David Hockney's claims re use of aids in painting and drawing
Edward G. Nilges
photography used a variety of devices such as the camera obscura to
project an image onto paper and canvas, and used this as a tracing aid
in order to avoid simple errors in drawing.
He explains the emergence of realism in Western art to the appearance
of these aids.
What interests me is that in an exchange (still available on Google)
with a chap named Mani de Li, I pointed out that modern
neo-reactionaries like Mani place a great store on accurate drawing as
a necessary condition for artistic talent, while in fact the old
masters used a variety of aids such as the camera obscura to execute
accurate draftsmanship. Indeed, as working people with paintings to
crank out and a rent to pay, it is hard to believe that UNLESS the
painter had a natural facility with drawing, he would not avail
himself of such aids.
The artists who did not use the aids were probably able to draw
free-hand accurately faster than tracing, or were limited by the
medium,like Michelangelo and his frescos on curved surfaces, upon
which it was not practical to project; but even here, we know that
Michelangelo made a "cartoon" or drawing and could have used aids to
produce these. But the fact that a machine existed from about the
15th century on to perform the work of making an accurate drawing, we
can infer that making accurate drawings free-had was (and is) neither
a necessary nor sufficient condition for artistic quality or genius.
This deconstructed Mani's loud and offensive claims that "modern
artists are poseurs who cannot draw", a classic Philistine rant which
seems to be popular on the Internet, an irredemiably Philistine
medium. His claims were further deconstructed by the poor quality of
his art and the fact that he used Dali-esque surrealism to evade one
task of the realistic painter, which is to construct an image that
makes sense as a whole.
I am not offended that David Hockney has stolen my 1997 thesis, indeed
because of my concern that my claim receive publicity, David is quite
welcome to it. I am concerned that the claim receive publicity
because it fully exposes the hollowness of artistic reactionaries who
would make the art the preserve of idiot *savants* gifted quite by
accident with a minor ability to function as a human camera obscura.
Art is of course not photography, and the artist not able to make an
accurate free-hand copy of an image can, if sufficiently motivated and
intelligent, correct for this minor failing by using various forms of
projection and tracing to construct a basis for the real work of art,
which is piling on the paint in such a manner that something genuinely
new is created.
The phallocentric rant of the anxious art student can be silenced by
Mr Hockney's findings. For in cases where the artist has used an aid,
we can instead focus on the conversation, the dialog, the artist has
with nature and with tradition.
Edward G. Nilges
Peter H.M. Brooks
Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> I am not offended that David Hockney has stolen my 1997 thesis, indeed
> because of my concern that my claim receive publicity, David is quite
> welcome to it. I am concerned that the claim receive publicity
> because it fully exposes the hollowness of artistic reactionaries who
> would make the art the preserve of idiot *savants* gifted quite by
> accident with a minor ability to function as a human camera obscura.
> Mr Hockney's findings.
>
So, which is it? Did he steal your thesis or were they his findings?
Why not put your thesis on line to establish this one way or the other.
--
"My own opinion - which I may as well indicate at the outset - is
that pure Anarchism, though it should be the ultimate ideal, to which
society should continually approximate, is for the present impossible.."
- Bertrand Russell
RBrac53660
I would like to take issue to that. Anyone can draw an image, as you mentioned
in the use of the camera obscura, and anyone can photograph a image at what
point it becomes art I'm not takeing issue with. But I will say some
photographic images are art.
As far as Mani is concerned he is a very lonely soul.
Holly Daize
spino...@yahoo.com says...
>
>...are in the news. Hockney says that many painters prior to
>photography used a variety of devices such as the camera obscura to
>project an image onto paper and canvas, and used this as a tracing aid
>in order to avoid simple errors in drawing.
There is an even simpler method of transferring
an image - and that is to use two grids - one
over the image and another drawn onto the surface
one plans to work with. For copying from nature,
a simple frame with multiple strings forming the
warp and woof is effective, assuming one keeps
one's head at the same angle of reference.
I myself have used a sheet of clear acrylic, held up
before the scene, onto which I draw with a wax
crayon. Sitting down, I hold the clear acrylic
before me, resting it on my knees, while I draw.
If the drawing goes astray, I refer back to my
starting point to make sure that I am overlapping
it at all times. A very simple but effective device
for making sure that your drawing is accurate in
depicting relationships between objects being drawn.
NOTE: I refer to these "devices" as "training aids."
They teach someone who doesn't have natural drawing
skills. A fun exercise is to stand before a mirror
and trace your face onto the mirror by
using a wax pencil or crayon.
If you've never dealt with "reality" in this way
before, the thing that will amaze you is how small
your head actually is! All artists at one time or
another need to learn how much their head has
swollen, doncha think?
Chris
Hi Holly, Spinoza, et al.;
I've been thinking about this one (Hockney's claim) and have decided to
hold off taking one POV until I read his book, which I have on order.
But from the second hand reports I've seen re. his thesis, he seems to
avoided accounting for the political and cultural atmosphere of Italy at
the end of the Medieval Period and the beginning of the Renaissance, which
probably had far more to do with the drive to create what we
anachronistically now call "photographic" results.
Rome in particular was a disaster by the late Medieval period. I can't
remember the precise perriod, but around that time it reached a real nadir
with a population hovering around around 10,000. The Church was in
disarry, and the social structure had essentially unravelled.
But at the same time there were some actively engaged in studying the
meanings of the ruins theat lay beneath their feet. - and discovering
(among other things) the great heritage of Greco-Roman art. It doesn't
take too much extrapolation to imagine what an impact the comparisons
between the ancient and contemporary Medieval cultures would have among
thinking people. Cuklture and its expression go hand in hand, and in that
respect it's no wonder the artists of the Renaissance jettisoned the rigid
and stylized aesthetic of Medieval art for an art based on observation and
analysis, just as did philosophers, scientists, and even theolgians. That
they would use any tool at their disposal to do so, whether a lens or a
portrait machine (I put up a picture of one, by Durer, 1525, , at
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/brobeck/DurerPortraitMachine.jpg ) is also no
wonder - it fitsin well with another concept that came to the fore at that
period, analysis (a very non-Medieval idea).
Regards;
Chris
Holly Daize wrote:
--
What Can I Do? : http://www.theadvocates.org/terrorism.html
William Barkin
centuries...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Holly Daize" <Ho...@noemailever.com> wrote in message
news:3c14c...@oracle.zianet.com...
> In article <f5dda427.01120...@posting.google.com>,
> spino...@yahoo.com says...
[snip]
> There is an even simpler method of transferring
> an image - and that is to use two grids - one
> over the image and another drawn onto the surface
> one plans to work with....
Edward G. Nilges
> Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > I am not offended that David Hockney has stolen my 1997 thesis, indeed
> > because of my concern that my claim receive publicity, David is quite
> > welcome to it. I am concerned that the claim receive publicity
> > because it fully exposes the hollowness of artistic reactionaries who
> > would make the art the preserve of idiot *savants* gifted quite by
> > accident with a minor ability to function as a human camera obscura.
>
> > Mr Hockney's findings.
> >
> So, which is it? Did he steal your thesis or were they his findings?
>
> Why not put your thesis on line to establish this one way or the other.
In exchanges which occured in 1998, Mani de Li, whose slogan is "no
skill no art" and I had a flame war in which I mentioned the camera
obscura and other techniques that allowed people to paint
representative art without having the ability to draw photographically
and free-hand. This disproves Mani's contention 'no skill no art'.
Unfortunately, I can only find two posts, neither of which mention my
thesis. This does not bother me because dear David is welcome to take
up the anti-Philistine banner as he loosens it from my grasp in the
manner of Liberty Leading the People. It is unlikely that David found
my idea while surfing rec.arts.fine.
Edward G. Nilges
Dik F. Liu
because of my concern that my claim receive publicity, David is quite welcome
to it. I am concerned that the claim receive publicity because it fully
exposes the hollowness of artistic reactionaries who would make the art the
preserve of idiot *savants* gifted quite by accident with a minor ability to
function as a human camera obscura.<
I am sorry that your envy of Hockney led you to rant in posts that figure
Hockney so largely. Whereas Hockney wrote a highly regarded thesis that does
not figure you at all.
How sad. How very, very sad.
Dik
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >
> > Why not put your thesis on line to establish this one way or the
other.
