Self Expression: Strive to Paint Genuine Artificial Limbs
Mike Stengl
So many things to paint, so much bad luck trying to paint them.
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>That could be a project. Still life with legs...
>So many things to paint, so much bad luck trying to paint them.
You should use Bob Ross' method, this way there are only "happy
accidents" (and "happy trees" ofcourse ;-)
Mike Stengl
The dude with the hair thing going on, right? I was amazed watching
this guy paint seemingly effortlessly while simultaniously disgusted
by the absolute void of any sense of purpose (no that was obvious),
creative vision? integrity? meaning! I mean, another Kinkaid... These
guys have skill ( Mani )but they seem to have no passion. Maybe this
is some sort of example of what does art MEAN to someone, rather than
what is or isn't art. To these guys it's some sorta clock in clock out
cash the check thing. Where as in a couple of different postings there
is both the talk of illustration as career and prostitution; I never
felt so prostituted as when I attempted to use my drawing skills to
create some image or logo that I had NO INTEREST in. Now I know people
that are good at this and they must find some joy or creative
amphetemine in doing such but for ME it was hell.
But hey! I signed a painting yesterday. First real exciting easel work
I've done in many months. Sort of Vargas girl meets Peter Max. Trying
to thrust that success on to a new and larger canvas. Larger, always
larger, right? Untill failure humbles us and we decrease and gather
our wits and try again (we = me). Server seems slow to post new
messages today, anyone ever notice that? Like the powers that be are
hard at work filtering all our words for signs unpatriotic thought
paterns...
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>The dude with the hair thing going on, right? I was amazed watching
>this guy paint seemingly effortlessly while simultaniously disgusted
>by the absolute void of any sense of purpose (no that was obvious),
>creative vision? integrity? meaning! I mean, another Kinkaid... These
>guys have skill ( Mani )but they seem to have no passion.
Bob Ross? No passion?!? You sure it's the same guy?
I don't care much for his work, but I'm fascinated watching him work.
He obviously cares very deeply about what he's doing. He doesn't seem
like the type to say "I'll just perfect this technique so I can get a
TV show and pull down some tall dollars, since the landscapes aren't
selling so hot." His marketeering seemed much more about creating
art, as opposed to Kincaid, who is selling decorations. His
repertoire may be a bit limited, but you could say the same thing
about Jim Dine...
>Maybe this
>is some sort of example of what does art MEAN to someone, rather than
>what is or isn't art. To these guys it's some sorta clock in clock out
>cash the check thing.
Don't know about Kincaid, since I've never seen him work, but he does
the factory thing, which I don't care much for. Is he any different
from Warhol that way?
>Where as in a couple of different postings there
>is both the talk of illustration as career and prostitution; I never
>felt so prostituted as when I attempted to use my drawing skills to
>create some image or logo that I had NO INTEREST in.
This is the gist of it for me. Do you care about your work? Is the
creation more important to you than the consummation? If so, does it
matter what it looks like in the end?
Neil Maxwell - I don't speak for my employer
Hadley
skilled souless sunday painter you watch after having a hangover and
flip on the idiot tube to be completely desensitised to feeling.
however, he's nowhere as pathetic as mani deli, and her clones,
eliska, et al:
"Never had the feeling that I must paint. I judge artwork by what's on
the wall. I don't give a shit whether the guy who did it felt any
particular compulsions.
...no skill no art!" ----
heh. you said it.
eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.03052...@posting.google.com>...
Mike Stengl
> On 28 May 2003 13:16:24 -0700, eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl)
> wrote:
> >The dude with the hair thing going on, right?
>
Yep. That's him. Did a search just to be sure.
>
> I don't care much for his work, but I'm fascinated watching him work.
> He obviously cares very deeply about what he's doing. He doesn't seem
> like the type to say "I'll just perfect this technique so I can get a
> TV show and pull down some tall dollars, since the landscapes aren't
> selling so hot." His marketeering seemed much more about creating
> art, as opposed to Kincaid, who is selling decorations. His
> repertoire may be a bit limited, but you could say the same thing
Yeah, I said his abilities were worthy as for his work, we seem to be
in agreement, as for the type of guy he is, maybe you know him better.
I don't know what he's about except TV and wall paper art.
> about Jim Dine...
>
Don't know him, I'll take a look though. I really only know painters
I've happened to find along my way...
> >Maybe this
> >is some sort of example of what does art MEAN to someone, rather than
> >what is or isn't art. To these guys it's some sorta clock in clock out
> >cash the check thing.
>
> Don't know about Kincaid, since I've never seen him work, but he does
> the factory thing, which I don't care much for. Is he any different
> from Warhol that way?
I much prefer Warhol's stuff. At least it's sexy.
>
> >Where as in a couple of different postings there
> >is both the talk of illustration as career and prostitution; I never
> >felt so prostituted as when I attempted to use my drawing skills to
> >create some image or logo that I had NO INTEREST in.
>
> This is the gist of it for me. Do you care about your work? Is the
> creation more important to you than the consummation? If so, does it
> matter what it looks like in the end?
I enjoy painting. I enjoy painting for hours, for days. I get a little
up tight when after all this time I put my foot through the canvas and
throw it away, so yes, to me it matters.
>
>
>
M. I've got some words for your employer, "Hey! What does this guy
do?"
Christian Tangoe
>
> Yep. That's him. Did a search just to be sure.
As seen on www.bobross.com
At www.bobross.de (germany) there is a shop selling all kinds of
artmaterials in the name of bobross. Smart marketing, mr. Ross....
> > I don't care much for his work, but I'm fascinated watching him work.
> > He obviously cares very deeply about what he's doing. He doesn't seem
> > like the type to say "I'll just perfect this technique so I can get a
> > TV show and pull down some tall dollars, since the landscapes aren't
> > selling so hot." His marketeering seemed much more about creating
> > art, as opposed to Kincaid, who is selling decorations. His
> > repertoire may be a bit limited, but you could say the same thing
Yes, I too get fascinated with people who has great skills and really
pulls it off in front of many people...
Now, my personal oppinion about mr. ross is: fake-art, defining
fake-art as art, only produced with sole purpose of making money.
It is - reflecting some of our discussions here at RAF - wise to say,
that if you limit definition on art to single matter - such as: "Art
is the ability to make money" - you are bound go get an artist with a
narrow mind.
There can be many definitions to art, and we have to respect every
one...Now that IS NOT to say we have to AGREE...
> > about Jim Dine...
> >
>
> Don't know him, I'll take a look though. I really only know painters
> I've happened to find along my way...
