Evaluating paintings
Marilyn
>
> What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings?
That is a complicated question. First there are all the different genres
and styles. Keep narrowing the field until you have the one you prefer
or the one that you are immersed in with your own work.
I think it takes a few years of looking at the great masters of the past, and
more recent past. This develops your "eye" for paintings.
Here is a book that might help if you can get a hold of it
"painting: THE APPRECIATION OF THE ARTS" BY Peter Owen, Oxford University Press, 1970
London, W.1
This book seems to have all the answers you seek and could help you in your search.
Marilyn
In what sense can one
> say that one painting is "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
> more than a matter of personal taste? As one whose principal activity is
> painting, I urgently need to find answers to these questions. Can you help
> me?
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
paint...@my-dejanews.com
mil...@cove.com
sense, is one painting really "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
more than personal taste?
As a painter, I urgently need to find answers to these questions. Can you
Nyor
welcome!
http://members.xoom.com/nho_hn/
Nho Nguyen.
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
paint...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings? In what sense can one
> say that one painting is "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
> more than a matter of personal taste? As one whose principal activity is
> me?
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
surface. If sucessful it transforms the viewer in
some way leaving him and the artist closer to a spiritual awareness.
--
Believe those who search for the truth,distrust those who say they found
it basho
mil...@cove.com
spent decades looking at both old masters and contemporary artists. Perhaps I
have an eye for painting.....at least I have an idea about what excites me.
It covers quite a range of styles, but I am still at a loss as to why I like
one artist more than another as well as whether this has anything to do with
some sort of absolute merit in the work, especially since others have
different tastes. I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
personal taste. But that isn't either satisfying nor helpful.....I am left
with the feeling that there must be more to it than that. In article
<36732353.691B@not_a_real_address.ca>,
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> paint...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings?
>
> That is a complicated question. First there are all the different genres
> and styles. Keep narrowing the field until you have the one you prefer
> or the one that you are immersed in with your own work.
>
> I think it takes a few years of looking at the great masters of the past, and
> more recent past. This develops your "eye" for paintings.
>
> Here is a book that might help if you can get a hold of it
>
> "painting: THE APPRECIATION OF THE ARTS" BY Peter Owen, Oxford University
Press, 1970
> London, W.1
>
> This book seems to have all the answers you seek and could help you in your
search.
>
> Marilyn
>
GoGen
>What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings? In what sense can one
>say that one painting is "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
There's no painting which is "worse" or "better" than another, just
more or less valuable, depending on the author and how famous she/he
is, which means whether buying such painting is an investment or waste
of money.
Goran Generalic
-----
"Gallery J. Generalic" - Croatian Naive Art
www.generalic.com
-----
Marilyn
>
> Thanks, Marilyn, for your response and for your book suggestion. I have
> spent decades looking at both old masters and contemporary artists. Perhaps I
> have an eye for painting.....at least I have an idea about what excites me.
> It covers quite a range of styles, but I am still at a loss as to why I like
> one artist more than another as well as whether this has anything to do with
> some sort of absolute merit in the work, especially since others have
> different tastes. I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
> criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> personal taste. But that isn't either satisfying nor helpful.....I am left
> with the feeling that there must be more to it than that. In article
> <36732353.691B@not_a_real_address.ca>,
So then you have developed an "eye" and are able to eliminate alot of junk
based on experience & observation. The appeal of certain paintings to your
group of preferences, conscious & unconscious is a mystery which only you
can unravel. I don't think you can single out some "merit" which makes the
work appeal to you. For example, I am very attracted to Goya's "Burial of
the Sardine." It seems under analysis of the logical painting criteria
(composition, colour etc.) that a few flaws are revealed but the sum of
all the parts is a masterpiece. (I love the triangles.)
To me, the painting succeeds in its gestalt, it succeeds in communicating.
That communication is its power & its mystery.
It is easy to use the word mystery when one is stuck for an explanation
but I honestly can't explain my attraction to this particular painting or
its power over me.
To me there are the objective criteria which can be listed and have been listed
over & over on this group, and there are the subjective criteria, and there is this
mystery. Hope you don't think I am simplifying the whole study of aesthetics in
one sentence. Just a short comment here.
I refer you to "Homo Aesthetics: Where Art Comes From and Why" by Ellen Dissanayake
& " The Transfiguration of the Commonplace" by Arthur C. Danto.
Have a good search!
Marilyn
Marilyn
Correction:
should be:
"Homo Aestheticus"
"I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like."
Marilyn
mil...@cove.com
some paintings without being able to say why. That really seems to leave us
with no objective criteria for evaluating a painting, since one's response is
purely subjective. But if that is so, what right has anyone to call anything
"junk". What seems like junk to me seems like beauty os sentiment to someone
else. I just keep daubing away, and enjoy the process, but it's disturbing
to think that nothing I do can have more intrinsic value than anything else,
such as what I did years ago. Thanks anyway for yor response.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
DFRussell
> What criteria are most useful for evaluating paintings? In any absolute
>sense, is one painting really "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
>more than personal taste?
If you can envision it in a trash can, chances are that that's where
it belongs.
DFRussell
>
>>What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings? In what sense can one
>>say that one painting is "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
>
>There's no painting which is "worse" or "better" than another,
Art school/critic horseshit -- normally put forth by people who can't
paint in order to compensate for their lack of ability/success.
>just
>more or less valuable, depending on the author and how famous she/he
>is, which means whether buying such painting is an investment or waste
>of money.
Put a Monet in a room with a "Mattison" and allow 1000 random people
from the Boston phone book to select without cost involved and see
which one they take.
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
--
--
Believe those who search for the truth,distrust those who say they found
it basho
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mark webber
After reading a few of the posts in this thread, I'd like to add to what
Marilyn originally said. This is one of the topics that interests me most
and I feel it is especially relevant today.
On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Marilyn wrote:
> paint...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >
> > What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings?
>
> That is a complicated question. First there are all the different genres
> and styles. Keep narrowing the field until you have the one you prefer
> or the one that you are immersed in with your own work.
Here I'd like to add that it seems to me all art, whether good or bad,
regardless of style or genre, raises particular issues. These are usually
more evident to those who have spent time with art history (and this goes
to what Marilyn says next.)
It seems to me that one has to address the issues raised in the work, and
the criteria is based on those issues.
(Marilyn continues:)
> I think it takes a few years of looking at the great masters of the past, and
> more recent past. This develops your "eye" for paintings.
Until the recent past, more specifically, since Duchamp, the notion of an
"eye for paintings was directly related to the notion of Form (that tricky
idea which is so elusive to those fixated on the content of the work.)
In short, Form is generally agreed to be the relationships of the parts of
the work - the shapes, colors and contrasts. It is *how* these elements
are arranged, the design of the picture, how the picture holds our
attention with visual play, that we see "good Form".
(To my mind, this is the common thread in all great art with which we are
familiar. This is the expression of sensibility.)
As I said above, until recent history this was the primary means of
judging the quality of a work - not merely the ability of the artist to
render realisticly. New issues have been raised since the time of Duchamp
and as a result, the business of judging art has become trickier - whether
or not this situation benefits the state of art is up to the individual
and their personal taste.
Hope this helps, and, as always, fire at will.
mark webber
> Thanks, Marilyn, for your response and for your book suggestion. I have
> spent decades looking at both old masters and contemporary artists. Perhaps I
> have an eye for painting.....at least I have an idea about what excites me.
> It covers quite a range of styles, but I am still at a loss as to why I like
> one artist more than another as well as whether this has anything to do with
> some sort of absolute merit in the work, ...
(interupt)
If your "tastes" run across a variety of styles and subjects, then it is
likely that you do have an eye, because it is likely that you are
responding to the form (see my previous post.)
Trying to find "absolute merit", however, may be akin to trying to
determine which is the "best all time painting" or "most important artist"
- a rather futile effort due to personal taste.
My feeling is that the relationship between personal taste and quality is
best defined by this example: If you have a prefered genre of music, such
as Jazz, do you determine that another genre, such as opera, is inferior?
Unlikely. It is more likely that you will agree that, while there are
probably great operas, you prefer Jazz. In addition, you will agree that
not all Jazz is of equal importance.
In fact, if you are attempting objectivity, you might even agree that,
while you prefer Jazz to Opera, there may be some Opera which is superior
to some Jazz.
> ...especially since others have
> different tastes. I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
> criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> personal taste.
Perhaps my above remarks address this last of yours.
Hope this is useful,
Marilyn
After Duchamp came the age of dismissiveness.
Most people dismiss post Duchampian work.
I thought I was directing
the person who began the thread to narrow down the wide field to his
own preferences. It seems that once Duchamp threw away the rules,
many people got lost. Then came Andy to further confuse the issue.
I think:
"I know a lot about art, but I don't know what I like."
Looking at a student show in town, there was a series where the
students were supposed to make the paintings look old, antique.
They seemed to throw a lot of stuff on the work, muck it up etc.
so I said, "They should have made fake cracks in the paint." I
was immediately corrected. There are no "shoulds" I was told.
And I guess that's true for the art world in general. Without rules,
we are really challenged.
Marilyn
mdeli
>Here I'd like to add that it seems to me all art, whether good or bad,
>regardless of style or genre, raises particular issues. These are usually
>more evident to those who have spent time with art history (and this goes
>to what Marilyn says next.)
>
>It seems to me that one has to address the issues raised in the work, and
>the criteria is based on those issues.
So address them.
>Until the recent past, more specifically, since Duchamp, the notion of an
>"eye for paintings was directly related to the notion of Form (that tricky
>idea which is so elusive to those fixated on the content of the work.)
>
>In short, Form is generally agreed to be the relationships of the parts of
>the work - the shapes, colors and contrasts. It is *how* these elements
>are arranged, the design of the picture, how the picture holds our
>attention with visual play, that we see "good Form".
>
Art school baloney.
Form in painting whether realistic or abstract is the illusion of the
third dimension. Because Weber fails at this in his work he has to
give a line of Artspeak as an excuse.
>(To my mind, this is the common thread in all great art with which we are
>familiar. This is the expression of sensibility.)
>
In the past, when challenged to explain what SENSIBILITY is, Weber has
had nothing to say.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mdeli
> I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
>criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
>personal taste. But that isn't either satisfying nor helpful.....I am left
>with the feeling that there must be more to it than that.
There is.
Good painting has the ability to attract most viewers. It also leads
them to look at the details and think about what they are looking at.
Sometimes it has the power remain in the viewer's memory.
The uninformed need not know why this happens.
For the artist however it is a different matter. He has to learn what
elements go to make an artwork attractive. He does this by studying
the techniques and craft of artwork he considers superior. He then
tries to do his own variations on this in order to create a unique
image which will please viewers.
Having read some of the convoluted artspeak in this thread I would
warn anyone who is a student to beware of this sort of verbal cryptic
crap coming from their teachers as a cover-up for their lack of
knowledge.
DFRussell
>
>
>After reading a few of the posts in this thread, I'd like to add to what
>Marilyn originally said. This is one of the topics that interests me most
>and I feel it is especially relevant today.
>
>On Sat, 12 Dec 1998, Marilyn wrote:
>
>> paint...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>> >
>> > What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings?
>>
>> That is a complicated question. First there are all the different genres
>> and styles. Keep narrowing the field until you have the one you prefer
>> or the one that you are immersed in with your own work.
>
>Here I'd like to add that it seems to me all art, whether good or bad,
>regardless of style or genre, raises particular issues. These are usually
>more evident to those who have spent time with art history (and this goes
>to what Marilyn says next.)
Translation: I'm too stupid to be able to recognize if I like
something so I'll let someone else tell me.
>
>It seems to me that one has to address the issues raised in the work, and
>the criteria is based on those issues.
Artspeak bullshit.
The "issues" raised are irrelevant to the piece. It's good or bad.
Anything else might be historically interesting but irrelevant.
mark webber
> After Duchamp came the age of dismissiveness.
> Most people dismiss post Duchampian work.
> I thought I was directing
> the person who began the thread to narrow down the wide field to his
> own preferences.
And that is certainly a useful idea.
> It seems that once Duchamp threw away the rules,
> many people got lost. Then came Andy to further confuse the issue.
I like to take Duchamp at his word - that is, that it was not art.
Andy means even less to me these days. The huge museum in Pittsburgh with
his name on it seems silly and very overblown.
> Looking at a student show in town, there was a series where the
> students were supposed to make the paintings look old, antique.
> They seemed to throw a lot of stuff on the work, muck it up etc.
> so I said, "They should have made fake cracks in the paint."
I like your suggestion - it's amusing.
> I was immediately corrected. There are no "shoulds" I was told.
"No shoulds" sounds a lot like a "should" to me.
> And I guess that's true for the art world in general. Without rules,
> we are really challenged.
I don't think there were ever rules. I'm not sure what we've been
liberated from. There is still, and always will be, both extremes:
Pseudo Avant Guard and Insipid Illustration.
yuki...@my-dejanews.com
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
> >Here I'd like to add that it seems to me all art, whether good or bad,
> >regardless of style or genre, raises particular issues. These are usually
> >more evident to those who have spent time with art history (and this goes
> >to what Marilyn says next.)
> >
>
> >the criteria is based on those issues.
>
>
> >Until the recent past, more specifically, since Duchamp, the notion of an
> >"eye for paintings was directly related to the notion of Form (that tricky
> >idea which is so elusive to those fixated on the content of the work.)
> >
> >In short, Form is generally agreed to be the relationships of the parts of
> >the work - the shapes, colors and contrasts. It is *how* these elements
> >are arranged, the design of the picture, how the picture holds our
> >attention with visual play, that we see "good Form".
> >
> Art school baloney.
> Form in painting whether realistic or abstract is the illusion of the
> third dimension. Because Weber fails at this in his work he has to
> give a line of Artspeak as an excuse.
>
> >(To my mind, this is the common thread in all great art with which we are
> >familiar. This is the expression of sensibility.)
> >
> In the past, when challenged to explain what SENSIBILITY is, Weber has
> had nothing to say.
about what is and what isn't good art. Seems to me books instill taste in the
artist, if so is taste a good thing.?? Me thinks not!
> george
Marilyn
>
> On Mon, 14 Dec 1998, Marilyn wrote:
>
>
> > After Duchamp came the age of dismissiveness.
> > Most people dismiss post Duchampian work.
> > I thought I was directing
> > the person who began the thread to narrow down the wide field to his
> > own preferences.
>
> And that is certainly a useful idea.
>
> > It seems that once Duchamp threw away the rules,
> > many people got lost. Then came Andy to further confuse the issue.
>
> I like to take Duchamp at his word - that is, that it was not art.
> Andy means even less to me these days. The huge museum in Pittsburgh with
> his name on it seems silly and very overblown.
>
> > Looking at a student show in town, there was a series where the
> > students were supposed to make the paintings look old, antique.
> > They seemed to throw a lot of stuff on the work, muck it up etc.
