My Website
mdeli
I received several messages that the thumbnails of my paintings did
not access the larger image when clicked.
I believe the matter has been corrected and the enlargements are now
accessible.
I thank all for the many messages both positive and negative and for
taking the time to view a bit of my work and reading my opinions.
Note that I have just added some new pictures and will soon be adding
some new essays.
Mani DeLi
you can visit my site at http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
mdeli
In the past, the product of the artist was understood to possess among
its many characteristics a very high degree of UNIQUENESS A work was
in part considered superior precisely because most ordinary craftsmen
simply couldn't produce similar work. It was produced by person who
was thought to possess rare gifts. Such a person was called an artist.
The better the artist, the more inimitable and sought after was his
work.
With MAA this is no longer the case. Far from being inimitable, the
Modern Artist's paintings possess almost no rarity whatever. A work
like "Black on Black." despite intellectualized apologetics can be
produce by most anyone. And though it is true that most MAA requires
much more skill to reproduce then an imitation of "Black on Black,"
even the most complex MAA works are very far from being inimitable.
An artist's ability to accomplish something unique in a painting lies,
among other things, with his degree of technical skill. In the past,
even the very poorest artist, even the lowly craftsman, produced work
which contained, at the very least, some small degree of technical
skill. This endowed some of the humblest work with just enough
uniqueness to give someone an incentive to want to possess and
preserve it. Most MAA, however, lacks even that tiny modicum of
technical skill.
The MAA critic counters that those who vehemently claim that technical
skill is still an imperative requirement by constantly proclaiming,
"THERE IS NO MERIT IN TECHNICAL SKILL ALONE!" This idea, is indeed
correct, but only in its very broadest sense. The statement's
correctness hinges on the word "alone." Fine artwork never exhibits
technical skill "alone".
Technique is a bit like a foundation of a house. When one is
considering the merits of a piece of architecture, there is rarely
much discussion about something as basic as a foundation and a buyer
would surely be correct in saying that a foundation alone has no
particular merit. But a foundation, nevertheless, underlies every
piece of architecture. So, although I agree with the critics when they
assert that there is no art in technical skill alone, this does not
negate the fact that
THERE CAN BE NO ART WITHOUT TECHNICAL SKILL.
Now that we have experienced 90 years of so called "great" painting
which for the most part exhibits an ever decreasing degree of
technical skill I can only agree with those critics who claim that MAA
is a unique phase of art history. I predict something even more unique
for the distant future. Namely, that unlike some of the worst works
of the distant past, most contemporary works of MAA will, at some
time, be unable to find anyone who is willing to possess and preserve
them. Then we will have reached the point where most of these works
will be discarded and, perhaps, even suffer the fate of ordinary
garbage.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
>you can visit my site at http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
My thumbnails are now fixed andwill now reveal the larger pictures
mdeli
From my book "Modern Art a skeptic's view"
Today the best counter example to MAA trends Picassoid and
Greenbergian both as a critic and an artist is the supposedly
villainously insincere Salvador Dali. No recognized modern artist has
a lower sincerity rating.
Dali spoke out against MAA trends in the mid 1930s well before
Greenberg was heard from. Dali having caught on to the moralizing
ploys of the MAA critics studied them carefully and capitalized on
what he learned. The Dalian formula is to continually do and say
precisely the opposite of what is morally expected of a great Modern
artist.
By this simple counter-ploy, Dali has attracted endless coveted
publicity and at the same time remained at the butt end of
controversy. Much like Bouguereau, Dali is accused of using his array
of acknowledged artistic skills to commit aesthetic evil. According to
MAA critics, Dali doesn't only draw and paint realism very well; he
does it too well. This is considered to be vastly overdoing things and
raises the dreaded kitsch specter. For this offense, Dali is often
labeled "academic" and further accused of flaunting his skills to no
other purpose than to create an avalanche of empty technique in order
to make lots of money. Very insincere!
I suppose Dali would have been far more bearable for the critics had
he just continued to paint "too well" and kept quiet. But Dali bucked
every MAA trend with a maximum amount of noise.
Almost from the beginning of his career he cleverly nurtured
controversy by deliberately offending the largest possible number of
people. Nothing new here of course, but Dali did it through the use of
classical knowledge and skill rather then by the usual method of
creating ever higher degrees of painterly incompetence.
Dali appalled established critics as early as 1929 by defending the
Art Nouveau. But he really stirred the mud when he got on the nerves
of his fellow surrealists during the 1930's. Many fellow Surrealists
were at that time a politicized lot, most were professed communists.
He dared to make fun of communism and, for that matter, all political
extremes. For instance, he offended the communists by skillfully
painting loaves of bread, the staff of life of the workers, in what
could only be called profane circumstances. At that time bread was
considered a sacred object of political sentiment, [ILLUSTRATION:
bread in condom] He even painted Lenin in what appeared to be profane
circumstances.