Jim Dine is concidered one of pop-arts icons. Wether he is as genuine
as Warhol or Rauschenberg...
> > >Maybe this
> > >is some sort of example of what does art MEAN to someone, rather than
> > >what is or isn't art.
This is essential. Absolutely crucial to the discussion fo art.
To start defining Art by saying, that "Art IS..." gives hardly any
meaning.
Art is a three-letter word that basicalley expresses a relation or
phenomena...i.o.w. what
<<<>>>art MEAN to someone, rather than
> > >what is or isn't art.
If we don´t take this kind of attitude in discussing art here in RAF
ore elsewhere it´s bound to get rather...muddý...
To these guys it's some sorta clock in clock out
> > >cash the check thing.
> >
> > Don't know about Kincaid, since I've never seen him work, but he does
> > the factory thing, which I don't care much for. Is he any different
> > from Warhol that way?
>
You guys, please be precise...there are like a zillion kincaid´s out
there...are we talking about Ted cincaid as seen on www.tedKincaid.com
???
Now, I´ve seen a describtion of Ted´s word somewhere that could link
him with warhol (search on google kincaid, art, warhol...) but to say
he does the factory thing...maybe I just haven´t seen enough...
Now, by the way, what exactly do you mean by
but he does
> > the factory thing, which I don't care much for.
???
Now, if "the factory thing" to you means techs like photomechanical
transfer of some kind to canvas, I´ll quit this group... I mean. come
on, you won´t recognice film as art, photography as art and so on ?
> I much prefer Warhol's stuff. At least it's sexy.
I don´t see Warhol as sexy ( I mean...well,...there could be sex in
everyting...). I see him as a critic of his own time
> >
> > >Where as in a couple of different postings there
> > >is both the talk of illustration as career and prostitution; I never
> > >felt so prostituted as when I attempted to use my drawing skills to
> > >create some image or logo that I had NO INTEREST in.
As in all other professions, you have moral and ethical oblighations
as a painter. You might accept a commision, if your morals are
respected.
> >
> > This is the gist of it for me. Do you care about your work? Is the
> > creation more important to you than the consummation? If so, does it
> > matter what it looks like in the end?
personal motivation - creation - consumation - final result
what is missing here...????
of course "intended effect"
will - skill - need...
>
>
> I enjoy painting. I enjoy painting for hours, for days. I get a little
> up tight when after all this time I put my foot through the canvas and
> throw it away, so yes, to me it matters.
This is quite interesting...
Are we in to the Vanitas-thing here ? That TRUE art can only be true,
i you put a >>>>><<<<foot through the canvas and
> throw it away<<<<<
???
Because, I actually - on a pure theoretical plane - agreee..... Art is
(sorry folks, art IS...bad argueing) Art is like zen- you have to
give up the idea of creating something great, before you actually can
do it...(but of course, if you never set out to do someting
great....well....do I have to explain....?)
In this sense, and I think I´m finally getting back to the point of
the headline SELF EXPRESSION in art...
In this sense, self-expression is a double edged sword...
In the sense that Self-expression means the "will" or "drive" to
create art at all, despite all the obstacles, yessssssssssssss, its on
of three crucial needs.
BUT, if Self-expression means, that you are merely narcissistic...
Vain, is the word, Vanity...
I can´t come across any other reason that you try as an artist to
immortalize yourself. But again: This doesn´t mean, that you can´t be
a politiacl artist. i`m just talking about a deep psychological reason
for creating art, as your therapist would phrase it...
Now, I don´t put a foot trough all my canvasses. just the real bad
ones. Mostly I sell the shit...
Christian Tangoe
Hans Klapeen
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>This is the gist of it for me. Do you care about your work? Is the
>creation more important to you than the consummation? If so, does it
>matter what it looks like in the end?
Depends on whether you're an easel artist or
a commercial one! I know commercial artists
(designers) who are as passionate about their
work as any easel artist, and probably get
paid a lot better for what they do!
Hans Klapeen
eatn...@humboldt1.com says...
>> about Jim Dine...
>>
>
>Don't know him, I'll take a look though. I really only know painters
>I've happened to find along my way...
I have no idea how one's mind works who would
compare the works of Jim Dine to that of Bob Ross.
A really 'off the wall' comparison, if you ask me.
I have been a great fan of Jim Dine ever since
he first broke onto the art scene back in the
days when 'Pop Art' was in vogue, but I've never
agreed with the Pop Art label for Dine. His
works, whatever medium he works in, and he has
worked in different ones, is much too visceral
to be quantified so simply.
Ynahteb
yeah, really! Bob Ross (GRHS :o) was all about painting and less about the
"finished product", imho... I've never seen an artist with fewer
pretentions... the reason he's fun to watch is because of his passion.
and he seems high. and he has (had?) a wacky 'fro and talks about his pet
squirrels. you see what I mean. :o)
I keep getting my tenses mixed up because the guy is dead but still on TV-
hmmm what to do.
anyway, I've never cared for his work, but I enjoy watching him.
Bethany
> I don't care much for his work, but I'm fascinated watching him work.
> He obviously cares very deeply about what he's doing. He doesn't seem
> like the type to say "I'll just perfect this technique so I can get a
> TV show and pull down some tall dollars, since the landscapes aren't
> selling so hot." His marketeering seemed much more about creating
> art, as opposed to Kincaid, who is selling decorations. His
> repertoire may be a bit limited, but you could say the same thing
> about Jim Dine...
<snipped>
Mike Stengl
> > >
> > > Don't know about Kincaid, since I've never seen him work, but he does
> > > the factory thing, which I don't care much for. Is he any different
> > > from Warhol that way?
> >
>
all aglow...eeeyuck.
>
> > > >Where as in a couple of different postings there
> > > >is both the talk of illustration as career and prostitution; I never
> > > >felt so prostituted as when I attempted to use my drawing skills to
> > > >create some image or logo that I had NO INTEREST in.
>
> As in all other professions, you have moral and ethical oblighations
> as a painter. You might accept a commision, if your morals are
> respected.
I have no problem taking money for what I do, I'm talking about using
whatever artistic skills I might pocess (some days this would be a
mute point) to create something completely distatefull to me (i.e. an
illustration for an advertisement, business logo, Kinkaid style cozy
hut, etc.) strictly for the money. Beyond dislike, I simply refuse to
do this type of work any more (not to mention the fact that I was
never any good at it to begin with)
>
>
>
> > >
> > > This is the gist of it for me. Do you care about your work? Is the
> > > creation more important to you than the consummation? If so, does it
> > > matter what it looks like in the end?