> > so I said, "They should have made fake cracks in the paint."
>
> I like your suggestion - it's amusing.
>
> > I was immediately corrected. There are no "shoulds" I was told.
>
> "No shoulds" sounds a lot like a "should" to me.
You're right, as I said in another post, one hegemony replaces another
while we struggle to be free of them all.
>
> > And I guess that's true for the art world in general. Without rules,
> > we are really challenged.
>
> I don't think there were ever rules. I'm not sure what we've been
> liberated from. There is still, and always will be, both extremes:
> Pseudo Avant Guard and Insipid Illustration.
Well, the academic rules, I meant, the rules that postmodernism loves to break, and
ridicule.
I heard that the term avant garde is passe now.
Read something amusing on the Coagula site about the security at a recent
ex. in NYC, Whitney or Guggenheim. The writer, crushed in the crowds, yelled,
"Art Critic, stand back!" as the security approached him menacingly. It worked.
Could you give us your definition of the word "form" in the context of evaluating
paintings?
salut,
Marilyn
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
: > I don't think there were ever rules. I'm not sure what we've been
: > liberated from. There is still, and always will be, both extremes:
: > Pseudo Avant Guard and Insipid Illustration.
: > Mark
: > webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
Mark-
Sorry to say you have it backwards...Insipid Illustrationism and Psueudo
Avant gardism...if you get my drift....black is white, white is black.
But as far as rules go there have always been rules,.... and they're -my-
rules,... and rules were meant to be broken!
so I break them when it's necessary.
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/r/a/mrayers/Home.html
p.a...@mindspring.com.
br...@wralaw.com
> > After Duchamp came the age of dismissiveness.
> > Most people dismiss post Duchampian work.
> > And I guess that's true for the art world in general. Without rules,
> > we are really challenged.
The only rules we are bound by are Governed by the Natural World...
>
> I don't think there were ever rules. I'm not sure what we've been
> liberated from.
There has never been a liberation, we have become slaves to criticism.
Modern criticism being unbounded leaves no refuge for the artist other
than suicide. I can not be safe from intentionally cruel critique by
being good esthetically and technically. The art community did not
become nicer when it let down its technical standard to allow Manet
in with Bougereau, and later to declare Picasso King over all forms
of futurism and surrealism. The modern art critic is in controll not
the artist. By ad-hoc verbal intelligence, verbal illogicism, a
very mediocre, art-by theory and criticsm has come to dominate.
After all why have art critics been able to demand that artists
constantly change place, format, materials, media, and meaning,
while there has been no demand placed on critics to ever do anything
different than write?
The obvious answere is that they are in controll not artists.
> There is still, and always will be, both extremes:
> Pseudo Avant Guard and Insipid Illustration.
Of course you know that if this attitude comes to dominate the real
Avant Guard will be Insipid Illustration!
> Mark
> webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
Bob C
>
> --I can't help but wonder if one can evaluate artistic merit by reading book
> about what is and what isn't good art. Seems to me books instill taste in the
> artist, if so is taste a good thing.?? Me thinks not!
>
The actual judgement of art (bad, good, better) is usually only
important if we are doing something like making a purchase or jurying a
show. In all other situations, the value lies not in the judgement
itself but in how we arrived at that judgement. The well-written book
will not just tell you what is good or bad; it will explain and justify
its criteria for making that judgement and show how the works in
question either fail or succeed in satisfying that criteria. You, the
reader, are free to disagree with either the selection of criteria or
the evaluation against it, but this doesn't have to prevent you from
learning from it.
I don't think we can avoid tastes, however. As I see it, tastes are
simply the set of expectations which we bring to the act of
appreciation. The value in an art object comes from how it can meet
those expectations but at the same time provide creative deviations from
them. Without those expectations (ie. tastes), there is no way for art
to have value. It is hard to know to what extent our most basic
expectations come from nature rather than nurture, but I personally
think that there is little doubt that the majority of our expectations
have been defined by our culture. Therefore it is a very good thing for
you to take matters into your own hands and guide the development of
your tastes rather than passively letting your environment do it for
you. Read those books!
- Bob
mark webber
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9812151...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
>
> : > I don't think there were ever rules. I'm not sure what we've been
> : > liberated from. There is still, and always will be, both extremes:
> : > Pseudo Avant Guard and Insipid Illustration.
>
> : > Mark
> : > webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
>
> Mark-
> Sorry to say you have it backwards...Insipid Illustrationism and Psueudo
> Avant gardism...if you get my drift....black is white, white is black.
Sorry to be so dense, but I don't really get it. Do you mean that Insipid
Illustration *is* Pseudo Avant Gardism?
> But as far as rules go there have always been rules,.... and they're -my-
> rules,... and rules were meant to be broken!
> so I break them when it's necessary.
Atta boy, Bryn!
DFRussell
>yuki...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>>
>
>> --I can't help but wonder if one can evaluate artistic merit by reading book
>> about what is and what isn't good art. Seems to me books instill taste in the
>> artist, if so is taste a good thing.?? Me thinks not!
>>
>
>The actual judgement of art (bad, good, better) is usually only
>important if we are doing something like making a purchase or jurying a
>show.
Red herring.
> In all other situations, the value lies not in the judgement
>itself but in how we arrived at that judgement.
Start with a red herring and you can conclude almost anything.
It would appear that you have.
How we arrive at a 'good or bad' in reference to a painting has
nothing to do with the painting.
I don't like abstract paintings. My personal like or dislike has no
effect on them, and I can recognize that some are better than others.
[big snip]
mark webber
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9812140...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> > > different tastes. I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
> > > criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> > > personal taste.
> >
> > Perhaps my above remarks address this last of yours.
>
> I think your comments infer that there is no good nor bad in art, that the
> merit in a work of art is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Sorry to have been unclear. My position is a bit the opposite. It's just
my opinion of course, but I do feel there is a notion of quality in art. I
don't feel everyone always agrees on what it is. I suppose that's obvious,
really.
But to think that most people who have spent time looking at art would not
find a Titian to be superior to a Leroy Niemann, to use one of your
examples, that seems far-fetched to me.
Because there isn't a concensus on all art doesn't mean some judgements
can't be made. I wrote two replies to your query - did you see the other
one? I only ask because perhaps my point of view is clearer in that one.
Anyway, nice to have more folks probing this.
mark webber
(snip bulk of post)
> Could you give us your definition of the word "form" in the context of evaluating
> paintings?
>
> salut,
>
> Marilyn
>
>
Hi Marilyn,
I think in my first reply to your post on "Evaluating paintings" I went
into more detail on it, but to sum it up, it is the relationships of the
shapes, colors and contrasts of the work. It is certainly not my own idea
- many writers, such as Clive Bell, have written extensively about it.
Notions of visual play, sensibility and design are all tied to it.
Hope I'm not sounding too repetitive.
Marilyn
Twombly, Norman Rockwell, Grandma Moses, Jackson Pollack, and Richard Estes?
>
> >
Twombly - minimalist, expressive, mysterious - I like his work.
Rockwell - illustrator, real sappy - my mother loved his work.
Moses - naive folk artist, cute, makes nice wall paper for the breakfast nook.
Jackson Pollack - action artist, broke new ground, to me, a genius.
Estes - representational in his own original way, I like his work.
Marilyn
mil...@cove.com
> >criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> >with the feeling that there must be more to it than that.
>
> There is.
>
> Good painting has the ability to attract most viewers.
If the criterion for evaluating art is the number of viewers it attracts,
then Norman Rockwell, Niemann, Petty and Varga (who painted sexy gals years
ago) were the best. Somehow, the museums have overlooked them. Certainly
there are many other painters whom I find more stimulating.
It also leads> them to look at the details and think about what they are
looking at.
> Sometimes it has the power remain in the viewer's memory.
>
> The uninformed need not know why this happens.
>
> For the artist however it is a different matter. He has to learn what
> elements go to make an artwork attractive. He does this by studying
> the techniques and craft of artwork he considers superior. He then
> tries to do his own variations on this in order to create a unique
> image which will please viewers.
>
> Having read some of the convoluted artspeak in this thread I would
> warn anyone who is a student to beware of this sort of verbal cryptic
> crap coming from their teachers as a cover-up for their lack of
> knowledge.
> --
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work
and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mil...@cove.com
yuki...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <36745dd...@news.mindspring.com>,
> nobody@localhost wrote:
> > go...@generalic.com (GoGen) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings? In what sense can
one
> > >>say that one painting is "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
> > >
> > >There's no painting which is "worse" or "better" than another,
> >
> > Art school/critic horseshit -- normally put forth by people who can't
> > paint in order to compensate for their lack of ability/success.
> >
> > >just
> > >more or less valuable, depending on the author and how famous she/he
> > >is, which means whether buying such painting is an investment or waste
> > >of money.
> >
> > Put a Monet in a room with a "Mattison" and allow 1000 random people
> > from the Boston phone book to select without cost involved and see
> > which one they take.
> >
> >
> Lord help us all if we don't know a good painting from a bad one. george
If you can tell the difference between a good painting and a bad one, you
must be able to rank the work of various artists. How would you rank Cy
Twombly, Norman Rockwell, Grandma Moses, Jackson Pollack, and Richard Estes?
>
> --
>
> --
> Believe those who search for the truth,distrust those who say they found
> it basho
>
mil...@cove.com
> > criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> > personal taste.
>
I think your comments infer that there is no good nor bad in art, that the
merit in a work of art is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
>
> Hope this is useful,
>
> Mark
> webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
br...@wralaw.com
Marilyn <mw@not_a_real_address.ca> wrote:
> mark webber wrote:
> Well, the academic rules, I meant, the rules that postmodernism loves to
break, and
> ridicule.
> I heard that the term avant garde is passe now.
Thats absolutely ridiculous, but at least its still French.
>
> Read something amusing on the Coagula site about the security at a recent
> ex. in NYC, Whitney or Guggenheim. The writer, crushed in the crowds, yelled,
> "Art Critic, stand back!"
I would have kicked him in the right leg for good measure.
> as the security approached him menacingly. It worked.
> salut,
Bon Sejour!
> Marilyn
A votre sante!
Ciao Baby!
GoGen
>>There's no painting which is "worse" or "better" than another,
>
>Art school/critic horseshit -- normally put forth by people who can't
>paint in order to compensate for their lack of ability/success.
It was actualy my own opinion, but thanks for putting me up with
stinky guys.
Goran Generalic
-----
"Gallery J. Generalic" - Croatian Naive Art
www.generalic.com
-----
Marilyn
No not repetitive.
Someone else on this group calls it "the illusion of 3D"
I think he means shape.
M.
mark webber
If one reads the major art historians and critics and comes away with that
definition of Form then one simply hasn't understood what one has read.
If one hasn't understood what one has read, (or hasn't read what one
claims to have read) then it is rather difficult to take one seriously.
regards,
Mark
webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
Philip Ayers
>
> On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Philip Ayers wrote:
>
> > mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >
> > : > I don't think there were ever rules. I'm not sure what we've been
> > : > liberated from. There is still, and always will be, both extremes:
> > : > Pseudo Avant Guard and Insipid Illustration.
> >
> > : > Mark
> > : > webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
> >
> > Mark-
> > Sorry to say you have it backwards...Insipid Illustrationism and Psueudo
> > Avant gardism...if you get my drift....black is white, white is black.
>
> Sorry to be so dense, but I don't really get it. Do you mean that Insipid
> Illustration *is* Pseudo Avant Gardism?
>
later "illustrationism" will be Avant-Gard! What goes around comes
around! Like the song sez, "When everything old is new again." I can see
someone, perhaps as Duncan Hannah did in the eights, choose a painting
style that is illustrative, appropriate and aim it at the avant-art
crowd, which he did. It has happened and it will happen. Actually it
didn't make it big because his images couldn't be distinguished from the
"real thing". Sometimes a cow is -just- a cow.
> Mark
> webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
mark webber
> Not necessarily-now- but consider, if time is endless then sooner or
> later "illustrationism" will be Avant-Gard! What goes around comes
> around! Like the song sez, "When everything old is new again." I can see
> someone, perhaps as Duncan Hannah did in the eights, choose a painting
> style that is illustrative, appropriate and aim it at the avant-art
> crowd, which he did. It has happened and it will happen. Actually it
> didn't make it big because his images couldn't be distinguished from the
> "real thing". Sometimes a cow is -just- a cow.
I see your point. Yes, you are probably right.
Still, it will only matter if the paintings are good. Insipid illustration
may become avant guarde, but by definition, it won't be good painting.
Kerry Keane
On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 paint...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What criteria are most useful in evaluating paintings? In what sense can one
> say that one painting is "better" than another? Is judging a painting any
> more than a matter of personal taste?
It's often a matter of conspicuous consumption.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
Well, I'm skeptical mostly, but some have said "good painting" -is- "bad
painting". These are the "insipid" avant-gardists who see anything which
is understood to be outdated. I beleive some Pop artists relied on
"insipid"? illustration at times for it's edge. Picabia's "pin-up" period
was flat-out "bad painting", "insipid" illustration which shocked the
veiwer into another realm of relationship with art, as did Duchamp's ready
made.
The point is, these aren't the extremes. It could be that illustration
in and of itself isn't art at all, but "illustration" is an aspect of art.
It gets used by many different artists for different reasons but your
assumptions are always brought into question.
DFRussell
>In article <3675b3a0...@news.interlog.com>,
> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 1998 16:45:56 GMT, mil...@cove.com wrote:
>>
>> > I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
>> >criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
>> >personal taste. But that isn't either satisfying nor helpful.....I am left
>> >with the feeling that there must be more to it than that.
>>
>> There is.
>>
>> Good painting has the ability to attract most viewers.
>
> If the criterion for evaluating art is the number of viewers it attracts,
>then Norman Rockwell, Niemann, Petty and Varga (who painted sexy gals years
>ago) were the best.
Red herring... getting to be a lot of those in here?
Methinks you must speak from personal experience.... Rockwell has
pretty much vanished in most parts of the country. Niemann etc. never
had a large audience outside of playboy.
> Somehow, the museums have overlooked them. Certainly
>there are many other painters whom I find more stimulating.
Indeed! Which hand do you use while looking at their work? :)
DFRussell
[snip]
> If you can tell the difference between a good painting and a bad one, you
>must be able to rank the work of various artists. How would you rank Cy
>Twombly, Norman Rockwell, Grandma Moses, Jackson Pollack, and Richard Estes?
Well, I'd personally say Cezanne was better :-))))))
DFRussell
>
>>>There's no painting which is "worse" or "better" than another,
>>
>>Art school/critic horseshit -- normally put forth by people who can't
>>paint in order to compensate for their lack of ability/success.
>
>It was actualy my own opinion, but thanks for putting me up with
>stinky guys.
Please note the use of "normally".
mil...@cove.com
> > criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> > personal taste.