In the late 1930s, he produced a series of paintings pertaining to
Hitler, each containing either his portrait or a reference to him in
the title. The communists, furious, accused Dali of loving Hitler and
fascism and evoking anti-Communist opinion in the subject matter of
his work. Fascists were equally offended by Dali's profanation of
their idol Adolf Hitler. The ecstatic Dali, however, noisily
proclaimed Hitler to be one of history's unique and greatest
paranoids, who, in his opinion, even possessed no less than three
balls. This combination, Dali claimed to the now outraged Surrealists,
easily qualified him as an ideal subject for any Surrealist
practitioner. For this political and other buffoonery, he was
eventually formally expelled from the Surrealist movement. Needless to
say, Dali was delighted.
The Germans remained equally unappreciative and during the occupation
of France they deliberately destroyed some of Dali's paintings.
Dali could do far more than speak his mind. He had the skill to
illustrate his iconoclastic opinions in the subject matter of his
paintings. In the distant future when the meanings of his paintings
become unimportant or forgotten, Dali's work will be judged as it
should be today: on the basis of his formidable skill, craftsmanship
and ideas.
In times when it was considered etiquette and good manners for artists
to be soft spoken about their brethren, Dali made many offensive
statements against the most sacred modern artists. Unlike his brethren
he was also not prone to return a great favor or a compliment. For
instance, Picasso, who grew to despise Dali, did much to help the
young Dali launch his career and even lent him money. When Dali turned
on Picasso, he provoked the master with a never ending stream of
sarcastic, inverted compliments:
"Who are the greatest living painters," someone would ask of Dali?
The reply would always be just about the same: "I and Picasso."
"And wherein lies the difference between the two of you?" they would
ask. Dali would always reply, "I, the divine Dali, am the genius of
beauty, whereas the divine Picasso is the genius of ugliness."
Dali doubly irritated Picasso by also deliberately painting the
outrageous. Dali filched this approach to subject matter directly
from Picasso which oddly gives these artists a semblance of
similarity.
On the occasion of a highly important Picasso exhibition in which the
master exhibited many of his latest and largest new paintings, Dali
reinforced his kinship for Picasso by sending him a telegram from NY
It started with the words: "Pablo thanks! Your last ignominious
paintings have killed modern art." It goes on to say: "But for you
with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of French
prudence, we should have had painting that was more and more ugly for
at least one hundred years. . . . You, with all the violence of your
Iberian anarchism, have achieved the limits and the final consequences
of the abominable in a mere few weeks." Dali concludes "Now all that
remains for us is to turn our eyes once more to Raphael. God preserve
you!"
Dali went so far as to paint many wholly abstract works which parodied
the styles of the most popular MAA-isms as they occurred, using his
skill to outdo the artists he aped. He has consistently done this
throughout his career. By dabbling in Cubism in the 20s and abstract
expressionism in the 50s, he is one of the few artists who has
successfully painted in both the Picassoid and Greenbergian styles and
still maintained his popularity.
Dali, unlike other famous artists, lets everybody know that his art is
only a means to attain what he is really interested in: money. This
was perhaps Dali's worst offense against the Greenbergian moral code.
Dali said of money that he aims "to become to the greatest possible
extent a bit of a multimillionaire." He also said that "the simplest
way of refusing any concession to gold is to have some." And of the
MAA critic's money moralizing, he said, "The pure critics who have
consistently despised money and been afraid to dirty their hands by
touching it may rest assured: the abstract values that they defend in
modern paintings will inevitably be converted into absolutely clean,
wholly inoffensive and immaterial money. It will be purely abstract
money."
Dali's anti-MAA campaign has managed to divide the critics into two
schools. One school makes believe he doesn't exist by never mentioning
him. This is best exemplified by innumerable books on art history
especially when the subject is the history of Surrealism, which make
little or no reference to Dali. The other school heaps scorn on Dali
at every opportunity. An Art News article some years ago, included
Dali in the ranks among the worst painters of the twentieth century.
Mani DeLi
Leigh Kimmel
In article <34ade810...@news.interlog.com>
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
> In the past, the product of the artist was understood to possess among
> its many characteristics a very high degree of UNIQUENESS A work was
> in part considered superior precisely because most ordinary craftsmen
> simply couldn't produce similar work. It was produced by person who
> was thought to possess rare gifts. Such a person was called an artist.
> The better the artist, the more inimitable and sought after was his
> work.
I was once told that I'd just insulted most artists when I expressed
the opinion that one of the important and valuable (I no longer dare
use the word "precious" because it has been demeaned in the last decade
and gained a put-down quality) elements of art was its uniqueness, that
it was something that wasn't simply churned out on an assembly line as
a product.