>
> personal motivation - creation - consumation - final result
>
> what is missing here...????
>
> of course "intended effect"
>
> will - skill - need...
I don't understand, you lost me.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I enjoy painting. I enjoy painting for hours, for days. I get a little
> > up tight when after all this time I put my foot through the canvas and
> > throw it away, so yes, to me it matters.
>
>
> This is quite interesting...
>
> Are we in to the Vanitas-thing here ? That TRUE art can only be true,
> i you put a >>>>><<<<foot through the canvas and
> > throw it away<<<<<
> ???
>
> Because, I actually - on a pure theoretical plane - agreee..... Art is
> (sorry folks, art IS...bad argueing) Art is like zen- you have to
> give up the idea of creating something great, before you actually can
> do it...(but of course, if you never set out to do someting
> great....well....do I have to explain....?)
>
> In this sense, and I think I惴 finally getting back to the point of
> the headline SELF EXPRESSION in art...
> In this sense, self-expression is a double edged sword...
>
> In the sense that Self-expression means the "will" or "drive" to
> create art at all, despite all the obstacles, yessssssssssssss, its on
> of three crucial needs.
> BUT, if Self-expression means, that you are merely narcissistic...
> Vain, is the word, Vanity...
>
> I can愒 come across any other reason that you try as an artist to
> immortalize yourself. But again: This doesn愒 mean, that you can愒 be
> a politiacl artist. i`m just talking about a deep psychological reason
> for creating art, as your therapist would phrase it...
>
> Now, I don愒 put a foot trough all my canvasses. just the real bad
> ones. Mostly I sell the shit...
>
> Christian Tangoe
Um, I don't put my foot, my fist or the hard pointy end of brushes
through canvases for fun or because I'm some kind of aesthete, I do so
only when failure and frustration have reached a critical point. As
for vanity and such, I would say a certain amount of ego is certainly
involved in my work, and I'm OK with that...
It's a gray morning hear in Northern California, I'm watering my
strawberries and now I have another troublesome canvas which must be
saved from the 'foot'.
Mike Stengl
Agreed.
Christian Tangoe
> I have no idea how one's mind works who would
> compare the works of Jim Dine to that of Bob Ross.
> A really 'off the wall' comparison, if you ask me.
well, I didn´t start this comparison...
> I have been a great fan of Jim Dine ever since
> he first broke onto the art scene back in the
> days when 'Pop Art' was in vogue, but I've never
> agreed with the Pop Art label for Dine. His
> works, whatever medium he works in, and he has
> worked in different ones, is much too visceral
> to be quantified so simply.
I did not Pop Art LABEL mr. Dine, I just stated, that he by some is
regarded
one the pioneers of Pop-Art.
I surely believe he could be much more or much less than that.
I simply made the stupid fault to comment on all the crap in the
message that I quoted from.
I ´m still stupid, but somewhat more clever now....
christian tangoe
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>I have no idea how one's mind works who would
>compare the works of Jim Dine to that of Bob Ross.
>A really 'off the wall' comparison, if you ask me.
I'm also a fan of his work; my point was that he tends to paint the
same thing over and over - hearts, bathrobes, and, yes, hearts
combined with bathrobes. He does other work as well, including some
gorgeous sculpture that he's not well known for, but it would be easy
to percieve that he's a two-trick pony.
While his interpretations may be different for different pieces,
someone who doesn't care for his style could easily think "Oh,
criminy, not another friggin' heart/bathrobe! Doesn't this guy ever
have any new ideas?".
I'd rather have a Dine heart than a Ross landscape on my wall, but I
know people who would prefer it the other way around. It doesn't mean
one is better than the other, just that we have different tastes.
Neil Maxwell
>bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute.
Could I propose that Warhol was the same? Is there any difference,
except that Ross did his own work and Warhol had assistants do much of
it? Isn't any artist that makes art for the purpose of making money a
prostitute?
You may like the final result from one over another, but that gets us
back into Boug vs. Picasso battleground.
Hadley
There's nothing wrong with utilising assistants and people of
differing skills to do a section or another of a work. It's called
*directing* akin to the role of the conductor of a symphony or the
mastermind or *brain* of a project shall we say.
I think Neil that although you might be highly skilled in whatever
visual medium you work with, that perhaps skill might not be enough to
create art.
As for Bob Ross, I'm sure I was being a bit harsh. There must be
something good to say about him. I hate speaking ill of the dead, it's
bad karma. I suppose in all sense that what he did was bring the
technique of pastoral painting to the mass public. Pehaps that was
what he aimed to do, then if that was it, then he was indeed
successful.
Hadley
Mike Stengl
>
> >bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute.
>
> Could I propose that Warhol was the same? Is there any difference,
> except that Ross did his own work and Warhol had assistants do much of
> it? Isn't any artist that makes art for the purpose of making money a
> prostitute?
No no no. Prostituting oneself is taking money for something you wish
you didn't have to do. I'm not Websters here or anything but I know
what I feel. Working my day (actually night) job, is prostituting
myself to the extent that I really don't care to be doing what I'm
doing there (however, it finances my obsession so I do tricks), but it
feels much better (believe it or not) than taking something I love
(creating art) and bastardizing it for money. The entire process of
THAT is distasteful to me. I paint because it is really what I have
always done, and always wanted to do; from a five year old scribbling
with crayon right on through. Having found the fine arts ( they were
lost for a bit ) I am thrilled to spend my time whenever possible
painting whatever I like, however I feel like. This feeling could
easily be destroyed if I suddenly were forced to paint something very
dull in a very dull way.
As for Warhol one would have to ask him or form your own opinion, but
I think not. Having someone assist you in a project you have conceived
and would like to see realized is not a sin in my book.
And no, I don't mind selling my paintings. Every once in a while I
decide to stop exhibiting a certain piece because I like it, but my
house is overflowing with my stuff and more is being constantly
(attempted) produced, so, call me a whore...
Christian Tangoe
> On 28 May 2003 20:38:16 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>
> >bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute.
>
> Could I propose that Warhol was the same? Is there any difference,
> except that Ross did his own work and Warhol had assistants do much of
> it? Isn't any artist that makes art for the purpose of making money a
> prostitute?
Come on. Yes, "any artist that makes art for" THE SOLE "purpose of
making money " IS "a prostitute"
On some extreme theoretical plane you could be right in the comparison
between warhol and ross...pragmatically speaking though, you are way
out of line...ross could not by any standards be seen as a contributor
to art-history....
