scot...@rogers.com> wrote:
[snip]
+ As you can see this system is more appropriate to the thinking artist and
+it is more costly to train artists in this system - if you can find artist
+willing to teach.
If you can find a university willing to hire an artist who knows anything
about painting.
Andrew D
Fox) wrote:
[snip]
+As we've seen here in RAF, some people react to abstract and other modern
+art with anger, revulsion, shock, etc. - because they mistake the taste
+they acquired as children as a standard for all art and refuse to learn and
+grow. But they have a response!
So does that make it art, because it evokes these emotions?
People react with anger, revulsion, shock, etc to terrorist acts such as
the WTC attack and the recent Bali bombing. Are these acts therefore the
work of artists? Would they be art if the perpetrators had claimed to have
carried out the actions in the name of art?
In other words, if the "creator" of the revulsion claims the work to be
art, does the emotional response then vindicate their claim?
Andrew D
[snip]
+But I don't understand the lines at all. I don't understand the
+multiple circles either. :-(
Then you must be "unsophisticated". (According to Dan)
Andrew D
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+Noumenon <ArtE...@Concentric.Net> wrote in message
news:<3DB51827...@Concentric.Net>...
+> Realistic art was NEVER confined to evoking emotions.
+> [ that is what drugs are for... :) ]
+>
+> Generally, this approach is simplified to ridiculous extreme.
+> If it were so, all art we would have had were just piles of comic
+> strips.
+
+Aren't they?
+
+> Abstract art, since it's deprived of everything else
+> [meaning, sense, objects, forms, shapes, depth and conceptions],
+> is compelled to operate with "emotional" row only.
+>
+> Abstract does not deliver anything, except emotions of a creator,
+> and appeal to nothing, but to emotions of a spectator...
+>
+> Whereas "Realistic" art is virtually boundless.
+> And emotional perception of realistic art is
+> the lowest level of perception.
+
+There are boundaries all over the place in realistic art. What are you
+talking about?
I believe he was referring to levels of perception as opposed to "rules"
involved in producing "realistic" works. In as much as most "realist" art
usually includes areas of abstraction within the picture, it quite
obviously has *more* levels than a piece which employs abstraction alone.
Ted E. Behr
right@the_end.of.my_tether says...
>In other words, if the "creator" of the revulsion claims the work to be
>art, does the emotional response then vindicate their claim?
Have you looked at the careers of the
likes of Vito Asconci(sp?) and Chris Burden?
Nerd Gerl
I disagree. Last night, I had several levels of perception about Fox's
"Water Planet."
I thought of blue jeans, high school, cosmetics, the cafeteria,
boyfriends, my family, etc. And that was cool. I just don't think a
realistic painting of a sports car would have taken me back in time
like that.
Mani Deli
>Rockwell and Kincaide evoke positive emotions in the unsophisticated, which
>is what they intended.
Does anyone who is "sophisticated" get positive emotions from these
artists?
Is Fox "sophisticated?"
> Both men are extremely skilled (see below!) and know
>their target audience with precision. Viewers with a good eye (either
>acquired through education and experience or, sometimes, naturally) react
>with laughter or disgust to the same pieces - but almost everyone has a
>reaction - an aesthetic response.
How "good" is your eye?
>As we've seen here in RAF, some people react to abstract and other modern
>art with anger, revulsion, shock, etc.
Fox thinks that abstract art is modern art. Abstraction is the older
art form.
> - because they mistake the taste
>they acquired as children as a standard for all art and refuse to learn and
>grow. But they have a response!
Anyone who doesn't like what Fox likes has apparently refused to learn
and grow. Well this is the idea of most art teachers today. The result
is a huge population of failures who haven't learned their craft.
>> Can I define "skill" as NOT technical ability, but instead, as the
>> manner in which the style is executed to evoke the emotion, PLUS the
>> degree of the emotion elicited?
Do you have a degree of emotion meter in your posession?
> From this definition, disproportion
>> has a purpose... clashing colors have a purpose... asymmetrical
>> madness has a purpose...
Even the utter incompetence and stupidity of your artwork has a
purpose. So what?