>
>
In this posting, you say "Trying to find 'absolute merit'..... a rather
futile effort due to personal taste." In another posting, you opine that
paintings by Titian are better than those by Niemann. These statements don't
seem consistent. If it's all a matter of personal taste, then in what sense
is Titian better than Niemann, except that he appeals more to your own
personal taste? And if you believe that Titian is a better artist than
Niemann, what criteria do you use to come to that conclusion (other than
almost anyone who is familiar with Titian would agree with you)? With
respect to comparisons of jazz with opera, how can one possibly rate one
opera as better or worse than a given jazz piece? One can say at a given time
that he"d rather hear one or the other, but that's not only a matter of
personal taste, but also his mood at the time. Incidentally, in a book
called "Believing Is Seeing", Prof. Mary Anne Staniszewski makes the point
that the concept of art as we know it is only about two centuries old. She
would say that in his own time, Titian was not considered to be an artist as
we use the term today, nor would his work have been considered to be art as
we know it. I suspect that our notion of art is spurious, and that in fact
there are no useful criteria for judging works of art as "art". A
professional artist friend of mine is often asked to serve as a judge at art
shows. At some point, I became aware that he was trying to judge work by some
academic standards rather than by what appealed to or moved him. We argued
about that issue for a week. He finally agreed that using his own visceral
reaction may have been more appropriate than academic criteria. But is his
reaction somehow more valid than that of the man in the street (who might
think Niemann is great)? Most people seem to have rather glib answers to the
question of merit in art, but I'm still looking for something better. Thanks
for your comments.
br...@wralaw.com
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9812160...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> programmed:
> : > > Not necessarily-now- but consider, if time is endless then sooner or
> : > > later "illustrationism" will be Avant-Gard! What goes around comes
> : > > around! Like the song sez, "When everything old is new again." I can see
The Avant-Gard is a French term that refers to a faction of (gard) troops
in the Army that go ahead (avant) in order to scout and secure new
territory in a War. (I'm certain the previous poster's knew this and I
know I was the first one to state that if his attitude persists insipid
illustration will become the real Avant-Guard). I would like to say that
by definition the Avant-Gard cannot ever go back and take territory
that has already been taken<Unless art has lost insipid illustration>.
The Avant Gard is one of many terms that has been over used and then
missused in art-speak.
Insipid means tasteless right? and this was propossed in contrast to
abstarct art and minimalism (if my memory isn't failing or Hallucinating).
And that means tasteless in the sense of food that has little flavor i.e.
a broth is insipid. How is minimalism not insipid? and Why is insipid
necessarlily bad? It was stated that 'insipid illustration' is by
definition bad (in this thread I think)...
Iff Insipid means bad as Bourgoise which is french for the middle class
or class of Bourgers(meaning shopkeepers and workers) is why not just say
bad-art<granted phillip did state that insipid isn't necessarily bad>.
Insipid Illustration is a good description of what one instinctivly
feels when he sees a boring, well-done painting in the corner market.
However the insipid is also what one might experience in a musuem
installation of minimalism(provided they haven't read volumes of
literature on minamalism which then makes it exciting)?
Also isn't insipidness the point of minimalism?
> Well, I'm skeptical mostly, but some have said "good painting" -is- "bad
> painting".
> These are the "insipid" avant-gardists who see anything which
> is understood to be outdated.
I think you've hit at least one nail on the head here...
> I beleive some Pop artists relied on
> "insipid"? illustration at times for it's edge.
I thought the intent was to be slightly kitchy? Really I have to say
what does Weber and Phill,(and those who believe) mean by insipid?
If insipid, is used more or less as Kitch and Bourgoise, what is
common illustration? One can escape insipid soup by adding garlic
and pepper, If common illustrative landscape painting uses too much
black and red, or a jaring yellow it has escaped insipid has it not?
> Picabia's "pin-up" period
> was flat-out "bad painting", "insipid" illustration which shocked the
> veiwer into another realm of relationship with art, as did Duchamp's ready
> made.
If its effects are shocking isn't this stretching the term?
> The point is, these aren't the extremes. It could be that illustration
> in and of itself isn't art at all, but "illustration" is an aspect of art.
> It gets used by many different artists for different reasons but your
> assumptions are always brought into question.
> Philip (never Phil) Ayers
Whatever you cute little Bryn!
> http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
> http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/r/a/mrayers/Home.html
> p.a...@mindspring.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Truth Destroys Everything
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
If Art Critics can demand that artists paint nothing realistic why
can't Artists demand that critics use no real words!
mdeli
>> Good painting has the ability to attract most viewers.
>GMT, mil...@cove.com wrote:
> If the criterion for evaluating art is the number of viewers it attracts,
>then Norman Rockwell, Niemann, Petty and Varga (who painted sexy gals years
>ago) were the best.
They aren't necessarily best, just more interesting and technically
superior to most of the contemporary crap in the museums.The best
Artzy-fartzy curators can do is to see that this sort competition is
banned from holy places.
Vargas is a far better artist than Picasso. Even prudes would enjoy
his early portraits if they were able to see them. Compare them to
Picasso's deco attempts and see for yourself.
> Somehow, the museums have overlooked them.
They are well aware of them and are very careful to keep them out of
the museum going public's eye. If these artists made it to museum
walls the curator's phoney intellectual cover would be blown and a lot
incompetent art teachers would have to go on welfare.
>Certainly
>there are many other painters whom I find more stimulating.
>
mdeli
> mark webber wrote:
>> Perhaps my above remarks address this last of yours.
>mil...@cove.com wrote:
> I think your comments infer that there is no good nor bad in art, that the
>merit in a work of art is entirely in the eye of the beholder.
There is good art and nothing particular art and over-rated art. No
art is really bad. However lots of so-called art is little more than
crap.
Webber's work is a good example of nothing-particular art, as is most
no-skill realism. It is unlikely to become over-rated art like most of
the crap the modern section of a museums because its not enough of a
put-on.
mdeli
>Twombly - minimalist, expressive, mysterious - I like his work.
A complete phoney. Original in a sense in that he has taken the age
level of Modern Art down to 7. Matisse took it to down to 11. This is
quite an achievment. I like his money.
>Rockwell - illustrator, real sappy - my mother loved his work.
Marilyn who occasionaly complains that those who don't agree with her
aren't in the 20th century might check out her mother's hereticle
taste for the 20th century Rockwell. Mother loved sappy, daughter
loves crappy.
>Moses - naive folk artist, cute, makes nice wall paper for the breakfast nook.
Moses had skill ideas and originality. She is a master compared to the
primitive Rousseau.
>Jackson Pollack - action artist, broke new ground, to me, a genius.
The only ground broken was when he was buried. He couldn't design
floor covering.
>Estes - representational in his own original way, I like his work.
Even Marilyn can't help liking superior competence, skill, originality
and technique when it stares her in the face.
br...@wralaw.com
nobody@localhost wrote:
> mil...@cove.com wrote:
> > If you can tell the difference between a good painting and a bad one, you
I can't tell the difference between a good and bad painting only the
difference between a good and bad look or a good and bad reaction. It's
kinda like the difference between a good and bad fuck eh?(eh for those of
ya in Canada)
> >must be able to rank the work of various artists. How would you rank Cy
> >Twombly, Norman Rockwell, Grandma Moses, Jackson Pollack, and Richard Estes?
In an odd way I have felt that there is a strong esthetic simmularity
between abstract expressionism, esp Pollack, and Photorealism, esp
Estes. Other photorealists like Audrey Flack, a women and first artist
to use exclusivly photomechanical reproduction, clearly arrange their
subjects or at least chose them. Estes work has the presence of any
photo on any day of any city that he happens to be visiting.
Essentially the construct of reality are abstract, or that is to say in
order to paint something realistically one must
> Well, I'd personally say Cezanne was better :-))))))
Cezanne wasn't mentioned,, I'd even say Dubuffet is more entertaining!
Once we go for technique, Estes wins followed by Rockwell, when we go
for Beauty Estes and Pollack go to the bottom of the Heap. Of course
art clique is concerned with the innefibly cool ergo. Pollack is king!
BAONA
Bryn (never Phil) Ayers
mark webber
(snip)
> > Trying to find "absolute merit", however, may be akin to trying to
> > determine which is the "best all time painting" or "most important artist"
> > - a rather futile effort due to personal taste.
> >
> > My feeling is that the relationship between personal taste and quality is
> > best defined by this example: If you have a prefered genre of music, such
> > as Jazz, do you determine that another genre, such as opera, is inferior?
> > Unlikely. It is more likely that you will agree that, while there are
> > probably great operas, you prefer Jazz. In addition, you will agree that
> > not all Jazz is of equal importance.
> >
> > In fact, if you are attempting objectivity, you might even agree that,
> > while you prefer Jazz to Opera, there may be some Opera which is superior
> > to some Jazz.
> >
> > > ...especially since others have
> > > different tastes. I am sorely tempted to conclude that there is no reliable
> > > criterion as to the merit in a painting, that it is purely a matter of
> > > personal taste.
> >
> > Perhaps my above remarks address this last of yours.
> >
> > Hope this is useful,
> >
> > Mark
> > webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
> >
>
> In this posting, you say "Trying to find 'absolute merit'..... a rather
> futile effort due to personal taste." In another posting, you opine that
> paintings by Titian are better than those by Niemann. These statements don't
> seem consistent.
I'm not sure why. When I spoke of absolute merit, I was saying that we
won't always agree, and when I spoke of Titian and Niemann I was citing
an example in which I thought we might.
I believe it is difficult to judge without personal taste. It might be
better to attribute my feeling that Titian is better than Niemann to my
personal taste. I think, however, that would be an understatement.
> If it's all a matter of personal taste,
I don't believe it is - but if it helps, we can think of some people as
having more informed, experienced taste than others. This goes back to
what Marilyn was saying about spending time with art history.
> then in what sense
> is Titian better than Niemann, except that he appeals more to your own
> personal taste? And if you believe that Titian is a better artist than
> Niemann, what criteria do you use to come to that conclusion (other than
> almost anyone who is familiar with Titian would agree with you)?
I think Titian is a better painter than Neimann because of a variety of
reasons, but the primary reason is that his color, composition, form and
decision-making astonish me. His inventiveness holds my attention and his
brushwork is beautiful.
If one were to ask me if the same can't be said for Niemann, I suppose I
would have to say "only by someone unfamiliar with Titian."
> With
> respect to comparisons of jazz with opera, how can one possibly rate one
> opera as better or worse than a given jazz piece?
Well, imagine a really bad, I mean awful, jazz performance and a really
brilliant opera. It doesn't seem that hard to me, if one has enough
experience with music. Perhaps not even a lot of experience if the jazz
were bad enough - for instance, if the musicians didn't even know how to
play scales, or they were too drunk to listen to what each other were
doing with any sensitivity.
> One can say at a given time
> that he"d rather hear one or the other, but that's not only a matter of
> personal taste, but also his mood at the time.
Yes, that would certainly be those things, agree. But if one chose to
compare the above, one could do that as well.
> Incidentally, in a book
> called "Believing Is Seeing", Prof. Mary Anne Staniszewski makes the point
> that the concept of art as we know it is only about two centuries old. She
> would say that in his own time, Titian was not considered to be an artist as
> we use the term today, nor would his work have been considered to be art as
> we know it.
Given the expanded definitions of art today, that would certainly seem to
be true. However, Titian was seen as an artist then, and for the same
reasons that I see him as an artist now. (I don't particularly buy into as
wide a definition of art as everyone I know, and that's a personal
choice. I'll add, however, that I see Dekooning, for example, as every
bit as much an artist as Titian.)
> I suspect that our notion of art is spurious, and that in fact
> there are no useful criteria for judging works of art as "art".
That would be your personal choice, I suspect, and I'll respect it.
> A
> professional artist friend of mine is often asked to serve as a judge at art
> shows. At some point, I became aware that he was trying to judge work by some
> academic standards rather than by what appealed to or moved him. We argued
> about that issue for a week. He finally agreed that using his own visceral
> reaction may have been more appropriate than academic criteria. But is his
> reaction somehow more valid than that of the man in the street (who might
> think Niemann is great)?
I can't answer for your friend, but because I've spent a bit of time with
art, I feel my opinions are more well informed than the man in the street.
Just as the man in the street has less information about medicine or law
than a doctor or lawyer.
> Most people seem to have rather glib answers to the
> question of merit in art, but I'm still looking for something better. Thanks
> for your comments.
Me too (that is, I'm trying to find clearer approaches to criticism as
well) and I'm glad you've joined us.
mark webber
(snip previous dialogue for brevity)
>
> Well, I'm skeptical mostly, but some have said "good painting" -is- "bad
> painting". These are the "insipid" avant-gardists who see anything which
> is understood to be outdated. I beleive some Pop artists relied on
> "insipid"? illustration at times for it's edge. Picabia's "pin-up" period
> was flat-out "bad painting", "insipid" illustration which shocked the
> veiwer into another realm of relationship with art, as did Duchamp's ready
> made.
Can't disagree with any of that.
>
> The point is, these aren't the extremes. It could be that illustration
> in and of itself isn't art at all, but "illustration" is an aspect of art.
> It gets used by many different artists for different reasons but your
> assumptions are always brought into question.
I understand your point - I was treating the word "art" a bit more
loosely; that is "not neccessarily great art." And I did so only because
there are some here who see illustration (or, to be more precise, the
illustrative qualities of art which may offer much more) as the only real
art.
But you seem to feel there are extremes, so if you care to expand I'd be
interested.
Philip Ayers
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
Well, I have just a moment but I'll say with little thought, perhaps the
extremes are between "Idea" and "craft". Those that feel craft is
everything and those that feel concept is everything. I'm a moderate by
this definition and unlikely to be on the extremes. I might add along the
same line the extremes reside in the notions about what "form" is. This is
a complex subject and one that has been discussed alot, and deals with
"innovation" and "perfection".
Not really fully formed but maybe just a "filial form".
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
Philip Ayers
: > bad-art<granted phillip did state that insipid isn't necessarily bad>.
Never said that.
: > Insipid Illustration is a good description of what one instinctivly
: > feels when he sees a boring, well-done painting in the corner market.
Doubt this.
: > However the insipid is also what one might experience in a musuem
: > installation of minimalism(provided they haven't read volumes of
: > literature on minamalism which then makes it exciting)?
: >
: > Also isn't insipidness the point of minimalism?
: >
: > > Well, I'm skeptical mostly, but some have said "good painting" -is- "bad
: > > painting".
: > > These are the "insipid" avant-gardists who see anything which
: > > is understood to be outdated.
: > I think you've hit at least one nail on the head here...
: > > I beleive some Pop artists relied on
: > > "insipid"? illustration at times for it's edge.
: >
: > I thought the intent was to be slightly kitchy? Really I have to say
: > what does Weber and Phill,(and those who believe) mean by insipid?
I take it's meaning from the dictionary but I know the word bryn.