>
> In exchanges which occured in 1998, Mani de Li, whose slogan is "no
> skill no art" and I had a flame war in which I mentioned the camera
> obscura and other techniques that allowed people to paint
> representative art without having the ability to draw photographically
> and free-hand. This disproves Mani's contention 'no skill no art'.
> Unfortunately, I can only find two posts, neither of which mention my
> thesis.
>
This is irrelevant to your thesis - you can still put it on line now.
Presumably it is published.
Chris
> "In exchanges which occured in 1998, Mani de Li, whose slogan is "no
> skill no art" and I had a flame war in which I mentioned the camera
> obscura and other techniques that allowed people to paint
> representative art without having the ability to draw photographically
> and free-hand. This disproves Mani's contention 'no skill no art'.
No it doesn't; your thesis really amounts to little more than saying using a spell checker will
make you into a good writer. Mani's point was more along the lines that if you can't spell, and
don't know basic grammar, you won't be able to produce good writing.
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C1602D2...@ns.sympatico.ca...
at school, but from books and their parents.
William Barkin
scrutiny that demonstrate this? Or is this your own personal observation?
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9v57l4$fn9$2...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
[snip]
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Online Portfolio
> http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
> news:9v57l4$fn9$2...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
> [snip]
> > But most people who can spell and have excellent grammar don't learn
it
> > at school, but from books and their parents.
>
>
public
> scrutiny that demonstrate this? Or is this your own personal
observation?
>
> -Bill
>
It is my personal observation. If you have any alternative evidence,
please present it.
discussion
> ...are in the news. Hockney says that many painters prior to
> photography used a variety of devices such as the camera obscura to
> project an image onto paper and canvas, and used this as a tracing aid
> in order to avoid simple errors in drawing.
> Edward G. Nilges
I once saw on tv a lecture which praised the painters of certain still lifes
saying that they played around with perspective and scale, and pointing
out all the results of optical distortion via camera obscura that Hockney
& academic friend showed on their fascinating programme. An example of
trying to read into something that which is not there.
N.H
silverpoint
the old masters are, at best, complete bunk. Any number of fully trained
artists throughout history could and did draw the human figure, including
the face, completely from their own imaginations as well as from a live
model, with no cameras or optics of any kind. A drawing, you see, is a kind
of invention, with everything interpreted or re-imagined by the artist. The
notes and treatise On Painting by da Vinci clearly spell out that the artist
learns to draw the bones and all parts of the figure completely out his own
head in any position. Devices like "squaring up" and such merely aided in
the transposition of complex preliminary drawings to the full sized work.
What optical device was used to "project," say, a complex, multi-figured
scene such as a Renaissance crucifixion? 12 people posed in a box in front
of camera obscura? No way. Or a Michelangelo design in which the figures
are not only wildly distorted but placed in "poses," or compositional forms
invented by the artist, that would break the bodies of any model placed in
such a position? That must have been some lens that Michelangelo used, one
that allowed him to see multiple sides of the same figure all at once.
Artists like Hockney and legions of others have lost sight of what a
picture, or art itself, even is. It all flows from what today is so vapidly
called "creativity," which in the case of the great artists from the distant
and not so distant past allowed them to create something other than mere
tracings of optical reality. What did Rembrandt trace to create the
complex, invented schemes and structures of light and form in his pictures?
Must be the same one that injected the memories of Gothic art that pervade
Michelangelo.
Hockney's idea is more an excuse as to how he himself cannot draw. Drawing,
as Ingres remarked, "is the probity of art." And what drawing captures is
not what the camera sees, it is the ideas of form that, as Ingres and
Cezanne agreed, one sees in the works in the Louvre.
Excuse the "phallocentric rant," but this is all true. Closer to our time,
Delacroix, Degas, Gauguin, Matisse and Picasso all believed in and practiced
drawing solely from memory, a "process" that wholly omits the camera and
leaves the artist to supply everything. This is a more complex process than
trying to trace a photo.
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.01120...@posting.google.com...
Edward G. Nilges
Dik, you completely misread me. I really, really do not care that
Hockney is getting the publicity. I am not a full time, professional
artist or art critic, and I stated the 1997 thesis only to show how
Mani was wrong.
Really, don't transfer whatever frustrations you may have on me. It
is true that today, the ordinary slob has great difficulty in
asserting intellectual property rights, but this is to the extent that
the elite has decided to reify the concept of intellectual property.
I am more concerned to see justice done in this area than to assert
any kind of property right to my true 1997 claim, that the Old Masters
used paraphenelia to provide the realism of which Mani was in awe. I
am genuinely tickled to be shown to be right again. The Deadly Sin of
Envy has no part in this, not least because unlike Hockney, I do not
have to deal with Susan Sontag, that Medusa.
Once again, I see proof of the irredemiably petty-bourgeois and
profoundly Philistine nature of the Web; for the first thought is not
positive, it is to put the worst construction on what I wrote.
Everybody who posts seems to post from the nastiest sort of business
office, in which negative constructions are all that are made. But I
post from a mental Arcadia since, as Adorno wrote, the only philosophy
worthy of the name is that which views all things in the light of
redemption.
Edward G. Nilges
Expressing it in this way shows clearly that mani is wrong.
Shakespeare could not spell worth a damn, indeed he wrote at a time
when the very concept of "correct spelling" did not exist, and writers
constructed words out of letters as today we construct sentences from
words; using common sense. We do not have a sentence dictionary which
lists all allowable thoughts and their "correct" expression in words
(although Attorney General Ashcroft is probably working on one.) In
Shakespeare's time, men did not have Johnson's Dictionary and probably
spelled in the way they thought best.
As to "knowing" basic grammar, a Chomskyan would point out that we
"know" basic grammar by the age of five.
Natural facility with drawing is neither a sufficient nor a necessary
condition for artistic quality and talent, and Cezanne is an excellent
example. Cezanne, working after the introduction of photography, was
simply not interested, in what Cezanne referred to as "my researches",
in photographic reproduction.
Edward G. Nilges
> And what do you base that statement on? Are there studies open to public
> scrutiny that demonstrate this? Or is this your own personal observation?
>
> -Bill
God forbid that anyone should make a true personal observation, as
opposed to "expert" whores who produce "studies" for the highest
bidder.
The guy is right. It is a well-known fact that the most literate
people read scandalous and amusing books, from Harry Potter to
Justine, while literate "wannabes" run to dictionaries and books of
grammar in vain hopes that if they punish themselves with rules, they
too will sound edumocated. Ultimately, the latter sullenly rage
against literacy and what they are pleased to call "unfounded"
opinions.
Ricardo Pontes
> ...are in the news. Hockney says that many painters prior to
> photography used a variety of devices such as the camera obscura to
> project an image onto paper and canvas, and used this as a tracing aid
> in order to avoid simple errors in drawing.
>
> He explains the emergence of realism in Western art to the appearance
> of these aids.
>
> What interests me is that in an exchange (still available on Google)
> with a chap named Mani de Li, I pointed out that modern
> neo-reactionaries like Mani place a great store on accurate drawing as
> a necessary condition for artistic talent, while in fact the old
> masters used a variety of aids such as the camera obscura to execute
> accurate draftsmanship. Indeed, as working people with paintings to
> crank out and a rent to pay, it is hard to believe that UNLESS the
> painter had a natural facility with drawing, he would not avail
> himself of such aids.
>
> The artists who did not use the aids were probably able to draw
> free-hand accurately faster than tracing, or were limited by the
> medium,like Michelangelo and his frescos on curved surfaces, upon
> which it was not practical to project; but even here, we know that
> Michelangelo made a "cartoon" or drawing and could have used aids to
> produce these. But the fact that a machine existed from about the
> 15th century on to perform the work of making an accurate drawing, we
> can infer that making accurate drawings free-had was (and is) neither
> a necessary nor sufficient condition for artistic quality or genius.
>
None of these artists would have produced as great of work if not for
their skill in drawing. You forget that drawing is training of your
eyes. I see all of the techniques above as tools to make art, but
they are crutches when an artist does not know how to draw properly.
They are simply tools. I have seen work produced by students when
projection was used, and it looked like garbage, as i suspect most art
would look if it really depended on those copying tools as much as you
say. Drawing is about learning how to see, an artist who cannot draw
well is not an artist at all.
> This deconstructed Mani's loud and offensive claims that "modern
> artists are poseurs who cannot draw", a classic Philistine rant which
> seems to be popular on the Internet, an irredemiably Philistine
> medium.