>
>No, skill IS technical ability. Good art requires skill, plus imagination
>and creativity.
Fox has none of this.
>People who are hung up on schlock art insist that abstraction requires no
>skill.
Your work is furniture store schlock the only skill involved is in
selling it.
>They assume artists like me can't draw conventionally because they
>are visually naive and can't see the evidence of it in my work.
Forget about drawing, there is no evidence of anything in your work.
Its scarcely even ugly.
> Abstract
>art, to succeed, requires all the knowledge of drawing, color, and
>composition as figurative work - it is just not as explicit. It is not that
>people like Mani make a totem of skill; rather, that they make a totem of
>skill as it is applied to a very narrow range of art.
Art begins with skill, indeed there is more. However no skill no art
and there is no skill in your work, just titles and doubletalk.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Nerd Gerl
<i50erugjvtkrsl69l...@4ax.com>...
> Do you have a degree of emotion meter in your posession?
Yes. I can be highly emotional, barely emotional, intensely emotional,
emotionless, etc., etc.
> Even the utter incompetence and stupidity of your artwork has a
> purpose. So what?
You're not talking about my artwork. You're angry about that trap I
set for you.
=============
Naked Angel Art
http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl
> ...no skill no art!
Andrew D
nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-23100...@i204-170.nv.iinet.net.au>...
+> In article <c45b61ca.0210...@posting.google.com>,
+> nerd...@rcip.com (Nerd Gerl) wrote:
+
+> +> Whereas "Realistic" art is virtually boundless.
+> +> And emotional perception of realistic art is
+> +> the lowest level of perception.
+> +
+> +There are boundaries all over the place in realistic art. What are you
+> +talking about?
+>
+> I believe he was referring to levels of perception as opposed to "rules"
+> involved in producing "realistic" works. In as much as most "realist" art
+> usually includes areas of abstraction within the picture, it quite
+> obviously has *more* levels than a piece which employs abstraction alone.
+>
+> Andy D.
+>
+> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
+
+I disagree. Last night, I had several levels of perception about Fox's
+"Water Planet."
+
+I thought of blue jeans, high school, cosmetics, the cafeteria,
+boyfriends, my family, etc. And that was cool. I just don't think a
+realistic painting of a sports car would have taken me back in time
+like that.
But the reverse may be true for someone else.
I might look at Dan's painting and think nothing more than "what the...?"
whilst the sports car painting might make me think of the play of light on
metal, paint and glass, the interesting shapes and patterns that appear in
various reflections, money, success, women, speed, summer, the beach,
country roads, wind, dry skin, messy hair. I might also be intrigued at
how the artist captured the various light effects - is it airbrushed
super-realism or loose, impressionistic impasto? If I stand back does it
all become clearer or does it remain clear when my nose almost touches it?
Are the colours warm or cool and what does this tell me about the artist's
connection with the subject? Was he painting a picture of a car or was the
car just a convenient prop that allowed him to investigate light and
shadow? Is the work more than real because the artist pushed the spectrum
a little each way to exaggerate the contrasts between light and dark and
warm and cool? Maybe this exaggeration is what makes the piece appealing,
maybe it's why it doesn't appeal. The list of possibilities is at least as
endless with a realist work as with an abstract work - but the realist
work requires the noticable application of skill.
Nerd Gerl
> I might look at Dan's painting and think nothing more than "what the...?"
I'll admit, that was my first reaction.
> whilst the sports car painting might make me think of the play of light on
> metal, paint and glass, the interesting shapes and patterns that appear in
> various reflections, money, success, women, speed, summer, the beach,
> country roads, wind, dry skin, messy hair. I might also be intrigued at
> how the artist captured the various light effects - is it airbrushed
> super-realism or loose, impressionistic impasto? If I stand back does it
> all become clearer or does it remain clear when my nose almost touches it?