: > If insipid, is used more or less as Kitch and Bourgoise, what is
: > common illustration? One can escape insipid soup by adding garlic
: > and pepper, If common illustrative landscape painting uses too much
: > black and red, or a jaring yellow it has escaped insipid has it not?
Common illustration?...I collect them. Engravings from the ninth century
of "machines and weird inventions" to give an excellent example. Nothing
insipid about them, but they are beautiful and informative in surprising
ways and they are illustrations. take it from here mark.
: > > Picabia's "pin-up" period
: > > was flat-out "bad painting", "insipid" illustration which shocked the
: > > veiwer into another realm of relationship with art, as did Duchamp's ready
: > > made.
: >
: > If its effects are shocking isn't this stretching the term?
No not at all.
: >
: > > The point is, these aren't the extremes. It could be that illustration
: > > in and of itself isn't art at all, but "illustration" is an aspect of art.
: > > It gets used by many different artists for different reasons but your
: > > assumptions are always brought into question.
Said it pretty well I think.
: > > Philip (never Phil) Ayers
: >
: > Whatever you cute little Bryn!
: > > http://www.mindspring.com/~p.ayers/
: > > http://members.wbs.net/homepages/m/r/a/mrayers/Home.html
: > > p.a...@mindspring.com.
: >
: >
: > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
: > The Truth Destroys Everything
: > ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
: >
: > If Art Critics can demand that artists paint nothing realistic why
: > can't Artists demand that critics use no real words!
: >
: >
: >
: >
: > -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
: > http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Philip (never Phil) Ayers
The Third Toad
>> many people got lost. Then came Andy to further confuse the issue.
>
>I like to take Duchamp at his word - that is, that it was not art.
>Andy means even less to me these days. The huge museum in Pittsburgh with
>his name on it seems silly and very overblown.
Hell, it's worth going just for the room with the big mylar balloons.
The Third Toad
*balogna*
mil...@cove.com
Thanks for your comments. We seem to be talking past each other. When you
say you like Titian because certain of his skills astonish you, you seem to
be using whether skills astonish you as a criterian of what is good in art.
But what astonishes you may not astonish me, and furthermore, I may not
accept astonishment as a valid criterion of what is good in art. Another
measure you refer to is beauty, that characteristic that is in the eye of the
beholder. Again, I'm not sure that anyone would consider "Guernica"
beautiful, but many consider it to be an outstanding work of art. A recent
Yale MFA from Yale said to me that the more one learns about art, the
narrower the range of works one can enjoy. If so, art education would seem to
be counter-productive. I'm reminded of some wine afficionados I met who said
they couldn't enjoy Cabernet Sauvignon that costs less than $75 or $100 a
bottle. They've shot themselves in the foot: they have a terrible handicap
when compared to someone who can enjoy a $10 bottle. The more I think about
this and the more I exchange thoughts with others, the more I'm convinced
that there are no objective criteria by which to evaluate art. Ultimately,
everyone seems to get down to purely subjective issues. I have to admit,
however, that your analogy to music is a telling one. If a group tries jazz,
opera or anything else, and creates nothing but cacophony, appealing to no
one, it must be considered inferior to music that pleases the ear and/or
stirs the emotions. I must admit, too, that I've seen a lot of paintings that
seem wholly without merit. But schlock paintings often sell, whereas "music"
performed with a total lack of skill probably appeal to no one. One thing
that is widely admired is skill, whether in music, painting or circus
performances. One may be able to establish criteria of skill in painting.
Perhaps my difficulty lies more in the concept of "art". I think I have
developed a good deal of skill in applying paint to a surface but the result
is not exciting, at least to me. So I try to discover what I might do to make
"good art" and what the criteria of "good art" may be. But the effort seems
to lead into a morass.....it always ends up in personal taste. These
thoughts are as much for me as for you. I'll be most interested in your
response. Milt
mark webber
mark webber
Milt,
Thanks for replying, and I'm going to snip our earlier correspondence,
since its still readily available elsewhere.
Before I begin, though, I wanted to add that I neglected to address part
of what we were saying about Jazz and Opera. I was using two different
styles of music to stress that while there is the conventional wisdom
about apples and oranges, there are still levels of accomplishment that
are readily observable in spite of personal taste.
In other words, while I personnally prefer Jazz to Opera, I recognize that
much Jazz is inferior to some Opera.
Anyway, I'll have a try at your most recent points:
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998 mil...@cove.com wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. We seem to be talking past each other.
I've seen this a number of times here - where two folks begin disagreeing
about something, but once the definitions and points of view are clarified
there is a great big "Oh. OK."
(I'm just as interested, however, in good faith dissagreement.)
> When you
> say you like Titian because certain of his skills astonish you, you seem to
> be using whether skills astonish you as a criterian of what is good in art.
I wasn't doing a very good job of trying to sound objective, I know.
Trying to sound objective, however, doesn't always meet with the warmest
of replies either.
The big difference here, though, is the difference between what Titian is
doing and how I'm astonished by it.
What Titian is doing (which is superior and rare) is arranging inventive
and memorable shapes and colors in inventive and memorable ways. Now I
agree that not averyone may find these decisions (which are the expression
of his sensibility) to be memorable, inventive or astonishing.
However, *most* people who have spent time with art history do find them
so. And generally, the more one spends time with art history, the more one
realizes just what a spectacular sensibility he had.
> But what astonishes you may not astonish me, and furthermore, I may not
> accept astonishment as a valid criterion of what is good in art.
Yes, I shouldn't have implied that astonishment is a valid criterion. I
believe strongly that the criteria for judging art are implied in the
issues raised.
The issues raised by Titian (and many, many other great artists) are the
resolution of one of the primary pictorial problems: its Form.
The criteria for juding this sort of work is simply how well this problem
is solved.
This sort of judgement can not be made by the "man in the street" because
by definition he hasn't spent time looking, hasn't developed an eye.
> Another
> measure you refer to is beauty, that characteristic that is in the eye of the
> beholder. Again, I'm not sure that anyone would consider "Guernica"
> beautiful, but many consider it to be an outstanding work of art.
Yep, Beauty is a tricky word, and I often use it to describe those works
that solve the above pictorial problem. I do find Guernica to be a
beautiful painting. I do not find its subject matter beautiful, but the
painting... astonishes me.
> A recent
> Yale MFA from Yale said to me that the more one learns about art, the
> narrower the range of works one can enjoy.
I have found the opposite to be true.
> If so, art education would seem to
> be counter-productive. I'm reminded of some wine afficionados I met who said
> they couldn't enjoy Cabernet Sauvignon that costs less than $75 or $100 a
> bottle. They've shot themselves in the foot: they have a terrible handicap
> when compared to someone who can enjoy a $10 bottle.
I agree with the wine analogy completely - First Growth Bordeaux are well
out of my price range, and I doubt I'll sample many more, but if the
pleasure of finding an unfamiliar, chateau bottled red that costs under
fifteen bucks is out of reach, then they aren't really afficianados at
all.
But I don't find art education counter-productive. Before I went to art
school, I thought art was just about the representation of subject matter,
and as a result, couldn't see any difference in importance or quality
between, for example, Fragonard and Greuze. Now, Greuze looks rather dry,
static and uninventive to me, when compared to Fragonard. His color looks
weak and the sentimentality often overpowers whatever interesting visual
play might exist.
I'm not saying everyone has to attend art school in order to see this sort
of difference, but I think I probably needed some instruction, some
guidance.
> The more I think about
> this and the more I exchange thoughts with others, the more I'm convinced
> that there are no objective criteria by which to evaluate art. Ultimately,
> everyone seems to get down to purely subjective issues.
Here is probably where we are talking most past each other, because you
seem to want it black or white. This is why I said what I did about
absolute merit. Objective criteria seems a bit out of reach, but concensus
does not. Experience does not.
This does not mean, though, that it is purely subjective.
It will appear subjective to those unwilling to spend time with art. But
even though theoretically you might disagree with me on what astonishes,
I'll bet most of the time we agree. And that means something to me.
I find it enormously significant that I would rather spend time with
Michelangelo's work than many of his contemporaries, because I can't
believe that I, *by coincidence*, share the subjective view of his
greatness with everyone else.
I have to admit,
> however, that your analogy to music is a telling one. If a group tries jazz,
> opera or anything else, and creates nothing but cacophony, appealing to no
> one, it must be considered inferior to music that pleases the ear and/or
> stirs the emotions. I must admit, too, that I've seen a lot of paintings that
> seem wholly without merit. But schlock paintings often sell, whereas "music"
> performed with a total lack of skill probably appeal to no one. One thing
> that is widely admired is skill, whether in music, painting or circus
> performances. One may be able to establish criteria of skill in painting.
I'm glad you incuded circus performances. What circus performances do is
entertain. Schlock art and music also entertain - but they do not
entertain everyone.
The "skill criteria" is a road a number of us have been down before, here
in r.a.f., but I'm not opposed to riding there again. I'll start by saying
that I feel if the issue of technical skill is not raised by the work
itself, and some other issues are raised and resolved successfully, then I
don't condemn the work for lack of skill.
> Perhaps my difficulty lies more in the concept of "art". I think I have
> developed a good deal of skill in applying paint to a surface but the result
> is not exciting, at least to me. So I try to discover what I might do
to make
> "good art" and what the criteria of "good art" may be. But the effort seems
> to lead into a morass.....it always ends up in personal taste.
I don't know what your work looks like, but I'll bet that if your
"personal taste" favors good quality painting, you'll be fine. It
certainly doesn't happen over night, that's for sure.
> These
> thoughts are as much for me as for you. I'll be most interested in your
> response. Milt
I really appreciate your effort to articulate them, and I'm glad for any
holes shot in my writing as well. I'm trying to work out a better
understanding of much of this myself, and the challenges are healthy.
bobig
of art, it seems that all is possible in art since duchamp.everybody can be
artist.
there is a picasso museum why not a wahrol museum...it's only commercial.
BOBIG
L'ART C N'IMPORTE QUOI ET C TANT MIEUX
Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
The Third Toad a écrit dans le message
<75hles$jig$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
br...@wralaw.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
-long freindly testimonail deleted-
> > If so, art education would seem to
> > be counter-productive. I'm reminded of some wine afficionados I met who said
> > they couldn't enjoy Cabernet Sauvignon that costs less than $75 or $100 a
> > bottle. They've shot themselves in the foot: they have a terrible handicap
> > when compared to someone who can enjoy a $10 bottle.
> I agree with the wine analogy completely
>- First Growth Bordeaux are well
> out of my price range, and I doubt I'll sample many more, but if the
> pleasure of finding an unfamiliar, chateau bottled red that costs under
> fifteen bucks is out of reach, then they aren't really afficianados at
> all.
Is it any different if an afficianato can not enjoy any wine that costs
less than $3 a bottle?
Anyone with esthetic tastes not equal to or less than McDonalds is an
Enemy of the State!
I expect pretention from self-proclaimed afficianados, judgement is a
presumption of conscienceness, conscienceness is a presumption of being
alive. Genius like orgasms can be faked but like love it is immoral to
do so, although ambiguity and ambition alway weeds out desire in preference
to pathalogy.
> that I feel if the issue of technical skill is not raised by the work
> itself, and some other issues are raised and resolved successfully, then I
> don't condemn the work for lack of skill.
Blah blah blah... Whats this issues stuff? Form, values, criteria,
uninspired, insipid,? Abuse of Frainchaises',
If skill is inspired by pollution it will expire pollution!
Place a proscription against judgement only when it is begged!
> I really appreciate your effort to articulate them, and I'm glad for any
> holes shot in my writing as well.
So many words so little time...
>I'm trying to work out a better
> understanding of much of this myself, and the challenges are healthy.
> Mark
> webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
>
Bryn (never phil)
/end
Karin Wells
Karin Wells is a classical oil portrait artist who lives in Peterborough, New
Hampshire. Please visit her web site at:
http://www.portraitartist.com/wells
br...@wralaw.com
Duchamp merely expressed the cynicism that was on the mind of everyone
at that time...
Which is it, Did Duchamp mean that modern art is no better than a urinal
or that the Pieta by Michelangelo is no better than a Urinal?
> it have extend the field
> of art, it seems that all is possible in art
Except real and conscience progress.
> since duchamp.everybody can be
> artist.
Except people with high verbal IQ's who are art critics.
> there is a picasso museum why not a wahrol museum...it's only commercial.
> BOBIG
> L'ART C N'IMPORTE QUOI ET C TANT MIEUX
> Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
> http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
> The Third Toad a écrit dans le message
> <75hles$jig$1...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>...
> >>> It seems that once Duchamp threw away the rules,
Duchamp alone saved the rules!
> >>> many people got lost. Then came Andy to further confuse the issue.
Andy absolutely cleared everything up!
> >>I like to take Duchamp at his word - that is, that it was not art.
> >>Andy means even less to me these days. The huge museum in Pittsburgh with
> >>his name on it seems silly and very overblown.
> >Hell, it's worth going just for the room with the big mylar balloons.
It's better not to get it than to have it and abuse it,
zi...@interport.net
late Lawrence Campbell.
Originally from Virginia, educated in England by his parents.
I first met him in 1961 when we had a show together at the Tanager
Gallery on Tenth street in New York. The gallery artists [it was a
co-op] had put us together. Neither of us knew the other. He was a
man interested in literature and philosophy as well as in art. He was
very well read, but he wasn't interested in blowing anyone over with
his knowledge. He was calm and diffident, although, I found out later
that he was nearly 20 years older than I was. He wrote, at the time
we met, at Art News. He stayed with that magazine for many years, but
after Thomas B. Hess left the magazine and died suddenly, Larry
shifted to Art in America.
His basic principle as a reviewer was to understand as much as he
could, the motives, ways of working, ideas of the artist whose work he
was looking at and then criticize from the viewpoint of the artist's
intentions and ideals. At first he took whatever was assigned him.
Later he was able to write about things which moved him and did not
require that much of a jump from where he was himself. But he had many
interests in art which he did not himself practice. His own work was
gentle and not very assertive, and the landscapes were modeled more
after the spirit in Sisley than anything else. He never wrote a
negative review in his life. He always tried to shed light on the work
he was reviewing. He was loved for himself as well as for his work
throughout the art world. There was an obituary written by the editor
of Art In America a few months back. It appears on the next to the
last page ofthat issue.
The art world is very wide. There may be a lot of junk in it. But if
you want to spend your life in it looking for what is good and
praiseworthy, and trying to help it along. You can. Larry did. And
Jeff was espousing Larry's method on this group. Are all of you so
sure that you know the only truth? Are you sure that anyone does?
I had a teacher at college, once whose one important critical book [he
was a literary critic] was titled:"No Voice is Wholely Lost."
Gabriel Laderman
mark webber
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9812201...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> -long freindly testimonail deleted-
> > > If so, art education would seem to
> > > be counter-productive. I'm reminded of some wine afficionados I met who said
> > > they couldn't enjoy Cabernet Sauvignon that costs less than $75 or $100 a
> > > bottle. They've shot themselves in the foot: they have a terrible handicap
> > > when compared to someone who can enjoy a $10 bottle.