And even by pure econmic standards, ross is still a fake-artist
compared to warhol, who rank number 3 this year as best selling artist
ww.
That an artist does sell his work or even is a success in terms of
money doesn´t disqualify. It is when money gets the only target and
there is no other qualities to be seen in the work or the intentions
that true fakeart is showing its ugly head...
Now saying all this, I have to take in account that my knowledge of
mr. ross is limited. So - as allways - I could be wrong. If this is
the case I appologize to ross-fans around the world...
Christian Tangoe
Nikolaus Maack
> On 28 May 2003 20:38:16 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>
>
>>bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute.
>
>
> Could I propose that Warhol was the same? Is there any difference,
> except that Ross did his own work and Warhol had assistants do much of
> it? Isn't any artist that makes art for the purpose of making money a
> prostitute?
How do we know Bob Ross did what he did strictly to make money? He
seemed to be a genuine, enthusiastic guy, eager to teach other people
how to paint. I always got the impression he was passionate, playful,
fun, and had a sense of humour.
I think our standards, when it comes to artists, can be a little hasty.
Bob, just like all of us who are not independently wealthy, has to
earn a living in order to pay the rent. If we're going to pick on Bob
for putting his name to brands of paint, surely we should also crucify
Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, for so eagerly doing product endorcements.
Alternatively, we could say that Bob is hilarious, possibly insanely so,
and deserves all the money he can get. Where did I leave my wallet?
I'm going to send him fifty bucks right now for no reason at all.
Hand Klapeen
says...
(snipped)
>I ´m still stupid, but somewhat more clever now....
>
>christian tangoe
Actually, I had not even read your lengthy
post when I wrote what you're responding
to, so you mustn't take things so personally.
I wasn't responding to you.
I wasn't disagreeing with the fact that
Jim Dine was once categorized as a 'Pop artist'
but rather made a personal observation about
why I think he's hard to categorize.
Wayne Thiebaud is another artist who
was originally labeled 'Pop' who you would
never refer to now as 'Pop' if you're
familiar with his latter-day works.
Hans Klapeen
neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>I'm also a fan of his work; my point was that he tends to paint the
>same thing over and over - hearts, bathrobes, and, yes, hearts
>combined with bathrobes. He does other work as well, including some
>gorgeous sculpture that he's not well known for, but it would be easy
>to percieve that he's a two-trick pony.
Well, contrary to what you just wrote, I've
never seen Bob Ross do the same scene twice.
So I still find it a strange comparison. But
I see your point and thank you for clarifying
for me. It's just that Bob Ross, to me, is
all about 'schlock art' and Jim Dine is all
about 'Process.' And you must study Dine's
biography to understand fully where he is
coming from when he keeps repeating himself
thematically. His work is very personal and
self-referential.
Linda Hand
>I'm going to send him fifty bucks right now for no reason at all.
>
> Nik
>http://www.nikart.ca
>
Are you planning to employ one of Nerd Gurls angels
to deliver the money? Not sure Ross needs anything
where he's at now, much less money to buy it with.
As for his motives in painting on TV, he inherited
but never credited the first 'happy cloud' painter,
Bill Alexander. I don't know why Ross couldn't own
up to the fact that Alexander 'invented' the
wet-into-wet process they both used to demo with.
But if this is prostitution, then every artist who
ever gave a live painting demo, taught a workshop
or became an art professor would be one.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>In article <47ucdvsk0p56akvv1...@4ax.com>,
>neil.m...@nospam.intel.com says...
>
>>I'm also a fan of his work; my point was that he tends to paint the
>>same thing over and over - hearts, bathrobes, and, yes, hearts
>>combined with bathrobes. He does other work as well, including some
>>gorgeous sculpture that he's not well known for, but it would be easy
>>to percieve that he's a two-trick pony.
>
>Well, contrary to what you just wrote, I've
>never seen Bob Ross do the same scene twice.
>So I still find it a strange comparison.
And Jim Dine also never does the same interpretation twice (that I'm
aware of, at least). It could look that way to someone who is not
into their styles. Another bathrobe? Another landscape? How boring.
It's all perception and taste.
>But
>I see your point and thank you for clarifying
>for me. It's just that Bob Ross, to me, is
>all about 'schlock art' and Jim Dine is all
>about 'Process.' And you must study Dine's
>biography to understand fully where he is
>coming from when he keeps repeating himself
>thematically. His work is very personal and
>self-referential.
Could be. I'm suspicious of art where you need to study the theory to
appreciate it. Regardless, Dine's work is much more moving for me,
while landscapes in general leave me cold (and that includes
haystacks). I'm not trying to say that Ross is an equivalent artist
to Dine, just that it's another definition-of-art issue. Trying to
say why one is an Artist and the other is a hack is pretty difficult,
and ultimately boils down to perception and taste.
Neil Maxwell
>There's nothing wrong with utilising assistants and people of
>differing skills to do a section or another of a work. It's called
>*directing* akin to the role of the conductor of a symphony or the
>mastermind or *brain* of a project shall we say.
>
>I think Neil that although you might be highly skilled in whatever
>visual medium you work with, that perhaps skill might not be enough to
>create art.
I agree with this; I was making a point about the difficulty of
pigeonholing artists. I'm quite fond of Jeff Koons' works, though he
is mostly a conceptualist who hires others to actually create the
works. Same with Christo/JC.
>As for Bob Ross, I'm sure I was being a bit harsh. There must be
>something good to say about him. I hate speaking ill of the dead, it's
>bad karma. I suppose in all sense that what he did was bring the
>technique of pastoral painting to the mass public. Pehaps that was
>what he aimed to do, then if that was it, then he was indeed
>successful.
Well, let's see: He did something he appeared to truly enjoy, made
good money at it, inspired many folks to attempt things they thought
beyond their abilities, and (arguably) created art in the process,
while avoiding arrogance and conceit. Many artists could do worse
with their lives. No bitter artist there, but maybe his art would
have been more inspired had he been bitter and angry and poor and
hungry.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<giucdv81jref95ks2...@4ax.com>...
>> On 28 May 2003 20:38:16 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>>
>> >bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute.
>>
>> Could I propose that Warhol was the same? Is there any difference,
>> except that Ross did his own work and Warhol had assistants do much of
>> it? Isn't any artist that makes art for the purpose of making money a
>> prostitute?
>
>No no no. Prostituting oneself is taking money for something you wish
>you didn't have to do.