The Internet is the only medium in which people who have strong
opinions like his can be heard. The tide is changing thou.
His claims were further deconstructed by the poor quality of
> his art and the fact that he used Dali-esque surrealism to evade one
> task of the realistic painter, which is to construct an image that
> makes sense as a whole.
Whether you think his art is of poor quality has nothing to do with
using tools to copy and replace drawing as a whole.
What Dali work do you think does not make sense?
>
> I am not offended that David Hockney has stolen my 1997 thesis, indeed
> because of my concern that my claim receive publicity, David is quite
> welcome to it. I am concerned that the claim receive publicity
> because it fully exposes the hollowness of artistic reactionaries who
> would make the art the preserve of idiot *savants* gifted quite by
> accident with a minor ability to function as a human camera obscura.
>
> Art is of course not photography, and the artist not able to make an
> accurate free-hand copy of an image can, if sufficiently motivated and
> intelligent, correct for this minor failing by using various forms of
> projection and tracing to construct a basis for the real work of art,
> which is piling on the paint in such a manner that something genuinely
> new is created.
>
Again, drawing is learning how to see. I dont see many building being
put up without a foundation, but chances are that if some are built,
they will almost imediatly fall.
How can you possibly consider the unability to draw as a minor
failling?
Seems like it would be a great character flaw.
Ricardo
Peter H.M. Brooks
public
> > scrutiny that demonstrate this? Or is this your own personal
observation?
> >
> > -Bill
>
> God forbid that anyone should make a true personal observation, as
> opposed to "expert" whores who produce "studies" for the highest
> bidder.
>
>
> The guy is right. It is a well-known fact that the most literate
> people read scandalous and amusing books, from Harry Potter to
> Justine, while literate "wannabes" run to dictionaries and books of
> grammar in vain hopes that if they punish themselves with rules, they
> too will sound edumocated. Ultimately, the latter sullenly rage
> against literacy and what they are pleased to call "unfounded"
> opinions.
>
Just as with art, there is a world of difference between somebody who
draws and paints for love and delight and somebody who holds their
'training' as being their key to being an 'artist' - the latter is a
rather sad creature, just like the 'wannabe' you mention.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> "know" basic grammar by the age of five.
>
RBrac53660
about by art students in there foundation years or soon afterward. As far as
Eakins use of photographs well duh that is yesterdays news there is even a pre
image (photographic) of the swimmers in circulation. And no I did learn about
this stuff from your unfamous article nor Hockney's.
If Hockney chooses to use his celeberity "exposeing" painters "tricks" or what
not that is fine with me since it is truely unoriginal, dull, uninspireing etc.
Since there are so many more interesting ways to talk about images rather then
same old dull cartesian manner of quality and technology.
www.geocities.com/winston53660/wbphotog.html
Edward
More likely it's all nonsense.
Usually people, who are nothing but failures themselsves and over years
could achieve certain goals (skills or mastership), tend to throw mud on
those who happened to reach the level of master,... level, which remains
unattainable for losers and daubers.
It's not original, I saw it hundreds of times. The less one can create -
the more bullshit one invents to propel his worthless art (or - in worst
case - to drop some groundless insinuations about well-known
authorities).
Just like cheap wine (which did not undergo the process completely)
turns into sour vinegar,
the same way talentless artists turn into cheasy critics...
Sad but true.
---------------
- For those WHO DID NOT READ ANY REVIEWS about HOCKNEY's crappy book:
http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,1419,L-LATimes-Books-X!ArticleDetail-47973,00.html
--------------------
gswork
Edward!), and thought I'd join in at this point.
What I sense in this discussion is an argument for and against a
'natural elitism' - the ability to draw as precondition for an artist.
It's inherently political (hence heated) and naturally gets back to
the question of what art actually is. If it's something that anyone
can 'do', and if anything is equally valid as 'art' then some fear the
wholesale invalidation of art itself. If we are told that a room
with a flickering light, or what looks like a carpet hung
indiscrimately on the wall is just as valid as a Michaelangelo then we
may as well exhibit our own untidy desks as an 'artistic expression of
post industrial angst' or whatever.
Yet I tend to agree with Edward, that the use of aids in and of itself
does not disqualify the artisan from being allowed in the 'club'.
One (and I mean one, not some inhereted opinion from the sunday paper
art column) can evaluate a work of art by what it means to you in
context. As no one agrees on a proper set of qualifications, and as
such would change over time anyway, there can be no practical means to
'test' art to confirm it's status as art. Philosophical attempts to
do so appear similarly flawed.
>> This deconstructed Mani's loud and offensive claims that "modern
>> artists are poseurs who cannot draw", a classic Philistine rant
which
>> seems to be popular on the Internet, an irredemiably Philistine
>> medium.
>The Internet is the only medium in which people who have strong
>opinions like his can be heard. The tide is changing thou.
In what sense? That the net is about to get draconian on strong
opinions, or that strong opinions are about to find voice via other
media?
In the context of this thread, whilst I find derisive snorts, among
the public, regarding carved up sheep or a monocolor canvas refreshing
compared to the fawning of 'art critics', opinions that flatly assert
a 'no entry' sign to an artist on account of his/her use of drawing
aids is a different, more ominous, matter.
>How can you possibly consider the unability to draw as a minor
>failling?
>Seems like it would be a great character flaw.
Character flaw? That seems rather heavy! There is an autistic man,
in Britain I think, who can draw buildings from memory with staggering
accuracy (right down to the number of windows in a skyscraper). His
drawings are wonderfully detailed and would do well in any art outlet,
but they are not inherently better [to look at or 'engage with'] than
any number of other quality drawings/paintings of buildings done by
people without this persons remarkable ability.
I guess that turns back to the question of whether art is in the eye
of the beholder or the creator (or both).
Peter H.M. Brooks
gswork <gsw...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
>
> What I sense in this discussion is an argument for and against a
> 'natural elitism' - the ability to draw as precondition for an artist.
>
you have learned to draw and weren't born with the raw ability to render
portraits before you could speak?
>
> It's inherently political (hence heated) and naturally gets back to
> the question of what art actually is. If it's something that anyone
> can 'do', and if anything is equally valid as 'art' then some fear the
> wholesale invalidation of art itself
>
equally 'valid' as art.
I don't see why it has to be exclusive. Surely anything produced by
somebody (even a child) with intent to represent a view of reality is
art - even if it is bad art. Just as anything that is not produced to
express something that communicates a view of reality (even if it is
internal, or imagined reality) is not art.
I think a lot of people are confused by the divide between decoration
(which can be aesthetically pleasing and can be produced on a canvas
with paint and put in a frame) which is not intended to, and doesn't,
communicate any view of reality and art. Much of what is called
'abstract art' is simply decoration.
Chris
English was a very fluid language at the time, and Shakespeare's spelling reflects that. But
students weren't taught in English - the principal language of instruction at the Stratford Grammar
School (guess why it was called a "grammar" school - and while you are working on that, check out
the word "trivium") was Latin, which was taught in a rigorous manner, with a great emphasis on
understanding classical authors. Certainly by the age at which he is generally supposed to have left
school (around thirteen), he would have had a good grasp of both English, as it was known then, and
Latin - the syllabus for many such schools is still extent, do a little research.. As for
Shakespeare himself, a good deal of his work is derived directly from Latin sources. (And yes he did
rely on certain translations, such as North's Plutarch, for others). This has been studied to death
in literary history, you might avail yourself of it.
As for Chomsky, the fact that one "knows" a basic grammar at age five is totally irrelevant, there
is a huge difference between "knowing" - in the sense of being intuitively usuable - and
"understanding", in the sense of being able to rationally explore and extend Otherwise all five year
olds would have Shakespeare's command of the language.
Chris
William Barkin
can spell and have excellent grammar don't learn it at school, but from
Personal observations are a dime a dozen - they count for nothing when
making a blanket statement such as yours...in the future you should preface
your statements with the fact that they ARE your personal observations and
not facts based on scientific studies...
My OWN personal observation of kids I know, is that through schooling they
seem to master language, grammar and writing.
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9v5oof$j73$1...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net...
William Barkin
true...but I place my money on the fact that a high percentage of the
population derived their language, grammar and writing skills through public
or private school education and not through "books and their parents..."
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.01121...@posting.google.com...
William Barkin
training) were "sad creatures" ? You really are a horse's ass....