>
> > I agree with the wine analogy completely
>
> >- First Growth Bordeaux are well
> > out of my price range, and I doubt I'll sample many more, but if the
> > pleasure of finding an unfamiliar, chateau bottled red that costs under
> > fifteen bucks is out of reach, then they aren't really afficianados at
> > all.
>
> Is it any different if an afficianato can not enjoy any wine that costs
> less than $3 a bottle?
>
> Anyone with esthetic tastes not equal to or less than McDonalds is an
> Enemy of the State!
>
> I expect pretention from self-proclaimed afficianados, judgement is a
> presumption of conscienceness, conscienceness is a presumption of being
> alive. Genius like orgasms can be faked but like love it is immoral to
> do so, although ambiguity and ambition alway weeds out desire in preference
> to pathalogy.
>
> > that I feel if the issue of technical skill is not raised by the work
> > itself, and some other issues are raised and resolved successfully, then I
> > don't condemn the work for lack of skill.
>
> Blah blah blah... Whats this issues stuff? Form, values, criteria,
> uninspired, insipid,? Abuse of Frainchaises',
>
> If skill is inspired by pollution it will expire pollution!
This last line I like quite a bit, but the rest is pretty hard to
understand. I think I detect a disdain for pretense and that is a relief.
I can't imagine how bombastic it would sound with pretense thrown into the
mix.
But overall, an excellent entry in the "You're not smart, I'm smart!"
catagory of the usenet awards.
mark webber
Hello Gabriel,
Thanks for this post - I'm not sure who Jeff is though. Did I miss a post
in this thread? I'm not sure if I'm supposed to know who Jeff is or not.
Regarding your question about the truth of it all, I can only speak for
myself when I say I'm sure I don't know enough. This forum, though, seems
pretty useful for tossing out ideas and seeing what comes back.
I regret if I come across sounding like my approach is the only one - it
is hard to not sound that way unless one is constantly prefacing with "In
my opinion", and that seems a given anyway.
Sometimes this is a pretty useful and/or amusing place, other times its
just boring. But I think the "evaluating paintings" thread is a good
axample of some people trying to put words to non-verbal experience.
Glad you've joined in - oh and it was nice bumping into you the other day
in NY.
mil...@cove.com
comments of Dec. 20 on this same subject. This time I'll try to be more
succinct and hope to get the message posted. I strongly suspect that there
are no objective criteria by which to evaluate works of art, and that it's
all just a matter of personal taste. Throughout Mark's posting, there are
statements based on the assumption that the merit of works of art can be
determined objectively, so that we end up talking past each other. (I'm
desperately searching for criteria by which to evaluate at least my own work.
If anyone out there can help, I'd love to hear from him or her.) Previously,
I had questioned the value of art education for appreciating art. Mark points
out that art education had helped him, for example, to see weaknesses in
Greuze, which make his work seem inferior to Fragonard's. I still fail to see
the value to Mark in what he learned. I'll say more in a second posting.
mil...@cove.com
deal of time with art, studying, looking and making. I still can't evaluate
paintings in a way consistent with what "experts" think. For example, I have
seen Michelangelo's David a number of times, and don't care much for it. The
size of the hands puts me off. So when I was in Florence three months ago, I
didn't even bother to go look. I did go to the Sistine Chapel in Rome, but
prefer to look at Milton Avery's work over that famous ceiling. I don't want
it black or white but if there are any objective criteria I could use in
evaluating my own work, I think it would be helpful to me. Some paintings
and some artists may fairly be said to exhibit more skill, convey more
feeling, express a viewpoint more effectively, reflect influence of other
artists or of their culture more clearly, but which of these criteria really
get at absolute merit in a work of art? It seems to me to go back to personal
taste, regardless of whether that taste conforms to what is generally
considered to be "good quality painting".
DFRussell
> This marks the third time I have tried to post a reply to Mark Webber's
>comments of Dec. 20 on this same subject. This time I'll try to be more
>succinct and hope to get the message posted.
Congratulations on the posted part.
> I strongly suspect that there
>are no objective criteria by which to evaluate works of art, and that it's
>all just a matter of personal taste.
"Objective critera" is commonly called "what most people thought".
> Throughout Mark's posting, there are
>statements based on the assumption that the merit of works of art can be
>determined objectively, so that we end up talking past each other.
That's unusual :-)
> (I'm
>desperately searching for criteria by which to evaluate at least my own work.
If you can't tell if your own work is good or not, quit now. Chances
are very high that you're wasting your time.
>If anyone out there can help, I'd love to hear from him or her.) Previously,
>I had questioned the value of art education for appreciating art. Mark points
>out that art education had helped him, for example, to see weaknesses in
>Greuze, which make his work seem inferior to Fragonard's.
That's nice. Take a look at what it's done for *his* work.
> I still fail to see
>the value to Mark in what he learned. I'll say more in a second posting.
>
Marilyn
>
> Second response to Mark Webber's message of Dec. 20: I have spent a great
> deal of time with art, studying, looking and making. I still can't evaluate
> paintings in a way consistent with what "experts" think. For example, I have
> seen Michelangelo's David a number of times, and don't care much for it. The
> size of the hands puts me off. So when I was in Florence three months ago, I
> didn't even bother to go look. I did go to the Sistine Chapel in Rome, but
> prefer to look at Milton Avery's work over that famous ceiling. I don't want
> it black or white but if there are any objective criteria I could use in
> evaluating my own work, I think it would be helpful to me. Some paintings
> and some artists may fairly be said to exhibit more skill, convey more
> feeling, express a viewpoint more effectively, reflect influence of other
> artists or of their culture more clearly, but which of these criteria really
> get at absolute merit in a work of art? It seems to me to go back to personal
> taste, regardless of whether that taste conforms to what is generally
> considered to be "good quality painting".
>
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Of course, you are interested in evaluating your own work. Who isn't?
It's difficult to imagine you standing below M.'s David and not even looking up.
The ability to evaluate one's own paintings is a culmination of all you know about
painting and about your confidence in what you do. These are not things which can
be instantly given to you, especially on a newsgroup. The way I see it, the
objective criteria are a cultural construct, and we are all influenced by this
in some way or another. The individual painter surrounded by a support group, and
by colleagues, shows his/her work to these people first to get honest feed-back.
Satisfied with this feedback and confident in his/her own work, the painter then
shows the work to the outer circle. That's when the fun begins, but the artist's
confidence & experience should carry him through. (and a lot of luck).
Marilyn
fc...@cme.com
Has anyone called you a wordy, arrogant jerk yet today?
Just wondering.
Frank Cote
fc...@cme.com
In article <75mjjc$ugb$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <Pine.PMDF.3.96.9812201...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>,
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> -long freindly testimonail deleted-
> > > If so, art education would seem to
> > > be counter-productive. I'm reminded of some wine afficionados I met who
said
> > > they couldn't enjoy Cabernet Sauvignon that costs less than $75 or $100 a
> > > bottle. They've shot themselves in the foot: they have a terrible handicap
> > > when compared to someone who can enjoy a $10 bottle.
>
> > I agree with the wine analogy completely
>
> >- First Growth Bordeaux are well
> > out of my price range, and I doubt I'll sample many more, but if the
> > pleasure of finding an unfamiliar, chateau bottled red that costs under
> > fifteen bucks is out of reach, then they aren't really afficianados at
> > all.
>
> Is it any different if an afficianato can not enjoy any wine that costs
> less than $3 a bottle?
>
> Anyone with esthetic tastes not equal to or less than McDonalds is an
> Enemy of the State!
>
> I expect pretention from self-proclaimed afficianados, judgement is a
> presumption of conscienceness, conscienceness is a presumption of being
> alive. Genius like orgasms can be faked but like love it is immoral to
> do so, although ambiguity and ambition alway weeds out desire in preference
> to pathalogy.
>
> > that I feel if the issue of technical skill is not raised by the work
> > itself, and some other issues are raised and resolved successfully, then I
> > don't condemn the work for lack of skill.
>
> Blah blah blah... Whats this issues stuff? Form, values, criteria,
> uninspired, insipid,? Abuse of Frainchaises',
>
> If skill is inspired by pollution it will expire pollution!
>
> Place a proscription against judgement only when it is begged!
>
> > I really appreciate your effort to articulate them, and I'm glad for any
> > holes shot in my writing as well.
>
> So many words so little time...
>
> >I'm trying to work out a better
> > understanding of much of this myself, and the challenges are healthy.
>
> > Mark
> > webb...@tiger.uofs.edu
> >
>
> Bryn (never phil)
>
> /end
mark webber
> This marks the third time I have tried to post a reply to Mark Webber's
> comments of Dec. 20 on this same subject. This time I'll try to be more
> succinct and hope to get the message posted.
Sorry, Milt - you sound frustrated. I'm doing my best to address your
question. Perhaps you need to go through my reply point by point with your
objections.
> I strongly suspect that there
> are no objective criteria by which to evaluate works of art, and that it's
> all just a matter of personal taste.
Well of course there are no objective criteria that will illicit
complete agreement, but I think I make as clear as I can in my previous
post that there is something besides personal taste. There is concensus,
and the criteria for concensus aren't always the same as those of personal
taste.
Do my remarks about prefering jazz to opera make sense? I mean,
quite honestly, I'd rather listen to a derivative, not particularly
brilliant jazz recording than most operas. I acknowlege that this is
entirely a reflection of my personal taste. But there are certain
jazz recordings that I find to be among the finest - the ones which
influence many others and have something really special about them.
The interesting thing here is that if I make a top ten list of Jazz
recordings, most other serious listeners will havce at least 5 of my
choices in their top ten. We are responding to something that goes beyond
personal taste.
The same is true with art history. (I don't mean specifically in regard to
top ten lists - I really don't have an interest in that sort of thing - I
only mean that there is concensus among serious lookers.)
> Throughout Mark's posting, there are
> statements based on the assumption that the merit of works of art can be
> determined objectively, so that we end up talking past each other. (I'm
> desperately searching for criteria by which to evaluate at least my own work.
> If anyone out there can help, I'd love to hear from him or her.) Previously,
> I had questioned the value of art education for appreciating art. Mark points
> out that art education had helped him, for example, to see weaknesses in
> Greuze, which make his work seem inferior to Fragonard's. I still fail to see
> the value to Mark in what he learned. I'll say more in a second posting.
If you are looking for means of evaluating art, doesn't a process by which
I come to appreciate Fragonard more than Greuze sound useful?
I look forward to the second post,
mark webber
> Second response to Mark Webber's message of Dec. 20: I have spent a great
> deal of time with art, studying, looking and making. I still can't evaluate
> paintings in a way consistent with what "experts" think. For example, I have
> seen Michelangelo's David a number of times, and don't care much for it.
Well, I don't think I know anyone who agrees 100% with art historians -
although Michelangelo is usually one of the safer bets.
For example, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I don't go nuts for
Rubens or Van Dyke - I find them in more debt to Titian than what I feel a
"master" should be. In fact, Titian's students Veronese and Tintoretto
seem to me to be much more original, and find new ground to cover.
I also don't get too excited about Modigliani. He seems pretty formulaic
to me.
I could go on, but it already seems more arrogant than my usual high
level.
> The
> size of the hands puts me off. So when I was in Florence three months ago, I
> didn't even bother to go look. I did go to the Sistine Chapel in Rome, but
> prefer to look at Milton Avery's work over that famous ceiling.
See, there you have it. Avery doesn't do much for me anymore, and the
ceiling looks better all the time. In spite of the cleaning.
> I don't want
> it black or white but if there are any objective criteria I could use in
> evaluating my own work, I think it would be helpful to me. Some paintings
> and some artists may fairly be said to exhibit more skill, convey more
> feeling, express a viewpoint more effectively, reflect influence of other
> artists or of their culture more clearly, but which of these criteria really
> get at absolute merit in a work of art?
I think you'll have to admit that if you say you want absolute merit, then
you do want it black or white. I doubt anyone can offer you that.
However, none of the things you've listed (exhibition of skill,
expressiveness of feeling or viewpoint, etc.) can be said to be common to
*all* masterpieces.
>It seems to me to go back to personal
> taste, regardless of whether that taste conforms to what is generally
> considered to be "good quality painting".
Do you agree that there could be informed taste and uninformed taste?
mil...@cove.com
> complete agreement, but I think I make as clear as I can in my previous
> post that there is something besides personal taste. There is concensus,
> and the criteria for concensus aren't always the same as those of personal
> taste.
informed and uninformed opinions, but in what sense is an informed opinion
"better"? What have you gained by losing your former regard for Greuze?
> Do my remarks about prefering jazz to opera make sense?
> >> If you are looking for means of evaluating art, doesn't a process by which
> I come to appreciate Fragonard more than Greuze sound useful?
any more? What might be useful would be criteria that people generally could
clearly understand, agree with, and be able to apply. The phrase "weak
color", for example, is anything but clear. It may mean what appeals to one,
but here we are again, back to personal taste.
> Milt
mil...@cove.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Dec 1998 mil...@cove.com wrote:
>
> >
> to me.
of containers, but I find them exciting.
> >
> See, there you have it. Avery doesn't do much for me anymore, and the
> ceiling looks better all the time. In spite of the cleaning.
> > >
> you do want it black or white. I doubt anyone can offer you that.
gray-scale continuum.
> However, none of the things you've listed (exhibition of skill,
> expressiveness of feeling or viewpoint, etc.) can be said to be common to
> *all* masterpieces.
> >It seems to me to go back to personal
> > taste, regardless of whether that taste conforms to what is generally
> > considered to be "good quality painting".
>
> Do you agree that there could be informed taste and uninformed taste?
>
mark webber
(I wrote:)
> > Well of course there are no objective criteria that will illicit
> > complete agreement, but I think I make as clear as I can in my previous
> > post that there is something besides personal taste. There is concensus,
> > and the criteria for concensus aren't always the same as those of personal
> > taste.
> >
> Whose concensus?
At the risk of running around in circles, those who have spent time with
art.
> And when? There is certainly a difference between
> informed and uninformed opinions, but in what sense is an informed opinion
> "better"? What have you gained by losing your former regard for Greuze?
Better appreciation of Fragonard. But more to the point, why would you
want to have a means of evaluating your own work, or the work of others,
if it means losing your former regard for your own work.
You are essentially asking, "Why learn?" and the answer can only be
understood by those who have learned. Sorry, that's the way it is.
> > Do my remarks about prefering jazz to opera make sense?
> Yes.
Then you understand the difference between informed judgement and personal
taste, correct?
> > If you are looking for means of evaluating art, doesn't a process by which
> > I come to appreciate Fragonard more than Greuze sound useful?
> No. In what way are you better off, now that you don't like Greuze so much
> any more?
This baffles me - you want to evaluate paintings, but you don't want the
work of one artist to be superior to another?
