Drawpaints joins the group.
drawpaints
wants to get to know people on here
what are you people into
any painters
talk to me
REPLY HERE
Atomicswamp
my name is ATOMICSWAMP
if you have any info ON HOW TO make
OAK OIL BOARDS
TALK TO ME
nm03
Mike Stengl
look
listen
learn
Dow Thompson
drawp...@yahoo.com wrote on 12/23/03 2:32 PM:
Hi
I'm Dow and I love to paint in high speed. I'm into techno-art or
speedpainting. I have my own web site and lots of info on how to do what I
am doing.
Dow
-----------------
How to paint like Monet in 30 Minutes.
The Next Level in Art
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/givecolor/
------------------
G*rd*n
Here's something I posted in alt.postmodern a long,
long time ago:
15-MINUTE PAINTERS AND THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
The fifteen-minute painters of cable television -- why have
these not been recognized as the vanguard of Postmodernism?
I'm talking about those folks who we see on the lifestyle
channels, who, with a few brushes (often including the 3-inch
hardware-store variety), a couple of palette knives, and some
ordinary oil paint, produce a perfectly acceptable landscape
or flower painting in a matter of minutes. None of these
shows run over half an hour.
The art resembles sumi-e in that it consists of a bag of
tricks, or, to be more respectful, a set of established
techniques which produce known effects. These effects can
be modified to cause the painting to harmonize with its
particular environment, i.e. go with the couch, something
your fancy French painter can't do. The effects are
assembled in a highly formal manner, as with rock'n'roll,
van painting, graffiti, pornographic movies, and public
discourse.
"Expression" is of little merit in this art; the subject
matter is already thoroughly known and idealized. This,
again, aligns this form of painting with the culture of
East Asia, where the images exist already and the painter
merely approaches them in a way which has already been
established and tested.
Early postmodernists like Warhol showed that anybody with
access to a Xerox machine or a can of Campbell's soup
could produce high art, but the 15-minute painters show
us that anyone can not only produce art, but make it look
like art -- art that is _art_, if you know what I mean.
Vases full of flowers and mountain ranges in the sunset.
These painters served a long apprenticeship in the flea
markets, parking lots, and suburban malls of yesteryear.
When cable arrived, with something for everyone, they
were ready with art for everyone. Yet they were not rash.
Simple, sober things: mere flowers and mountains were
their first offerings. But it will not always be so.
Even now, standard methods are being developed to paint
tall ships, wistful bug-eyed children, and kittens. And
not by your scraggly bohemian artists in a garret either,
no, indeed. The workshops are the ample and decent
parlors of the matrons of Des Moines, Lakeland, and
Redding. They smile as they work at the task of
simultaneously obsoleting and memorializing Western
Civ. Who needs Picasso any more?
--
(<><>) /*/
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/19/03 <-adv't
Leo Papandreou
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bsf85u$okv$1...@panix1.panix.com...
Paul Mesken
>Here's something I posted in alt.postmodern a long,
>long time ago:
>
>15-MINUTE PAINTERS AND THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
LOL! Great article! I love it : "Bag of Tricks" aka "a set of
Chris
Corner?". One of his big points re. Cubism was that with it anyone could now
be a successful painter, in a minimal amount of time......
Chris
"G*rd*n" <g...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bsf85u$okv$1...@panix1.panix.com...
G*rd*n
> C'mon Gordon, it's not new. Have you read Vlaminck's book "Dangerous
> Corner?". One of his big points re. Cubism was that with it anyone could now
> be a successful painter, in a minimal amount of time......
But cubism isn't "art that is _art_, if you know what I mean."
Sure, anyone can zip a few brushstrokes on a canvas and call
it a painting, but now it needs a _rap_, a story as to why
it's valuable and significant. That can be a lot of work.
What we're talking about is stuff that can be produced rapidly,
which people don't need to be taught about -- they _know_ it's
art, and what's more, they'll fork over for it. Two, three
hundred dollars at a fence show or in a flea market.