Art is a craft, just like music, dance, wood carving, etc. without (some)
training, raw talent can only go so far...without the proper "tool of
study", creativity will soon come to a dead end...
-Bill
--------------------------
William Barkin - Fine Artist
Online Portfolio
http://www.bcn.net/~wbarkin
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9v6npn$f52$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
[snip]
RBrac53660
>could achieve certain goals (skills or mastership), tend to throw mud on
>those who happened to reach the level of master,... level, which remains
>unattainable for losers and daubers.
>
Er uh have you held a mirror up to your self lately?
>It's not original, I saw it hundreds of times. The less one can create -
>the more bullshit one invents to propel his worthless art (or - in worst
>case - to drop some groundless insinuations about well-known
>authorities).
>
That "bullshit" in it it's self seems to be pretty creative to me wether or not
it is intended for the lay person.
>Just like cheap wine (which did not undergo the process completely)
>turns into sour vinegar,
>the same way talentless artists turn into cheasy critics...
That just means you have to drink the wine faster :)
Peter H.M. Brooks
> training) were "sad creatures" ? You really are a horse's ass....
> Art is a craft, just like music, dance, wood carving, etc. without
(some)
> training, raw talent can only go so far...without the proper "tool of
> study", creativity will soon come to a dead end...
>
You make my point with the '(some)', clearly practice (as has been
proved the case in almost all areas of human endeavour) is absolutely
cruical to the best work.
However, I was pointing to those who see training as the only
requirement and like abuse people who have less than they have.
As with most things, balance is important, neither 'raw talent', nor
academic training are the key, nor even, for that matter, is practice.
All are important parts of the mix.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> I was not the one who posted the original statement: "But most people
who
> can spell and have excellent grammar don't learn it at school, but
from
> books and their parents." You did.
> Personal observations are a dime a dozen - they count for nothing when
> making a blanket statement such as yours...in the future you should
preface
> your statements with the fact that they ARE your personal observations
and
> not facts based on scientific studies...
>
obviously important, those who truly excel (ie have 'excellent grammar')
read and have literated and involved parents.
>
> My OWN personal observation of kids I know, is that through schooling
they
> seem to master language, grammar and writing.
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
William Barkin <wba...@bcn.net> wrote in message
> A well known fact? A well known fact to who? You? I'm sure you wish
it was
> true...but I place my money on the fact that a high percentage of the
> population derived their language, grammar and writing skills through
public
> or private school education and not through "books and their
parents..."
>
I'm sorry, I thought more people knew this.
Peter H.M. Brooks
is totally irrelevant, there
> is a huge difference between "knowing" - in the sense of being
intuitively usuable - and
> "understanding", in the sense of being able to rationally explore and
extend Otherwise all five year
> olds would have Shakespeare's command of the language.
>
managed to learn quite so much and have such breadth of expression.
In any event, Chomsky's point is that the 'grammar engine' is innate -
which enables us to learn language so quickly.
Chris
> Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >
> > As for Chomsky, the fact that one "knows" a basic grammar at age five
> is totally irrelevant, there
> > is a huge difference between "knowing" - in the sense of being
> intuitively usuable - and
> > "understanding", in the sense of being able to rationally explore and
> extend Otherwise all five year
> > olds would have Shakespeare's command of the language.
> >
> That is a good point. It is interesting to consider how Shakespeare
> managed to learn quite so much and have such breadth of expression.
Apparently during his life he read extensively, and we do know that he was
immersed in a culture that put a heavy value on humanist learning, and at
the heart of humanist education is language. Latin, often Greek, and
usually a fair dose of one or more "vulgar" languages. Plus as an actor, he
would have had to have the ability to rapidly acquire and retain massive
amounts of information, from some of the best of English authors. ( Have
you ever noticed how many stage-trained, as vs film trained, actors can
actually write well? It seems offhand there are quite a few. But that's
only an impression.) But he was working in an atmosphere where many of his
playwright competitors were also quite skillful in their use of the
language - right now we see him as the the one that stands out, but that
wasn't always the case, and it'll probably change again...
For detail, a good place to start is with the individual copies in the
Arden series of Shakespeare's plays; they provide a good basic background
on each work, including discussions of the history of the story, the
sources Shakespeare used (including comparative passages), the political
and social aspects of the play (cf Richard II, for a typical example), and
appropriate biographical information. An added incentive is that they are
not expensive. The Oxford Shakespeare editions are also quite good, and
affordable. FWIW, a relevant selection from North's Plutarch (which
Shakespeare, at times, lifted literally word for word) was published by
Peregine/Penguin, and is called "Shakespeare's Plutarch". And (of course)
Harold Bloom's delightful, if somewhat contentious, book on the Bard...
Cheers;
Chris
Edward G. Nilges
> Excuse me Edward, but I must say that what you have written below is inexcusably stupid.
Charmed, I'm sure. Right, you swine, this will read well in the
morning post...let the flame begin..
Yes,
> English was a very fluid language at the time, and Shakespeare's spelling reflects that. But
> students weren't taught in English - the principal language of instruction at the Stratford Grammar
> School (guess why it was called a "grammar" school - and while you are working on that, check out
> the word "trivium") was Latin, which was taught in a rigorous manner, with a great emphasis on
In actual fact, both the trivium of logic, arithmetic and rhetoric,
and the quadrivium of more advanced studies including music and
geometry was probably taught less "rigorously" than you imagine but
with the variety found in the present day. There were some teachers,
quite possibly monks defrocked by Henry VIII's fiat, who were caring
of their urchins and others who taught with barbarity, emphasizing
only rote memorization and tacitly using the larger children to
physically discipline the smaller.
To view this as "rigourous" is mere nostalgia for an era which Ted
Hughes has described as a primitive police state in which people could
not even pray the way they wanted.
> understanding classical authors. Certainly by the age at which he is generally supposed to have left
> school (around thirteen), he would have had a good grasp of both English, as it was known then, and
> Latin - the syllabus for many such schools is still extent, do a little research.. As for
Spelling errors (as in 'extent') always undercut pretension such as
found here. And as to Shakespeare's Latin, we have Ben Jonson who
tells us that in fact Shakespeare had "little Latin and less Greek",
which was fortunate, for unlike Marlowe and unlike Jonson, Shakespeare
almost never felt the need to show off erudition, as you do.
> Shakespeare himself, a good deal of his work is derived directly from Latin sources. (And yes he did
> rely on certain translations, such as North's Plutarch, for others). This has been studied to death
He relied almost exclusively on books including Ralph Holinshed and
North in English. Shakespeare was as like to use a scandalous
contemporary romance novel as he was to use a second-hand recount of
the Romans, which formed part of the popular culture of his time.
> in literary history, you might avail yourself of it.
>
> As for Chomsky, the fact that one "knows" a basic grammar at age five is totally irrelevant, there
> is a huge difference between "knowing" - in the sense of being intuitively usuable - and
> "understanding", in the sense of being able to rationally explore and extend Otherwise all five year
> olds would have Shakespeare's command of the language.
>
Which most do until people like you beat love of the language out of
them, commencing in grade school and continuing in university.
Children are natural poets.
Shakespeare was probably inattentive in school, especially when the
master droned on about the rules of syntax. He probably was writing
sonnets to Anne Hathaway's ankle in the back of class.
This post is a deep example of what Hazlitt (you do know your Hazlitt,
I hope) called "the ignorance of the learned" in an esssay of that
title.
This is the tradition that wants Shakespeare to be like them,
'edumocated', sexually and morally repressed, with a hair up their ass
about being above the common herd because of a college degree.
Dammit, read Lear. A fool, a madman and a broken king in a storm,
something that Seneca only came near in Hercules Furens. But in
Hercules Furens, the action happens offstage lest the highborn ladies
faint and the peak of the "action" is when Hercules wakes from his
fury to say "quae hic locus, quae regio, quae mundi plaga" and I need
not translate for an edumocated man like yourself.
In Lear we get the rage and the action and none of this offstage
business because Shakespeare, unlike Seneca, was not an official court
toady (Seneca's patron was the emperor Nero, as I am sure you know.)
Instead, Shakespeare had the balls to get a piece of the action for
himself which enabled him to write as he saw fit, fright the ladies,
delight the groundlings, support the kids back home, and retire in
middle class comfort.