As a painter I value the ability to see one painting as better than
another - whether I'm kidding myself about personal taste or not.
> What might be useful would be criteria that people generally could
> clearly understand, agree with, and be able to apply.
That is the sort of thing I was describing in an earlier post, when I
wrote of form. How well the thing is made - this is the notion of form.
> The phrase "weak
> color", for example, is anything but clear. It may mean what appeals to one,
> but here we are again, back to personal taste.
Without a Greuze to indicate what I mean, it is a bit difficult. Are you
familiar with his work, though?
I ask because, really, before we get into hypotheticals about some people
thinking Greuze's color is crisp, luminous or powerful, I' like to know if
you really think so - and especially compared to Fragonard.
I say this, because we could waste a lot of time saying "well, that's your
opinion" about anything anyone says. I chose Greuze because his color is
muddy and not used as a compositional element. My suspicion is that few
people familiar with Greuze's work feel he is a dazzling colorist.
Anyway, I'm glad if you point out which things I'm writing aren't clear;
its easier this way.
mark webber
(I wrote:)
> > I also don't get too excited about Modigliani. He seems pretty formulaic
> > to me.
> Agreed. But what about Morandi? There is a certain sameness about
> his rows of containers, but I find them exciting.
For me, Morandi isn't so formulaic - I think his paintings offer alot of
variation within the narrow scope of his motif. There are discoveries in
Morandi - I don't see this in most Modigliani.
> >
> > I think you'll have to admit that if you say you want absolute merit, then
> > you do want it black or white. I doubt anyone can offer you that.
> >
> I'm looking for criteria that will help judge relative merit on a
> gray-scale continuum.
That sounds more reasonable than the absolute merit that can be
universally tested which you were seeking earlier.
I hope you don't expect to see a sentence or two that describe(s) what it
is that makes all good paintings good. It might be better to decide what
you are after in your own work and try to determine whether or not you
succeed.
> > However, none of the things you've listed (exhibition of skill,
> > expressiveness of feeling or viewpoint, etc.) can be said to be common to
> > *all* masterpieces.
> >
> Agreed. But how does one determine what is a masterpiece?
By comparing them to lesser works, I guess. By looking a lot.
> It seems to me to go back to personal
> taste, regardless of whether that taste conforms to what is generally
> considered to be "good quality painting".
>
the best of luck to you,
Bob C
> > informed and uninformed opinions, but in what sense is an informed opinion
> > "better"? What have you gained by losing your former regard for Greuze?
>
> understood by those who have learned. Sorry, that's the way it is.
>
The average american is just as happy with their can of Bud as I am with
a good, strong ale, yet I can no longer enjoy the Bud (not in most
circumstances, anyway). So why did I do it? I don't think I had a
choice. I had to do it because that's who I am. Same way with
appreciating art or anything else.
>
> I ask because, really, before we get into hypotheticals about some people
> thinking Greuze's color is crisp, luminous or powerful, I' like to know if
> you really think so - and especially compared to Fragonard.
>
I'm not particularly familiar with much of Greuze's work, but I'm
curious as to which particular Fragonard's you enjoy so much, or is it
all? I say this because of the works on display at the National Gallery
(DC), I feel I can put them in 3 distinct categories, of which my own
personal reactions range from hot to medium to cold. The one I really
like is a portrait, in full profile, of a young woman reading a book.
It's so colorful as to be almost fauvist but still realistic, and its
very beautiful not just in composition/color but in the application of
the paint as well.
His other paintings on display are scenes of fantasy gardens with silly
little doll-like people frolicking in the foreground, and these are
divided between medium-sized and very large. I find neither composition,
subject, nor paint handling particularly interesting in these, but the
medium-sized ones, when looked at from sufficient distance to see them
all at once, do present an unusually beautiful and pleasing display of
color. The enormous ones, on the other hand, seem to have little going
for them (compared to other works in the museum) except for the sheer
presence of the scale (but perhaps there simply wasn't room to stand far
enough back to appreciate them).
- Bob C.
lonely...@newwave.net
tasters, opera goers, and the entire ruddy likeminded lot.... are a herd of
price-tag nibbling sheep. They are not interested in what is good, either to
the taste or to the ear or to the eye, but rather in whatever effete, elitist
label is most in vogue with the rich and famous. They read books they hate
because they're 'calssics,' they eat food and drink wine they can't stand
because they are 'gourmet items,' they listen to music that pierces their
ears because it is 'refined,' they wear clothes that dont fit them and look
terrible on them because they are 'chic'..... and they cast laurels at the
feet of 'artists' whose work belongs on the bottom of a birdcage, for no
better reason than that a pantywaisted critic got his support hose in a knot
over them. This is why such atrocious beasts as Jackson Pollock have
survived...and not only survived, but thrived. This is why artists who never
even touch their 'masterpieces' save to sign their own names at the bottom of
someone else's work continue to be called 'artists.' They are like
remoras...sucker fish that latch onto the nearest moving billionaire
behemoth, convince their mentally retarded marks that they are 'ingenious
aritsts'... and then go along for the ride as the thimble-skulled lumps of
overmonied flesh plow a path through high society for them, praising their
dabbled dreck to the skies before the rest of the herd. Sound the cry of the
humpback whale...AAaaoiooooogghhha..... I did research once, on the
organizing of art shows and gallery expositions. Do you know what the
greatest share of the book was dedicated to? On what sort of SNACK FOOD to
set out for the artistic effete who would be critiquing your work. In
essence, bring them in, set them out to graze. If the caviar pleases the
monied thimblebrains, they will laud you to the heavens. Ye Gods. Trough
them, and they will come. A hundred years and a billion expositions past, a
man was heard to remark," I don't know art, but I know what I like." In my
anything but humble opinion, that man knew more about art than the entire
platoon of overeducated, bloated buffoons about him. So pass the fritos. And
make sure that 'dogs playing cards' print is hanging straight. R.Hayes, Jr.
god...@my-dejanews.com
lonely...@newwave.net wrote:
> On the average, so-called 'art critics'...and for that matter, gourmets, wine
> tasters, opera goers, and the entire ruddy likeminded lot....
It is my innate opion that there is some truth in epicurian taste.
I otherwise agree with this post if it applies only to some. Mainly
those who think "I wan't to be thought of as an epicurian so I will fake
it." Pretention(?) in my opinion isn't any worse than blatantly bad taste
except that pretention(?) makes blatantly bad taste appear to be honesty
instead of what it really is, insensitivity, and unconscienceness relating
to the apperatus at hand. I don't really think that the point of art is
that some art is worth more than other art by itself, but that it leads
to states of mind that one can only conclude after experiencing the state
of mind, is more important, and preferably both happier and more profound,
than the average state of mind.
<-censored->
> I did research once, on the
> organizing of art shows and gallery expositions. Do you know what the
> greatest share of the book was dedicated to? On what sort of SNACK FOOD to
> set out for the artistic effete who would be critiquing your work. In
> essence, bring them in, set them out to graze. If the caviar pleases the
> monied thimblebrains, they will laud you to the heavens.
This certainly is frightening. Perhaphs some LSD in that cavair would make
things more interesting, after all Modern art is Businessmans LSD.
Perhaphs the artists should be forced to make the food,. That would make
at least Mani happy - no skill no gourmand...or at least no skill no tart!
Too bad hash doesn't taste like Truffle...
BAONA ... molesting his inner child on the troll net ...
mil...@cove.com
god...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <760ma9$vqo$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lonely...@newwave.net wrote:
> > On the average, so-called 'art critics'...and for that matter, gourmets,
wine
> > tasters, opera goers, and the entire ruddy likeminded lot....
>
> It is my innate opion that there is some truth in epicurian taste.
>
> I otherwise agree with this post if it applies only to some. Mainly
> those who think "I wan't to be thought of as an epicurian so I will fake
> it." Pretention(?) in my opinion isn't any worse than blatantly bad taste
> except that pretention(?) makes blatantly bad taste appear to be honesty
> instead of what it really is, insensitivity, and unconscienceness relating
> to the apperatus at hand. I don't really think that the point of art is
> that some art is worth more than other art by itself, but that it leads
> to states of mind that one can only conclude after experiencing the state
> of mind, is more important, and preferably both happier and more profound,
> than the average state of mind.
>
What is "blatantly bad taste" except taste that doesn't correspond to
yours? In the nineteenth century, it was considered bad taste to eat lobster,
so only the poor, with blatantly bad taste, would eat them. What is epicurian
taste? Is it blatantlybad taste to prefer beer to champagne? Or to prefer
sweet sparkling wine to brut? Or to prefer Norman Rockwell to Matisse?
mil...@cove.com
lonely...@newwave.net wrote:
> On the average, so-called 'art critics'...and for that matter, gourmets, wine
> price-tag nibbling sheep. They are not interested in what is good, either to
> the taste or to the ear or to the eye, but rather in whatever effete, elitist
> label is most in vogue with the rich and famous. They read books they hate
> because they're 'calssics,' they eat food and drink wine they can't stand
> because they are 'gourmet items,' they listen to music that pierces their
> ears because it is 'refined,' they wear clothes that dont fit them and look
> terrible on them because they are 'chic'..... and they cast laurels at the
> feet of 'artists' whose work belongs on the bottom of a birdcage, for no
> better reason than that a pantywaisted critic got his support hose in a knot
> over them. This is why such atrocious beasts as Jackson Pollock have
> survived...and not only survived, but thrived.
>
Surely there is a lot of pretension in the art world (as most everywhere
else) but why be so extremely cynical and negative? I'm not an opera buff,
but remember as a young man attending an opera that sent chills up and down
my spine: really moving! When my son came home from art school praising
Pollack to the sky, I just couldn't understand it, and never acquired much of
a taste for his work. But when I went through the current Pollack show at
MoMA, I was struck with the power of the work before he started the drip
painting and in fact reacted more positively to the drip paintings than ever
before. Why call it "dreck"? A hundred years and a billion expositions past,
a
> man was heard to remark," I don't know art, but I know what I like." In my
> anything but humble opinion, that man knew more about art than the entire
> platoon of overeducated, bloated buffoons about him. So pass the fritos. And
> make sure that 'dogs playing cards' print is hanging straight. R.Hayes, Jr.
You have a valid point, but you're overdoing it.
mil...@cove.com
for evaluating paintings these qualities: Originality, Relevance, and
Communication.
I have no quarrel with these. But the criterion primarily used by another
correspondent is the extent to which a work of art is metaphoric. Others
believe a painting must have a moral, social, or political message to have
merit. What I seem to respond to most in a painting is its graphic quality:
color, shapes, gesture, texture, division of space, etc. Isn't the choice of
criteria one uses purely a matter of personal taste? I'll welcome comments
from anyone, but would be especially interested in a response from Judith.
god...@my-dejanews.com
mil...@cove.com wrote:
> In article <7624s2$1nf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> god...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> What is "blatantly bad taste" except taste that doesn't correspond to
> yours?
Your learning, I really mean no taste...
> In the nineteenth century, it was considered bad taste to eat lobster,
> so only the poor, with blatantly bad taste, would eat them. What is epicurian
> taste?
Epicurus(sp?) is an ancient philosopher who stressed amoungst other
things a sensitive, or perceptive connection to reality and Nature.
Epicurous was taken up as a slogan by people who wanted to just say
that there purpose(especially amoungst the rich) was to experience
sense pleasure. Epicurean taste cannot be reduced to simply a matter
of pre-described foods, art, etc. Because ones perception of these
things can be altered by ephemeral things.
For instance the taste of Wine and Food can be significantly
altered by bacteria in the mouth, smells in the air, other foods
(hence wine parings) etc.
Note that Epicurous was not a geopolitical rich american male,...
and that common interpretation of epicurous's philosophy that of a
cheese taster is wrong.
> Is it blatantlybad taste to prefer beer to champagne?
No unless you are doing so because you think that you are bothering
people who drink champange or you haven't tried the other. Some
beer is better than some champange(?) but that isn't the point of
Epicureanism as it relates to Epicurous only toward the people who
the original posters' criticism is leveled at.
>Or to prefer
> sweet sparkling wine to brut?
Innately as animals we do tend to like sweetness. If you prefer sweet
to brut because, As I can tell +you+ think that less sweet sparkling
french wine from champange, is supposed to be thought of as tasting
better then again the answere is yes. The contrary is a fraud but both
appear to be understandable considering the emotional hurt that
people seem to express by not having the combination of rote expensive
taste and sensitivity towards these things.
> Or to prefer Norman Rockwell to Matisse?
But Rockwell is considerable more skilled than Matisse... Napolean
and Pudding, even farther removed than apples and oranges my friend.
lonely...@newwave.net
mil...@cove.com wrote:
> Thanks to Judith, whose message I can no longer find. She uses as criteria
> for evaluating paintings these qualities: Originality, Relevance, and
> Communication.
> I have no quarrel with these. But the criterion primarily used by another
> correspondent is the extent to which a work of art is metaphoric. Others
> believe a painting must have a moral, social, or political message to have
> merit. What I seem to respond to most in a painting is its graphic quality:
> color, shapes, gesture, texture, division of space, etc. Isn't the choice of
> criteria one uses purely a matter of personal taste? I'll welcome comments
> from anyone, but would be especially interested in a response from Judith.
>
> Milt
Cut the crap. Art is art is art. Art is itself. Art IS. All your tenpenny
overeducated phrases add up to the same sum, no matter how they are arranged;
a sad attempt to show how culturally elite you are, how superior your tastes
in art and your perceptions of artistic quality are to the evaluations of
everyone else. You want to know the definition of art? It's an idea that is
so intense that we don't have words for it. The greatest works of art are
the ones that left people speechless. A divine state, never to be found
amongst art critics. R.Hayes, Jr
Bob C
>
> I have no quarrel with these. But the criterion primarily used by another
> correspondent is the extent to which a work of art is metaphoric. Others
> believe a painting must have a moral, social, or political message to have
> merit. What I seem to respond to most in a painting is its graphic quality:
> color, shapes, gesture, texture, division of space, etc. Isn't the choice of
> criteria one uses purely a matter of personal taste?
With some exceptions allowed, art criticism should always identify the
criteria being used to evaluate the art, how the subject measured up to
that criteria, and, when necessary, why it is a reasonable and valid
criteria to be used for the work of art being criticized (or for any
work of art, for that matter). The selection of criteria to use is
therefore greatly influenced by the work being evaluated, but ultimately
it is a matter of taste; the same work can be evaluated in many
different way. As long as one can demonstrate that they are using valid
art criteria which is in some way appropriate to the subject, then each
of those different sets of criteria used can be considered to be
correct.
>
> Thanks to Judith, whose message I can no longer find. She uses as criteria
> for evaluating paintings these qualities: Originality, Relevance, and
> Communication.