Needless to say, I was bewildered at the vehemence of their response,
since I thought I was making it clear that I was stating *my opinion*,
not any sort of universal reality, and I certainly intended no harm to
anyone by saying so.
"England expects every man will do his duty." -- Admiral Lord Nelson
Leigh Kimmel -- writer, artist and historian
kim...@siu.edu http://members.tripod.com/~kimmel/lhkwebpage.html
Listowner of Virtual Selyn, the Sime~Gen mailing list,
sime...@siu.edu
Ask me how to order the new Sime~Gen novel
Jerry
Leigh
> I was once told that I'd just insulted most artists when I expressed
> the opinion that one of the important and valuable (I no longer dare
> use the word "precious" because it has been demeaned in the last decade
> and gained a put-down quality) elements of art was its uniqueness, that
> it was something that wasn't simply churned out on an assembly line as
> a product.
Why do you think most people create art? It is certainly not for the
killing they are going to make selling their works or the fact that they
can churn them out assembly line fashion.
As an art historian you know that there is much that is uniques about
art
and the time that it was produced. Most artists still produce artworks
one piece at a time. There are certainly better and faster ways of
making money than through art.
You have a right to like or dislike anything that you choose. Why would
you choose to be an art historian if you dislike art or prefer to judge
certain things art and other things non-art in such a narrow way?
Art has to do with ideas, with ways of seeing the world around us in a
unique way. Beyond that artworks are records of something more valuable
that has taken place.
I think of myself as an artist because I have spent most of my life in
some way connected to art. As an educator and a working artist.
Defining skill as the ability to render a photographic likeness is one
definition but taking it one step closer to that definition and all art
fails because it can never be what it attempts to imitate.
> Needless to say, I was bewildered at the vehemence of their response,
> since I thought I was making it clear that I was stating *my opinion*,
> not any sort of universal reality, and I certainly intended no harm to
> anyone by saying so.
Why would you be suprised at the response when you openly tell a bunch
of people that you feel they have no talent because in your "opinion"
the only thing that counts is skill in rendering a photographic
likeness.
I am personally not offended by your remark, but just wonder what is in
it for you to be involved in something that gives you limited pleasure?
The art work of the 20th century is so exciting and diversified. It is
certainly not easy to understand.
il...@hotmail.com
In article <34ade810...@news.interlog.com>,
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>
> In the past, the product of the artist was understood to possess among
> its many characteristics a very high degree of UNIQUENESS A work was
> in part considered superior precisely because most ordinary craftsmen
> simply couldn't produce similar work. It was produced by person who
> was thought to possess rare gifts. Such a person was called an artist.
> The better the artist, the more inimitable and sought after was his
> work.
But I think you miss the point. It was precisely the norms of craft
and procedures that acted to suppress uniqueness and imposed a numbing
sameness to most of what was produced. To be "gifted" is not the same
thing as to be skilled. The latter can be learned by anyone willing to
devote the effort, while truly to "possess rare gifts" has more to do
with having a vision that challenges the accepted and codified systems
of thought. It is only those who broke with tradition that we remember,
the rest are lost in a sea of mere skillfulness. We might remember
Rubens as an unique individual, but certainly none of the endless
procession of minor talents known as the "School of Rubens", nor the
undoubtedly skillful painters employed in his workshop.
> With MAA this is no longer the case. Far from being inimitable, the
> Modern Artist's paintings possess almost no rarity whatever. A work
> like "Black on Black." despite intellectualized apologetics can be
> produce by most anyone. And though it is true that most MAA requires
> much more skill to reproduce then an imitation of "Black on Black,"
> even the most complex MAA works are very far from being inimitable.
> An artist's ability to accomplish something unique in a painting lies,
> among other things, with his degree of technical skill. In the past,
> even the very poorest artist, even the lowly craftsman, produced work
> which contained, at the very least, some small degree of technical
> skill. This endowed some of the humblest work with just enough
> uniqueness to give someone an incentive to want to possess and
> preserve it. Most MAA, however, lacks even that tiny modicum of
> technical skill.
Hold on here: have you seriously ever tried to "copy" a De Kooning
or a Pollock? Both would be nearly impossible because both would
require the reproduction of a dynamic process versus dead procedures.
This is an ancient debate very much rooted in The Tradition as witnessed
by the famous cases of the Florentine versus the Venetian, Ingres versus
Delecroix. Always its the smooth versus the rough, academic procedures
versus improvisation, the authority of tradition versus the authority
of personal vision, of stale making versus new finding. Pollock and
De Kooning are in many ways the true heirs of a Venetian tradition which
values the qualities of improvisation, the artist's hand, and the
uniqueness of an individual's vision. Titian employed no underdrawing,
and his procedures are distinctly "modern" in their reliance on working
out the painting on the canvas. His reliance on improvisation made rigid
"workshop" procedures impossible, because each stage of the painting is
approached as a fluid, dynamic whole guided by personal inspiration.