Anyway, it's the other guy that said it was new. A skilled,
talented worker can whip out a respectable -scape in fifteen
or twenty minutes; everyone knows that, and it's been done
for many generations. Sure, it's boring, but people like
that. The interesting thing about the 15-minute painters of
TV is that _no_skill_ is necessary. If you can paint the
garage, you can paint a mountain with a cabin by a stream at
sundown, surrounded by generic conifers.
And it's your very own.
Lauri Levanto
At least in Europe, most tourist resorts have them.
many of them deliver two kinds - caricatures and idealized rendering.
-lauri
Phan C. Pant
>
>Why did you omit the genre of 15 mins street portraits.
>At least in Europe, most tourist resorts have them.
>many of them deliver two kinds - caricatures and idealized rendering.
Also, 15 min. B&W (charcoal) is sometimes
an option for artists who also do longer
poses in pastel for a larger price, usually
taking all of 30 minutes or slightly more.
G*rd*n
> Why did you omit the genre of 15 mins street portraits.
> At least in Europe, most tourist resorts have them.
> many of them deliver two kinds - caricatures and idealized rendering.
That kind of thing takes a little talent, a little skill.
The techniques I was describing don't require either. The
fellow on TV will teach you how to pick up an ordinary, cheap
3" paintbrush and make a nice sort-of-fir tree in a few seconds.
Mani Deli
>Here's something I posted in alt.postmodern a long,
>long time ago:
Postmodern doubletalk is one of the best examples of the decline of
rationality and intellect.
>
>15-MINUTE PAINTERS AND THE DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION
>
>The fifteen-minute painters of cable television -- why have
>these not been recognized as the vanguard of Postmodernism?
>
>I'm talking about those folks who we see on the lifestyle
>channels, who, with a few brushes (often including the 3-inch
>hardware-store variety), a couple of palette knives, and some
>ordinary oil paint, produce a perfectly acceptable landscape
>or flower painting in a matter of minutes. None of these
>shows run over half an hour.
And none irritate the Modern Art fundamentalist more.
>
>The art resembles sumi-e in that it consists of a bag of
>tricks, or, to be more respectful, a set of established
>techniques which produce known effects.
-unlike the established techniques and known effects of Modern
Academic Art.
> These effects can
>be modified to cause the painting to harmonize with its
>particular environment, i.e. go with the couch,
Beware of "over the couch" artwork. Many Artzy fartzies can't afford a
couch.
>something
>your fancy French painter can't do. The effects are
>assembled in a highly formal manner, as with rock'n'roll,
>van painting, graffiti, , and public
>discourse.
Pornographic movies?
>
>"Expression" is of little merit in this art;
As opposed to a bunch of stripes and museum quality work imitating
below average bedsheets.
> the subject
>matter is already thoroughly known and idealized.
Unlike a bunch of stripes and museum quality work imitating below
average bedsheets.
>This, again, aligns this form of painting with the culture of
>, where the images exist already and the painter
>merely approaches them in a way which has already been
>established and tested.
Beware of East Asia.
>Early postmodernists like Warhol showed that anybody with
>access to a Xerox machine or a can of Campbell's soup
>could produce high art, but the 15-minute painters show
>us that anyone can not only produce art, but make it look
>like art -- art that is _art_, if you know what I mean.
>Vases full of flowers and mountain ranges in the sunset.
>
Like Van Gogh, Matisse, Cezanne etc. etc.
>These painters served a long apprenticeship in the
Unlike most Modern Academic artists who have to get other work because
they haven't the right connections and no one is interested in their
unskilled repetitive schlock even when you see them in flea
markets, parking lots, and suburban malls and garbage cans.
>When cable arrived, with something for everyone, they
>were ready with art for everyone.
And hours of yack by famous Modern Academic art charlatans.
> Yet they were not rash.
>Simple, sober things: mere flowers and mountains were
>their first offerings. But it will not always be so.
Never paint another vase full of flowers or mountain ranges in the
sunset etc. People might just like them if they are well done and
might (horrors) hang them over the couch.