You might also use criteria such as Form/Composition (the things you
respond to), Craftsmenship, Realism, or Technique. But many works make
no attempt to satisfy one or more of these particular criteria and it
makes little sense to evaluate a work using a criteria which the work
was obviously never meant to satisfy. This doesn't necessarily mean that
anything goes - your tastes may dictate that the satisfaction of one or
more of these criteria is a necessary attribute of art and that
therefore the work in question is not art, but that is a very different
thing from actually evaluating that work. Most people who attack an
entire style or category of art don't seem to understand this
distinction.
- Bob C.
DFRussell
>In article <763d9g$ved$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> mil...@cove.com wrote:
>> Thanks to Judith, whose message I can no longer find. She uses as criteria
>> for evaluating paintings these qualities: Originality, Relevance, and
>> Communication.
>Quote: Robin Williams, in "Dead Poet's Society": "Horse Leavings."
>
>> I have no quarrel with these. But the criterion primarily used by another
>> correspondent is the extent to which a work of art is metaphoric. Others
>> believe a painting must have a moral, social, or political message to have
>> merit. What I seem to respond to most in a painting is its graphic quality:
>> color, shapes, gesture, texture, division of space, etc. Isn't the choice of
>> criteria one uses purely a matter of personal taste? I'll welcome comments
>> from anyone, but would be especially interested in a response from Judith.
>>
>> Milt
>
>Cut the crap.
Bravo!!!!! Bravo!!!!! <clap, clap, clap>
>Art is art is art. Art is itself.
Hunh?
> Art IS.
Is that like, "Shit happens"?
> All your tenpenny
>overeducated phrases add up to the same sum, no matter how they are arranged;
>a sad attempt to show how culturally elite you are, how superior your tastes
>in art and your perceptions of artistic quality are to the evaluations of
>everyone else.
LOL :-)
As opposed to the "Angry young artiste'" :-)))
> You want to know the definition of art? It's an idea that is
>so intense that we don't have words for it. The greatest works of art are
>the ones that left people speechless. A divine state, never to be found
>amongst art critics. R.Hayes, Jr
I hope you pardon the splattering... I was trying to drink some tea
when I read this.... I afraid it didn't go well with my laughing.
I would agree with the comment about art critics.
However, since these were the sort of meaningless phrases normally
used by art critics, you might want to be less judgemental of them :-)
zi...@interport.net
I have replied privately to "Milt" but I never sawJudith's remarks.
Her position is an easy one for "Milt" to deal with:
originality -all depends on the preson's individual mind view. For
example I find much of what the art world considers original to be
painting within the confines of a small box, already well explored
within the 20th century and kind of banged up by all that jostling.
Relevance- Again to whom in relation to what? All of the great radical
painters from the children of Manet up were judged irrelevant at the
time they did their work. Also many painters we regard as "relevant"
now were forgotten shortly after their death in the past and some
never made it past the class of commnercial "limners"[like Ammi
Phillips]. So whose relevance? There would be a different cast of
characters is the Right wing moralisgts like Jerry Falwell made up the
list, or Senator Wellstone did, or A green party member did, Etc.,Etc.
Communication is an entirely different problem. Communication of what
to whom? Aaron Copland, for example, made a policy decision early in
life: Chamber music would be written for an audience of musicians and
aesthetes, dance pieces and orchestral works would be written down to
the level of taste in the general population. Was his work relevant?
More's to the point was it any good? Paul Klee's paintings now seem
tobe liked by an awful lot of people. To what are they relevant? How
many people understand them in the terms Klee meant them to be
knowledgable? Do you read his titles and let them help you understand
the paintings? He meant for you to do that. Most people don't. After
all, they are written in German and most Americans and Canadians are
linguisitcally challenged.
I happen to enjoy and believe in the work of Renaissance, Baroque and
ninettenth century painters [i.e. Constable, Delacroix, Gericault,
Corot, Courbet], as well as Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, Ancient
Chinese, Burmese , Indian[from India], as well as the work of recent
African, Ocenian Etc.artists. I was very moved by a hugesilver caldron
in the Historisk Museet in Copenhagen which was produced somewhere
aroun the beginning of this time period, also by Romanesque and Gothic
art. I realy love all that stuff as well as a great deal of stuff
produced between 1900 and 1970 or so. How can that all fit into a
formalist bag? Only if I pretend that what I see is only lines,
shapes and colors. It reminds me of something Wittgenstein said. When
I see children playiung freely in the street, and think of them as
mechanical contrivances, I get a funny feeling inmy head
[paraphrased].
Now, I will be damned if responding to shapes, lines and color can
possibly define how and why I respond. Take the Church of San Zeno in
Verona [I think]. The outer doors have relief sculptures of the
Romanesque period which knock me dead, inside ther is one of
Mantegna's masterpieces of perspecitve construction. I love them both.
Earlier I went more to see the Mantegna, more lately to see the doors.
No formal methodology will make them both palatable to anyone at the
same time. But like so much of Europe, every building projects its own
art history. In Orvieto, for example, the great Tuscan cathedral with
green and white striped marble has reliefs on the facade by a Gothic
sculptor, Maitani, the great chapel whose walls are painted by
Signorelli, has a ceiling made by Fra Angelico and his student Benozzo
Gozzoli. When Signorelli painted his huge paintings, he purposefully
painted the upper parts of them so that in style they would fit in
with th work onthe ceiling! He, himself was not pictorially
consistent. Luckily, after some twenty years under restoration, the
Italians did not botch this one and the chapel is a great unity.
Signorelli, the teacher of Michelangelo, requires a totally different
kind of looking, formally than Fra Angelico. AND I am not even a
Christian, let alone a Catholic. So these works are not new to me, nor
are their messages relevant [I do not belive in Christ or the second
coming or the resurrection or the preachings of the antichrist]. So
the paintings are not communicating to me on any subject matter level
close to what was meant.
How do either of these theorists explain this? And isn't the wide
taste we have now for all sorts of art in every period one of the
results of the art of the past 150 years? So, how can you avoid that
taste? And how can you explain it by either formalist biases or" New,
relevant and communicable"? And how can New be a criterion for art
which is old. It will all be old, someday, if it survives physically.
By the way, I even love retardataire art -that is art which was old
fashione in its own period like the Sienes painters Sassetta and
Giovanni di Paolo. And such neoclassicizing painters as Poussin and
Claude Lorrain were both looking backwards towards, first Venice, and
then Greece and Rome. The Poussin, Exposure of Moses in the Ashmolean
was one of the highest points of one visit to England.t
New is the one which bothers me the most. It is a standard which is
incredibly time bound. It did not exist at all until the 1840s or so.
The East Asians have always believed [over the centuries, not
necessarily this instant] that old was better. And copying old
masters over and over again [as Gericault and Delcroix did, bythe way]
was the most approved way of learning what and how to paint. Anything
New had to be justified by point backward. Now, that may not be any
better than pointing ahead, but it shows that the idea of newness, is
not integral to a style of painting which was the most influential in
the east for thousands of years [the other half of human
civilization].
Sincerely,
Gabriel Laderman
studi...@my-dejanews.com
>I'm apply genuine gold leafing sparingly to my
watercolors and have run into a few problems.
Hopefully, someone in the group has a few tips.
Firstly, I use the traditional sizing medium with
acrylic medium as the basecoat on 300lb cold pressed
paper. Since the area's I'm working on are smallish,
I'm having a difficult time getting clean edges.
Secondly, I've been experimenting with other 'glues'
such as "Yes Paste", supposedly, archival but the leaf
doesn't adhere as well as I'd like. What I'm searching
for is a something that is more easily applied that will
be permanent and, of course, archival. Also, does
anyone know is there is such a thing as a 'liquid gold'
that really has good reflective qualities?Thanks
much.erw
mark webber
> mark webber wrote:
> >(snip)
> > I ask because, really, before we get into hypotheticals about some people
> > thinking Greuze's color is crisp, luminous or powerful, I' like to know if
> > you really think so - and especially compared to Fragonard.
> >
>
> I'm not particularly familiar with much of Greuze's work, but I'm
> curious as to which particular Fragonard's you enjoy so much, or is it
> all? I say this because of the works on display at the National Gallery
> (DC), I feel I can put them in 3 distinct categories, of which my own
> personal reactions range from hot to medium to cold. The one I really
> like is a portrait, in full profile, of a young woman reading a book.
> It's so colorful as to be almost fauvist but still realistic, and its
> very beautiful not just in composition/color but in the application of
> the paint as well.
>
> His other paintings on display are scenes of fantasy gardens with silly
> little doll-like people frolicking in the foreground, and these are
> divided between medium-sized and very large. I find neither composition,
> subject, nor paint handling particularly interesting in these, but the
> medium-sized ones, when looked at from sufficient distance to see them
> all at once, do present an unusually beautiful and pleasing display of
> color. The enormous ones, on the other hand, seem to have little going
> for them (compared to other works in the museum) except for the sheer
> presence of the scale (but perhaps there simply wasn't room to stand far
> enough back to appreciate them).
>
> - Bob C.
>
>
I'm not sure I recall the ones you're refering to, but, for example, the
"Bathers" in the Louvre is pretty terrific, and in NYC the Frick
Collection has a room decorated with Frago's murals that I find to be
composed very well, with interesting color and some amusing visual puns.
The content of his work - the priveleged classes enjoying their
priveleges(,) and milkmaids, I suppose should be understood within its
context.
Mark
Andrew Werby
> >I'm apply genuine gold leafing sparingly to my
> watercolors and have run into a few problems.
> Hopefully, someone in the group has a few tips.
> Firstly, I use the traditional sizing medium with
> acrylic medium as the basecoat on 300lb cold pressed
> paper. Since the area's I'm working on are smallish,
> I'm having a difficult time getting clean edges.
[I'd suspect the problem has more to do with the difficulty of applying
the size to the textural surface of the paper than with any inherent
problem in the size itself- but what traditional size are you using?
Is it an oil-based or water-based product? I've used something called
"Wonder-size", which was a lot like a thin white glue, that should work
for this purpose. You have to wait until it's tacky- almost dry- before
you apply the gold, then gently brush away the excess with a soft brush.]
> Secondly, I've been experimenting with other 'glues'
> such as "Yes Paste", supposedly, archival but the leaf
> doesn't adhere as well as I'd like. What I'm searching
> for is a something that is more easily applied that will
> be permanent and, of course, archival. Also, does
> anyone know is there is such a thing as a 'liquid gold'
> that really has good reflective qualities?Thanks
> much.erw
[No liquid paint will have the reflectivity of actual gold leaf, but some
are better than others. There are also bronzing powders in various colors
which work in a somewhat similar manner, being applied to a thin layer of
adhesive. I've got a couple of articles on my site dealing with gold
leafing, on my Resources page, although they are mostly concerned with 3-d
applications.]
Andrew Werby
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
UNITED ARTWORKS- Sculpture, Jewelry, and other art stuff
http://unitedartworks.com
http://www.computersculpture.com for 3d design tools
mark webber
>
>
> I have replied privately to "Milt" but I never sawJudith's remarks.
> Her position is an easy one for "Milt" to deal with:
>
> originality -all depends on the preson's individual mind view. For
> example I find much of what the art world considers original to be
> painting within the confines of a small box, already well explored
> within the 20th century and kind of banged up by all that jostling.
This is an excellent point, and I would add that there are plenty of
well-known painters whose debts to another don't seem to keep them out of
certain pantheons:
Velazquez owed a great deal to Caravaggio, likewise Artemisia
Gentillesci. (The fact that Velazquez went on to produce fine
works in a voice, or sensibility, of his own may explain his
importance, but doesn't discount the fact that he didn't emerge
as originally as Caravaggio.
A similar argument could be made about the influence of Titian on
Rubens and Van Dyke, and in turn, the influence of Giorgione on
Titian. (Yes, I know I've made this argument before, but it seems
relevant to repeat here....)
Diebenkorn seems to have produced a large amount of work based on
one or two paintings by Matisse, but he is considered by many to
be one of America's masters.
Dekooning - I needn't point out how many painters have made a
career copying him.
And even if there was a concensus (which is what milt is looking for, I
think) could be made about originality, it still wouldn't go very far to
explaining what makes a work good.
>
> Relevance- Again to whom in relation to what?
(snip)
This point, too, is tied to experience. People spending serious time
looking at art are going to have a different idea of relevance than those
who dabble or simply have less experience. Is that fair? I certainly think
so.
Personally, I find relevance in a work if its visual play holds my
attention.
> Communication is an entirely different problem. Communication of what
> to whom?
(Gabriel, I apologise for the snipping, but I don't disagree with your
points, I'd just like to try to add to them.)
Again, the orientation of the viewer is going to determine what is
communicated. If the viewer is looking for depiction only, he will
certainly miss out on whatever else an artist has to offer.
>
> I happen to enjoy and believe in the work of Renaissance, Baroque and
> ninettenth century painters [i.e. Constable, Delacroix, Gericault,
> Corot, Courbet], as well as Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Mayan, Ancient
> Chinese, Burmese , Indian[from India], as well as the work of recent
> African, Ocenian Etc.artists. I was very moved by a hugesilver caldron
> in the Historisk Museet in Copenhagen which was produced somewhere
> aroun the beginning of this time period, also by Romanesque and Gothic
> art. I realy love all that stuff as well as a great deal of stuff
> produced between 1900 and 1970 or so. How can that all fit into a
> formalist bag? Only if I pretend that what I see is only lines,
> shapes and colors. It reminds me of something Wittgenstein said. When
> I see children playiung freely in the street, and think of them as
> mechanical contrivances, I get a funny feeling inmy head
> [paraphrased].
I see your point, however, I would have to add that if we were to look for
what it is that all the above great art has in common, but doesn't share
with so much lesser art I would argue that it is *how* these things were
made - with what concern for their visual presence.
In other words, to try to say that only a concern for form, line and color
make great art may sound too simplistic, but that is, more than anything
else, what I see as a common link between it all - and I don't mean in a
cold, systematic way, but in a felt, true way.
>
> Now, I will be damned if responding to shapes, lines and color can
> possibly define how and why I respond. Take the Church of San Zeno in
> Verona [I think]. The outer doors have relief sculptures of the
> Romanesque period which knock me dead, inside ther is one of
> Mantegna's masterpieces of perspecitve construction. I love them both.
> Earlier I went more to see the Mantegna, more lately to see the doors.
> No formal methodology will make them both palatable to anyone at the
> same time. But like so much of Europe, every building projects its own
> art history. In Orvieto, for example, the great Tuscan cathedral with
> green and white striped marble has reliefs on the facade by a Gothic
> sculptor, Maitani, the great chapel whose walls are painted by
> Signorelli, has a ceiling made by Fra Angelico and his student Benozzo
> Gozzoli. When Signorelli painted his huge paintings, he purposefully
> painted the upper parts of them so that in style they would fit in
> with th work onthe ceiling! He, himself was not pictorially
> consistent. Luckily, after some twenty years under restoration, the
> Italians did not botch this one and the chapel is a great unity.