So a prostitute who enjoys sex or the interaction with customers is
not a prostitute? This would certainly exclude Ross, as he genuinely
seemed to enjoy his work.
>I'm not Websters here or anything but I know
>what I feel. Working my day (actually night) job, is prostituting
>myself to the extent that I really don't care to be doing what I'm
>doing there (however, it finances my obsession so I do tricks), but it
>feels much better (believe it or not) than taking something I love
>(creating art) and bastardizing it for money. The entire process of
>THAT is distasteful to me. I paint because it is really what I have
>always done, and always wanted to do; from a five year old scribbling
>with crayon right on through. Having found the fine arts ( they were
>lost for a bit ) I am thrilled to spend my time whenever possible
>painting whatever I like, however I feel like. This feeling could
>easily be destroyed if I suddenly were forced to paint something very
>dull in a very dull way.
IMO, the essence of art is creating something meaningful to you. If
it's not inspiring or fun, you might as well not bother.
>As for Warhol one would have to ask him or form your own opinion, but
>I think not. Having someone assist you in a project you have conceived
>and would like to see realized is not a sin in my book.
As hard as asking Ross his opinion, at this point. I agree with you
here. A better comparison might be Warhol and Kincaid.
>And no, I don't mind selling my paintings. Every once in a while I
>decide to stop exhibiting a certain piece because I like it, but my
>house is overflowing with my stuff and more is being constantly
>(attempted) produced, so, call me a whore...
Money is good. Letting go of things you love is good, particularly
when you can replace them with something different that you also love.
We'd get stale otherwise.
Neil Maxwell
wrote:
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<giucdv81jref95ks2...@4ax.com>...
>
>
>> On 28 May 2003 20:38:16 -0700, hadle...@hotmail.com (Hadley) wrote:
>>
>> >bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute.
>>
>> Could I propose that Warhol was the same? Is there any difference,
>> except that Ross did his own work and Warhol had assistants do much of
>> it? Isn't any artist that makes art for the purpose of making money a
>> prostitute?
>
>Come on. Yes, "any artist that makes art for" THE SOLE "purpose of
>making money " IS "a prostitute"
Again, I believe that Ross genuinely enjoyed what he did, was very
good at it, and managed to make money in the process. Once you define
"prostitute", you can easily see whether the label applies to any
artist (or other individual) you choose.
>On some extreme theoretical plane you could be right in the comparison
>between warhol and ross...pragmatically speaking though, you are way
>out of line...ross could not by any standards be seen as a contributor
>to art-history....
So, contribution to art history is what defines Art?
>And even by pure econmic standards, ross is still a fake-artist
>compared to warhol, who rank number 3 this year as best selling artist
>ww.
So, how well you sell is what defines Art? Walt Disney must have been
the best there ever was.
>That an artist does sell his work or even is a success in terms of
>money doesn´t disqualify. It is when money gets the only target and
>there is no other qualities to be seen in the work or the intentions
>that true fakeart is showing its ugly head...
So, art for money's sake can't be art?
>Now saying all this, I have to take in account that my knowledge of
>mr. ross is limited. So - as allways - I could be wrong. If this is
>the case I appologize to ross-fans around the world...
Ross is simply a good example; I don't care for his work. But tell me
how he is different from Warhol or any other artist you choose.
Hadley
>
> Come on. Yes, "any artist that makes art for" THE SOLE "purpose of
> making money " IS "a prostitute"
Nope. *Prostitution* is selling or degrading yourself by doing
something that makes you morally reprehensible.
If I buy a gorgeous sweater that my fashion designer friend had
designed, then that DOES NOT MAKE HER A PROSTITUTE.
Hope this clarifies the obvious difference.
Regards,
Hadley
Neil Maxwell
>ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote in message news:<92189330.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>> Come on. Yes, "any artist that makes art for" THE SOLE "purpose of
>> making money " IS "a prostitute"
>
>Nope. *Prostitution* is selling or degrading yourself by doing
>something that makes you morally reprehensible.
This seems to contradict your previous statement about Bob Ross pretty
directly: "bob ross would be the prime example of a prostitute." Of
course, I've known people who thought all artists were morally
reprehensible, so maybe it doesn't.
I don't see that (or any other definition that's been supplied) as
applicable to him. I believe this is an art snob reaction.
>If I buy a gorgeous sweater that my fashion designer friend had
>designed, then that DOES NOT MAKE HER A PROSTITUTE.
What makes her different from Bob Ross? Oh, yeah, Bob makes
everything himself, and they're all different, and he teaches people
how to do what he does. It is different.
>Hope this clarifies the obvious difference.
Umm... no.
Seagull Manager
"Hans Klapeen" <ha...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3ed76ad1$1...@news.zianet.com...
> all about 'schlock art'
Bob Ross is about teaching amateurs to paint. He is not marketed as an
artist, but as an art teacher. He just teaches a few techniques that a
beginner can use if they want to paint better landscapes; where the pupil
goes after that is not dictated by the late Mr. Ross. Is that bad?
> and Jim Dine is all
> about 'Process.'
But you can't buy the process, you can only buy the results.
> And you must study Dine's
> biography to understand fully where he is
> coming from
Why are his paintings not more articulate, if they are supposed to be
communicating something? If they look shallow, they're shallow, regardless
of what the biography may say.
> when he keeps repeating himself
> thematically.
Excuses, excuses. Cut to the chase: artists repeat themselves because it's
the easiest way to exploit the market.
> His work is very personal and
> self-referential.
Yeah, sure. Love-hearts are the most personal symbols ever, eh? And I guess
Mr. Dine is the only guy who ever had a bathrobe.
A "self" that consists of just two symbols is not human. Cannot the good Mr.
Dine dredge up something else from his biography?
Hadley
train of thought.
btw, you can't speak for bob ross, as you're not his representative.
how do you know he really enjoyed what he did?
Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message news:<5vifdvouqggmq7o0l...@4ax.com>...
Hadley
> appreciate it.
So then, what kind of art is there that you can appreciate where you
don't at all need to understand the theory and concept behind it? I'm
just curious because from what you have said it almost seems as if you
don't realise that behind all art lies a concrete theory. Even if you
were attracted to visually more arresting artworks, you will realise
that the theory only enhances the work, not vice versa. But I'm
curious about your tastes, so if you don't mind, perhaps supplying a
few examples will serve as a foundation for your seemingly naive
statement.