The only character in Shakespeare who uses all that much Latin or
"high" phrasing is the damnfool Pistol who winds up with a wife dead
in the hospital of a malady of France. Which is not to say that
Shakespeare fell in the trap of prizing oversimplified language for he
puts lying oversimplifications in the mouths of his rat bastards
Richard III and Iago. Shakespeare shows us that there is indeed a
high style which is mere adequacy to the reality, say, of being tossed
out of the house by your goddamn children.
Edward G. Nilges
Look, mate, I agree that it is excellent to draw freehand for the SAME
reason I encourage my computer science students to write their first
parsers by hand.
What I take issue with is the denial that artists, as working slobs,
are not perfectly justified in using whatever tricks they want. The
use of these tricks should simply not, as Hockney says, be used to
determine our judgement of the artistic product.
To reduce art to a bodily skill that is dependent on a variety of
factors including visual acuity, which fades in the old age (for
example, of Poussin) just when the artist has something really
profound to tell us (as did Poussin, in Summer (Ruth and Boaz)) is
completely and irredemiably Philistine.
Edward G. Nilges
No, no, a thousand times, no. I agree that drawing is one path to
vision but it is not the only path. For every art student that like
Picasso profited from training in traditional life studies there are
thousands who had their creativity beat out of them by insistence that
they draw in one approved style.
>
> > This deconstructed Mani's loud and offensive claims that "modern
> > artists are poseurs who cannot draw", a classic Philistine rant which
> > seems to be popular on the Internet, an irredemiably Philistine
> > medium.
>
> The Internet is the only medium in which people who have strong
> opinions like his can be heard. The tide is changing thou.
...and as a result, the Internet is not taken seriously. Precisely
because clowns like mani and Matt Drudge are the norm, the New York
Times only quotes Internet sources to mock them.
The idea that there was some Great Wisdom in the intellectually
unwashed and personally discourteous has been disproved by the
Internet in which clowns exhibit what Marx knew to be false
consciousness.
>
> His claims were further deconstructed by the poor quality of
> > his art and the fact that he used Dali-esque surrealism to evade one
> > task of the realistic painter, which is to construct an image that
> > makes sense as a whole.
>
> Whether you think his art is of poor quality has nothing to do with
> using tools to copy and replace drawing as a whole.
>
> What Dali work do you think does not make sense?
>
The whole goddamn *oeuvre*.
Serious Dadaism and Surrealism was based on the idea that society as a
whole does not make moral or cognitive sense. Dali turns this into
self-promotion and self-mockery because he constructs works that make
no sense. There is a world of difference between a work that allows
the viewer to participate in the process of making sense and one so
finished (like Dali's) that it means only "Dali" and becomes a sign of
the money it costs.
>
> >
> > I am not offended that David Hockney has stolen my 1997 thesis, indeed
> > because of my concern that my claim receive publicity, David is quite
> > welcome to it. I am concerned that the claim receive publicity
> > because it fully exposes the hollowness of artistic reactionaries who
> > would make the art the preserve of idiot *savants* gifted quite by
> > accident with a minor ability to function as a human camera obscura.
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Art is of course not photography, and the artist not able to make an
> > accurate free-hand copy of an image can, if sufficiently motivated and
> > intelligent, correct for this minor failing by using various forms of
> > projection and tracing to construct a basis for the real work of art,
> > which is piling on the paint in such a manner that something genuinely
> > new is created.
> >
>
> Again, drawing is learning how to see. I dont see many building being
> put up without a foundation, but chances are that if some are built,
> they will almost imediatly fall.
>
> How can you possibly consider the unability to draw as a minor
> failling?
>
> Seems like it would be a great character flaw.
>
> Ricardo
I can teach the ability to draw. I cannot teach artistic ability.
Edward
More likely it's all nonsense.
Usually people, who are nothing but failures themselsves and over years
could achieve certain goals (skills or mastership), tend to throw mud on
those who happened to reach the level of master,... level, which remains
unattainable for losers and daubers.
It's not original, I saw it hundreds of times. The less one can create -
the more bullshit one invents to propel his worthless art (or - in worst
case - to drop some groundless insinuations about well-known
authorities).
Just like cheap wine (which did not undergo the process completely)
turns into sour vinegar,
the same way talentless artists turn into cheasy critics...
Sad but true.
Edward
...
...could NOT achieve certain goals (skills or mastership), tend to throw
mud on ...
...
Edward
...
...could NOT achieve certain goals (skills or mastership), tend to throw
mud on ...
...
Peter H.M. Brooks
Chris <bro...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
> > >
> > That is a good point. It is interesting to consider how Shakespeare
> > managed to learn quite so much and have such breadth of expression.
>
> Apparently during his life he read extensively, and we do know that he
was
> immersed in a culture that put a heavy value on humanist learning, and
at
> the heart of humanist education is language. Latin, often Greek, and
> usually a fair dose of one or more "vulgar" languages. Plus as an
actor, he
> would have had to have the ability to rapidly acquire and retain
massive
> amounts of information, from some of the best of English authors.
> you ever noticed how many stage-trained, as vs film trained, actors
can
> actually write well? It seems offhand there are quite a few. But
that's
> only an impression.) But he was working in an atmosphere where many of
his
> playwright competitors were also quite skillful in their use of the
> language - right now we see him as the the one that stands out, but
that
> wasn't always the case, and it'll probably change again...
>
point about stage actors and writing - did you read Dirk Bogart's
enjoyable novels?
There was an interesting analysis of his Italian settings recently. It
has been the practice to sneer at his misunderstanding in having Sail
makers in an inland city - but it turns out that the flax, or cotton,
grown there was indeed made into sails at about that time. Other similar
facts suggest that he must have travelled in Italy quite extensively.
Chris
>
> True Marlowe, for example, was pretty impressive too. You make a good
> point about stage actors and writing - did you read Dirk Bogart's
> enjoyable novels?
>
I haven't, but I'll put them on my list....
>
> There was an interesting analysis of his Italian settings recently. It
> has been the practice to sneer at his misunderstanding in having Sail
> makers in an inland city - but it turns out that the flax, or cotton,
> grown there was indeed made into sails at about that time. Other similar
> facts suggest that he must have travelled in Italy quite extensively.
Now I've heard that there is some speculation that Shakespeare's family may
have immigrated from Italy; it's a thesis with interesting possibilities,
which I haven't followed up on. Do you know anything about that?
It's a good point too, about the sail making, and modern incorrect
interpretations of earlier societies. One of the disafvantages of history
as it is taught in schools is that, I guess by necessity, it
oversimplifies, and we tend to overlook the wonderful complexity of eras
like the 16th and 17th centuries.
I'm currently reading Schama's "The Embarrassment of Riches" - it's about
Holland during this period . Schama obviously revels in the paradoxical
nature of golden age Holland, and it's a great antidote to linear
interpretations. It's also full of popular art from that time, and for that
is a must read for some of the other posters who have put forward the idea
that good art must be economically elitist.
Cheers;
Chris
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> >
> > True Marlowe, for example, was pretty impressive too. You make a
good
> > point about stage actors and writing - did you read Dirk Bogart's
> > enjoyable novels?
> >
>
> I haven't, but I'll put them on my list....
>
>
> >
> > There was an interesting analysis of his Italian settings recently.
It
> > has been the practice to sneer at his misunderstanding in having
Sail
> > makers in an inland city - but it turns out that the flax, or
cotton,
> > grown there was indeed made into sails at about that time. Other
similar
> > facts suggest that he must have travelled in Italy quite
extensively.
>
> Now I've heard that there is some speculation that Shakespeare's
family may
> have immigrated from Italy; it's a thesis with interesting
possibilities,
> which I haven't followed up on. Do you know anything about that?
>
>
> It's a good point too, about the sail making, and modern incorrect
> interpretations of earlier societies. One of the disafvantages of
history
> as it is taught in schools is that, I guess by necessity, it
> oversimplifies, and we tend to overlook the wonderful complexity of
eras
> like the 16th and 17th centuries.
>
really (like a true map requiring to be the same size of the country
mapped) requires the same time as the period. Anything less is a
synopsis. Between the one unattainable extreme and the other lies
scholarship.
>
> I'm currently reading Schama's "The Embarrassment of Riches" - it's
about
> Holland during this period . Schama obviously revels in the
paradoxical
> nature of golden age Holland, and it's a great antidote to linear
> interpretations. It's also full of popular art from that time, and for
that
> is a must read for some of the other posters who have put forward the
idea
> that good art must be economically elitist.
