From the CNN website 3/19
peter nelson
months in Rome's leading modern art museum until a group
of students spotted the blunder.
One panel of Gaetano Previati's 1912 triptych "Fall of the
Angels" had been wrongly hung in the National Gallery of
Modern Art in December, the daily Il Messaggero reported Wednesday.
Previati, who died in 1920, was one of the leading artists
of the Milan Divisionist school.
The mistake was discovered by four students on a tour of
the gallery, who noticed that the triptych did not match
an illustration in the museum guide.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of discovery.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> If you ever want to have some fun, Peter, try painting upsidedown, or even
> drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
> ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of discovery.
>
> Erik Mattila
Erik,
Done that. Ihad heard of, but not seen the Betty Edwards' book.
So next time I was drawing a nude study, I did it upside down.
The effect was quite opposite to Edwards' teachings. I had to read
every line, decompose every shape in order to turn it around.
It is a good way to learn how to read a model, still leben or landscape.
On the other hand, working with shadows and 3D shapes was different.
To create a 3D shape, instead of copying the model.
- lauri
peter nelson
>In article <7d18j0$d8f$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> ROME (Reuters) -- A painting hung upside down for three
>> months in Rome's leading modern art museum until a group
>> of students spotted the blunder.
>If you ever want to have some fun, Peter, try painting upsidedown, or even
>drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
>ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of
discovery.
Funny you should mention this because when painting
from a photo I often do this at some point during the painting.
I haven't yet tried asking the model to pose upside down
although it's an interesting idea.
---peter
Marilyn
You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
understand Rothko's work.
M.
mdeli
>In article <7d18j0$d8f$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>,
> "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>> ROME (Reuters) -- A painting hung upside down for three
>> months in Rome's leading modern art museum until a group
>> of students spotted the blunder.
>>
>> One panel of Gaetano Previati's 1912 triptych "Fall of the
>> Angels" had been wrongly hung in the National Gallery of
>> Modern Art in December, the daily Il Messaggero reported Wednesday.
>>
>> Previati, who died in 1920, was one of the leading artists
>> of the Milan Divisionist school.
>>
>> The mistake was discovered by four students on a tour of
>> the gallery, who noticed that the triptych did not match
>> an illustration in the museum guide.
>>
>>
>If you ever want to have some fun, Peter, try painting upsidedown, or even
>drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
>ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of discovery.
>
>Erik Mattila
Erik, if you ever stop standing on your head you might write and think
more clearly and even attempt to address a point.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> peter nelson wrote:
> >
> > emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7dck3t$m9e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > >> ROME (Reuters) -- A painting hung upside down for three
> > >> months in Rome's leading modern art museum until a group
> > >> of students spotted the blunder.
> > >If you ever want to have some fun, Peter, try painting upsidedown, or even
> > >drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
> > >ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of
> > discovery.
> >
> > from a photo I often do this at some point during the painting.
> > I haven't yet tried asking the model to pose upside down
> > although it's an interesting idea.
> >
> > ---peter
>
> You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
> understand Rothko's work.
>
> M.
>
Are you rule-bound, Marilyn? Lottsa peeps paint from photos. Maxfield
Parrish even used an opaque projector. Me, I've done it all -- every single
cheating thing! I am a true scoundrel, I guess.
But I"ll concede life drawing is probably the best. There's such a vast
difference between the photo lens and the human eye -- but the best way to
learn that is by using photos as a subject.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
lauri....@nmp.nokia.com wrote:
> In article <7dck3t$m9e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> > drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
> > ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of discovery.
> >
>
> Erik,
> Done that. Ihad heard of, but not seen the Betty Edwards' book.
> So next time I was drawing a nude study, I did it upside down.
> The effect was quite opposite to Edwards' teachings. I had to read
> every line, decompose every shape in order to turn it around.
>
> It is a good way to learn how to read a model, still leben or landscape.
> On the other hand, working with shadows and 3D shapes was different.
> To create a 3D shape, instead of copying the model.
>
> - lauri
>
What's funny about it that you're actually looking rightsideup, considering
the image on your retina is upsidedown. I'll be if you did it long enough
the image would reverse. But my experience was as yours, it was a real
intellectual effort. But I think its good for strengthening hand/eye
coordination.
peter nelson
Marilyn wrote in message <36FA6E...@bc.ca>...
>You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
>understand Rothko's work.
I don't ONLY paint from photos. But I paint or draw every day
and I can only have a model a couple of days a week and
besides my wife would object if I had naked people running
around the house every day unless the naked people
were us.
---peter
.
Marilyn
>
> In article <36FA6E...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> > peter nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7dck3t$m9e$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > > >In article <7d18j0$d8f$1...@antiochus.ultra.net>,
> > > > "peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> > > >> ROME (Reuters) -- A painting hung upside down for three
> > > >> months in Rome's leading modern art museum until a group
> > > >> of students spotted the blunder.
> > > . . .
> > > >drawing. You'll be amazed at the results -- and it also shows you how
> > > >ideological descriptive rendering is. Ah, art, a leaking voyage of
> > > discovery.
> > >
> > > from a photo I often do this at some point during the painting.
> > > I haven't yet tried asking the model to pose upside down
> > > although it's an interesting idea.
> > >
> > > ---peter
> >
> > understand Rothko's work.
> >
> >
>
> Are you rule-bound, Marilyn? Lottsa peeps paint from photos. Maxfield
> Parrish even used an opaque projector. Me, I've done it all -- every single
> cheating thing! I am a true scoundrel, I guess.
>
> But I"ll concede life drawing is probably the best. There's such a vast
> difference between the photo lens and the human eye -- but the best way to
> learn that is by using photos as a subject.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
No rules Erik. A painter has a right to use anything to achieve
the image she wants to present.
peter nelson
>> You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
>> understand Rothko's work.
I interpreted it as a joke, Erik.
>Are you rule-bound, Marilyn? Lottsa peeps paint from photos. Maxfield
>Parrish even used an opaque projector. Me, I've done it all -- every single
>cheating thing! I am a true scoundrel, I guess.
I've never "cheated" by tracing or projecting a picture because
I still BASICALLY think of drawing as my main style and painting
as simply a route to improve my drawing. Though lately painting
has started to become an end in itself.
But I know many artists do trace or project their stuff. I'm probably
fanatical about this - As a photographer I own a huge collection of
slides so I could easily project one but when I want to use one
I meticulously go out and have it printed and draw from the
print freehand, i.e., I don't use a ruler or grid or other aid. I
would probably get a better result using a grid or ruler but
I think this way I improve my drawing skill. I even go out of my
way to make it harder by purposely "framing" the painting
different;y than the photo so I can't use the edge of the photo
as a guide.
---peter
Marilyn
> >understand Rothko's work.
>
> and I can only have a model a couple of days a week and
> besides my wife would object if I had naked people running
> around the house every day unless the naked people
> were us.
>
> ---peter
> .
Photos often help. It's a problem when they are slavishly copied
because for some reason I haven't analyzed, it shows in the finished
work. What happens with the effort to be very realistic is the
failure of the artist to invent and put something of himself into
the work. If you look at Estes' work. He changed the reality before
him, cleaned it up, simplified, and accented the reflections. That
must be why his work is spell-binding, whereas Bateman's is not.
M.
peter nelson
Marilyn wrote in message <36FB9F...@bc.ca>...
>peter nelson wrote:
>Photos often help. It's a problem when they are slavishly copied
>because for some reason I haven't analyzed, it shows in the finished
>work.
I go out of my way to not rely on too many "crutches' when
working from photos. One common crutch is to use the sides
of the photo as a frame to help define and lay out the
drawing. To avoid this I deliberatley reframe the subject,
i.e., if it's centered in the frame of the photo, I shove
it into one corner of my paintiung or drawing, or I
tilt it.
> What happens with the effort to be very realistic is the
>failure of the artist to invent and put something of himself into
>the work. If you look at Estes' work. He changed the reality before
>him, cleaned it up, simplified, and accented the reflections.
