Dali and Picasso
mdeli
Picasso was academically trained. He could out-draw his Modern Art
competitors But he never attained any classical ability in spite of
what critics say. Look at his "dove of Peace" and his portrait of
Stalin for his final lack of ability. He is at his best when he
imitated the pencil drawings of Ingres or Greek bronze drawing. But
these are also second rate. If they weren't signed Picasso they would
pass unnoticed. I couldn't say this about Dali.
Dali's early works are very mediocre and showed little promise. He
worked hard to attain skill and by 1927 did exceptionally fine work.
As Dali accelerated Picasso deteriorated. Picasso reached his peak of
idiocy in his "Massacre in Korea" and the massive "fishermen of
Antibes." To compliment this work Dali sent Picasso a telegram.
"Pablo thanks! Your last ignominious paintings have killed modern art.
But for you with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of
French prudence we should have had painting which was more and more
ugly for at least one hundred years...you...have achieved the limits
and the final consequences of the abominable in a mere few weeks...
etc." signed S, Dali
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Martin
Mani - Can it be true?
Are you really saying that Dali was a greater artist than Picasso?
I guess it kind of makes sense, given your enthusiasm for skill, that
you might be enthusiastic about surrealism, which seems to me to be all
skill and no (conscious) idea.
Perhaps I've missed your earlier postings - do you have a more complete
statement of your slogan "no skill no art"? We chew at the question "What
is Art" without really asking it - do you really think that art is just skill,
or do you think that skill is a element (perhaps essential) in art? If it's an
element, what other elements do you think are important, that a thing must have
, to be considered a work of art.
I find it amazing that you and Dali find the "Fishermen of Antibes" to be ugly.
I've only seen it in reproduction but it seems like one of Picasso's more
beautiful works to me (and I like his work). Have you a way of looking at art
that accounts for how people have such a wide range of taste? One of the
weaknesses that I see in your skill criterion is that the same level of skill
can produce works of widely varying aesthetic power. How do you fit these
kinds of considerations into your thinking?
Bye
Martin
mdeli
On 19 Apr 1997 06:53:45 GMT, lit...@intergate.bc.ca (Martin) wrote:
>Mani - Can it be true?
>Are you really saying that Dali was a greater artist than Picasso?
I believe Dali to be first rate and Picasso about fifth rate. I
believe that Picasso at best is on a level with a very average
illustrator.
>I guess it kind of makes sense, given your enthusiasm for skill, that
>you might be enthusiastic about surrealism, which seems to me to be all
>skill and no (conscious) idea.
Successful modern surrealism is ideas expressed ( realism in an unreal
context ) with fine technique. Much surreal work doesn't meet this
criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
>
>Perhaps I've missed your earlier postings - do you have a more complete
>statement of your slogan "no skill no art"? We chew at the question "What
>is Art" without really asking it - do you really think that art is just skill,
>or do you think that skill is a element (perhaps essential) in art? If it's an
>element, what other elements do you think are important, that a thing must have
>, to be considered a work of art.
Skill is a foundation. Artwork is a combination of skill and ideas.
Great art exhibits great skill and ideas. People judge what is to be
considered great art over a large time span.
>I find it amazing that you and Dali find the "Fishermen of Antibes" to be ugly.
It is not only ugly, it is stupid and contains a repartition of all of
Picasso's boring formulas. Added to this Picasso who is usually a good
colorist failed here. Even the critics don't get too excited about
this work.
> I've only seen it in reproduction but it seems like one of Picasso's more
>beautiful works to me (and I like his work).
Each to his own taste.
> Have you a way of looking at art
>that accounts for how people have such a wide range of taste? One of the
>weaknesses that I see in your skill criterion is that the same level of skill
>can produce works of widely varying aesthetic power. How do you fit these
>kinds of considerations into your thinking?
Art is indeed more than mere skill, but no skill no art. I mention
this so often because most of the crap passed off as great modern art
exhibits no superior skill and more often then not, no skill
whatsoever.
Mani DeLi
"The supreme tragedy is when ones abilities do not live up to ones
aspirations." S.Dali
Martin
Mani says:
>I believe Dali to be first rate and Picasso about fifth rate. I
>believe that Picasso at best is on a level with a very average
>illustrator.
Failure of Picasso" where he says that Picasso was arguably the
greatest artist ever, but that he never found a subject or theme
adequate to his talent and skill.