>
>
discussion
> the old masters are, at best, complete bunk. Any number of fully trained
>
> What optical device was used to "project," say, a complex, multi-figured
> scene such as a Renaissance crucifixion? 12 people posed in a box in
front
> of camera obscura? No way. Or a Michelangelo design in which the figures
> are not only wildly distorted but placed in "poses," or compositional
forms
> invented by the artist, that would break the bodies of any model placed in
> such a position
He made it quite clear that
each individual would have been copied separately and then showed
in detail how each figure would then have been out of true when they were
put
together in the painting. I remember he highlighted a certain piece of
carpet or
cloth where the pattern had to be shown out of focus to resolve the
perspective.
He used well known paintings as examples.
The whole programme was convincing.
N.H
mani deli
> "silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9v68fo$1po$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> > David Hockney's claims as to the use of optical devices in the drawing of
> > the old masters are, at best, complete bunk. Any number of fully trained
> >
> > What optical device was used to "project," say, a complex, multi-figured
>David Hockney's claims as to the use of optical devices in the
drawing of
>the old masters are, at best, complete bunk.
That about sums it up.
Like many students, Hockney compared his lame abilities to what he saw
in master works and couldn't help realizing how superior and
attractive they looked. He was too dense and uninformed to imagine
that this could be done without some sort of vast mechanical crutch.
As a certified member of the international daisy chain and admired by
artzy patzers who can just about do work as bad as his, he is able to
get the public ear. Since most are too dumb to take the trouble to
seek readily available reference they take Hockney at his word.
The reason Hockney made such a big splash is because most modern
artists, students and public are stupendously ill informed. Anybody
who studied art with someone who really teaches is fully aware of all
the aids available. Most are available in any large art store and all
have been amply described in all sorts of old books. So when E.g.
Nilges makes claims to be more original than a jerk like Hockney he is
mistaken.
Hockney's non-revelation leads many students who are exposed to
nothing but ignorant teachers to falsely conclude that the reason
great artists could draw so well was because they used optical aids.
This further leads to the destructive idea that they needn't learn to
draw and that if they really wanted to, they need only get the proper
aids. Believe me its BS.
mani deli
>David Hockney's claims as to the use of optical devices in the
drawing of
>the old masters are, at best, complete bunk.
That about sums it up.
Like many students, Hockney compared his lame abilities to what he saw
in master works and couldn't help realizing how superior and
attractive they looked. He was too dense and uninformed to imagine
that this could be done without some sort of vast mechanical crutch.
As a certified member of the international daisy chain and admired by
artzy patzers who can just about do work as bad as his, he is able to
get the public ear. Since most are too dumb to take the trouble to
seek readily available reference they take Hockney at his word.
The reason Hockney made such a big splash is because most modern
artists, students and public are stupendously ill informed. Anybody
who studied art with someone who really teaches is fully aware of all
the aids available. Most are available in any large art store and all
have been amply described in all sorts of old books. So when E.g.
Nilges makes claims to be more original than a jerk like Hockney he is
mistaken.
Hockney's non-revelation leads many students who are exposed to
nothing but ignorant teachers to falsely conclude that the reason
great artists could draw so well was because they used optical aids.
This further leads to the destructive idea that they needn't learn to
draw and that if they really wanted to, they need only get the proper
aids. Believe me its BS.
ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
TRACE LINES. This is a great time saver for getting placement and
proportion. It will not help with filling in the rest of the picture
and is almost useless to someone who can't draw.
I strongly advise students to try these aids and see for themselves.
BTW Hockney is totally dependent on photos and projection one need
only see his miserable output to see where he's coming from.
silverpoint
between Hockney's own paltry talents and those he finds unreachable.
Reducing real creativity to just a mere, technical matter of "process" and
"skill"....
Reminds me of a passage in one of the Robert Beverly Hale books on anatomy &
drawing (using anatomy as a reference and tool to teach students what's
truly important in art, namely imagination, composition, and sheer
invention) in which he shows a Renaissance drawing, I believe by Titian, of
a rearing horse with perhaps a rider and some other figures, and asks, to
paraphrase, "Now, do you believe for a minute that Titian convinced this
stallion to maintain this position for 3 hours while he got down on the
floor to draw it in this dramatic, rearing position???" No way. The artist
made it all up out his own head, centuries before the Muybridge photos even
revealed the true positions of actual horses in motion. The artist invented
everything in the drawing, composed it, completely out of his own feeling
and knowledge. And the results are completely convincing, even in a hazy
chalk drawing that has nothing in common with a photograph. Hale's point
being that people who assume that art uses "skill" to "replicate" what they
think is "reality" leaves the imagination, creativity, and the sheer power
of invention out of the whole equation.
Hockney's ideas are bogus, and minor. He should start with Hale's
admonition to get a grip on what a picture, or work of art, even is.
Again, this is all true. Just try reconciling the approach of Michelangelo,
a die hard neo-Platonist who considered representing anything from the
visible world to be beneath contempt, with Hockney's human-camera-obscura
approach. Artists are more than photoreceptors, they have ideas, too, and
can embody them quite convincingly, if they have the courage and wherewithal
to learn how to. But that takes effort, more effort than many shallow
people are willing to even begin to marshall.
The reverse of, and to qualify my own argument, is that artist's are
influenced by developments from all over. Likely leaps in knowledge and
curiousity about the developing science of optics over the past centuries
did influence artists, as did developments and changes in philosophy and any
number of other fields. Sure. But using it as a cheap excuse to reduce art
to mere tracing of photography is demented.
"discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:zL6S7.139$1F2.3...@newsr2.u-net.net...
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
anatomy &
> drawing (using anatomy as a reference and tool to teach students
what's
> truly important in art, namely imagination, composition, and sheer
> invention) in which he shows a Renaissance drawing, I believe by
Titian, of
> a rearing horse with perhaps a rider and some other figures, and asks,
to
> paraphrase, "Now, do you believe for a minute that Titian convinced
this
> stallion to maintain this position for 3 hours while he got down on
the
> floor to draw it in this dramatic, rearing position?
>
rider held in just this position - maybe a place for an unimaginative
future Titian to go to sketch?
Holly Daize
says...
>"Now, do you believe for a minute that Titian convinced this
>stallion to maintain this position for 3 hours while he got down on the
>floor to draw it in this dramatic, rearing position???"
Gives me an opening to mention the "world's largest
equestrian statue" currently "under construction"
to be installed in El Paso, TX sometime in the future.
The project has been pushed back several times from
its contractual completion date, now estimated to
be sometime in 2003.
"Yes, Houser has requested -- and received --
more extensions than the Southern Pacific. And,
yes, people are getting frustrated at the delays.
After all, the 36-foot sculpture, which will be
the largest bronze equestrian statue in the world,
was due in 1998. "
You can read the full text of above article in today's
El Paso paper at:
http://www.borderlandnews.com/stories/borderland/20011214-160215.shtml
silverpoint
what was in his mind's eye. Often in the old masters there's no way to tell
what was done from a model or what was just pulled out of thin air. I'm
still curious about what lenses were used to transform male studio
assistants that posed for Renaissance madonna paintings into images of
women, must have been the same ones that transformed them into imaginary
neo-platonic otherworldly images in the works of Michelangelo. And what a
wild lens El Greco used. And the pyramids were constructed with alien
anti-gravity technology.
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:9vcmu2$afd$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
Chris
Ignave! Silverpoint, clue in; of course Hockney is right! As are all the people
who understand the book without reading it!
Everybody knows "camera" is a latin word - so *obviously* it was around a long
time ago. And just to clue you in further, I have it on *good authority* - the
same one that Osama bin Hidin's followers used when they foresaw that Ramadan
would be a really good time for their group - that the camera as we know it was
invented by a guy named Vir Orientis, who called his invention the fulvulus.
As for which particular lenses these guys used, I don't know - except for
Michelangelo. He used the fissum malum Punicarum (in a Renaissance pun,
obviously, on the Punic Wars) to transform lithe young men into robust young
ladies - though he didn't look through it, he just placed one on each side of
the model's chest. There is some dispute about this, he might have used
fructus turpis (though some modernists claim that wsn't invented till
recently). Anyway, check out "Evening" or "Night" (or whatever they are
translating her as these days) on the tomb of Guiliani d'Medici, you'll see
what I mean.