> Are the colours warm or cool and what does this tell me about the artist's
> connection with the subject? Was he painting a picture of a car or was the
> car just a convenient prop that allowed him to investigate light and
> shadow? Is the work more than real because the artist pushed the spectrum
> a little each way to exaggerate the contrasts between light and dark and
> warm and cool? Maybe this exaggeration is what makes the piece appealing,
> maybe it's why it doesn't appeal. The list of possibilities is at least as
> endless with a realist work as with an abstract work - but the realist
> work requires the noticable application of skill.
This description tells how you enjoyed the "craft". "How did the
artist do that?" You're analyzing the application. So now here are two
more things that I think:
1. The "craft" can be enjoyed in abstract to providing there's enough
"stuff" in it. I can not always tell if the artist intended "stuff" in
abstract as readily as I can in realist art. So now there is something
else to enjoy and think about with abstract art: Did the artist intend
to do that?
2. I didn't notice you describe any feelings about the car... So then
perhaps this difference defines the purpose of both arts - with one
being to elicit wonder of craft (realism), and the other to jog
emotions and/or memories (abstract).
Maybe abstract art is just supposed to make you think. Think about
anything, rather than to be admired. Maybe the people who have a
crappy life want something at home that doesn't remind them of
anything on this planet.
I need to talk to someone who purchased abstract art and figure out
why. All this speculation makes me wonder if I'm supplying answers
that aren't there.
> Andy D.
>
> "I'm a great speller - but a hopless tpyist!"
Andrew D
+right@the_end.of.my_tether (Andrew D) wrote in message
news:<right-24100...@i165-235.nv.iinet.net.au>...
+
+> I might look at Dan's painting and think nothing more than "what the...?"
+
+I'll admit, that was my first reaction.
+
+> whilst the sports car painting might make me think of the play of light on
+> metal, paint and glass, the interesting shapes and patterns that appear in
+> various reflections, money, success, women, speed, summer, the beach,
+> country roads, wind, dry skin, messy hair. I might also be intrigued at
+> how the artist captured the various light effects - is it airbrushed
+> super-realism or loose, impressionistic impasto? If I stand back does it
+> all become clearer or does it remain clear when my nose almost touches it?
+> Are the colours warm or cool and what does this tell me about the artist's
+> connection with the subject? Was he painting a picture of a car or was the
+> car just a convenient prop that allowed him to investigate light and
+> shadow? Is the work more than real because the artist pushed the spectrum
+> a little each way to exaggerate the contrasts between light and dark and
+> warm and cool? Maybe this exaggeration is what makes the piece appealing,
+> maybe it's why it doesn't appeal. The list of possibilities is at least as
+> endless with a realist work as with an abstract work - but the realist
+> work requires the noticable application of skill.
+
+This description tells how you enjoyed the "craft". "How did the
+artist do that?" You're analyzing the application. So now here are two
+more things that I think:
No. That was only part of the interaction. You conveniently ignored the
emotional responses I began with.
+1. The "craft" can be enjoyed in abstract to providing there's enough
+"stuff" in it. I can not always tell if the artist intended "stuff" in
+abstract as readily as I can in realist art. So now there is something
+else to enjoy and think about with abstract art: Did the artist intend
+to do that?
+2. I didn't notice you describe any feelings about the car...
You didn't pay attention. I listed among other things, success, money,
women and dry skin. All these are emotional responses that may or may not
come into play depending on the painting - remember, this is hypothetical
so I'm not about to get specific about my response to this painting.
But why should I comment specifically on the car? Perhaps my response is
entirely unrelated to the subject. Perhaps I "see" beyond the obvious.
+So then
+perhaps this difference defines the purpose of both arts - with one
+being to elicit wonder of craft (realism), and the other to jog
+emotions and/or memories (abstract).
A beautifully painted seascape with cool morning light streaming across
sand dunes and seagulls nestling together to ward off the breeze can
rekindle childhood memories even if the subject is not specifically a
location a viewer grew up in. Similarly, paintings of kids playing can
draw deep emotional responses from people even though the subject isn't
their own kids.
+Maybe abstract art is just supposed to make you think. Think about
+anything, rather than to be admired. Maybe the people who have a
+crappy life want something at home that doesn't remind them of
+anything on this planet.
I've followed this line in another post so I'll look for your further
response there.