>Regardless, Dine's work is much more moving for me,
> while landscapes in general leave me cold (and that includes
> haystacks). I'm not trying to say that Ross is an equivalent artist
> to Dine, just that it's another definition-of-art issue. Trying to
> say why one is an Artist and the other is a hack is pretty difficult,
> and ultimately boils down to perception and taste.
Most people occassionally like both. Don't be ashamed that you like
Ross, because from your earlier statement it seems you at least
appreciated his work. However, I think the difference between Dine and
Ross, and if you don't mind the metaphor of FOOD, is that one is an
elegant french style country resturant and the other is McDonald's. I
like my fries now and then, but obviously one is shall we say, more
ARTISTIC.
Nikolaus Maack
> I'm
> just curious because from what you have said it almost seems as if you
> don't realise that behind all art lies a concrete theory.
Please explain the concrete theory behind my niece's painting of a green
stripe and a purple stripe, side by side, sort of smeared together.
She's 3.
A friend of mine once insisted that a person who can shoot a basketball
into a basket is unconsciously performing higher mathematics in their
head. He claimed they must be calculating angle, trajectory, force,
etc. It hadn't occured to him that the meat of the body does its own
kind of processing, and the mathematical model is another way of
describing that calculation.
Sounds to me like you're operating under the same misunderstanding. A
"concrete theory" can be pulled out of art, but that doesn't mean it was
there inside the artist's head while the art was being made.
Linda Hand
seagull...@afang.nospamthanks.demon.co.uk says...
>A "self" that consists of just two symbols is not human. Cannot the good Mr.
>Dine dredge up something else from his biography?
I am replying only to this last because it
demonstrates that you lack the knowledge
about the subject that is necessary in order
to argue your point of view. I refer specifically
to your reference "two symbols." Dine's work
is all about symbolism - and involves far more
than two - and all (or most) are self-referential
in one way or another.
As for my knowledge of the subject, it derives
from my admiration of Dine's larger oeuvre and
the fact that I've been priviledged to see his
'originals' in museum and gallery settings over
the years. What I know about him personally
comes from reading what has been written by
others about him and his motives, as well as
transcripts of interviews with him.
Just a small sampling: his love of 'tool' images
derives from family associations in the hardware
store business that he helped out with as a youth.
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Hadley wrote:
> > I'm
>> just curious because from what you have said it almost seems as if you
>> don't realise that behind all art lies a concrete theory.
>
>Please explain the concrete theory behind my niece's painting of a green
>stripe and a purple stripe, side by side, sort of smeared together.
>She's 3.
Ah! The 120 degrees color pairs (there's a 120 degree angle between
green and purple on the color wheel). They always seem to please the
eyes. Yes, yes, color perception at work. How large were the areas of
green and purple relative to each other? Did it conform to Goethe's
color weights? (the purple one should be 1.5 times bigger than the
green one)
Ofcourse it could also be that purple and green were just the most
available colors or that your niece just liked them on their own
merit, stranger things have happened ;-)
>A friend of mine once insisted that a person who can shoot a basketball
>into a basket is unconsciously performing higher mathematics in their
>head.
That's nonsense. The brain merely perceives the goal and selects and
modulates the precise behaviour known to be succesfull, half of our
neurons is concerned with only this task of modulating actions. That's
why we have to train, to find out what is the proper action of our
bodies. To strengthen those neural connections that yield success.
> He claimed they must be calculating angle, trajectory, force,
>etc. It hadn't occured to him that the meat of the body does its own
>kind of processing, and the mathematical model is another way of
>describing that calculation.
This is all true but let's not forget that this "formalized" model has
a lot of advantages. Formalizing is an attempt to take something out
of its natural domain and put it in a "central format" so its range of
application can widen.
Ofcourse it is an artificial construct, it always has some degree of
flaw in it.
Mani Deli
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>> Could be. I'm suspicious of art where you need to study the theory to
>> appreciate it.
>
>So then, what kind of art is there that you can appreciate where you
>don't at all need to understand the theory and concept behind it?
--Just about all art except Modern Academic Art. In fact I appreciate
it even less after reading a lot of bullshit posing as theory.
...no skill no art!
Want to get away from the indecipherable imbecilities and absurd pretensions of the modern art establishment?
Check out my web page http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Hadley
> Hadley wrote:
> > I'm
> > just curious because from what you have said it almost seems as if you
> > don't realise that behind all art lies a concrete theory.
>
> Please explain the concrete theory behind my niece's painting of a green
> stripe and a purple stripe, side by side, sort of smeared together.
> She's 3.
First of all, one would have to understand colour theory. Obviously
your niece isn't colour blind if she was able to discern the green
from the purple. There are several methods in which someone could
dissect that as a work of art based on a combination of visual and
aesthetic theory. However, not to offend the genius of your neice, but
I'm not certain if your example is an authentic one of Art. If I
doodle cartoons in class, I don't consider that Art either. I think
Art encompasses something beyond mere creation.
> A friend of mine once insisted that a person who can shoot a basketball
> into a basket is unconsciously performing higher mathematics in their
> head. He claimed they must be calculating angle, trajectory, force,
> etc. It hadn't occured to him that the meat of the body does its own
> kind of processing, and the mathematical model is another way of
> describing that calculation.
You're missing the obvious, which is one can't play basketball unless
they know the rules of the game. If you want to make the analogy of
basketball, then why don't you think of the court as Art, and the
player as the Artist?
> Sounds to me like you're operating under the same misunderstanding. A
> "concrete theory" can be pulled out of art, but that doesn't mean it was
> there inside the artist's head while the art was being made.
Quite the contrary I think. I think good Artists know what they're
creating that is different in structure and philosophy from the
previous era, but that there is definitely a method to their madness
in their work. Of course some average Danielle could pose as an art
critic and grab things out of the air with little to no basis, but
that overall, I think that Artists have a certain intent, whether they
think they consciously know or feign ignorance in an attempt to avoid
having to "explain" themselves to anyone.
Let's take for example, Kandinsky's work, which from your description
of your neice's painting which it *might* resemble. Kandinsky was
highly influenced by music and attempted to make an abstration of what
he *heard*...of course, not knowing that average Danielle might simply
look at one of his opus and say, gee, nice pretty colours in
mathematical shapes which remind me of the fading dawn or some shyte
like that. But knowing his intent and philosophy, suddenly the
painting makes sense. You know *what* he was listening to when he
painted that particular piece. Every work has a fingerprint on it, and
the mind that created it remains.