> THERE CAN BE NO ART WITHOUT TECHNICAL SKILL.
Perhaps not, but there can certainly be Technical Skill without Art.
The technical skills needed by any artist are precisely those appropriate
to their vision, not those whose authority rely precisely on the
spurious notion that true value and quality are rooted in a lost past.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Jerry
Nice clear answer to the question posed. Thank you.
Reminds me of a time someone said that todays artists do not know how to
use color and cited the artists who did the stained glass windows in
Europe as the best ever in really understanding color. I later read how
each colors was dictated and had so many meanings that I wondered how
the windows were done at all with so many restrictions.
My experience is that skill is easier to acquire when you have the
vision first. Jackson Pollock developed the skill he needed to produce
the work that he did. His work is reflective of the age that he lived
in which is part of the message of his work. The medium is the
message.
Bryan Ayers
In article <884541771....@dejanews.com>, <il...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <34ade810...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> preserve it. Most MAA, however, lacks even that tiny modicum of
>> technical skill.
>
> Hold on here: have you seriously ever tried to "copy" a De Kooning
> or a Pollock? Both would be nearly impossible because both would
> require the reproduction of a dynamic process versus dead procedures.
and apply wet paint with a stick in splashes covering the canvas in
a monotonous way. His method can be copied his work can be copied
with photomechanical(projection or graph) methods. I don't mean it as
an insult to say he was drunk but it is obvious that he was drunk when
he did his work. I have done all kinds of work, and sometimes under
the influence of various substances. Artists canvasas are very trans-
parent to me, both emotionally and what kind of effort has been put
into it. Pollock was drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that
was slightly morose or violent, or so it appears.
> This is an ancient debate very much rooted in The Tradition as witnessed
> by the famous cases of the Florentine versus the Venetian, Ingres versus
> Delecroix. Always its the smooth versus the rough, academic procedures
> versus improvisation, the authority of tradition versus the authority
> of personal vision,
I hope you understand that rough painting or splashes are not
personal vision but characteristic of media.
Susan Apple
Bryan Ayers <bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<69cuv0$s...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
>Pollock makes visual noise, his process is to get drunk and apply wet
paint with a stick in splashes covering the canvas in a monotonous way. I
don't mean it as an insult to say he was drunk but it is obvious that he
was drunk when he did his work. I have done all kinds of work, and
sometimes under
the influence of various substances. Artists canvasas are very
transparent to me, both emotionally and what kind of effort has been put
into it. Pollock was drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that
was slightly morose or violent, or so it appears.<
-----
"I don't have any theories about technique", said Pollock in an unpublished
1949 interview, "Technique is the result of saying something, not vice
versa."
Pollock was always obsessed with what he considered his own inability to
draw. In his own estimation his drawing ability was flawed by a lack of
freedom, rhythm, and grace. "Dripping" was the technical innovation that
allowed him to realize his ambitions as a draughtsperson. The success he
felt he had with these paintings gave him a great confidence, it was a
positive moment in his life. The boost in his morale was sufficent to
allow him to overcome his alchoholism. Under his own initiative, he sought
the council of Dr. Edwin Heller. Pollock was dry, completely alchohol
free, from the fall of 1948 to the fall of 1950. This coincides with his
greatest period of production.
Pollock didn't make these paintings in a drunken fit. His process was
considerately slow and he worked in stages. He would tack paintings in
progress to the wall, contemplating the next stage in the image for days or
weeks before proceeding. Alchohol would have, indeed eventually did,
impede and destroy his creative process, and much else.
a.bucsay
///////
Hold on here: have you seriously ever tried to "copy" a De Kooning or a
Pollock? Both would be nearly impossible because both would require the
reproduction of a dynamic process versus dead procedures.
What? Pollock makes visual noise, his process is to get drunk and apply wet
paint with a stick in splashes covering the canvas in a monotonous way.
to say he was drunk but it is obvious that he was drunk when he did his
work. I have done all kinds of work, and sometimes under the influence of
various substances. Artists canvasas are very transparent to me, both
emotionally and what kind of effort has been put into it. Pollock was
drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that was slightly morose or
violent, or so it appears.
Larger effort does not always equal better art. Some of my best pieces
were produced in the Zen state while others were done with an almost
analytical systematic approach. What both have in common are focused
concentration. I suppose effort needs to be defined here ... are you
inferring focus or discomfort?