>Successful modern surrealism is ideas expressed ( realism in an unreal
>context ) with fine technique. Much surreal work doesn't meet this
>criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
I always thought that surrealism drew it's imagery from the subconscious, and
that it didn't carry ideas as much as impressions. The thing that I always
thought was important about Picasso, and modernism in general, was the idea
that a picture didn't have to be a true representation of external reality.
So, for Picasso I'd say his pictures weren't of ideas, they were ideas, and for
Dali his pictures were representations of his own psychology.
How do you relate to abstact art? Do you exclude it from consideration as art
because there is no skill at representation involved? Or are there other
domains where skill may be demonstrated? How do you relate to things that take
a great deal of skill to do, but end up looking spontaneous, like say a
Japanese tea bowl. I have a friend who draws in a very crude style - but in
fact he's highly skilled, because no-one can duplicate his drawings, yet he can
make picture after picture in his recognizable style.
What do you gain by declaring so much work that has been loved for years to be
non-art? Why isn't it enough to just say that you don't like it?
Bye
Martin
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, mdeli wrote:
> "Pablo thanks! Your last ignominious paintings have killed modern art.
> But for you with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of
> French prudence we should have had painting which was more and more
> ugly for at least one hundred years...you...have achieved the limits
> and the final consequences of the abominable in a mere few weeks...
> etc." signed S, Dali
Thanks for leaving out the many instances in which Dali (And many of the
other Surrealists) praised Picasso to high heaven. Thanks also for failing
to indicate the context of these comments - There were other instances of
such 'sentiments' from Dali and other Surrealists, in letters, printed
interviews and articles and in banquet lectures - These were all of the
same intent, to write and promote nonsense - When Dali gave speeches to
insult and annihilate, they were both intended and understood to mean
directly the opposite due to the 'trickery' of Surrealist 'nonsense'.
'You shall write false novels.....You shall give false speeches' says
the manifesto (Paraphrased). Dali's signature appears upon it.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Brother Alphabet
On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, mdeli wrote:
> "The supreme tragedy is when ones abilities do not live up to ones
> aspirations." S.Dali
Hmm. I think Dali stole a line from Davinci. I'll have to check, but I
don't think Dali said that originally.
Brother Alphabet
> >context ) with fine technique. Much surreal work doesn't meet this
> >criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
Dali failed at the surrealist ideal MANY times - Especially when dribbling
down into the traps of religion.
> I always thought that surrealism drew it's imagery from the subconscious, and
> that it didn't carry ideas as much as impressions.
Surrealism is the representation of the function of thought.
But there are other things involved, least of which is impression or
reality-perception. If anything it stands in defiance of accepted
perception. Compared to something fully focused on impressions
(impressionism) - The objective is completely different - (As an end
result) But, if you wish to state that Surrealism is about presenting the
impression of thought, then that would be more related to the 'ideal' -
Still, there are the facets of duality and beyond, or metaphysicality, to
consider. Individual perception becomes intermingled with mass perception
- Or collective vision contained in singular space.
> What do you gain by declaring so much work that has been loved for
> years to be non-art?
Mani Deli isn't stupid :)
You are much more likely to be seen and heard if you stir the coals under
accepted norms.
> Why isn't it enough to just say that you don't like it?
Cause 'I dont like it' alone wont sell too well in hardcover.
Hutto
mdeli
On 21 Apr 1997 07:33:20 GMT, lit...@intergate.bc.ca (Martin) wrote:
>Mani says:
>>I believe Dali to be first rate and Picasso about fifth rate. I
>>believe that Picasso at best is on a level with a very average
>>illustrator.
>I guess you disagree with John Berger's thesis in "The Success and
>Failure of Picasso" where he says that Picasso was arguably the
>greatest artist ever, but that he never found a subject or theme
>adequate to his talent and skill.
>
Picasso had talent but not much skill. His main problem was that all
his work lacked form. His paintings are flat. Picasso was more a
cartoonist than a painter. People are confused about this because
Picasso was wise enough to paint on large canvases which gives the
impression that the work has the mystique of an oil painting. His
realistic work is mostly abominable while his abstraction is better
than most all others because of his academic training.