Hadley
Mike Stengl
>
> Quite the contrary I think. I think good Artists know what they're
> creating that is different in structure and philosophy from the
> previous era, but that there is definitely a method to their madness
> in their work. Of course some average Danielle could pose as an art
> critic and grab things out of the air with little to no basis, but
> that overall, I think that Artists have a certain intent, whether they
> think they consciously know or feign ignorance in an attempt to avoid
> having to "explain" themselves to anyone.
>
Maybe there are then (at least) two kinds of artists; those that paint
a canvas until it looks pleasing to them and those that plot some
intellectual construct and develop it with paint. Personally I have a
little voice in my head while working that makes up all kinds of
reasons for what I am doing but that is more of a conversation between
myself and my canvas because in the end it is
composition/form/contrast/& color that matter to me in that order. As
to your "previous era" remark, I don't get it. College art punks
around me talk about how the 'figure' is so passe'. I have through a
natural turn of events and quite unconciously began distorting and
elongating the figure, something similar to Modigliani, Schiele, or
Klimt. Now I never looked at these painters works and decided I wanted
to paint like them, but what I have done is painted the female form
for years and only recently given myself the license to change the
preportions as I saw fit. I am enjoying it emensely, but hey, it's
been done before and there are those that would say better than I am
doing it. Should I stop? Should I not show or sell my work? Should I
rack my mind for somethin new and original to do with the figure. I
think not. I prefer to enjoy what I am doing and see where it takes
me.
>Every work has a fingerprint on it, and
> the mind that created it remains.
remains...what? I like the finger print thing but my mind is going...
max
>Neil Maxwell <neil.m...@nospam.intel.com> wrote in message
>> Could be. I'm suspicious of art where you need to study the theory to
>> appreciate it.
>
>So then, what kind of art is there that you can appreciate where you
>don't at all need to understand the theory and concept behind it? I'm
>just curious because from what you have said it almost seems as if you
>don't realise that behind all art lies a concrete theory. Even if you
>were attracted to visually more arresting artworks, you will realise
>that the theory only enhances the work, not vice versa. But I'm
>curious about your tastes, so if you don't mind, perhaps supplying a
>few examples will serve as a foundation for your seemingly naive
>statement.
You misread my rather straightforward statement. I believe that
knowing the background of a work can increase enjoyment. A good
example is the vast number of Judith and Holofernes pieces out there,
which can appear brutal rather than inspiring if you don't know the
history. I'm fond of both the classical versions (say, Gentilischi
and Carravagio, among others) and the modern versions (Klimt's are
particularly striking).
If you *need* to study the theory to appreciate it, I believe the art
is lacking in something, and I'm suspicious of it. Is that better?
>>Regardless, Dine's work is much more moving for me,
>> while landscapes in general leave me cold (and that includes
>> haystacks). I'm not trying to say that Ross is an equivalent artist
>> to Dine, just that it's another definition-of-art issue. Trying to
>> say why one is an Artist and the other is a hack is pretty difficult,
>> and ultimately boils down to perception and taste.
>
>Most people occassionally like both. Don't be ashamed that you like
>Ross, because from your earlier statement it seems you at least
>appreciated his work. However, I think the difference between Dine and
>Ross, and if you don't mind the metaphor of FOOD, is that one is an
>elegant french style country resturant and the other is McDonald's. I
>like my fries now and then, but obviously one is shall we say, more
>ARTISTIC.
Heh! Another feeble attempt at an art-snob putdown. If you read the
thread, I've stated that I don't care for his work, but because I
don't like his work doesn't mean he's not an artist. I admire the
individual, if not his output. Again, tell me under what definition
Warhol is an artist and he is not. Let's throw T Kincaid in there for
laughs.
And no, I don't think the food analogy works well for art, but I can
play with that ball. Walt Disney would be the McDonald's equivalent;
millions of virtually identical products for consumers who aren't very
picky. Does it mean they're no good? No, just common and not very
subtle.
I'd put Ross more in the country-cooking restaurant category. Again,
a matter of taste and preference.
max
>you should read my other posts in this thread if you can't follow my
>train of thought.
You may not have noticed, but I quoted one of your other posts (which
you didn't respond to, BTW). Your train of thought would be easier to
follow if it stayed on the same track.
>btw, you can't speak for bob ross, as you're not his representative.
>how do you know he really enjoyed what he did?
Maybe you should re-read the thread. Phrases such as "I believe that"
and "appeared to genuinely enjoy" are specifically chosen to indicate
that I do not know his mind. However, I can reach conclusions through
observation and paying attention. I'd recommend it.
Hadley
> Maybe there are then (at least) two kinds of artists; those that paint
> a canvas until it looks pleasing to them and those that plot some
> intellectual construct and develop it with paint.
I think all artists are intellectuals. However, I do think that some
artists tend to have specific political agendas, which is what I think
you're referring to.
> Personally I have a
> little voice in my head while working that makes up all kinds of
> reasons for what I am doing but that is more of a conversation between
> myself and my canvas because in the end it is
> composition/form/contrast/& color that matter to me in that order.
Voices in your head? Ah, welcome to the club. ;) It sounds to me as if
you're your own worst critic. Let's remember though that for people
who are visual thinkers naturally *see* things in relation to
composition/form/contrast/colour, even when they're not attempting to
create.
>As
> to your "previous era" remark, I don't get it. College art punks
> around me talk about how the 'figure' is so passe'.
I was referring to a particular style and theory of a particular era,
not the subject matter. I think innovative artists can take anything
and make it *good* if I may give it a value. But thinking about
Schiele's work, it wasn't just about the human figure, but a
combination of erotic subject matter, mad out of control lines and
contrasting different emotional values to say just a few which gave
his work of the figure a certain quality.
> I have through a
> natural turn of events and quite unconciously began distorting and
> elongating the figure, something similar to Modigliani, Schiele, or
> Klimt. Now I never looked at these painters works and decided I wanted
> to paint like them, but what I have done is painted the female form
> for years and only recently given myself the license to change the
> preportions as I saw fit. I am enjoying it emensely, but hey, it's
> been done before and there are those that would say better than I am
> doing it. Should I stop? Should I not show or sell my work? Should I
> rack my mind for somethin new and original to do with the figure. I
> think not. I prefer to enjoy what I am doing and see where it takes
> me.
I sort of think of it this way: Your lineage may come from Modigliani,
Schiele and Klimt et al, and you may carry their genes, however, you
are ultimately different from your parents, although they have
ultimately influenced you to be who you are...Why should you stop if
you love doing what you do?
> >Every work has a fingerprint on it, and
> > the mind that created it remains.
>
> remains...what? I like the finger print thing but my mind is going...