Pollock managed to create works that indeed communicate the message of the
day as well as the man's spirit. The work practically vibrates with life
itself. It is captivating and powerful. I love what I see.
--
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///////
Anita Bucsay
a.bu...@ix.netcom.com
1st Water Fine Art
The Original MICROGALLERY TO GO
http://www.netcom.com/~a.bucsay/1stWaterFineArt.html
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
//////
slye
Susan Apple wrote:
>> Bryan Ayers <bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<69cuv0$s...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
paint with a stick in splashes covering the canvas in a monotonous
don't mean it as an insult to say he was drunk but it is obvious that
he
was drunk when he did his work. I have done all kinds of work, and
sometimes under
the influence of various substances. Artists canvasas are very
transparent to me, both emotionally and what kind of effort has been
put
into it. Pollock was drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that
was slightly morose or violent, or so it appears.<<
The author Peter London mentioned that at times, before working, Pollack
would spend an hour or more working mathematical equations to get in the
desired frame of mind. This approach is a more likely way of achieving a
"zen-state" than getting drunk.
il...@hotmail.com
In article <69cuv0$s...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Ayers) wrote:
In response to my posting Bryan Ayers wrote:
> What? Pollock makes visual noise, his process is to get drunk
> and apply wet paint with a stick in splashes covering the canvas in
> a monotonous way. His method can be copied his work can be copied
> with photomechanical(projection or graph) methods. I don't mean it as
> an insult to say he was drunk but it is obvious that he was drunk when
> he did his work. I have done all kinds of work, and sometimes under
> the influence of various substances. Artists canvasas are very trans-
> parent to me, both emotionally and what kind of effort has been put
> into it. Pollock was drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that
> was slightly morose or violent, or so it appears.
Woooo nellie!...Pollock seems to have pricked a nerve with you! :-) I'll
not come to his defense here (others have already done so in their
replies). The point was less about Jackson in particular than the whole
issue of using the supposed difficulty of copying a work as a measure of
its value. Put it this way, could anyone seriously do a forgery of a
known Pollock any more than they could do a known Vermeer? And would the
relative difficulty of forging this or that work leave us any closer to
establishing objective criteria of inimitable talent? Pollock aside, I
hope you would grant me that there are far more worthy ways of defending
the Old Masters than to argue that somehow their work, unlike "the
moderns", stands above imitation. For certainly museums cringed when
the Rembrandt Project from Amsterdam showed that many a revered
painting, thought to be authentic, were--alas--by another's hand. In
the end, it proves nothing.
> I hope you understand that rough painting or splashes are not
> personal vision but characteristic of media.
But certainly how and why one exploits certain characteristics of a
medium is part of the whole package, no? Ingres labored his brushstokes
away as much as another might labor to keep theirs in. My point here,
of contrasting these two sides of the coin, was to show precisely that
there ARE two sides. I taught for a stint at The Graduate School of
Figurative Art of The New York Academy of Art (a mouthful, but hey, its
how they print it), a school that very much styles itself on the model
of the 19th century French Academy. The sad thing, however, was that
their view of The Tradition, which I love dearly mind you, was so
sterilized and narrow. The Tradition was always evoked as if it was a
singular and clear thing, a straight shot from New York to Naples five
hundred years away. But of course its not. Its full of competing
forces, of clashing personalities, of down and dirty politics and
rivalries, of Us's verses Them's battling it out for the heart and
soul--not to say the movie rights--of painting's future. When El Greco
said of Michelangelo, "He's a fair chap, but he can't paint", and
offered to redo the Sistine Chapel, its a cocky young upstart speaking,
out to topple the order, to ruffle some feathers, to irk some ire, and
with nary a spot of reverence for The Master. And so it goes, from
Umbria to Usenet, with hardly a glitch in the lively banter. For the New
York Academy, The Tradition skreeetched to a halt with Corot, and the
force of the brakes being applied caused quite a swerve off the road.
The whole lot was ditched back the, as far as they could see. But I
would rather think that I am very much a part of a tradition, one that
wrestles with ultimate questions while avoiding staid answers, a
tradition that seeks unexplored horizons rather than a mapped and closed
space. A very old and ancient lot, I would claim, are we all...
Bryan Ayers
In article <884747516...@dejanews.com>, <il...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In article <69cuv0$s...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>,
> bay...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan Ayers) wrote:
>
>Woooo nellie!...Pollock seems to have pricked a nerve with you! :-) I'll
>not come to his defense here (others have already done so in their
>replies). The point was less about Jackson in particular than the whole
>issue of using the supposed difficulty of copying a work as a measure of
>its value.
means. IE. graph or projection methods. Generative ability is not symmetric
througout the artistic tradition. Pollock excites very few nerves with me
and the canvasas bearing his name excite more than his work ever could.