I do this too, even when working from the model. I'm
in a small life studio (4 people who share a model) and
last night we had an excellent model who was also very
pretty but extremely thin. So I deliberately "fattened" her
up a little because I liked the way it came out better.
I also did a portrait sketch of her where I sharpened her
jaw line.
When I was just learning to draw I didn't have enough control
over my skill to do this; later when I realized I *could* do it
I felt morally conflicted about it, as though I was imposing
MY standards of beauty on someone else's body. Now I
do it when i feel like it and try to talk fast if the model sees
the work and asks about it.
---peter
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7dfi80$97d$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <36FA6E...@bc.ca>,
> > Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> >> peter nelson wrote:
>
> >> understand Rothko's work.
>
>
> >Are you rule-bound, Marilyn? Lottsa peeps paint from photos. Maxfield
> >Parrish even used an opaque projector. Me, I've done it all -- every single
> >cheating thing! I am a true scoundrel, I guess.
>
> I've never "cheated" by tracing or projecting a picture because
> I still BASICALLY think of drawing as my main style and painting
> as simply a route to improve my drawing. Though lately painting
> has started to become an end in itself.
>
> But I know many artists do trace or project their stuff. I'm probably
> fanatical about this - As a photographer I own a huge collection of
> slides so I could easily project one but when I want to use one
> I meticulously go out and have it printed and draw from the
> print freehand, i.e., I don't use a ruler or grid or other aid. I
> would probably get a better result using a grid or ruler but
> I think this way I improve my drawing skill. I even go out of my
> way to make it harder by purposely "framing" the painting
> as a guide.
>
> ---peter
>
I use the word 'cheat' tongue and cheek. But I know many who feel that
photos and opaque projectors are cheating. But in the end it seems that we
all have our rules. If I say 'I refuse to recognize a rule' then that
becomes a rule itself. I like the idea of experimenting, solving problems,
even taking shortcust, so if a photo or a projector is part of this, so be
it.
Vi...@ordinaire.com
> >understand Rothko's work.
>
> and I can only have a model a couple of days a week and
> besides my wife would object if I had naked people running
> around the house every day unless the naked people
> were us.
>
> ---peter
Peter -
I know exactly what you mean, and it is a common problem. Here's how to
solve it: Paint and draw common objects around you. They do not have to be
the traditional still life or landscape objects at all. The practice you
gain (and the artistic value of your successes when doing this) is every
bit as valid as that gained from a model. Forms are forms.
Most students think, understandably, that only certain *important*
subjects are suitable
for practice or for finished work, and this is not the case at all. When I
was teaching I used two examples: a pile of partially used paint tubes, and
a pile of shoes. Other good stuff: a telephone (especially the complex
office types!), bottles and glasses, your computer terminal and cpu ....
the possibilities are endless and all around you.
If you want a real challenge, get a small cardboard box and open it so that
you can see inside, as well as having the flaps of the open side in view.
Now draw it. Hard to do, great practice. And don't be afraid to draw and
paint the same subjects repeatedly. Cezanne said that you learn to draw by
drawing the stove in your studio a hundred times. He was right.
Photos don't begin to give you what real subject matter does, and good
stuff is all around you.
Good luck!
Vinny
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> peter nelson wrote:
> >
> > Marilyn wrote in message <36FA6E...@bc.ca>...
> >
> > >You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
> > >understand Rothko's work.
> >
> > I don't ONLY paint from photos. But I paint or draw every day
> > and I can only have a model a couple of days a week and
> > besides my wife would object if I had naked people running
> > around the house every day unless the naked people
> > were us.
> >
> > ---peter
>
> Photos often help. It's a problem when they are slavishly copied
> because for some reason I haven't analyzed, it shows in the finished
> failure of the artist to invent and put something of himself into
> the work. If you look at Estes' work. He changed the reality before
> must be why his work is spell-binding, whereas Bateman's is not.
>
> M.
>
I saw a very fascinating article in an art rag years ago (I think if was Art
in America) on the 'reality' of the photograph. The author had set up a
tripod and recorded several images of the same city building scene with
several different lenses. The difference betwee each was remarkable. Some
of these didn't even look like the same city, or scene (subject?). But it
was kind of like color- field phenomena -- if you viewed any of these photos
alone, it would appear to be a 'true' representation.
The photographic image is so 'untrue' in relationship to human vision that it
is also remarkable how we 'learn' to see the photographic image as 'true.'
But consider -- many people spend as much time looking at photographic
representations as they do the 'world.' Given TV, print media, the Movies
etc. we are emmeshed in visual culture. We must 'learn' how to see.
But why even compare Estes to Bateman? Would you compare Henri
Cartier-Bresson to Walt Disney? There's nothing spell-binding about Bateman,
he just does nice racoons (although I have to admit that some of the sentient
surfaces he produces intrigue me) Or comparing British Columbia with Baja
California (they're both 'BC', after all).
Erik
mdeli
>> ---peter
>
>You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
>understand Rothko's work.
>
understand which I don't.
I'm Looking forward to some you brilliant Artspeak..
peter nelson
<19990326144025.595$O...@newsreader.com>...
>Most students think, understandably, that only certain *important*
>subjects are suitable for practice or for finished work, and this
>is not the case at all.
But I don't paint JUST for practice. Sometimes I paint or draw
because I want to paint or draw particular subjects. Maybe
I WANT to paint sunlight reflecting off the water, or a nude
or tree.
Speaking of trees, here's another reason to work from
photos. Recenty I've decided I want to paint more trees.
I've become interested in the problem of vanishing detail,
i.e., large features can be rendered more or less as they
are, smaller features have to be suggested, and still smaller
features are simply too small to render at all in a painting.
How well the artist makes the transition makes a big difference
in how the painting "reads". Trees are great for this because
of the bark texture and the way the branches go to finer
and finer twigs. So I've been painting trees.
I can do this looking right out my window, since I have 6'
and 7' windows in my studio, but the problem is that a
drawing that detailed takes many hours and the sun moves
too much in that time so the shadows shift. A photo allows
you to freeze time. A related issue is this: an oil painting takes
months, at least the way I work where I typically do several
layers and allow all colors to dry well between laters. But
trees change a lot month to month (buds, leaves, etc).
Another topic I've been painting a lot lately has been foggy,
rainy scenes at night - the light is fascinating and I've spent years
learning how to photograph it as well as possible, but with
painting I can make it more realistic than a photo. But it
would be virtually impossible to do it from anything other
than photos to start with.
---peter
peter nelson
>The photographic image is so 'untrue' in relationship to human vision that
it
>is also remarkable how we 'learn' to see the photographic image as 'true.'
>But consider -- many people spend as much time looking at photographic
>representations as they do the 'world.' Given TV, print media, the Movies
>etc. we are emmeshed in visual culture. We must 'learn' how to see.
EXACTLY. I'm an expert photographer and I specialize in
nightime and low-light photography. I like to stop and
take photos on the side of the road or some construction
site or graveyard around midnight. I carry a mini-portfolio
of my work to show the police who inevitably come snooping
around to ask why someone would be taking a picture in
near total darkness. They think I'm a nut until I show them
the results.
And the point is this: depending on the film and the print, most
photos have a useful exposure range of +/- 3 or 4 f-stops. If
we generously assume 4, that's a light range of 2^8, i.e., a
265:1 ratio of brightness. The human eye, on the other hand,
can respond over a range of many THOUSANDS to one.
So our experience of the world is very different from, and much
broader than, what a photo can record. That's why I said earlier
that a painting can be more realistic than a photo. When people
describe a photo as the ultimate in recording reality they
don't know what they're talking about.
---peter
Mothe...@orion.com
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:13:30 -0800, Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> >> ---peter
> >
> >You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
> >understand Rothko's work.
> >
> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
> understand which I don't.
Mani, explaining Rothko to you would be like explaining sex to a
three-year-old.
Mother Night
Marilyn
> >because for some reason I haven't analyzed, it shows in the finished
> >work.
>
> working from photos. One common crutch is to use the sides
> of the photo as a frame to help define and lay out the
> drawing. To avoid this I deliberatley reframe the subject,
> i.e., if it's centered in the frame of the photo, I shove
> it into one corner of my paintiung or drawing, or I
> tilt it.