>>Successful modern surrealism is ideas expressed ( realism in an unreal
>>context ) with fine technique. Much surreal work doesn't meet this
>>criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
>
>I always thought that surrealism drew it's imagery from the subconscious, and
>that it didn't carry ideas as much as impressions.
What is this supposed to mean?
> The thing that I always
>thought was important about Picasso, and modernism in general, was the idea
>that a picture didn't have to be a true representation of external reality.
Dali's major works aren't a true representation of external reality.
However, his paintings express three dimensional form thru skill at
technique. There is as much abstraction in Dali as in any work of
modern art.
>So, for Picasso I'd say his pictures weren't of ideas, they were ideas, and for
>Dali his pictures were representations of his own psychology.
Sounds like Artspeak. When I look at Dali or Picasso I see a picture
on the wall. I suspect you do also.
>How do you relate to abstact art?
Abstract art is the oldest artform. Some examples of fine abstraction
are oriental carpets, Japanesse textiles, book illumination and much
detail in classical art.
Modern Academic Abstraction is at best on a level of abstract
illustration and textile design and at worst equivalent to bad floor
covering or a used house painter's dropcloth. It can not compete with
and oilslick in the gutter after the rain.
> Do you exclude it from consideration as art
>because there is no skill at representation involved?
No, I exclude it because it displays no skill at anything and can be
and is produced by most anyone with a minimum of technical knowledge.
> Or are there other
>domains where skill may be demonstrated?
Yes, plumbing, science, writing and selling large modern abstractions
to rich idiots for large sums, among other things.
> How do you relate to things that take a great deal of skill to do, but end up looking spontaneous, like say a
>Japanese tea bowl.
People sense skill because it takes skill to attract the viewer.
> I have a friend who draws in a very crude style - but in
>fact he's highly skilled, because no-one can duplicate his drawings, yet he can
>make picture after picture in his recognizable style.
>
I have a friend who almost won the lottery.
Hardly anyone can duplicate your signature does that give it artistic
interest?
>What do you gain by declaring so much work that has been loved for years to be
>non-art? Why isn't it enough to just say that you don't like it?
For the same reason that you say why you like or dislike something. It
amuses me.
Martin
Mani said:
> >What do you gain by declaring so much work that has been loved for
years to be
> >non-art? Why isn't it enough to just say that you don't like it?
>
> For the same reason that you say why you like or dislike something. It
> amuses me.
Well - are you sincere or just fooling around?
Not to be to heavy about it - but if you're posting stuff just to get a
rise out of people, then that's a good thing to know.
Bye
Martin
RoyGBivart
Dear Martin:
Thank you for your response to 'Dali and Picasso'. But...you didn't go
far enough. The fact is, Dali was at very best, second rate. He had four
years of creating good works of art, the best being Return of Ulysses,
done in 1936. It should be noted, said drawing is almost a copy of
Cozens' ink-blot method, and looks suspiciously like 'The Lestrigonians
Hurling Rocks at the Fleet of Odyssus', a Roman painting in a house on the
Esquiline. This work dates back to the late 1st century, B.C. Surely,
Dali at least studied this work.
In other words, like all of Dali's work, the subject was not origional and
the technique was developed first by another.
What Dail was...was a salesman. Look what he did here...had someone
compare him with Picasso. (This is a nightmare). The fact is, after his
four years, Dali became a paridy on himself...a paridy of an artist. That
you have to give him credit for.
Sincerely,
Roy
Greg Denton
Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Apr 1997, mdeli wrote:
>
> > "The supreme tragedy is when ones abilities do not live up to ones
> > aspirations." S.Dali
>
> Hmm. I think Dali stole a line from Davinci. I'll have to check, but I
> don't think Dali said that originally.
>
> "I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
> "You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
> http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
It was Da Vinci. "The supreme tragedy is when theory outstrips
performance."
GD.
mdeli
>
>
>> >context ) with fine technique. Much surreal work doesn't meet this
>> >criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
>
>Dali failed at the surrealist ideal MANY times - Especially when dribbling
>down into the traps of religion.
>
I don't judge a work on the basis of subject matter. Some of the
finest painting is religious but not because it is religious.
>Surrealism is the representation of the function of thought.
So is any artwork.