The canvasas bearing his name are roughly equal to a random formation in
nature. If one could drop huge ammounts of vapor into a sky from above
it would naturally make cloud formations that look like clouds are today.
I in fact deny that pollocks work is his own. Splashes are
characteristic of media and so is roughness, there is no Monet in the
roughness of his canvas, there is no Motherwell or Pollock in a splash,
Bryn Ayers did not even imagine cobalt blue, we are slaves to the media
and it is not morally wrong to give credit where it is not due just
factually incorrect.
It is a statistical fact that a tablespoon of paint droped from a
measurable height on a measurable spot of canvas will fall with nearly
infinite permutations(more than googleplexes). This means that if one
dropped paint on a canvas exactly the same way for the next ten-million
-million-billion years it is extremely unlikely that any two would be
identicle in appearance. The splashes are theirfore not pollocks and are
no more intentional in appearance than an oil spot underneath a car. To
deny that the oil slick can be considered equal is to commit the fallacy
that Duchamp was poking fun at.
Restoring technique as a judgement for art only restores objectivity.
I have heard many a critic throw stones at the corpses called masters
asserting the brevity of some artist who has no objective claim, only the
subjective claim of the critic himself. According to objective standards
Picasso is far better than Pollock because if necessary Picasso could
trompe-l'oile(more or less) and Pollock according to himself couldn't even
draw, -which lead to dribbling. Picasso who dribbled first never achieved
the monotony of Pollock, so as entropic invention we might give the gold
medal to Pollock(though Picasso was more inventive).
wanax
> > into it. Pollock was drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that
> > was slightly morose or violent, or so it appears.
>
As a less famous artist who paints scapes for money and oddities for
myself, I have a serious problem with the entire thesis of this
discussion around Pollock. The issue is one of acceptance, not skill.
From a technical standpoint, skill has nothing to do with the creative
process; it is us moderns who ascribe one to the other. A very cursory
glance at the most ancient of cave drawings shows which, skill or
cretive drive? The cave artists skill was derived from his creative
instinct, not the other way around. Pollock's drive led to a set of
skills, and those resulting patterns are not easy to duplicate.
However, as one poster pointed out, duplication is not a standard by
which skill should necessarily be measured. I tend to measure artistic
skill by the process which created it. When an artist, imo, regresses
in skill development in order to consciously be "different", he is
cheapening the creative collective for noteriety. It is the use of the
developed skill that leads to truly identifyable trends in the creative
whole of our species; any regression is noted, but soon abandoned. The
result is a pigeon-wholed footnote on "style". Please remember that
styles also gave us bellbottom paints and toungerings. :^D
From a personal standpoint, my art is often applauded for the
"composition", but rarely for the skill involved. Should I be
concerned? Think about it in your own case. Which strokes your being
more?
I look at Dali. I love his work, but his skill is considered pedistrian
by many. What makes it good for me? The same that make Pollock good
for others. What am I trying to say? Who knows :^o
Wanax Andron
sorry for the length here
Jerry
If you do not like Jackson Pollock, why not just say it without geting
into a questionable analysis of how paint drips.
By the way if you ever want to check out your theory, I know from
personal experience that there are many more variables than you
suggest. The device you use to drop the paint, the paint itself, the
medium that is used in the paint, the temperature of the paint, the
temperature of the air, the nature of the the surface itself and the
speed and angle at which the paint lands on the surface.
In the process of painting itself there are also many more variables.
Why did Pollock abandon the paintbrush as a tool for applying paint?
What size surface does he work on and does that have anything to do with
the final product. At what point is a painting finished?
I do not believe that he was out to make a fool of people or that he
could not draw so he did what he did. His works were calculated studies
of the interaction of paint and canvas in the same way that most
painters works are. He was dealing with the idea that a painting is an
illusion of a three dimensional reality only he found the paint itself
more interesting than the object so that the paint became the message of
his painting.
New art has always been a reaction to what existed before. Art is never
created in a vacuum. Todays digital artists can only do what they do
because the technology exists. They push the limits and ask what if?
I think a good point could be made that artists are the driving force
behind the rise and fall of any culture.
If you look at the work of Pollock in context, his work is original.
There may have been 50 other people working the same way but his name is
the one we remember. Liking or disliking has very little to do with the
validity of a piece or artwork.
il...@hotmail.com
Bryan Ayers wrote:
> Nearly any work can be copied with about 95% accuracy via mechanical,
> means. IE. graph or projection methods.