>
> >failure of the artist to invent and put something of himself into
> >the work. If you look at Estes' work. He changed the reality before
> >him, cleaned it up, simplified, and accented the reflections.
>
> in a small life studio (4 people who share a model) and
> last night we had an excellent model who was also very
> pretty but extremely thin. So I deliberately "fattened" her
> up a little because I liked the way it came out better.
> I also did a portrait sketch of her where I sharpened her
> jaw line.
>
> When I was just learning to draw I didn't have enough control
> over my skill to do this; later when I realized I *could* do it
> I felt morally conflicted about it, as though I was imposing
> MY standards of beauty on someone else's body. Now I
> do it when i feel like it and try to talk fast if the model sees
> the work and asks about it.
>
> ---peter
Yeah people do get hung up on getting a "likeness."
Drawing is like swimming, once you tense up you sink.
Marilyn
> I saw a very fascinating article in an art rag years ago (I think if was Art
> in America) on the 'reality' of the photograph. The author had set up a
> tripod and recorded several images of the same city building scene with
> several different lenses. The difference betwee each was remarkable. Some
> of these didn't even look like the same city, or scene (subject?). But it
> was kind of like color- field phenomena -- if you viewed any of these photos
> alone, it would appear to be a 'true' representation.
>
> The photographic image is so 'untrue' in relationship to human vision that it
> is also remarkable how we 'learn' to see the photographic image as 'true.'
> But consider -- many people spend as much time looking at photographic
> representations as they do the 'world.' Given TV, print media, the Movies
> etc. we are emmeshed in visual culture. We must 'learn' how to see.
>
> But why even compare Estes to Bateman? Would you compare Henri
> Cartier-Bresson to Walt Disney? There's nothing spell-binding about Bateman,
> he just does nice racoons (although I have to admit that some of the sentient
> surfaces he produces intrigue me) Or comparing British Columbia with Baja
> California (they're both 'BC', after all).
>
> Erik
>
That sounds like Jeff Wall, you are describing. Have you seen his work?
Staged photographs, very large and compelling.
BC, it means Beautiful Country.
M.
Marilyn
>
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:13:30 -0800, Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
> >> ---peter
> >
> >You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
> >understand Rothko's work.
> >
> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
> understand which I don't.
>
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
Are you speaking of the work of Mark Rothko, one of the greatest
painters of the 20th century? I've already described his work
using references and plain English. Wouldn't you love to dissolve
into one of his paintings, all of which are beyond ecstasy?
(You are repeating yourself Mani,
age creeping up on you?)
M.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> That sounds like Jeff Wall, you are describing. Have you seen his work?
> Staged photographs, very large and compelling.
Haven't seen this. Is there anything on the web (my window to the world)?
>
> BC, it means Beautiful Country.
>
I agree. I did six months at Ft. Lewis Army Base near Tacoma, from August to
Decmeber in 1967. It was an unusual dry spell. My last 2 1/2 months were
such that I didn't have to hang around the fort (do you know that term 'hand
around the fort Indian?), so I had the opportunity to explore the area quite
a bit. I didn't make it to BC, unfortunately, but all around the southern
sound, Mt. Rainer, Olympic Peninsula, etc. It's my understanding that BC is
even more spectacular.
mdeli
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 09:13:30 -0800, Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >> ---peter
>> >
>> >You paint from photos? Well, that explains why you don't
>> >understand Rothko's work.
>> >
>> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
>> understand which I don't.
>
>Mani, explaining Rothko to you would be like explaining sex to a
>three-year-old.
>
>Mother Night
Lame excuses!
Trying to get any Artzy fartzy like you to say anything sensible about
Rothko is like trying to get a sexual response from a frigid woman.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
>But why even compare Estes to Bateman?
Why not
>Would you compare Henri
>Cartier-Bresson to Walt Disney?
No, but that doesn't preclude any one from comparing Estes to Bateman.
> There's nothing spell-binding about Bateman,
>he just does nice racoons (although I have to admit that some of the sentient
>surfaces he produces intrigue me)
Because Like Estes he is a superb technician and draftsman. No theory
necessary, he just attracts you.
> Or comparing British Columbia with Baja
>California (they're both 'BC', after all).
Brilliant deduction. PoMo logic!
mdeli
>Photos often help. It's a problem when they are slavishly copied
>because for some reason I haven't analyzed, it shows in the finished
>work.
The reason is that if you can't draw you won't be able to copy,change
or even trace a photograph so that it looks good.
>What happens with the effort to be very realistic is the
>failure of the artist to invent and put something of himself into
>the work. If you look at Estes' work. He changed the reality before
>him, cleaned it up, simplified, and accented the reflections.
---and he knows technique and how to draw and you admire his SKILL.
>That
>must be why his work is spell-binding, whereas Bateman's is not.
_because you don't happen to like his subject matter. Bateman does all
the things with which you credit Estes.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"peter nelson" <pne...@ultranet.com> wrote:
> EXACTLY. I'm an expert photographer and I specialize in
> nightime and low-light photography. I like to stop and
> take photos on the side of the road or some construction
> site or graveyard around midnight. I carry a mini-portfolio
> of my work to show the police who inevitably come snooping
> around to ask why someone would be taking a picture in
> near total darkness. They think I'm a nut until I show them
> the results.
>
> And the point is this: depending on the film and the print, most
> photos have a useful exposure range of +/- 3 or 4 f-stops. If
> we generously assume 4, that's a light range of 2^8, i.e., a
> 265:1 ratio of brightness. The human eye, on the other hand,
> can respond over a range of many THOUSANDS to one.
> So our experience of the world is very different from, and much
> broader than, what a photo can record. That's why I said earlier
> that a painting can be more realistic than a photo. When people
> describe a photo as the ultimate in recording reality they
> don't know what they're talking about.
>
> ---peter
>
Another time I was sitting on my front porch enjoying the scenery. I was
living in Trinidad, Ca, on a cliff that overlooked a magnificant seascape,
harbour, and 'Trinidad Head' (a large rock). I started playing around with
my vision, and I noticed how shallow the depth of field of my eyes was. Much
less than most camera lense I was familiar with, excpet when the apeture was
wide open. But I also noticed the incredibly rapid focus of the eye, which
compensated for the lack of DOF to the degree we hardly notice that we focus
from one plane to another in the course of regarding vision.
This took me to thoughts about French Impressionism, and the idea that I
formerly found hard to accept, that -- driven by French Naturaism --
impressionist painters were claiming to represent reality more accurately
than the French Academy. The question is "which reality?" On the one hand,
the fuzziness of impressionism does represent the experience of vision -- but
it is a vision that is frozen, or 'captured' in time. By contrast, the
'infinity' setting of French Academic Painting represents of the experience
of vision in a different way, i.e. it captures the experience of vision in
time -- to a certain degree. We have to remember the 18th century critique
of Renaissance perspective, which was a claim that the stasis of one or two
point perspective ignored the 'time of vision' and was there for a weak
representation of the experience of human vision.
So yes, painting can be more realistic than a photo -- except we have to
qualify that by stating which 'reality' we are talking about. I'm not trying
to be mystical about it, rather I'm just pointing to some of the issues that
prevail in the contrast to human visual experience and representations of it.
BTW. One of the strongest experiences I have had with photography was when I
decided I wanted to photograph small things. I found myself crawling around
the forest floor, and discovered a whole new reality that just went by me
before. I was impressed.
Erik Mattila
peter nelson
<19990326184024.358$y...@newsreader.com>...
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
>> understand which I don't.
>
>Mani, explaining Rothko to you would be like explaining sex to a
>three-year-old.
A cop-out answer.
Back when I was in college and we smoked dope and
DID inhale, we used to listen to rock music and find the
most incredible "meanings" and "significance" to the lyrics.
sometimes we would write down these insights so
so we would remember them. Invariably when we
were straight again we would review these insights
and discover that they were complete nonsense.
I think there's something roughly akin which happens with
this style of artwork. "High" on ArtSpeak you feel like
there's great profundity to these works but to people
who are straight it's nonsense.