>But there are other things involved, least of which is impression or
>reality-perception. If anything it stands in defiance of accepted
>perception. Compared to something fully focused on impressions
>(impressionism) - The objective is completely different - (As an end
>result) But, if you wish to state that Surrealism is about presenting the
>impression of thought, then that would be more related to the 'ideal' -
>Still, there are the facets of duality and beyond, or metaphysicality, to
>consider. Individual perception becomes intermingled with mass perception
>- Or collective vision contained in singular space.
>
Its not that complicated.
Surrealism in painting refers to an aspect of subject matter. It is
realistic imagery in an unrealistic context. ie. Tintoretto paints
people flying around and Bosch paints imaginary scenes, as does Dali.
It has nothing to do with the merit of a work.
As to 20th century surrealism, it occurs in fine painting, comic books
and advertising etc.
>"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
Picasso paints not what anyone sees, fast and in vast amounts but
quite thoughtlessly. 90% of Picasso's are permutations of hack images
which he endlessly repeated in sloppier and schmerier versions as time
passed.
. He never had a new idea after 1930 and his old ones are nothing
special. He is the most over-rated artist of this century.
Mani DeLi
mdeli
On 22 Apr 1997 15:07:09 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>Thank you for your response to 'Dali and Picasso'. But...you didn't go
>far enough. The fact is, Dali was at very best, second rate. He had four
>years of creating good works of art, the best being Return of Ulysses,
>done in 1936. It should be noted, said drawing is almost a copy of
>Cozens' ink-blot method, and looks suspiciously like 'The Lestrigonians
>Hurling Rocks at the Fleet of Odyssus', a Roman painting in a house on the
>Esquiline. This work dates back to the late 1st century, B.C. Surely,
>Dali at least studied this work.
>
Both Dali and Picasso imitated all sorts of classical work. So what?
The essence of Dali is in the originality and technique. By technique
I include paint handling, perspective, the illusion of space, sound
drawing and color.
You don't sound like you have seen many Dali's or Picasso's.
Indeed Dali produced mediocre work but I judge an artist by his best
works. Dali consistently produced fine work, while Picasso produced
ever greater mountains of hasty incompetent crap.
>In other words, like all of Dali's work, the subject was not original and
>the technique was developed first by another.
Nonsense. Check out
Portrait of Gala in the MOMA aprox 8x10 in.--
-technique and ideas here, unlike Picasso.There is more fine painting
in this small portrait than in 10 million sq. ft. in Picasso. Of
course you have to come close and inspect the detail. This is a no-no
for the modern artzy fartzy.
Construction with Boiled Beans- in the Philadelphia museum--
abstraction, three dimensions, color and fabulous detail and
originality.
Disappearing Bust of Voltaire- Dali Museum St Petersberg FL,
-contains double images the likes of which no modern artist even
attempted.
Roy tell us how these paintings fail.
>
>What Dali was...was a salesman.
Most all artists are salesmen. What's wrong with that. All art is
commercial.
> Look what he did here...had someone
>compare him with Picasso. (This is a nightmare). The fact is, after his
>four years, Dali became a paridy on himself...a paridy of an artist. That
>you have to give him credit for.
Dali parodied modern art and lots else. So did Picasso and Matisse.
What is wrong with that? I judge a painting by quality not subject
matter.
See his portrait of Picasso and his 60's goof abstractions. Also read
his criticisms of modern art from the 30's onward.
mani DeLi
...no skill no art.
tutt...@bvu.edu
In article <5jf581$3dg$1...@carrera.intergate.bc.ca>, lit...@intergate.bc.ca (Martin) writes:
> Mani says:
>>I believe Dali to be first rate and Picasso about fifth rate. I
>>believe that Picasso at best is on a level with a very average
>>illustrator.
> I guess you disagree with John Berger's thesis in "The Success and
> Failure of Picasso" where he says that Picasso was arguably the
> greatest artist ever, but that he never found a subject or theme
> adequate to his talent and skill.
>
>>criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
For the true origin of surrealism----- Look to BOSCH!!
Jamie
>
> I always thought that surrealism drew it's imagery from the subconscious, and
> that it didn't carry ideas as much as impressions. The thing that I always
> thought was important about Picasso, and modernism in general, was the idea
> that a picture didn't have to be a true representation of external reality.
> So, for Picasso I'd say his pictures weren't of ideas, they were ideas, and for
> Dali his pictures were representations of his own psychology.