What I mean is, like your fingerprint, your mind cannot be copied.
Even identical twins who come from the same zygote have different
fingerprints when they are born. Hence what you create is a reflection
of your mind.
max
>curious about your tastes, so if you don't mind, perhaps supplying a
>few examples will serve as a foundation for your seemingly naive
>statement.
Sorry, I completely forgot to reply to your kind request. I can't
imagine it will help you press your case much, whatever it may happen
to be. In no particular order, and not comprehensive, here are some
whom I like enough to have hanging on the wall, have books on,
archived images, etc:
Andy Warhol
Joan Brown
Tsukioka Yoshitoshi
Paul Jacoulet
Wassily Kandinsky
Marcus Uzilevsky
MM Carravagio
Artemisia Gentileschi
Joseph Cornell
Masami Teraoka
Markus Linnenbrink
Robert Heinecken
Tino Rodriguez
Mark Ryden
Robert Arneson
Rockwell Kent
Norman Rockwell
Aubrey Beardsley
George Barbier
Howard Finster
Barbara Kruger
Henry Darger
Tamara de Lempicka
Takashi Murakami
Gustav Klimt
David Hockney
Man Ray
Nam June Paik
Andy Goldsworthy
Christo/JC
Frank Stella
Jun Kaneko
Jeff Koons
And on and on and on...
Hadley
however, to give you the synopsis, I said ross was the prime example
of the prostitute, blah, blah, then later in the thread said perhaps
his intention was not to create art but to make pastoral painting
*accessible* to the general public etc etc, in which case it was his
intention that defined his actions as opposed to merely selling his
name to sell paint or whatnot. i'm not ross, so i can't speak for him.
if he loved what he did, then he wasn't a prostitute.
comprennez-vous?
max <maxi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<h2ikdvcje7mmvas3g...@4ax.com>...
Neil Maxwell
>don't mind me, I just hate repeating myself.
This is why I quoted your key points, so you could clarify without
repeating yourself. Ah, well, worth a try.
>however, to give you the synopsis, I said ross was the prime example
>of the prostitute, blah, blah, then later in the thread said perhaps
>his intention was not to create art but to make pastoral painting
>*accessible* to the general public etc etc, in which case it was his
>intention that defined his actions as opposed to merely selling his
>name to sell paint or whatnot. i'm not ross, so i can't speak for him.
>if he loved what he did, then he wasn't a prostitute.
>
>comprennez-vous?
Ah! I said that very thing some posts back. It's good to see we
agree about some things, FWIW.
Christian Tangoe
> ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote in message news:<92189330.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> > > >
> > > > the factory thing, which I don't care much for. Is he any different
> > > > from Warhol that way?
> > >
> >
> > You guys, please be precise...there are like a zillion kincaid´s out
> > there...are we talking about Ted cincaid as seen on www.tedKincaid.com
> > ???
> >
> I believe were talking Thomas, chain gallery, cozy cabins, fire places
> all aglow...eeeyuck.
> >
> > > > >Where as in a couple of different postings there
> > > > >is both the talk of illustration as career and prostitution; I never
> > > > >felt so prostituted as when I attempted to use my drawing skills to
> > > > >create some image or logo that I had NO INTEREST in.
> >
> > As in all other professions, you have moral and ethical oblighations
> > as a painter. You might accept a commision, if your morals are
> > respected.
>
> I have no problem taking money for what I do, I'm talking about using
> whatever artistic skills I might pocess (some days this would be a
> mute point) to create something completely distatefull to me (i.e. an
> illustration for an advertisement, business logo, Kinkaid style cozy
> hut, etc.) strictly for the money. Beyond dislike, I simply refuse to
> do this type of work any more (not to mention the fact that I was
> never any good at it to begin with)
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > This is the gist of it for me. Do you care about your work? Is the
> > > > creation more important to you than the consummation? If so, does it
> > > > matter what it looks like in the end?
> >
> > personal motivation - creation - consumation - final result
> >
> > what is missing here...????
> >
> > of course "intended effect"
> >
> > will - skill - need...
>
>
> I don't understand, you lost me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I enjoy painting. I enjoy painting for hours, for days. I get a little
> > > up tight when after all this time I put my foot through the canvas and
> > > throw it away, so yes, to me it matters.
> >
> >
> > This is quite interesting...
> >
> > Are we in to the Vanitas-thing here ? That TRUE art can only be true,
> > i you put a >>>>><<<<foot through the canvas and
> > > throw it away<<<<<
> > ???
> >
> > Because, I actually - on a pure theoretical plane - agreee..... Art is
> > (sorry folks, art IS...bad argueing) Art is like zen- you have to
> > give up the idea of creating something great, before you actually can
> > do it...(but of course, if you never set out to do someting
> > great....well....do I have to explain....?)
> >
> > In this sense, and I think I´m finally getting back to the point of
> > the headline SELF EXPRESSION in art...
> > In this sense, self-expression is a double edged sword...
> >
> > In the sense that Self-expression means the "will" or "drive" to
> > create art at all, despite all the obstacles, yessssssssssssss, its on
> > of three crucial needs.
> > BUT, if Self-expression means, that you are merely narcissistic...
> > Vain, is the word, Vanity...
> >
> > I can´t come across any other reason that you try as an artist to
> > immortalize yourself. But again: This doesn´t mean, that you can´t be
> > a politiacl artist. i`m just talking about a deep psychological reason
> > for creating art, as your therapist would phrase it...
> >
> > Now, I don´t put a foot trough all my canvasses. just the real bad
> > ones. Mostly I sell the shit...
> >
> > Christian Tangoe
>
> Um, I don't put my foot, my fist or the hard pointy end of brushes
> through canvases for fun or because I'm some kind of aesthete, I do so
> only when failure and frustration have reached a critical point. As
> for vanity and such, I would say a certain amount of ego is certainly
> involved in my work, and I'm OK with that...
>
>
> It's a gray morning hear in Northern California, I'm watering my
> strawberries and now I have another troublesome canvas which must be
> saved from the 'foot'.
This is a stupid conversation. I´m sorry that I indulged in it in at all.
Christian Tangoe
Mike Stengl
> eatn...@humboldt1.com (Mike Stengl) wrote in message news:<45dd5dd.03052...@posting.google.com>...
> > ma...@tangoe.dk (Christian Tangoe) wrote in message news:<92189330.03052...@posting.google.com>...
>
>
>
> Christian Tangoe
But you did, and it's etched in software for all to see, for years to
come. How embarrassing.