I saw Rothko's works at MoMA a few years ago and
made a sincere effort to "get it". I'm not unfamiliar with
nonrepresentational art and probably half the art we have
hanging in our house is in this category, and I'm a member
and supporter of two local contemporary art museums.
So if there is something to "get" about the paintings which
Rothko since about the 1950's then your inability to
explain it says more about you that your listeners.
---peter
Marilyn
> emattila wrote:
> >But why even compare Estes to Bateman?
'realist' 'representational'
whatever.
M.
Marilyn
> _because you don't happen to like his subject matter. Bateman does all
> the things with which you credit Estes.
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
Yes he does but he does TOO MUCH of it. TOO MUCH detail.
Sickening detail, incorrect biological detail as well.
Anyway, who asked you?
M.
Marilyn
With that confession archived in Deja News, you will not be
able to run for office, until they legalize marijuana.
You are free to NOT understand a Rothko painting but why do
you have to state that those of us who do, are not straight?
Why can't you allow this master painter his place in art history?
Marilyn
Kay Kane
hierarchy within the "artworld" as a whole, with Wildlife art pretty much in
the middle (I'm being generous here) and "Neo" or "PoMo" ANYTHING far, far
above. "Lassie" portraits will never fetch as much as
"angst/non-representation/installation/take-your-pick".
Kay
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote in message <7dmqrc$698$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <36FE54...@bc.ca>,
>representational, as are so many other art forms. I've said before that
>Bateman's work exists in a broader framework, 'art market,' if you will,
that
>is not connected with the 'art world' we generally speak of. The patrons
of
>'wildlife' art are unlikely to appreciate or purchase a Judy Chicago if
there
>was no 'wildlife' art -- so it's not a competing type of thing. These are
>discrete markets -- and they also contain different aesthetic (or lack
>thereof, depending on our points of view) strategies.
>
>I've been characterized frequently as being sooo theoretical, but this is
>really a very pragnmatic view -- sort of calling a spade a spade. Wildlife
>art has its own rules, as well as its own market. These rules have a very
>rich 'art history' in themselves. At some point I think it is very
>reasonable to assess Wildlife art on its own terms, rather than 'defining'
it
>in relationship to an entirely different practice of art making, i.e. 'Fine
>Art.' (but there is one theoretical component to this pragmatic view -- it
>does question the hegemony of Art with a capital A to some degree).
Marilyn
Sometimes I wonder if fear of wildlife extinction fuels
the market for wildlife photographs & illustration.
As wildlife habitat diminishes and intrusions are
made into existing habitat, it is not difficult to
make that projection.
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Ariane
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
(snip)
> This took me to thoughts about French Impressionism, and the idea that I
> formerly found hard to accept, that -- driven by French Naturaism --
> impressionist painters were claiming to represent reality more accurately
> than the French Academy. The question is "which reality?"
=== Great point Erik. It reminds me of Picasso, Braque, Modigliani and
other Parisian Modernists who seemed to be attempting to paint an internal
"reality" and yet have that represented on canvas. To paint the
experience and not the thing itself. Illusionistic painting for a while
ceased to be as important as the attempt to paint the subjective effects
of illusion. I think this questioning of aspects of reality is very
integral to French art and thinking in general.......
> On the one hand,
> the fuzziness of impressionism does represent the experience of vision -- but
> it is a vision that is frozen, or 'captured' in time. By contrast, the
> 'infinity' setting of French Academic Painting represents of the experience
> of vision in a different way, i.e. it captures the experience of vision in
> time -- to a certain degree. We have to remember the 18th century critique
> of Renaissance perspective, which was a claim that the stasis of one or two
> point perspective ignored the 'time of vision' and was there for a weak
> representation of the experience of human vision.
>
> So yes, painting can be more realistic than a photo -- except we have to
> qualify that by stating which 'reality' we are talking about. I'm not trying
> to be mystical about it, rather I'm just pointing to some of the issues that
> prevail in the contrast to human visual experience and representations of it.
=== "To capture the emotions, that is the thing...." -- Braque
> BTW. One of the strongest experiences I have had with photography was when I
> decided I wanted to photograph small things. I found myself crawling around
> the forest floor, and discovered a whole new reality that just went by me
> before. I was impressed.
> Erik Mattila
=== There's a movie about this, I can't remember the title of it (I have a
memory like a ceive when it comes to movies, actors, and actresses) but it
was 2 hours of exploring this miniscule world on film.....
I wonder though, is not PoMo art primarily constituted by attempts to also
represent subjective states, those which accurately reflect "mass"
hyper-technology & lives of contemporary people in this society?
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Kay Kane wrote:
> Very democratic view, Erik, but, (like it or not) there is definitely a
> hierarchy within the "artworld" as a whole, with Wildlife art pretty much in
> the middle (I'm being generous here) and "Neo" or "PoMo" ANYTHING far, far
> above.
=== Very true Kay. Back in the heyday of the French Salons, it was
historical narrative which ruled the roost, with portraiture and
landscapes somewhere in the middle. Still Lifes were at the bottom, art
school fodder only. But this was just in the minds of the stodgy
conservative Academic establishment......Picasso liberated the Still
Life and the rules changed this century.........they'll change again I
would suspect.
But back to your point. Nothing in "real" life is democratic. Democracy
is an artificial system imposed on to the very real hierarchy which exists
in nature.........At least that is my opinion. We see this hierarchy
everywhere. In the "artworld", in the schoolyards, at home, at
work.....right up to what's going on in Serbia right now. Hierarchy seems
to be the rule, democracy is a human ideal, a dream..........
> "Lassie" portraits will never fetch as much as
> "angst/non-representation/installation/take-your-pick".
> Kay
! - (Maybe in the 22nd century!!)
a bientot, A.
Mothe...@orion.com
> >
> You are free to NOT understand a Rothko painting but why do
> you have to state that those of us who do, are not straight?
> Why can't you allow this master painter his place in art history?
>
> Marilyn
Marilyn -
I believe it was Picasso who told this story:
A well-dressed businessman said to him, *I want to like your work, Sir,
but I do not understand it.*
Picasso said, *What did you have for lunch?*
*Oysters.*
*Do you like oysters?*
*Of course!*
*Do you understand oysters?*
Mother Night
John Haber
current photo exhibition. To give her review of a perfectly diverse
show the appearance of unity, as one must, she fastened onto the theme
of the fraudulence of "photographic realism" in some interesting
contemporary photography.
And then, too, obviously photographers have insisted on their work as
an imaginative creation for ages. I saw it again in the lovely
patterns of light this weekeend in the early modernist photos by
Wendell McRae at Witkin, as classy a photo gallery as one can desire.
presumably, if one wanted no illusions at all, one would be driven to
simple contact with the negative, but oops, Man Ray already pulled
that one off!
Another obviously insightful take on the relation between photographic
and painterly illusion is Chuck Close.
John (on Close: www.haberarts.com/close.htm)
Marilyn
Very Interesting.
I would like to add that there is more than simply
painting outer reality, inner reality. The painter's concern
is with the "surface of the painting." The painter must be
faithful to that in the physical reality.
Marilyn
Kay Kane
John Haber wrote in message <36ff9e9a...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
More shameless self-promotion? O.K. I looked... I am a big fan of Chuck
Close, but you have a valid point about 100 of his works making one less in
awe of Close. I never thought about it that way.
Kay
Ariane
On 29 Mar 1999 Mothe...@Orion.com wrote:
!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - Thanks!
A.
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
> I wrote
> >> >> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
> >> >> understand which I don't.
> >> >
> Marilyn wrote
> >> >Mani, explaining Rothko to you would be like explaining sex to a
> >> >three-year-old.
> > >You are free to NOT understand a Rothko painting but why do
> >you have to state that those of us who do, are not straight?
> >Why can't you allow this master painter his place in art history?
MD:
> Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
> OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
> UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
> aphorisms..
A:
=== Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
polysyllables.
MD:
> > Bet she writes her usual baloney which conforms to the following:
>
> Artspeak aims two audiences:
> 1- to captivate the Artzy fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper
> meaning of what is said. That is until he is asked for the meaning.