Do you mean to suggest that, for example, a very well done photorealist
copy of a Rembrandt could be anywhere near an accurate reproduction of
it? The copying you are talking about would only be a flat approximation
of an image of a painting. A painting has a physical presence, and how
it was made is absolutely integral to its meaning and how we respond to
it. One can't reproduce Valesquez's brushwork by mechanical means, nor
De Kooning's, nor the mystery of a Vermeer. Paintings are not images,
otherwise a very good poster or digital scanning would be hypothetically
the equivalent of it.
> The canvases bearing his name are roughly equal to a random formation in
> nature. If one could drop huge ammounts of vapor into a sky from above
> it would naturally make cloud formations that look like clouds are today.
What about the fact that Chaos Theory is precisely the proof that
seemingly chaotic events and structures, like turbulence and yes, even
clouds, are actually highly ordered and complex systems? And is any
formation in Nature random? Hasn't much of the drive from the Renaissance
to today been the belief in a Nature with an underlying order, and with
fundamental laws and forces?
> I in fact deny that pollocks work is his own. Splashes are
> characteristic of media and so is roughness, there is no Monet in the
> roughness of his canvas, there is no Motherwell or Pollock in a splash,
> Bryn Ayers did not even imagine cobalt blue, we are slaves to the media
> and it is not morally wrong to give credit where it is not due just
> factually incorrect.
I really don't understand you here. Are you saying that all the
hullabaloo throughout history over this or that way of painting, of
characteristics that differentiated whole schools (like the Florentine
and the Venetian--which interestingly can be partly understood by the
difference of how one paints on panels(inland Florence) versus canvas
(maritime Venice)), that all that was over nothing? That Rembrandt's
impasto or Vermeer's smoothness are meaningless additions? One could also
easily argue that the Impressionist revolution had far less to do with
color than with challenging recieved notions of "finish"?
> Restoring technique as a judgement for art only restores objectivity.
> I have heard many a critic throw stones at the corpses called masters
> asserting the brevity of some artist who has no objective claim, only the
> subjective claim of the critic himself. According to objective standards
> Picasso is far better than Pollock because if necessary Picasso could
> trompe-l'oile(more or less) and Pollock according to himself couldn't even
> draw, -which lead to dribbling. Picasso who dribbled first never achieved
> the monotony of Pollock, so as entropic invention we might give the gold
> medal to Pollock(though Picasso was more inventive).
By whom, and under what authority, are these "objective" standards to be
set? Which of the myriad schools of techniques will be the final
arbitrater? Durer, Raphael, Titian, Courbet, Giotto? If one wants to
return to a past of established standards, what period of history or
region does one return to?
NSWEISS
Bryan Ayers wrote:
> The canvases bearing his name are roughly equal to a random formation in
> nature. If one could drop huge ammounts of vapor into a sky from above
> it would naturally make cloud formations that look like clouds are today.
I have never seen a Jackson Pollock painting in nature, and I have covered a
fair quantity and variety of terrain. Where did you/do you propose to find such
a painting? Next, Pollock was a prolific artist, with a broad range of
stylistic and pictorial development, which particular painting have you found?
Well if you cannot identify it, I would suggest you have just found some drips,
not a Pollock. His drip paintings, for example, often used his entire body
dancing across the painting, done by a man, with implements, deeply engaged in
a history and discourse: where does nature do that? Pollock also was not only
interested in technique, that is one single element of many his art involves
(and the reason why not all drips are the same drips). He was creating space
and developing pictorial effects...the canvas has edges, responds to those
edges, and to the entire tradition of Western pictorialism (and a bit of Native
American to boot)...where does nature make artifacts that take part in a
pictorial language, developing and unfolding century after century? If all you
can see are drips, you need to re-educate yourself in how to look at painting.
Pollock will not only enhance your understanding of post WWII art, he will
better your analysis and understnding of the best of Western art that lead up
to him through the centuries...in this sense his pictorial developments are
recursive as well...they span past and future. Nachtraglich (sic).
Plus, you gotta dig the macho strutting....where else before him in art's
history has shear exhuberence been UNLEASHED (like it always secretly desired!)
with such rough-shit house velocity and verve, mated with a lyrical elegance?
the best efforts of the past in this area seem like excuses and prevarication,
a prelude....
-N
Bryan Ayers
In article <884925578....@dejanews.com>, <il...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Bryn Ayers wrote:
>Do you mean to suggest that, for example, a very well done photorealist
>copy of a Rembrandt could be anywhere near an accurate reproduction of
>it?
generate the work or come up with the Idea. This is the point behind
awarding innovation or avant-gard in art.
-snip-
>> I in fact deny that pollocks work is his own. Splashes are
>> characteristic of media and so is roughness, there is no Monet in the
>> roughness of his canvas, there is no Motherwell or Pollock in a splash,
>> Bryn Ayers did not even imagine cobalt blue, we are slaves to the media
>> and it is not morally wrong to give credit where it is not due just
>> factually incorrect.