>
>Even now, standard methods are being developed to paint
>tall ships, wistful bug-eyed children, and kittens.
and if you are learn you modern art school gimmicks you might produce
miles of fifteen second nudes that compete with dirty paper and
advance to the cat vomit technique of de Kooning or just stick to
large stripes. And unlike the fifteen minute guys who are obviously
adding to the "DECLINE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION" you will be able to
explain your incompetence to anyone willing to listen to you for more
then fifteen minutes.
> And
>not by your scraggly bohemian artists in a garret either,
>no, indeed. The workshops are the ample and decent
>parlors of the matrons of Des Moines, Lakeland, and
>Redding.
> They smile as they work at the task of
>simultaneously obsoleting and memorializing Western
>Civ. Who needs Picasso any more?
-a minority of artzy fartzies and richies who are impressed by price
tags and signatures.
No skill no art!
Tired of Modern Art? check http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
> The interesting thing about the 15-minute painters of
>TV is that _no_skill_ is necessary. If you can paint the
>garage, you can paint a mountain with a cabin by a stream at
>sundown, surrounded by generic conifers.
>
It takes skill and pratice to do well. Just look at some of the awfull
work of some of those who exhibit that subject matter here.
What this writer is complainig about is the fact that a majority of
people still like subject matter he doesn't like.
Leo Papandreou
> C'mon Gordon, it's not new. Have you read Vlaminck's book "Dangerous
> Corner?". One of his big points re. Cubism was that with it anyone could now
> be a successful painter, in a minimal amount of time......
>
Except anyone doesn't become that, because there's no prize for being the nth
person in the world to discover the intellectual approach of cubism (or fauvism
in Vlaminck's case.) The problem with "I could have done that" is "why didn't
you?" One of the most difficult things in art is "discovering" meaning where it
seemed there was none or no one thought to look before.
It would seem an easy thing to do -- there is no such thing as an object or
practice devoid of meaning -- but turns out difficult in practice because
meaning is often hidden, a socially constructed reality masquerading as
"natural." The rare talent is the one that can interrogate the shared meanings
of the cultural artifacts and practices that surround us and make explicit what
is implicit. Take the color blue for example.
http://college3.nytimes.com/guests/articles/2003/11/30/1127498.xml
But recent studies conducted by Debi Roberson, Ian Davies and Jules
Davidoff (at the universities of Essex, Surrey and London) suggest
otherwise [that color does not transcend culture]. They examined the
hunter-gatherer Berinmo tribe of Papua, New Guinea, a people with
five basic color terms who don't distinguish blue from green. (They
do, however, have a distinction for shades of green -- called nol and
wor -- that are not shared by Westerners.) In essence, they found that
the Berinmo handled their nol-wor differences better than their blue v.
green (while it was vice versa for English speakers). After practice,
both groups were able to improve their discernment of the distinction
that they previously hadn't shared with their counterparts. "These
results," Davidoff and his colleagues contended, "indicate that
CATEGORICAL PERCEPTION [my emphasis] occurs, but only for speakers of
the language that marks the categorical distinction, which is consistent
with the linguistic relativity hypothesis." (The relativity of color
naming is just one manifestation of this broader concept, for which
the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy provides a formula: "large
differences in language lead to large differences in thought.")
All art depends on a narrative for its understanding, levels of dialogue
between seeing and knowing. Some narratives have been bred into us culturally.
These we've internalized as "natural," "real" (which is why contemporary art
taxes understanding: so much of its language is the prerogative of the
individual artist.) We take our cultural practices for granted, never thinking
to interrogate the "obvious." But imagine trying to evaluate the work of a
Paleolithic artist, who might not even have the same mental subscription to
color as we do, or explain our art to her.
How would you explain the "natural" difference between the Mona Lisa, Picasso,
and Scooby Do? She finds them equally baffling: pigment on a flat surface,
elaborate hieroglyphics, none of them self-evidently "natural" or
one "superior" to another. They have no significance that is not imposed.