=== You can't just `give a meaning' you bonehead. Why don't you just look
Rothko up in the dictionary if you're wanting a `meaning'.
> 2- to intimidate the non-Artspeaker with obscure terms and flowery
> inflated syntax
=== Instead of all this pathetic whining, just admit that Marilyn
intimidates you because she has a better grasp of the english language
than you do. Then proceed to ask her to explain clearly, (because of your
english problems), what she means by understanding Rothko. Inevitably
you'll be able to work past your limitations and learn something thereby
expanding your intellect.
> with the intent to make him feel intellectually
> inadequate and factually uninformed.
=== Speak for yourself....
>It serves to prevent any thoughts
> that the object in question might really be just another Put-on.
=== Another, contradictory opinion. Have any evidence?
> My understanding of Rothko is that is a put-on.
=== Fair enough. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I try to find a way
to appreciate a work because you see Mani, neither you nor I were born
knowing EVERYTHING, so there's always something to learn out there. With
a bit more knowledge your opinions could change.....as could mine.
Openness to things that contradict your biases is the first step.....
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
au revoir,
A.
Ariane
=== Very true. Ultimately, this is where it all matters in the end.
Thanks for keeping our feet on the ground while our heads were up in the
clouds!
a la prochaine
A.
mdeli
>> >> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
>> >> understand which I don't.
>> >
Marilyn wrote
>> >Mani, explaining Rothko to you would be like explaining sex to a
>> >three-year-old.
In answering Peter Marylin wrote the usual baloney.
>You are free to NOT understand a Rothko painting but why do
>you have to state that those of us who do, are not straight?
>Why can't you allow this master painter his place in art history?
>
Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
aphorisms..
Bet she writes her usual baloney which conforms to the following:
Artspeak aims two audiences:
1- to captivate the Artzy fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper
meaning of what is said. That is until he is asked for the meaning.
2- to intimidate the non-Artspeaker with obscure terms and flowery
inflated syntax with the intent to make him feel intellectually
inadequate and factually uninformed. It serves to prevent any thoughts
that the object in question might really be just another Put-on.
My understanding of Rothko is that is a put-on.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
>I believe it was Picasso who told this story:
>
>A well-dressed businessman said to him, *I want to like your work, Sir,
>but I do not understand it.*
>
>Picasso said, *What did you have for lunch?*
>
>*Oysters.*
>
>*Do you like oysters?*
>
>*Of course!*
>
>*Do you understand oysters?*
>
>
>Mother Night
Brilliant!
Suppose the guy didn't like oysters.
This story is as memorable as last year's newspaper except for
Pocassoholics who are impressed by anything signed Picasso, no matter
how stupid.
Marilyn
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
>
> > >> >> Maryilyn apparently UNDERSTANDS Rothko. Do tell us what it is you
> > >> >> understand which I don't.
> > >> >
> > Marilyn wrote
>
> > >> >Mani, explaining Rothko to you would be like explaining sex to a
> > >> >three-year-old.
> > >you have to state that those of us who do, are not straight?
> > >Why can't you allow this master painter his place in art history?
>
> > Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
> > OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
> > UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
> > aphorisms..
>
> === Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
> a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
> demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
> polysyllables.
>
> MD:
> >
> > Artspeak aims two audiences:
> > 1- to captivate the Artzy fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper
> > meaning of what is said. That is until he is asked for the meaning.
>
> Rothko up in the dictionary if you're wanting a `meaning'.
>
>
> > inflated syntax
>
> intimidates you because she has a better grasp of the english language
> than you do. Then proceed to ask her to explain clearly, (because of your
> english problems), what she means by understanding Rothko. Inevitably
> you'll be able to work past your limitations and learn something thereby
> expanding your intellect.
>
> > inadequate and factually uninformed.
>
>
> >It serves to prevent any thoughts
> > that the object in question might really be just another Put-on.
>
>
>
> to appreciate a work because you see Mani, neither you nor I were born
> knowing EVERYTHING, so there's always something to learn out there. With
> a bit more knowledge your opinions could change.....as could mine.
> Openness to things that contradict your biases is the first step.....
>
> > ...no skill no art
>
>
> A.
Hi Ariane,
It's all been done before.
It's a little game and here's how it plays.
Mani:
Denigrate a major artist, let's say a master painter.
Wait for a reaction.
Other rec.arts.fine posters' reaction:
How can you say this?
don't you know any better?
or
WHAT??!!
(some will agree with Mani,
for example: yes, Rothko knew nothing about painting)
Mani:
Okay, you think that jerk is so skilled, you understand his work,
then explain it to me.
Other posters:
Well, for example, Rothko attempted....
Mani:
ARTSPEAK! bullshit! academic elitism!
He had no skill, look at my web site for my latest tirade
against artists whose work I hate.
Other posters:
Mani, open your mind, look around you...
and on and on it goes a tired little game that
Mani loves to play.
I'm bored with it.
Marilyn
John Haber
works I myself got _more_ in awe of Close, maybe in awe for the first
time. I just won't go so far as to say I have a deep experience or
anything. Or maybe I couldn't translate the awe of his career with
awe in front of a painting.
As you saw, at least it sure got me thinking, though, about how and
why he's like this. My point was that it definitely isn't like Mani's
ideal realist, proud of his skill. It's something _better_. But you
knew that!
On self-promotion. Suppose I keep up what I tried yesterday. That
is, I see that many posts in all news groups end with a signature, in
which the person has maybe an email address or Web site. Suppose I
stop talking about, plugging, and boasting directly, and just include
a specific Web address, if relevant, that way. I honestly don't want
to push the envelope. You're not here to entertain me, and I'm
honestly here to talk with friends, not to get readers. It only seems
that way the way I drone on!
John (close: www.haberarts.com/close.htm)
John Haber
>intimidates you because she has a better grasp of the english language
LOL.
John
peter nelson
>peter nelson wrote:
. . . >> So if there is something to "get" about the paintings which
>> Rothko since about the 1950's then your inability to
>> explain it says more about you that your listeners.
>>
>> ---peter
>
>
>With that confession archived in Deja News, you will not be
>able to run for office, until they legalize marijuana.
>
>you have to state that those of us who do, are not straight?
>Why can't you allow this master painter his place in art history?
His place is already established based on all his believers.
What I'm suggesting is that it's a similar place as In-a-Gadda-
Davida by Iron Butterfly in the 1960's, which achieved much
of its allure because people found it to be very significant while
stoned, and moreover this allowed them to have a personal
experience that could separate them from the older generation.
The problem is that none of us were able to explain to our
parents what that significance was.
I suspect that this was because the experience was social,
not artistic. The merit of In-a-Gadda-Davida and songs like it
wasn't musical but cultural; it was a generational talisman.
There's a theory in anthropology that attempts to explain why
some tribes have extensive taboos and behavioral rules. In
the past researchers have tried to account for them in
practical terms - Jews didn't eat pork because of health
risks, etc. But most taboos have no obvious practical value
and you have to stretch to imagine one. So an alternative
model is that tribes with extensive taboos do so:
A. To distinguish themselves from other groups living in
the region.
B. To create a strong psychological investment among the
members. Adopting and living by a taboo takes a lot of
work and sacrifice and this process binds the members together.
I suspect that the preference for art which makes ordinary people
scratch their heads and say "this is art?" is similar - it
reinforces the sense of exclusivity among the initiates in
the art world.
I could be wrong, of course, but the inability of the Believers to
explain it is what makes me supicious.
---peter
peter nelson
>On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
>>MD:
>> Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
>> OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
>> UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
>> aphorisms..
>
>A:
>=== Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
>a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
>demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
>polysyllables.
But everyone has experienced sex so that common experience
becomes the basis for a shared vocabulary. We've all experienced
orgasms (I assume) so when someone says "orgasm" we don't
need to refer to a specialized SexSpeak to talk about it. Polysyllables
do not aid in understanding or appreciating it. I have never
read anything about sex which comes close to transmitting its
essence. In other words SexSpeak is neither necessary nor
possible.