>
> How do you relate to abstact art? Do you exclude it from consideration as art
> because there is no skill at representation involved? Or are there other
> domains where skill may be demonstrated? How do you relate to things that take
> a great deal of skill to do, but end up looking spontaneous, like say a
> Japanese tea bowl. I have a friend who draws in a very crude style - but in
> fact he's highly skilled, because no-one can duplicate his drawings, yet he can
> make picture after picture in his recognizable style.
>
> What do you gain by declaring so much work that has been loved for years to be
> non-art? Why isn't it enough to just say that you don't like it?
> Bye
> Martin
>
mdeli
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>>On Fri, 18 Apr 1997, mdeli wrote:
>
>> "Pablo thanks! Your last ignominious paintings have killed modern art.
>> But for you with the taste and moderation that are the very virtues of
>> French prudence we should have had painting which was more and more
>> ugly for at least one hundred years...you...have achieved the limits
>> and the final consequences of the abominable in a mere few weeks...
>> etc." signed S, Dali
>
>Thanks for leaving out the many instances in which Dali (And many of the
>other Surrealists) praised Picasso to high heaven.
Every Picasso praise by Dali was a goof, the most famous was when
Dali was asked, "who are the greatest artists of the century?" Dali
answered in the same way many times. "I Dali and Picasso. I am the
genius of beauty and Picasso is the genius of ugliness." He also said,
"Picasso produced lazy masterpieces."
If you interpret that as praise to high heaven so be it. Picasso
helped Dali in his early years and lent him money. He came to despise
Dali because he recognized a goof compliment for what it was. I heard
he would get very upset at the mention of Dali.
> Thanks also for failing
>to indicate the context of these comments -
quoted from "Dali on Modern art," one of the best short criticisms of
modern art and also a good goof on Artspeak. Also read his
"Abominable Confessions" for more and check out his portrait of
Picasso. It ain't praise
> There were other instances of
>such 'sentiments' from Dali and other Surrealists, in letters, printed
>interviews and articles and in banquet lectures - These were all of the
>same intent, to write and promote nonsense - When Dali gave speeches to
>insult and annihilate, they were both intended and understood to mean
>directly the opposite due to the 'trickery' of Surrealist 'nonsense'.
>
>'You shall write false novels.....You shall give false speeches' says
>the manifesto (Paraphrased). Dali's signature appears upon it.
>
Dali goofed on most everything. Unlike the rod-up-the-ass phoney
modern artist Dali had a great sense of humor.
Mani DeLi
"Begin by learning to draw and paint like the old masters. After that
you can do as you like, everyone will respect you." Dali
GymbooAndie!
RoyGBivart wrote:
>
> Dear Martin:
>
> Thank you for your response to 'Dali and Picasso'. But...you didn't go
> far enough. The fact is, Dali was at very best, second rate. He had four
> years of creating good works of art, the best being Return of Ulysses,
> done in 1936. It should be noted, said drawing is almost a copy of
> Cozens' ink-blot method, and looks suspiciously like 'The Lestrigonians
> Hurling Rocks at the Fleet of Odyssus', a Roman painting in a house on the
> Esquiline. This work dates back to the late 1st century, B.C. Surely,
> Dali at least studied this work.
>
> the technique was developed first by another.
>
> compare him with Picasso. (This is a nightmare). The fact is, after his
> four years, Dali became a paridy on himself...a paridy of an artist. That
> you have to give him credit for.
>
>
> Roy
I must agree with you Roy, would you not then say that Dali attacked
art?
And by that point, would we say there is a fundemental differance with
"salesmen" an "art?"
Would you say that Dali is a Bob Ross, and ol' Bobbo is nothing but a
face plastered on cheap sets of oil paints?
How about the word technectian? (Oh sorry whoever for misspelling a
word, if I had the ape {bowel movement} guilt of doing such a deed as
mispelling I might look it up in this here dictonary, but I'd rather sit
on it to see the screen. HA!
Oh, forgive me... Back to the arguement at hand.
Dali mastered a method and never moved on, found himself trapped in a
vision that paid, was unable, for what ever reason, to offer himself up
to the void and bring back that fragment for the rest to see.
Picasso on the other hand not only brought it back, but took the void
and warped it back apon itself....
Gymbo
GymbooAndie!
mdeli wrote:
>
> On Mon, 21 Apr 1997 19:48:25 -0500, Brother Alphabet
> <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> >criterion. Dali's certainly does in my opinion.