(Peter can correct my Latin, it's been awhile. Well, more than awhile).
Cheers;
Chris
Edward G. Nilges
Delighted to hear from you again and glad to see that you are as wrong
as ever, dear boy.
Actually, you have improved. I agree that all the aids allow is one
to draw lines. However, artistic neoconservatives want, in a
contradictory fashion, to believe in a hypostatized "talent" that is
"undefinable" and yet show that their talent, of that of their
favorites, is decidable.
The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
Edward G. Nilges
> Complete horse hockey, nothing but an excuse so as to equalize the distance
> between Hockney's own paltry talents and those he finds unreachable.
> Reducing real creativity to just a mere, technical matter of "process" and
> "skill"....
Actually, the command that in order to be considered worthy, an art
student must be able to produce a verifiably accurate life-study
denies creativity at a far deeper level. For the existence of the
camera obscura PROVES that the ability to produce drawings of high
accuracy is not creative at all.
I agree.
> The reverse of, and to qualify my own argument, is that artist's are
> influenced by developments from all over. Likely leaps in knowledge and
> curiousity about the developing science of optics over the past centuries
> did influence artists, as did developments and changes in philosophy and any
> number of other fields. Sure. But using it as a cheap excuse to reduce art
> to mere tracing of photography is demented.
>
I don't think Hockney is trying to reduce art to paint by numbers.
Quite the opposite. He wants to show that the analysis of the
artistic process contains two parts. One part is mechanical and the
other part spiritual.
The problem is that Philistines like Mani want us to accept a
contradictory false resolution in which the ability to draw freehand
is accepted as an ersatz for unanalyzed artistic ability, and the
photographic sheen or finish of a painting becomes a necessary and
sufficient condition for our accepting it as of high quality, and
permits us to reject (for example) Cezanne.
This argument is confused as shown by the way it produces confusion
and is addressed indirectly by Theodore Adorno's work on the occult.
For in the phenomenon of the petty-bourgeois occult, as seen in 1950s
Los Angeles astrology columns, Adorno recognized the false resolution
of a genuine desire for transcendance.
Art students basically don't want to work at a real job, and no man
dast blame them. However, permeated as they are with petty bourgeois
ways of thinking, they find it necessary to devise a technically
"occult" explanation for why they should be permitted to study art as
opposed to getting a real job. This explanation (following Adorno) is
occult in that, at one and the same time and in a self-contradictory
fashion, it REDUCES a quality (art, and the production of art) to bric
a brac including the dull ability to draw.
This way the ability can be tested, and funded by bourgeois and state
institutions and no claim can be made by such losers of competitive
examinations for art school as Adolf Hitler that their talent is
unrecognized.
It of course ignores the (strong) possibility that all children are
natural artists, only to have their abilities beat out of them by
parents and schooling.
Peter H.M. Brooks
awhile).
> Cheers;
I wouldn't dream of it! Though my father was a Latin teacher I was never
a good pupil!
--
'Say "pounds", :"sovereigns", "Bradburies" - almost
anything you choose,' said Raisley, 'but not "quid", Let us not have
proletarian usage.'
Simon Raven 'In the image of god'
Peter H.M. Brooks
silverpoint <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> No, honestly, Titian did the sketch without looking at anything other
than
> what was in his mind's eye
>
Oh, I don't doubt it! I was amazed recently to find out that some people
(many people) are limited to painting only what they see and can't paint
an imagined scene.
I don't mean to disparage such people, it is just that one assumes that
other people are like oneself and it is a surprise to find that they are
so different.
I love painting from life, it is fun and certainly helps hone ones
perception, but I am also happy to spend time in my studio painting many
things that are not there.
mani deli
> I agree that all the aids allow is one to draw lines.
That's the only point you address in my message.Gee that must have
been a strain. The rest your babble addresses nothing. I repeated my
point.
ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
TRACE LINES. This is a great time saver for getting placement and
proportion. IT WILL NOT HELP WITH FILLING IN THE REST OF THE PICTURE
AND IS ALMOST USELESS TO SOMEONE WHO CAN'T DRAW.
Now just address the last sentence!
> However, artistic neoconservatives want, -- snip
>The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
"bourgeois society-blah blah" Man, this guy is a jerk. What's it got
to do with the thread?
...no skill no art
Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
Tired of Modern Art? New paintings. Check out my web page!
Edward G. Nilges
>
>
> > I agree that all the aids allow is one to draw lines.
>
> That's the only point you address in my message.Gee that must have
> been a strain. The rest your babble addresses nothing. I repeated my
> point.
>
> ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
> TRACE LINES. This is a great time saver for getting placement and
> proportion. IT WILL NOT HELP WITH FILLING IN THE REST OF THE PICTURE
> AND IS ALMOST USELESS TO SOMEONE WHO CAN'T DRAW.
>
> Now just address the last sentence!
A man who believes that the history of ideas is irrevelant to art is
less an artist than a man who cannot draw. Hockney has shown that
skill in drawing is mechanical and that for the old masters, skill in
drawing was less important...probably than careerist skills including
the ability to find the proper mentors and, later in life,
understanding aristocratic patrons.
>
> > However, artistic neoconservatives want, -- snip
> >The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
> given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
> reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
> uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
>
> "bourgeois society-blah blah" Man, this guy is a jerk. What's it got
> to do with the thread?
>
A man whose first question is "what has this got to do with this
thread" is a PHILISTINE because a goddamn ARTIST is precisely that man
able to CONNECT the seemingly UNRELATED datum of MODERN LIFE into a
goddamn WHOLE.
> ...no skill no art
>
> Modern Academic Art is incompetence in search of an idea.
>
> Tired of Modern Art? New paintings. Check out my web page!
>
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
They still suck for they display only the propositions that you can
draw hands and that you cannot make sense of the whole apart from
referring questions to the eternal feminine.
mani deli
> > > I agree that all the aids allow is one to draw lines.
> >
> > been a strain. The rest your babble addresses nothing. I repeated my
> > point.
> >
> > ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
> > TRACE LINES. This is a great time saver for getting placement and
> > proportion. IT WILL NOT HELP WITH FILLING IN THE REST OF THE PICTURE
> > AND IS ALMOST USELESS TO SOMEONE WHO CAN'T DRAW.
> >
> > Now just address the last sentence!
>
>
He hasn't! Hockney is a jerk taking advantage of being a well known
charlatan in order to pass off a lot of nonsense. He like you doesn't
like fine drawing because he doesn't know how to achieve it. Besides,
you didn't answer the point.
> > > However, artistic neoconservatives want, -- snip
> > >The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
> > given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
> > reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
> > uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
> >
> > "bourgeois society-blah blah" Man, this guy is a jerk. What's it got
> > to do with the thread?
> >
> A man whose first question is "what has this got to do with this
> thread" is a PHILISTINE because a goddamn ARTIST is precisely that man
> able to CONNECT the seemingly UNRELATED datum of MODERN LIFE into a goddamn WHOLE.
Why not try to calm down and answer the point.
discussion
The Madonna's head is the same size as her child, her upper body is about
half size compared with her lower legs.
You can
a) believe that the artist deliberately distorted the female form to
such an extent because of popular demand or some obscure aesthetic reason,
or
b) believe the image is a copy of an image distorted the same way that one
would
get if you looked at yoursef in a mirror set an an angle, with the base much
closer
than it's top.
Regarding argument, debate, and evidence, wouldn't it be better if we
embraced
all evidence, even if it tended to make our preconceptions a little
difficult to maintain?
How does Hockney's film & book change anything anyway?
Here's to enlightenment from wherever it may come.
N.H
Craig Luce
used a variety of devices (usu referencing Vermeer's highlights as
evidence). So what?
This is immaterial to the production of art, and any artist can use
ANYthing they like if the result is deemed worthy!
MUCH ado was made of Gregory Gillespie's use of magazine photos IN his
paintings.. so what?
The result is far more interesting than disputing the means used.
Gillespie's art is in the transformation to a greater whole. A
conservator might find that they eventuallyt break down, but they are
sealed in paint and magma.
And yes, BTW, Raphael could draw "like that" freehand! So can many
artists. Did he use a camera lucida? What difference?
Hockney has discovered nothing, and if it was "taken from [Edward's]
original 1977 thesis", it means nothing. Perhaps Hockney SHOULD use
optics himself!
"Edward G. Nilges" wrote:
>
> ...