I say the same thing about art. It is not necessary because
artists are human beings and they cannot experience
anything that most other human beings do not also experience.
They do not live on some rarified plane whose experiences
need a special language to describe to the ordinary mortal.
---peter
Mothe...@orion.com
<snip>
Marilyn -
An excellent analysis. Right on target! I've been lurking and posting here
for about four years, off and on, and Mani has been playing this identical
game the entire time. It never changes. That is because:
[OPINION FOLLOWS]
Mani is an embittered
amateur artist (check his site pix) with serious psychological problems.
Otherwise, why the *book*, and the paintings at his site that parody the
great masters? (Yes, I looked. I was curious.) These efforts take a
tremendous amount of time and energy. And for what? To show the world that
the great masters are fakes? To promote Walt Disney as a great artist, for
chrissakes?
The problem is that people answer him. It's tempting. I've done it myself.
You feel like you can explain something to him, because nobody could
possibly be so fucking dumb. But he's not dumb - he's crazy.
The best antidote for this disease is to totally ignore him - but this is
impractical, especially since new people come in all the time - and it
takes awhile to realize that Mani is not just an eccentric with a different
viewpoint, but a total nut. And any response at all (including this one,
alas) keeps him posting.
Mother Night
Kay Kane
I was only kidding! Keep doing it (the shameless self-promotion) so I can
check out what you are saying while I'm here. It's a very intriguing site
and I like being able to click on while reading the 'rec.arts.fine' postings
so I can respond right away if I have something to say. I was just joking
with you!
Kay
John Haber wrote in message <3700e06d...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
Ariane
On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, peter nelson wrote:
> Ariane wrote in message ...
> >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
> >>MD:
> >> Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
> >> OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
> >> UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
> >> aphorisms..
> >
> >A:
> >=== Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
> >a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
> >demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
> >polysyllables.
> But everyone has experienced sex so that common experience
> becomes the basis for a shared vocabulary.
=== Hence her reference to `explaining sex to a three year old'.
> We've all experienced
> orgasms (I assume) so when someone says "orgasm" we don't
> need to refer to a specialized SexSpeak to talk about it. Polysyllables
> do not aid in understanding or appreciating it. I have never
> read anything about sex which comes close to transmitting its
> essence. In other words SexSpeak is neither necessary nor
> possible.
> I say the same thing about art. It is not necessary because
> artists are human beings and they cannot experience
> anything that most other human beings do not also experience.
> They do not live on some rarified plane whose experiences
> need a special language to describe to the ordinary mortal.
>
>
> ---peter
=== Agreed. However emotions and impressions are often vague and
fleeting. Language is often inadequate at conveying them. Some people
attempt to manipulate languge so as to make it express things which it
expresses poorly. I wouldn't hate people for doing this. Nor would I
fault them. A chacun son gout n'est ce pas?
Art criticism is not necessary, no. I agree with you.
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
=== I understand now........merci.
a bientot,
A.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
> Interesting. With all the changes he rings on his technique, after 90
> works I myself got _more_ in awe of Close, maybe in awe for the first
> time. I just won't go so far as to say I have a deep experience or
> anything. Or maybe I couldn't translate the awe of his career with
> awe in front of a painting.
>
> As you saw, at least it sure got me thinking, though, about how and
> why he's like this. My point was that it definitely isn't like Mani's
> ideal realist, proud of his skill. It's something _better_. But you
> knew that!
>
> On self-promotion. Suppose I keep up what I tried yesterday. That
> is, I see that many posts in all news groups end with a signature, in
> which the person has maybe an email address or Web site. Suppose I
> stop talking about, plugging, and boasting directly, and just include
> a specific Web address, if relevant, that way. I honestly don't want
> to push the envelope. You're not here to entertain me, and I'm
> honestly here to talk with friends, not to get readers. It only seems
> that way the way I drone on!
>
> John (close: www.haberarts.com/close.htm)
Please don't cease self-promotion. If your link never appeared on your
posts, I never would have seen your site. There's nothing bad about
self-promotion as far as I can see.
What's always fascinated me about Close's work is the disintegration of the
idea of 'photorealism' when you get right up, nose to nose with the painting
(you know, 'close'). This would carry my interest to a hundred paintings, I
think. The reason it is interesting to me is because I've made similar
'discoveries' myself (on a much smaller scale than Close) about what kind of
visual 'keys' are required to produce 'believabliity' in a painting. It goes
back to perception itself -- what clues we look at and respond to in our
construction of visual reality. Everyone has experienced unorganized vision
-- maybe a shape in the dusk that you can't quite make sense of, until you
gain a few clues and viola, it has meaning (perhaps a name--nothing else). I
really admire Close's mastery of this--it is a real intellectual forte in my
opinion.
I would also like to comment on another thread which brought up the idea of a
parasitical relation between the critic to the artist. Until the late
Renaissance the artist was a working class grunt -- often exploited
mercilessly by those with the authority to grant a commission. With the
introduction of secular capital and a monied aristocracy the status of the
artist in society began to change, and the change answered social and
economic motives and interests. Subsequently the 'art world' as we know it
came to be, over a historical period, and a description of that would include
patrons, critics, historian, merchants -- as well as artists themselves. The
Renaissance "Wunderkammern," was a wealthy man's collection of curios from
the European 'age of discovery" (of the rest of the world) and ultimately
evolved into the art museum. The history of the museum has played a great
role in our ideas about art, and many of the values that were assigned to an
Aztec codice, a chambered Nautilus shell, a collection of jungle butterflys
on pins, have been transfered to painting and scuplture. I'm just trying to
describe a bigger picture of the artist in culture, in opposition to the
picture of the artist in social isolation and especially the artist as a host
body of paracites.
But it's also interesting to think about where the idea of the 'artist as
victim' comes from. The statistical evidence is pretty solid that the
overwhelming majority of those who call themselves 'artists' will fail -- and
not to the lack of merit to the work produced. The selection process can be
so arbitrary -- being at the right place and the right time, making the
oppertune telephone call which sets off a chain of events in your favor,
decided to go to a cocktail party when you would rather go to the zoo. I
believe the odds are against the individual on about the same numbers as the
odds for making the Boston Celtics from a basketball scholarship. At any
rate, it's a pretty dismal picture in my opinion, and I can certainly
understand bitterness from those who produce works that are wonderful but
just never seem to get anywhere. But these are just economic realities, and
I can't see where critics, scholars, patrons or gallery owners can be held
accountable. To some extent, we all just take it in as it comes along.
Of course there is always the possiblity that an art critic will come along
and 'discover' you. So we need to know how to act nice.
mdeli
>Close, but you have a valid point about 100 of his works making one less in
>awe of Close. I never thought about it that way.
>Kay
>
he repeats himself is because every richie has to have a Close.
He's a member of the blow-up school. They take practically nothing and
blow it up to gigantic sizes. If it catches on, the richies who think
big is good suck it up and the dealers, critics and curators clean up.
Its as old as the hills. The best example is Picasso
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
>Mani is an embittered
>amateur artist (check his site pix) with serious psychological problems.
Here we have another babbler who can't take criticism of her religious
afflictions. She has never answered any of my points.
>Otherwise, why the *book*, and the paintings at his site that parody the
>great masters? (Yes, I looked. I was curious.) These efforts take a
>tremendous amount of time and energy. And for what? To show the world that
>the great masters are fakes? To promote Walt Disney as a great artist, for
>chrissakes?
Hey you forgot Norman Rockwell. (Always mention Norman Rockwell to
Picassoholics. It confuses them no end.) Museum lecturers are
especially sensitive.
>The problem is that people answer him.
That's your problem toots.
>It's tempting. I've done it myself.
Shocking. Try not to succumb to such sexual temptations.
>You feel like you can explain something to him, because nobody could
>possibly be so fucking dumb. But he's not dumb - he's crazy.
Woops, MotherNight's cerebral Hemorrhoids are getting inflamed.
>The best antidote for this disease is to totally ignore him - but this is
>impractical, especially since new people come in all the time - and it
>takes awhile to realize that Mani is not just an eccentric with a different
>viewpoint, but a total nut. And any response at all (including this one,
>alas) keeps him posting.