>
>hullabaloo throughout history over this or that way of painting, of
>characteristics that differentiated whole schools (like the Florentine
>and the Venetian--which interestingly can be partly understood by the
>difference of how one paints on panels(inland Florence) versus canvas
>(maritime Venice)), that all that was over nothing?
not uncommon for humans to debate nothingness or argue between to fallacious
positions.
>That Rembrandt's
>impasto or Vermeer's smoothness are meaningless additions?
I won't say meaningless but Impasto is either decorative texture or
a representation of or copy of texture represented.
-snip-
>
>> Restoring technique as a judgement for art only restores objectivity.
Exactly!
>> medal to Pollock(though Picasso was more inventive).
>
>By whom, and under what authority, are these "objective" standards to be
>set? Which of the myriad schools of techniques will be the final
>arbitrater? Durer, Raphael, Titian, Courbet, Giotto? If one wants to
>return to a past of established standards, what period of history or
>region does one return to?
I would gamble that picasso would win in nearly all of these
schools. According to Pollock, Pollock couldn't draw, Picasso wins
out in all of these schools -since drawing was essential to their art.
Picasso wins in acedemic skill, Picasso was more capable of copying
master work or making work that was realistic representations of objects.
Keb Bakan
NSWEISS <nsw...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980116105...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
> I have never seen a Jackson Pollock painting in nature, and I have
covered a
> fair quantity and variety of terrain.
When Hans Hoffman suggested to Jackson Pollock that he should study nature,
Pollock retorted, "I am Nature."
It's a grandiose sounding statement in some respects, but perhaps it
demonstrates that he learned more from Navajo culture than just a technique
(sand paintings made on the ground, the sand dropped from above by the
hand.)
When is any human activity outside nature? When is nature not a cultural
construct?
Bryan Ayers
In article <34BE21...@perry.gulfnet.com>,
wanax <wa...@perry.gulfnet.com> wrote:
>> > into it. Pollock was drunk, worked in a monotonous zen-state, that
>> > was slightly morose or violent, or so it appears.
>discussion around Pollock. The issue is one of acceptance, not skill.
when paint flies it is liberated from the conscience constrants of its
thrower.
All painting loses control by the artist, one can not perfectly
predict or mix color, the brushing adds randomness, abstract expressionists
had even less control than Leonardo Da Vinci who was throwing dice on
canvas.
As Da Vinci proved the painter who copies nature is a mirror. The
true test of a realist is what he can generate by imagination alone and if
he can paint more realistically than photorealism by imagination alone we
I might admit that this has approached perfect perception and control of
his media.
Modernism is rebelling against something that has failed to exist.
No perfectly real art has ever existed. To me realism is the proof of
perception and control of media. Neither has ever fully come into being
though each has been approached.
I deny that I or Vermeer or Dali or Francesco Bueneri is innocent
of the crime I have accused Abstract expressionism of commiting. And that
is an unconscience art where the creater has nearly ceased to exist. This
is however interesting to look at since the viewer and creater can percieve
it at any level of awareness they are capable of.
Motherwell, Willem de Kooning, and Audry Flacks work can all be
looked at with a high degree of intensity. However it is hard for me to
believe that there is equal intent and conscienceness behind the work.
Motherwell did not intend for his splashes to turn out the way they did.
Flack who's work is photorealistic is approaching conscience application
of media, however she is still limited by her need for props. and can not
control the light beyond degrees of chaotic measures in the study photos.
I am behind Flack, and ahead of Pollock- but this not everything.
WE are slaves to our own Nature, cultural and innate sense of taste,
Postmodernism has allowed our intelligence to recognize the
errors of the old Masters, but has failed by assuming art that is even
more flawed, more horrible and hideous than Raphaels is its equal.
All art is not equal and by treading foward by creating mud we only assert
that they were more right than we are.
A photorealist can copy her still-lifes and even make them up in
her head. It doesn't mean that he can place light and reveal what lead
man to invent god as well as Bueneri.
Everything is Natural, absolutely everything. All art is a
reflection of Human Nature and that is to intelligently interact with
Nature theirby becoming more aware of it and aware of ones own connection
to it.
-snip-
>Wanax Andron
>sorry for the length here
ditto
spino...@msn.com
>Subject: Re: Skill
>From: nsw...@aol.com (NSWEISS)
>I have never seen a Jackson Pollock painting in nature, and I have covered a
>fair quantity and variety of terrain. Where did you/do you propose to find such...
This magnificent *tour de force* is profoundly at odd with NSWeiss' views
as regardng the necessity to be an editor, to cut to the chase, and to
eliminate much, views expressed in our recent dialog. I congratulate
NSWeiss on this post, for it genuinely exhibits taste, learning and love
of the language. -