There's no "truth" content in signs, just meaning, whatever that is (if indeed
it "is"), though some people feel there is a proto-grammar at work in signs we
are naturally attracted to, biologically based rules for their construction:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2003/reith2003_lecture3.shtml
So postmodernism: what happens when you appropriate the meaning of non-art for
art? The Kinkade hanging in granny's kitchen connotes many things but it's
connotations aren't the same as the Mona Lisa's: we've been raised to
interrogate the Mona Lisa and Kinkade for different meanings.
Well what if you painted the Mona Lisa in Kinkade's manner? Ooh-la-la, suddenly
you're a famous postmodern artist subverting "natural" meaning (or would be if
Duchamp hadn't drawn a moustache on the Mona Lisa 85 years ago – it's hard to
be original, at least in the right place at the right time.)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1890482919/002-9232630-7327242
This double-coded ironic style is nearly synonymous with postmodern art (google
John Currin for an example in painting, guerillagirls.com for popular culture).
But if we can appropriate the meaning of non-art for art, why can't we go in
the opposite direction and appropriate the meaning of art for non-art, which I
thought was Gordon's point? No reason the eye can see. The paintings will
resemble each other visually. Hence, the distinction between art and non-art
is ... nothing; or, more accurately, a narrative, which has always been the
case.
In the case of non-art that looks like art, "looks like art" stands for a
_received_ narrative -- widely accepted as true or worthy because it conforms
to an established visual language, such art looks like it's supposed to. It's
"natural." Anyone can see women aren't supposed to look like this:
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/picasso/p-picasso25.htm
They're supposed to resemble what you'd find hanging in the parlor of an
affectedly genteel bordello:
http://www.artrenewal.com/images/artists/b/Bouguereau_William/large/La_vague.jpg
God I love that picture. For unintended reasons, but there you go, meaning is a
curious thing.
So that's postmodernism in a nutshell: there is no such thing as art, only
artists, and every one of them is sticking to their story. I consider this
a truism. I don't understand what's all the fuss about postmodernism. Then
again I think art is nonsense -- meaningful, vitally necessary, but nonsense
(if get my meaning.)
--
Leo Papandreou
GIS TERCES: .-. . -.. .-. ..- --
G*rd*n
> ...
> So that's postmodernism in a nutshell: there is no such thing as art, only
> artists, and every one of them is sticking to their story. I consider this
But one can be as skeptical of the narrative of "artist" as
of the narrative of "art".
Insofar as postmodernism really is an ism, about which I
am most skeptical, it is pretty much nihilism, or at least
anarchism. One can see this sort of deep skepticism arising
in the fog of marketeering which dominates liberal society:
everyone is advertising, everything you hear is a lie, buy
now. There is a fuss because the dream of the eternal Daddy
(who could tell us what art _is_) is coming to an end. What
will we see when we open our eyes?
arachedeux
> koan...@earthling.net (Leo Papandreou):
> > ...
> > So that's postmodernism in a nutshell: there is no such thing as art,
only
> > artists, and every one of them is sticking to their story. I consider
this
> > a truism. I don't understand what's all the fuss about postmodernism.
...
>
> But one can be as skeptical of the narrative of "artist" as
> of the narrative of "art".
Quite.
> Insofar as postmodernism really is an ism, about which I
> am most skeptical, it is pretty much nihilism, or at least
> anarchism.
I disagree, anarchism has a basis in moral principles whereas
post-modernism, like nihilism, doesn't display any. Well not yet.
cheers,
Erik A. Mattila
G*rd*n wrote:
> koan...@earthling.net (Leo Papandreou):
>
>>...
>>So that's postmodernism in a nutshell: there is no such thing as art, only
>>artists, and every one of them is sticking to their story. I consider this
>>a truism. I don't understand what's all the fuss about postmodernism. ...
>
>
>
> But one can be as skeptical of the narrative of "artist" as
> of the narrative of "art".
>
> Insofar as postmodernism really is an ism, about which I
> am most skeptical, it is pretty much nihilism, or at least
> anarchism. One can see this sort of deep skepticism arising
> in the fog of marketeering which dominates liberal society:
> everyone is advertising, everything you hear is a lie, buy
> now. There is a fuss because the dream of the eternal Daddy
> (who could tell us what art _is_) is coming to an end. What
> will we see when we open our eyes?