Right, only those who cackle MotherNight's line should be allowed to
write here.
Isn't it touching to know that fat MotherNight is deeply concerned
about the artistic morals of all new people here. Lets hope she
continues to warn all about the massive dangers of liking Disney.
>
In her pain, MotherNight blows an ass kiss to Arianne.
>> Hi Ariane,
>>
Bullshit snipped
mdeli
I wrote:
>> Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
>> OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
>> UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
>> aphorisms..
>
>A:
>=== Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
>a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
>demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
>polysyllables.
So, appreciating Rothko is something like sex. I see. Does that mean
that Rockwell and Disney are like lousy sex in your book?
Gee and I had the audacity to ask what it was she claims to
understand. Perhaps she can't explain because she doesn't get laid
often enough.
large snip
>=== Fair enough. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I try to find a way
>to appreciate a work because you see Mani, neither you nor I were born
>knowing EVERYTHING, so there's always something to learn out there.
Very informative. You must be a PoMo. I hope you continually make this
important point to your students. Gee and I thought you knew
everything.
snip
mdeli
Yes, Haber its her overwhelming pussypower which intimidated both us.
It gets you to flame in short farts and it gets me to (as you say
rant) disagreement.
I mean how dare I ask her to explain what it is she claims to
UNDERSTAND about Rothko.
Just my asking this obviously proves she has a better grasp of English
than I do. However perhaps you can explain what there is to UNDERSTAND
about Rothko.
Bet he never answers.
mdeli
>It's all been done before.
>It's a little game and here's how it plays.
>
>Mani:
>Denigrate a major artist, let's say a master painter.
>Wait for a reaction.
You mean like saying Picasso is a third rate cartoonist who just makes
bigger ones than most others. Or, Matisse can't draw. But then I also
have the nerve to criticize individual pictures. Check my web site.
And I also ask artzy fartzies like you pointed questions. Tell us it
isn't nice
>
>Other rec.arts.fine posters' reaction:
>How can you say this?
>don't you know any better?
>or
> WHAT??!!
Translation: How dare you make fun of my religion.
>
>(some will agree with Mani,
Only really bad people fall into this undesirable category, right
Marilyn?
>for example: yes, Rothko knew nothing about painting)
Come on Marilyn, Rothko knew how to open a paint can.
>Mani:
>Okay, you think that jerk is so skilled, you understand his work,
>then explain it to me.
Never ask an artzy fartzies like Marilyn for an explanation especially
when they claim to UNDERSTAND an artist. It isn't nice and Haber might
get upset.
>Other posters:
>Well, for example, Rothko attempted....
Yes darling what did Rothko attempt?
Bet the answer is a dumb as the last. If there is one.
>Mani:
>ARTSPEAK! bullshit! academic elitism!
>He had no skill, look at my web site for my latest tirade
>against artists whose work I hate.
I don't hate any artwork. I guess you have to say that sort of thing
in order to reassure yourself. Most Modern Academic Art is a joke. It
inspires humor. You're just bitter because you don't get it.
Perhaps you haven't been selling lately?
>
>Other posters:
>Mani, open your mind, look around you...
Disney, Rockwell, Bouguereau, Bateman, etc?
>and on and on it goes a tired little game that
>Mani loves to play.
>
>I'm bored with it.
>
So stay excited and stick to writing your usual incoherent babble and
blowing kisses at all the Picassoholics who agree with you.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Mothe...@Orion.com wrote:
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> Marilyn -
>
> An excellent analysis. Right on target! I've been lurking and posting here
> for about four years, off and on, and Mani has been playing this identical
> game the entire time. It never changes. That is because:
>
> [OPINION FOLLOWS]
> amateur artist (check his site pix) with serious psychological problems.
> great masters? (Yes, I looked. I was curious.) These efforts take a
> tremendous amount of time and energy. And for what? To show the world that
> the great masters are fakes? To promote Walt Disney as a great artist, for
> chrissakes?
>
> You feel like you can explain something to him, because nobody could
> possibly be so fucking dumb. But he's not dumb - he's crazy.
>
> impractical, especially since new people come in all the time - and it
> takes awhile to realize that Mani is not just an eccentric with a different
> viewpoint, but a total nut. And any response at all (including this one,
> alas) keeps him posting.
>
Well, you might want to check out his posts on other ngs. I read one -- a
woman posting on a theology group had just lost her mom to cancer, and she
was in deep mourning and questioning the existence of God (obviously needing
someone to talk to). And here was MD, telling her all her faith (or what was
left of it after her profound loss) was 'bullshit.' I couldn't believe
it--it disgusted me. How low can one go to stroke an impovrished ego? So
it's obvious to me that no one else exists in his world -- we are all just
fodder for whatever personal drama he is playing out.
Studio120
I posted a couple of days ago:
But your venom in these postings belies an anger that's counterproductive to
any real discussion. That's why I wrote in my last post that I would never be
able to change your mind. It's become apparent that you've closed it - your
mind, that is. You've worked out your own little formula for success and
basically all of your efforts on your book, your web page, and your postings to
this newgroup are spent defending it, rather than trying to improve your self,
your attitude, and especially your work. I wish you the best, Mani, but
unfortunately you've shown yourself to be a very angry, small, mean-spirited,
and rude man (as well as not very bright). Sure you make pictures and you sell
them, but you don't have the heart of an artist, you've got the heart of a
bully.
Erik posted:
>Well, you might want to check out his posts on other ngs. I read one -- a
>woman posting on a theology group had just lost her mom to cancer, and she
>was in deep mourning and questioning the existence of God (obviously needing
>someone to talk to). And here was MD, telling her all her faith (or what was
>left of it after her profound loss) was 'bullshit.' I couldn't believe
>it--it disgusted me. How low can one go to stroke an impovrished ego?
So
>it's obvious to me that no one else exists in his world -- we are all just
>fodder for whatever personal drama he is playing out.
>
After reading this, I've changed my view of MD, he's not a bully, he's a
sociopath. I'm a newbie to this newsgroup and I found myself so offended by
some of his comments that I played right into his diatribes. Never again.
Is it possible to make rec.arts.fine a MD free zone!? No, not really, but in
my mind . . .
Regards
Kevin Conlon
Studio 120
2201 Bull Street, #309
Savannah, GA 31401
Marilyn
I guess you missed the long "Rothko" thread, any attempts to
talk about his paintings were dismissed as artspeak/bullshit/
academic elitism.
There are plenty of books on the subject, take yourself down
to your local library.
Or, while in NYC, looking at art, check out the Rothko at MOMA,
and stand in front of it for a few minutes, trying to be objective
and forgeting all you've been told. See what happens. Challenge
yourself. If after that experience, because Rothko's work needs
to be experienced, you feel nothing, then you are immune to what
he tried to achieve.
Marilyn
Marilyn
>
> On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, peter nelson wrote:
>
> > Ariane wrote in message ...
>
> > >On Tue, 30 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
> > >>MD:
> > >> OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
> > >> UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
> > >> aphorisms..
> > >
> > >A:
> > >=== Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
> > >a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
> > >demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
> > >polysyllables.
>
> > becomes the basis for a shared vocabulary.
>
> === Hence her reference to `explaining sex to a three year old'.
THAT WAS NOT my reference, I think it was Kay's.
There are enough crotch references here already, why
add to them.
Marilyn
Mothe...@orion.com
My God, I never thought of him posting on other newsgroups (I don't get
around the net much). But it makes sense. He posted a really nasty piece
about santa claus and kids here last christmas that had nothing to do with
art. It was sick - and sad.
The net cuts two ways - it gives people a chance to discuss their
interests, and it gives every lunatic with a computer free rein to vent his
or her psychosis. My personal opinion is that we have to accept the lunatic
posts with everything else - but what he said to the woman you mentioned
is unforgivable.
It's no accident that I use a nickname here. I don't want Mani or
BurningBright or god knows who else coming to my door with an axe.