> >
in a Cracker Jack box?
Though I will admit that Picasso had a hell of a PR team on his side,
and I will admit that to the layman one cubist painting looks likes any
other (as an x girlfreind said "There isn't any color")Picasso did much
to free the art world of the rigid stance of realisim witch plauged
Western society.
Now let me attack you for attempting to use a qoute to your advantage,
but only hinting at your ignorance.
<I paint what I think, not what I see.> By your words it is sloppy and
fast, unplanned ect. Wonder if he thought that way? Then the qoute
remains. Picasso, to remind you said that there is an artist in every
child, and it dies in the adult (most likely due to the vast amount of
caculations of thought needed to be such, an adult, or mature, or
responsible. ect)
Alright, so paint what you think, be a child, don't think, give yourself
up to instinct.
If anything Picasso stands to win a medal for that simple feat.
GymbooAndie!
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------4C3442832E2D
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
mdeli wrote:
>
> On 22 Apr 1997 15:07:09 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>
> >Thank you for your response to 'Dali and Picasso'. But...you didn't go
> >far enough. The fact is, Dali was at very best, second rate. He had four
> >years of creating good works of art, the best being Return of Ulysses,
> >done in 1936. It should be noted, said drawing is almost a copy of
> >Cozens' ink-blot method, and looks suspiciously like 'The Lestrigonians
> >Hurling Rocks at the Fleet of Odyssus', a Roman painting in a house on the
> >Esquiline. This work dates back to the late 1st century, B.C. Surely,
> >Dali at least studied this work.
> >
> Both Dali and Picasso imitated all sorts of classical work. So what?
>
> The essence of Dali is in the originality and technique. By technique
> I include paint handling, perspective, the illusion of space, sound
> drawing and color.
>
> You don't sound like you have seen many Dali's or Picasso's.
>
> Indeed Dali produced mediocre work but I judge an artist by his best
> works. Dali consistently produced fine work, while Picasso produced
> ever greater mountains of hasty incompetent crap.
>
> >In other words, like all of Dali's work, the subject was not original and
> >the technique was developed first by another.
>
> Nonsense. Check out
> Portrait of Gala in the MOMA aprox 8x10 in.--
> -technique and ideas here, unlike Picasso.There is more fine painting
> in this small portrait than in 10 million sq. ft. in Picasso. Of
> course you have to come close and inspect the detail. This is a no-no
> for the modern artzy fartzy.
>
> Construction with Boiled Beans- in the Philadelphia museum--
> abstraction, three dimensions, color and fabulous detail and
> originality.
>
> Disappearing Bust of Voltaire- Dali Museum St Petersberg FL,
> -contains double images the likes of which no modern artist even
> attempted.
>
> Roy tell us how these paintings fail.
> >
> >What Dali was...was a salesman.
>
> Most all artists are salesmen. What's wrong with that. All art is
> commercial.
>
> > Look what he did here...had someone
> >compare him with Picasso. (This is a nightmare). The fact is, after his
> >four years, Dali became a paridy on himself...a paridy of an artist. That
> >you have to give him credit for.
>
> Dali parodied modern art and lots else. So did Picasso and Matisse.
> What is wrong with that? I judge a painting by quality not subject
> matter.
> See his portrait of Picasso and his 60's goof abstractions. Also read
> his criticisms of modern art from the 30's onward.
>
> mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art.
I am at a loss to do that funky qoute thing you people so much like to
do, must be some type of button you press, for it has to be easy.
But in any case, here let me try: >most artists are salesman whats wrong
with that (was there a question mark here, well then) ? All art is
commercial.
Forgive me for pointing out all the pieces Picasso held onto until
death, like his offspring. Forgive me for asking about any religous
artifact any primative tribe would not part with.
Yes, you can make money off art, but by doing so the idea of it being
art is really questioned-it becomes product, and if a piece is product
then the maker isn't really an artist, but a manufacture.
Art has something to do with the soul, about exsitence, money, well
money is another matter-ofcourse most of you would disagree....
Gymbo
--------------4C3442832E2D
Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="FACE.JPG"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="FACE.JPG"
<encoded_portion_removed>
JHrn0qHa3tHs/wDNoxT05X6kPkmUlyobB25ZsdOPQ+lbKlp/wBLkfxCyBAAAl1YAAA==
--------------4C3442832E2D--