But if you are skeptical about ism, wouldn't you restrain your
"skepticism" also? Leo, on the other hand, is somewhat refreshing in
his absolutism (oops).
Erik
>
Leo Papandreou
> koan...@earthling.net (Leo Papandreou):
> > ...
> > So that's postmodernism in a nutshell: there is no such thing as art, only
> > artists, and every one of them is sticking to their story. I consider this
> > a truism. I don't understand what's all the fuss about postmodernism. ...
>
>
> But one can be as skeptical of the narrative of "artist" as
> of the narrative of "art".
>
> Insofar as postmodernism really is an ism, about which I
> am most skeptical, it is pretty much nihilism, or at least
> anarchism. One can see this sort of deep skepticism arising
> in the fog of marketeering which dominates liberal society:
> everyone is advertising, everything you hear is a lie, buy
> now. There is a fuss because the dream of the eternal Daddy
> (who could tell us what art _is_) is coming to an end. What
> will we see when we open our eyes?
I have no requirement for a coherent postmodernism. I approach postmodernism as
a set of critical tools to unpack other belief systems, which I think are true
in the sense a tune on the piano might be.
I'm aware of the irony in that position, that postmodernism is itself a (meta)
tune on the piano. I feel about that the same way I do different dogged
attempts to discover truth in natural language: there has never been an
intellectual exercise that wasn't ultimately useless. We are born hairless
monkeys, find ghosts to believe in, and then finally we die. Is that so wrong?
It seems to me that the over-intellectualization of life is just some thing
some people like to do. Some people look outside the window, see the weather,
and others a system of inferential dross concocted from ephemeral references.
Still others paint. I don't mean to be anti-intellectual about this, it's just
a feeling that everything turns to gibberish if you think about it for too
long.
I don't care for the word nihilism, the way it's used to frame the dispute
with postmodernism in culturally idiosyncratic, western philosophical language
(which postmodernists revel in disbelief in anyway), or its popular
connotations, as if postmodernism offered no hope, shelter or sustenance. That
kind of panic-stricken moralizing is silly. Postmodernism is just some ideas.
What's the panic? Humanity is its own threat, irrelevant of any _text_. Are we
supposed to find solace in the long and bloodied history of clashes between
fervent believers instead?
So I don't think of postmodernism as nihilism. Not being a lugubrious fellow, I
prefer to think of it this way:
Is that all there is, is that all there is
If that's all there is my friends, then let's keep dancing
Let's break out the booze and have a ball
If that's all there is
Finally, the "fuss" about postmodernism: people cling to their conceptual
models of world. The fuss about postmodernism is not substantially different
than the fuss that was made in history about liberalism or Marxism, yet here we
are today, the children of Marx and Adam Smith, for better or worse.
G*rd*n
> >>...
> >>So that's postmodernism in a nutshell: there is no such thing as art, only
> >>artists, and every one of them is sticking to their story. I consider this
> >>a truism. I don't understand what's all the fuss about postmodernism. ...
G*rd*n wrote:
> > But one can be as skeptical of the narrative of "artist" as
> > of the narrative of "art".
> >
> > Insofar as postmodernism really is an ism, about which I
> > am most skeptical, it is pretty much nihilism, or at least
> > anarchism. One can see this sort of deep skepticism arising
> > in the fog of marketeering which dominates liberal society:
> > everyone is advertising, everything you hear is a lie, buy
> > now. There is a fuss because the dream of the eternal Daddy
> > (who could tell us what art _is_) is coming to an end. What
> > will we see when we open our eyes?
> But if you are skeptical about ism, wouldn't you restrain your
> "skepticism" also? Leo, on the other hand, is somewhat refreshing in
> his absolutism (oops).
That is one of the beauties of skepticism: having done its
work, it destroys itself.
Mike Stengl
drawpaints gets lost and falls into oblivion