Mother Night
>
> Well, you might want to check out his posts on other ngs. I read one --
> a woman posting on a theology group had just lost her mom to cancer, and
> she was in deep mourning and questioning the existence of God (obviously
> needing someone to talk to). And here was MD, telling her all her faith
> (or what was left of it after her profound loss) was 'bullshit.' I
> couldn't believe it--it disgusted me. How low can one go to stroke an
> impovrished ego?
So it's obvious to me that no one else exists in his
> world -- we are all just fodder for whatever personal drama he is playing
> out.
Well said.
Ariane
On Wed, 31 Mar 1999, mdeli wrote:
> Ariane wrote:
>
> I wrote:
> >> Marilyn you don't understand Rothko any more than I do. If you CLAIM
> >> OTHERWISE all you have to do is tell us something about your supposed
> >> UNDERSTANDING instead of begging the question by writing stupid
> >> aphorisms..
> >
> >A:
> >=== Apreciation mani. She can appreciate Rothko's work and this leads to
> >a form of understanding which, like sex, can't be explained to those who
> >demand simple language (like you), since they have a hard time with
> >polysyllables.
>
> So, appreciating Rothko is something like sex. I see. Does that mean
> that Rockwell and Disney are like lousy sex in your book?
=== Not really, I don't particularly care for Rockwell's subject matter,
although his draughtsmanship is quality. Disney is ok as well.....I never
got into comix or animation to any great degree, but I wouldn't go so far
as to put it down as say, crap, like you do with modern artists. To each
their own, I'm glad to live in a time and place where we all have choices
with respect to art-making and art appreciation.
> Gee and I had the audacity to ask what it was she claims to
> understand. Perhaps she can't explain because she doesn't get laid
> often enough.
=== That's brilliant Mani. You go on about art attracting the viewer and
yet, when these facts are `laid' before you, (re:Modern art) you go on and
on about how all those millions of people whom the art attracts are
somehow deluded. By your own criteria for quality art, Modern art is
quality work.
> > large snip
> >=== Fair enough. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I try to find a way
> >to appreciate a work because you see Mani, neither you nor I were born
> >knowing EVERYTHING, so there's always something to learn out there.
> Very informative. You must be a PoMo.
=== Where do you get that from what I said?
> I hope you continually make this
> important point to your students.
=== I don't have any students......I'm an artist, not a teacher.
> Gee and I thought you knew
> everything.
=== No only Picasso knew everything ......Oh, yeah, and Oscar Wilde
too. {grin}
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
a la prochaine,
A.
Ariane
> Well, you might want to check out his posts on other ngs. I read one
> -- a woman posting on a theology group had just lost her mom to
> cancer, and she was in deep mourning and questioning the existence of
> God (obviously needing someone to talk to). And here was MD, telling
> her all her faith (or what was left of it after her profound loss) was
> 'bullshit.' I couldn't believe it--it disgusted me. How low can one
> go to stroke an impovrished ego? So it's obvious to me that no one
> else exists in his world -- we are all just fodder for whatever
> personal drama he is playing out.
>
> Erik Mattila
=== Is this true?! I can't imagine this. No empathy? Not even a kind
word of hope? The world's a tough place.......thanks to people like this.
au revoir,
A.
mdeli
>After reading this, I've changed my view of MD, he's not a bully, he's a
>sociopath. I'm a newbie to this newsgroup and I found myself so offended by
>some of his comments that I played right into his diatribes. Never again.
RIght, your too stupid to answer a clearly stated question without
going off into a Diarrhea of convoluted tangents. So anyone who calls
your bluff is a sociopath.
Call your priest immediately and complain.
>Is it possible to make rec.arts.fine a MD free zone!? No, not really, but in
>my mind . . .
Why don't you Picassoholics just continue to blow each other kisses
and ignore my posts.
Than you can imagine that this conference is a Modern Art love-in and
you never again have to hear any criticism of your views.
Of course you'll have to try to prevent me from reading and
commenting.
Have fun.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
mdeli
>I guess you missed the long "Rothko" thread, any attempts to
>talk about his paintings were dismissed as artspeak/bullshit/
>academic elitism.
>
>There are plenty of books on the subject, take yourself down
>to your local library.
Do it. Take any three 5 pound Rothko books off the library shelf and
open at random. Quote the three paragraphs here and let the reader
judge whether or not its Artspeak bullshit.
>
>Or, while in NYC, looking at art, check out the Rothko at MOMA,
>and stand in front of it for a few minutes, trying to be objective
>and forgeting all you've been told. See what happens.
Then ask yourself, if the painting was signed Joe Schmo, would it
really be hanging in this holy place? And, can I go home and do the
same? And make sure it isn't hanging upside down
> Challenge
>yourself. If after that experience, because Rothko's work needs
>to be experienced, you feel nothing, then you are immune to what
>he tried to achieve.
When you are finished try the same with de Kooning and Twombly. If you
experience immunity than ask Marilyn what it is She UNDERSTANDS about
Rothko and perhaps you'll get cured..
Then try sitting in an orgone box and see how you feel. Perhaps
placebos and faith don't work on you.
mdeli
>My God, I never thought of him posting on other newsgroups (I don't get
>around the net much). But it makes sense. He posted a really nasty piece
>about santa claus and kids here last christmas that had nothing to do with
>art. It was sick - and sad.
Sorry to offend your belief in Santa. On the other hand I'm delighted
when I offend a putz like you.
Here it is again for you benefit.
Someone asked why kiddies believe in Santa Claus?
Its because he does all those nice things for them unless they are
bad. Of course there ain't no Santa Claus. So parents lie in order to
keep the kids happily in line and trick the gullible tots by creating
false evidence for them. This is how they start to teach the kid about
the pleasures and fears of a mystical daddy who is watching them. It
also lets parents get Santa to do some of the daddy stuff. If you are
bad Santa won’t be nice to you.
Santa Claus is god for beginners. Of course he is rarely as mean as
the other guy so you don’t want to start off on the kid right away and
scare him too much.
Only later are the kiddies ready for learning about the invisible
Superman upstairs who though he’s never around when needed is said to
be able to do just about anything. First you learn that he loves you
like daddy does now and Santa used too. But unlike Santa this guy gets
very upset if you don’t believe in him and do all the things your
particular brand of the superstition business claims he wants. People
believe this because it says so in the superstition business manual.
Its an old tradition. Somewhat older than Santa.
Unlike Santa this mystical daddy will only do really nice things for
you after you’re dead. That is provided you obey some guy who says
that he understands exactly what the manual means.
...May the farce be with you
> My personal opinion is that we have to accept the lunatic
>posts with everything else - but what he said to the woman you mentioned
>is unforgivable.
Yes I said really bad things about Rosa Bonheur
>
>It's no accident that I use a nickname here. I don't want Mani or
>BurningBright or god knows who else coming to my door with an axe.
Nobody gives a damn about you and you idiotic feighned paranoia. I
probably wouldn't ever come within 500 miles of your outhouse.
mdeli
>> Marilyn -
>>
>> An excellent analysis. Right on target! I've been lurking and posting here
>> for about four years, off and on, and Mani has been playing this identical
>> game the entire time. It never changes. That is because:
Nice ass kissing Erick
Why not answer my original question that started all you artzy
fartzies howling.
What do you UNDERSTAND about Rothko that I don't?
Bet I get more Psychobabble
>Well, you might want to check out his posts on other ngs.
Yes you might quote it to see that as usual you are full of shit.
> I read one -- a
>woman posting on a theology group had just lost her mom to cancer, and she
>was in deep mourning and questioning the existence of God (obviously needing
>someone to talk to).
She was proselytizing about god and prayer on the Catholic Recovery
conference.
> And here was MD, telling her all her faith (or what was
>left of it after her profound loss) was 'bullshit.' I couldn't believe
>it--it disgusted me.
I hope it led you to vomit.
I happen to believe as George Carlin said in his monolog on Bullshit
that, " the biggest bunch of bullshit going is religion."
>How low can one go to stroke an impovrished ego?
As low as stroking your's.
>So
>it's obvious to me that no one else exists in his world -- we are all just
>fodder for whatever personal drama he is playing out.
Is that another one of your lame theories?