> Signorelli, the teacher of Michelangelo, requires a totally different
> kind of looking, formally than Fra Angelico. AND I am not even a
> Christian, let alone a Catholic. So these works are not new to me, nor
> are their messages relevant [I do not belive in Christ or the second
> coming or the resurrection or the preachings of the antichrist]. So
> the paintings are not communicating to me on any subject matter level
> close to what was meant.
I won't snip here - even to save space, because we don't often get such
good writing about the effects of great art here in r.a.f. - but this is
just my point of view as well.
If the Renaissance master could (and they did) paint Christian themes as
well as pagan ones, then the subject matter surely is not the common link.
We certainly can't argue that subject matter has anything to do with
quality in art. Just as we can't argue that current events or truthful
journalism are criteria for poetry.
I'd like to stress that I'm very pleased to see Gabriel writing here
again, and while my point of view seems to be agitating him, to me the
problem seems to be in the word itself - form, that is. I'm not trying to
isolate it as the only worthwhile part of a looking experience, but I do
see the concern for the *how* - the decisions about contrasts of shape and
color, to be more important than the *what* - the subject matter.
sincerely,
mdeli
> one or two paintings by Matisse, but he is considered by many to
> be one of America's masters.
Only by a coterie of artzy fartzies. The general public doesn't even
know his name. His work consists of student exercises.
> Dekooning - I needn't point out how many painters have made a
> career copying him.
What you should point out is all the failures who imitate him. They
form a large army of disgruntled artists who can't understand why he
succeeded and they didn't. Most are no worse than de Kooning.
>
snip
>Personally, I find relevance in a work if its visual play holds my
>attention.
However, it is the artists business to understand how to attract the
viewer.
>Again, the orientation of the viewer is going to determine what is
>communicated. If the viewer is looking for depiction only, he will
>certainly miss out on whatever else an artist has to offer.
>
What viewer looks for depiction only? If the viewer "misses out" its
usually the fault of the artist not the viewer.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage (updated Sept.13 - new pictures) to see some of my work and a Skeptical View of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
mil...@cove.com
At this point, it's not clear to me whether you agree that there is no
absolute good-bad scale for evaluating a painting. Given the proposition,
"There are a number of criteria by which one may evaluate a painting, but
none has any validity beyond the personal taste of the evaluator", do you
come out affirmative or negative? I take the affirmative, but am sorely
afraid that for some reason I haven't been able to see, I'm wrong.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mark webber
> At this point, it's not clear to me whether you agree that there is no
> absolute good-bad scale for evaluating a painting.
Hi again, Milt, and I have to say its hard to think you're not tugging my
leg a bit. "Absolute good-bad scale for evaluating", I mean, God, we're
talking about art here, not spelling.
Of course not - but the part of the equation that you seem to be
repeatedly missing is that everyone's judgemental abilities are not the
same. This, I'm sure, is clear to you in all ther professions - not all
actors are equal, not all lawyers, automobile repair men - and not all
people are equally qualified to determine when a painting succeeds or
fails.
And much of the reason for this is due to the amount of experience one has
looking.
> ...Given the proposition,
> "There are a number of criteria by which one may evaluate a painting, but
> none has any validity beyond the personal taste of the evaluator", do you
> come out affirmative or negative? I take the affirmative, but am sorely
> afraid that for some reason I haven't been able to see, I'm wrong.
I thought you agreed there was something else at work besides personal
taste.
This exercise only really works (and is therefore useful and entertaining)
if we assimilate each others remarks.
best,
mil...@cove.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Dec 1998 mil...@cove.com wrote:
>
> >
> Hi again, Milt, and I have to say its hard to think you're not tugging my
> leg a bit. "Absolute good-bad scale for evaluating", I mean, God, we're
> talking about art here, not spelling.
>
> repeatedly missing is that everyone's judgemental abilities are not the
> same. This, I'm sure, is clear to you in all ther professions - not all
> actors are equal, not all lawyers, automobile repair men - and not all
> people are equally qualified to determine when a painting succeeds or
> fails.
>
> And much of the reason for this is due to the amount of experience one has
> looking.
>
I was away for a couple of days. I'd surely like to bring this discussion to
some sort of resolution, but it does seem as if we're talking past one
another.
I'm not tugging your leg at all. When you say that some are better able to
judge paintings than others, that seems to imply some sort of objective
good-bad scale on which the better educated judge is better qualified to
place a given painting. If not that, what is the educated judge better able
to do? The man in the street may like some sort of kitsch while the
connoisseur likes what is in the museum. But what is in the museum is
selected by persons who have been informed by the same standards as the
connoisseur. How can you demonstrate that those standards are superior to
those used by the fellow who prefers kitsch?
With auto mechanics, one has an objective standard: how well does the car
run? Wtih lawyers, do they further their clients' interests? With actors as
with musicians, it's less clear, but one might be able to judge how well they
interpret what someone else has written. But painting is different. To say
that one person is better able to evaluate a painting than another without
being able to suggest a standard against which the evaluation is to be made
defies my comprehension. And I seriously doubt whether a useful standard or
set of criteria exists.
> > ...Given the proposition,
> > "There are a number of criteria by which one may evaluate a painting, but
> > none has any validity beyond the personal taste of the evaluator", do you
> > come out affirmative or negative? I take the affirmative, but am sorely
> > afraid that for some reason I haven't been able to see, I'm wrong.
>
> I thought you agreed there was something else at work besides personal
> taste.
A lot of things are at work in painting, but I don't see that that justifies
saying that one painting is better than another.
>
> This exercise only really works (and is therefore useful and entertaining)
> if we assimilate each others remarks.
Agreed! Can we do it?
Milt
>
> best,
mil...@cove.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
>
> Hi again, Milt, and I have to say its hard to think you're not tugging my
> leg a bit. "Absolute good-bad scale for evaluating", I mean, God, we're
> talking about art here, not spelling.
>
> repeatedly missing is that everyone's judgemental abilities are not the
> same. This, I'm sure, is clear to you in all ther professions - not all
> actors are equal, not all lawyers, automobile repair men - and not all
> people are equally qualified to determine when a painting succeeds or
> fails.
>
> And much of the reason for this is due to the amount of experience one has
> looking.
>
> if we assimilate each others remarks.
>
bit different. After considerable discussion with you and others, I have come
to the following statement of my position. I'll be most interested in your
response.
There are no valid fundamental standards by which to judge the intrinsic
merits of a painting. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that one
painting is intrinsically better than another, nor that the personal taste of
one person is better than that of another. If a person thinks that Norman
Rockwell is the greatest painter who ever painted, he is entitled not only to
his opinion but to respect for it. Heaping scorn on "uneducated" opinions is
a disservice to the world of art.
I concede that there is such a thing as an acquired taste for certain kinds of
art. In fact, it seems clear that increasing familiarity with the work of many
painters often adds to one's enjoyment of looking at the work. Education can
help one see meritorious (and other) aspects of paintings. But that is not a
sufficient reason for the position that the simple-minded or cute painting is
intrinsically inferior.
There are a great many criteria available for one to use in evaluating a
painting, that are valid for specific purposes. The extent to which a painter
has introduced new techniques or approaches that are widely followed by
succeeding generations of artists seems a reasonable criterion for selecting
his work for major museums. When selecting a painting for the cover of a
magazine, the editors properly base their decision on what will help sell the
most copies. I allocate the time I spend looking at a painting based on my
visceral response to it. I prefer El Greco to Velasquez, while others think
the latter is the greatest painter of all time. There are no valid criteria
for judging which is the superior view.
Why bother even discussing this matter? For one thing, the notion that there
are absolute standards for evaluating paintings leads to an enormous amount
of futile effort to learn what these standards may be. I would venture that
most people, realizing that they do not know what those standards are, are
reluctant to voice opinions about paintings for fear that knowlegeable
experts will find their opinions uninformed. I suspect further that in the
effort to conform to some unknown standards, many lose the ability to respond
spontaneously to works of art --- in my mind a real tragedy. I also suspect
that what one learns in art school and the notion of greater or less
intrinsic merit in paintings interferes with the ability of the artist to
paint with his own asthetic, for fear of violating some standard or another.
What do you think?
Milt
Bob C
>
> There are no valid fundamental standards by which to judge the intrinsic
> merits of a painting. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that one
> painting is intrinsically better than another, nor that the personal taste of
> one person is better than that of another. If a person thinks that Norman
> Rockwell is the greatest painter who ever painted, he is entitled not only to
> his opinion but to respect for it. Heaping scorn on "uneducated" opinions is
> a disservice to the world of art.
I guess it's time to add my own 2-cents to this particular thread, not
necessarily in response to what Milt just wrote, although I do think it
represents a somewhat outlook on the situation.
The main reason that there are no objective fundamental standards to
judge art is because we all have our own personal ideas of what the
goals of art should be. Furthermore, in most cases, those goals my be
based largely on how the art effects us, something which can vary
greatly from person to person. If we can't even agree on the goals of
art, how can we possible agree on which better satisfies those goals?
There are, however, things that the educated connoisseur, critic, or
artist can usually do much better than what you call the "uneducated",
such as:
- make judgements about the level of technical competence and amount of
effort made by the artist
- place the work within a context of history and styles, and by doing so
make judgements about the thought and creativity which went into the
work
- clearly identify the goals against which the art is being evaluated
and analyse the ways in which the work achieves (or falls short of)
those goals
If the purpose of an evaluation is to select works for our own pleasure,
then obviously our own evaluation is the correct one regardless of how
educated or informed it may be. But as soon as your evaluation is in a
position to effect eithers, such as selecting works for display or
attempting to influence or educate, then the evaluation itself may be
evaluated. There is no longer a concept of correct or incorrect, but
rather of how well the evaluator has justified their judgement. To say
"this painting is best because I like it" is not a particularly valuable
judgement to anyone except perhaps yourself. If we recognize what the
goals of the evaluation are, then we can judge the evaluation itself,
and for most goals it will require learned critics and artists to make
worthwhile evaluations.
> I also suspect
> that what one learns in art school and the notion of greater or less
> intrinsic merit in paintings interferes with the ability of the artist to
> paint with his own asthetic, for fear of violating some standard or another.
>
> What do you think?
I disagree. What I learned in art school has helped me greatly to be
able to understand and explore my own asthetic, however I cannot recall
any studio or art history class which attempted to teach the notion of
greater or less intrinsic merit. The goal really should be to increase
our understanding and broaden our appreciation of all art, and the best
courses I've taken were able to do that.
- Bob C.
mark webber
(snip)
> I'm not tugging your leg at all. When you say that some are better able to
> judge paintings than others, that seems to imply some sort of objective
> good-bad scale on which the better educated judge is better qualified to
> place a given painting. If not that, what is the educated judge better able
> to do? The man in the street may like some sort of kitsch while the
> connoisseur likes what is in the museum. But what is in the museum is
> selected by persons who have been informed by the same standards as the
> connoisseur. How can you demonstrate that those standards are superior to
> those used by the fellow who prefers kitsch?
I can't.
>
> With auto mechanics, one has an objective standard: how well does the car
> run?
That isn't all one is concerned with - some mechanics repair cars better
than others - if you drive a car enough, you can feel when it is running
well, and better than when an inferior mechanic repaired it. Similar
expansion cna be made about the other examples I gave.
But as I've said several times now, spending time (driving, dealing with
lawyers, eating pasta and looking at paintings) will yeild a different,
and I think greater understanding of these things - do I really need to
say this?
On the other hand, someone who has never driven will say they don't
understand. I've done my best to tell you that I feel form has much to do
with what makes great art endure. In another thread with Gabriel Laderman,
we are in the process of expanding on that idea a bit. But maybe the best
thing for you to do is spend time in museums. Don't be afraid to like the
Fragonards better than the Greuzes.
best,
Mark
mark webber
(snip)
> This is my second response to your posting: I don't see the first one.
Sorry, Milt, I was a little busy.
> This
> a bit different. After considerable discussion with you and others, I have
> come to the following statement of my position. I'll be most interested in
> your response.
>
> There are no valid fundamental standards by which to judge the intrinsic
> merits of a painting. Therefore, there is no basis for saying that one
> painting is intrinsically better than another, nor that the personal taste of
> one person is better than that of another.
Okay with me. It's not how I see it, but it seems this is what you want to
believe and I have no problem with it.
> If a person thinks that Norman
> Rockwell is the greatest painter who ever painted, he is entitled not only to
> his opinion but to respect for it.
He is certainly entitled to his opinion, but why respect? If you don't
want to distinguish between great art and mediocre art, then why
distinguish between respectable and unrespectable opinions?
> Heaping scorn on "uneducated" opinions is
> a disservice to the world of art.
I don't disagree. Heaping scorn on anything is a waste of time. But if you
want to involve yourself with art, you might accept the fact that art
appreciation and creativity aren't democratic. They are elitist and are
reliant on experience.
>
>
> I concede that there is such a thing as an acquired taste for certain kinds of
> art.
You do remember our points about the relative value of different genres of
music, and the impact of personal taste therein, right? I'm not sure
you're putting everything together.
> In fact, it seems clear that increasing familiarity with the work of
many
> painters often adds to one's enjoyment of looking at the work. Education can
> help one see meritorious (and other) aspects of paintings. But that is not a
> sufficient reason for the position that the simple-minded or cute painting is
> intrinsically inferior.
Let me ask you this: is there anything in this world that can be said to
be superior to anything else? If not art, then what?
In theory, I suppose you could claim that some poorly rendered crayon
drawing of a cat could be seen by someone as the equal of a Raphael
"Madonna" - but by whom? And how long do you suppose you could stomache a
conversation with this person?
>
>
> There are a great many criteria available for one to use in evaluating a
> painting, that are valid for specific purposes. The extent to which a painter
> has introduced new techniques or approaches that are widely followed by
> succeeding generations of artists seems a reasonable criterion for selecting
> his work for major museums. When selecting a painting for the cover of a
> magazine, the editors properly base their decision on what will help sell the
> most copies. I allocate the time I spend looking at a painting based on my
> visceral response to it. I prefer El Greco to Velasquez, while others think
> the latter is the greatest painter of all time. There are no valid criteria
> for judging which is the superior view.
>
>
> Why bother even discussing this matter?
Well, that's a good question. Debate of all kinds is rather silly.
> For one thing, the notion that there
> are absolute standards for evaluating paintings leads to an enormous amount
> of futile effort to learn what these standards may be.
I hope you never got the impression I think there are absolutes.
> I would venture that
> most people, realizing that they do not know what those standards are, are
> reluctant to voice opinions about paintings for fear that knowlegeable
> experts will find their opinions uninformed. I suspect further that in the
> effort to conform to some unknown standards, many lose the ability to respond
> spontaneously to works of art --- in my mind a real tragedy. I also suspect
> that what one learns in art school and the notion of greater or less
> intrinsic merit in paintings interferes with the ability of the artist to
> paint with his own asthetic, for fear of violating some standard or another.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Milt
I think you are right. Let's hang it up.
thanks,
Mark