> Art is of course not photography, and the artist not able to make an
> accurate free-hand copy of an image can, if sufficiently motivated and
> intelligent, correct for this minor failing by using various forms of
> projection and tracing to construct a basis for the real work of art,
> which is piling on the paint in such a manner that something genuinely
> new is created.
>
> The phallocentric rant of the anxious art student can be silenced by
> Mr Hockney's findings. For in cases where the artist has used an aid,
> we can instead focus on the conversation, the dialog, the artist has
> with nature and with tradition.
>
> Edward G. Nilges
Edward G. Nilges
> > > > I agree that all the aids allow is one to draw lines.
> > >
> > > That's the only point you address in my message. Gee that must have
> > > been a strain. The rest your babble addresses nothing. I repeated my
> > > point.
> > >
> > > ABOUT ALL ANY OF THESE AIDS CAN DO IS LITTLE MORE THAN ALLOW YOU TO
> > > TRACE LINES. This is a great time saver for getting placement and
> > > proportion. IT WILL NOT HELP WITH FILLING IN THE REST OF THE PICTURE
> > > AND IS ALMOST USELESS TO SOMEONE WHO CAN'T DRAW.
> > >
> > > Now just address the last sentence!
> >
> > Hockney has shown that skill in drawing is mechanical ---
> >
>
> He hasn't! Hockney is a jerk taking advantage of being a well known
> charlatan in order to pass off a lot of nonsense. He like you doesn't
> like fine drawing because he doesn't know how to achieve it. Besides,
> you didn't answer the point.
Still singing the artistic Grub Street song after two years: oh poor
misunderstood me who knows how to draw but cannot sell my art it is
t'other fellow's fault and he cannot draw.
If one actually examines a considerable number of art books, one will
find a curious divergence.
Art book type (A) talks about the artist's work as a conniesewer and
is silent on how the work was produced.
Art book type (B) talks about mechanisms of production.
What's missing is any sense that art is a trace of a labor process in
which the laborer has the right to automate parts of the work. I am
certain that to Michelangelo and other artists who drew free-hand
after the availability of the camera *obscura*, the choice to draw
freehand was similar to the choice I made when my boss wanted me to
use a parser for the (computer) language XML. I preferred to write my
own because my solution was faster, and I am sure that artists with
natural facility drew free-hand, not as a sign of talent but as the
shortest distance to product.
But since so many conniesewers represent the idle rich, the very idea
that the hoi polloi might have the choice to automate (or not) part of
their work is offensive and needs to be silenced, from whence we get
the decrying of Hockney.
>
> > > > However, artistic neoconservatives want, -- snip
> > > >The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
> > > given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
> > > reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
> > > uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
> > >
> > > "bourgeois society-blah blah" Man, this guy is a jerk. What's it got
> > > to do with the thread?
> > >
> > A man whose first question is "what has this got to do with this
> > thread" is a PHILISTINE because a goddamn ARTIST is precisely that man
> > able to CONNECT the seemingly UNRELATED datum of MODERN LIFE into a goddamn WHOLE.
>
> Why not try to calm down and answer the point.
>
> ...no skill no art
>
Still wrong after all these years. Children do not have skill yet
before the public school system beats their art out of them, children
produce high-quality art.
Dear boy, you want your bourgeois cake and eat it too. For you wish
to REDUCE the notion of artistic talent to a verifiable skill. Yet
you still wish to be considered an artist who is one, in my view, who
takes risks, including the risk of not having a permission slip from a
Salon to be an artist.
silverpoint
Park with his homely Aunt Selma. At the souvenier stand were trick glasses
labeled "See the world through the eyes of a drunk!!" When he tried the
glasses on, his view of his poor aunt changed to that of a slobberingly
beautiful young blonde.
Art, however, does not work this way. Parmigiano could have drawn his
figures as totemic figures 4 heads high, or more like Raphael. The
"distortions" in the works of the Mannerists, El Greco, and others have long
been well explained and understood, and are not the result of optics or
lenses.
"discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:WH1T7.170$1F2.3...@newsr2.u-net.net...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> figures as totemic figures 4 heads high, or more like Raphael. The
> "distortions" in the works of the Mannerists, El Greco, and others
have long
> been well explained and understood, and are not the result of optics
or
> lenses.
>
had my eyes made perfect by laser surgery I could take my glasses off
and see an El Greco appear painted in perfect proprtion.
mani deli
> had my eyes made perfect by laser surgery I could take my glasses off
> and see an El Greco appear painted in perfect proprtion.
I doubt it because its much simpler to just draw elongated forms
freehand. Many artists painted elongated figures. If the scene is
complex one can elongate it by distorting the squaring off template.
About every ten years I read another BS article on Greco's abberent
vision etc.
Perhaps some artzy fartzie here has a theory on what secret mechanical
device Bottaro uses. Any mechanical suggestions for Dali's fabulous
double images? I'd really be interested in that one!
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
Peter H.M. Brooks
mani deli <hu...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> > El Greco was the result of lenses, or rather the lack of them.
Before I
> > had my eyes made perfect by laser surgery I could take my glasses
off
> > and see an El Greco appear painted in perfect proprtion.
>
> I doubt it because its much simpler to just draw elongated forms
> freehand.
>
hand and was quite amazed at the result.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Edward G. Nilges <spino...@yahoo.COM> wrote in
> But since so many conniesewers represent the idle rich, the very idea
> that the hoi polloi
>
'Hoi polloi', not 'the hou polloi'.
mani deli
> mani deli <hu...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> > "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> > > El Greco was the result of lenses, or rather the lack of them.
> Before I
> > > had my eyes made perfect by laser surgery I could take my glasses
> off
> > > and see an El Greco appear painted in perfect proprtion.
> >
> > I doubt it because its much simpler to just draw elongated forms
> > freehand.
> >
> You may doubt it as much as you like. I experienced it for myself first
> hand and was quite amazed at the result.
If you saw everything elongated and then drew it you would end up
drawing it correctly since you would also see the drawing elongated
Peter H.M. Brooks
mani deli <hu...@interlog.com> wrote in
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:<9vrtib$1ht$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>...
> > mani deli <hu...@interlog.com> wrote in message
> > > "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> > > > El Greco was the result of lenses, or rather the lack of them.
> > Before I
> > > > had my eyes made perfect by laser surgery I could take my
glasses
> > off
> > > > and see an El Greco appear painted in perfect proprtion.
> > >
> > > I doubt it because its much simpler to just draw elongated forms
> > > freehand.
> > >
> > You may doubt it as much as you like. I experienced it for myself
first
> > hand and was quite amazed at the result.
>
> If you saw everything elongated and then drew it you would end up
> drawing it correctly since you would also see the drawing elongated
>
Try to think about it a little longer, Mani.
discussion
"gswork" <gsw...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:81f33a98.01121...@posting.google.com...
I would like to ask just what is in the eye of the beholders
of minimalist abstract 'works'?
The people who praise this stuff must be seeing something,
but can it be what the creator intended?
There must be room for works that provoke people's imagination.
This must therefore create an audience who may never know
what was intended and what other viewers are imagining.
No wonder the arts writers when reviewing such works sound
so ridiculous.
I am reminded of the time when I was a small boy, and found all
kinds of pictures and mysterious places in the flames of an open
fire or when lying on my back gazing at clouds.
I wonder if by imagining these images, I had created art?
No matter if no one had seen what I had seen, the effort and
skill in creating these images (in my own mind) must have been at
least equal to the winner of the 2001 Turner Prize, and if I had been
questioned by the media for some sort of explanation, I could have
kept the questioner interested for more than the 3 seconds provided
by the "artist".
I therefore submit this as the real winner of the above prize. I await the
cheque with great anticipation,
Yours etc.,
N.H
> I guess that turns back to the question of whether art is in the eye
> of the beholder or the creator (or both).
Joseph Bennett
I congratulate you for trying to write in English. Keep working at it. You
will get there.
Meantime, I haven't the faintest idea of what you are trying to say!
"Edward G. Nilges" <
> Actually, you have improved. I agree that all the aids allow is one
> to draw lines. However, artistic neoconservatives want, in a
> contradictory fashion, to believe in a hypostatized "talent" that is
> "undefinable" and yet show that their talent, of that of their
> favorites, is decidable.
What on earth does this mean?
>
> The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
> given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
> reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
> uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
I'd love to argue with you, but gosh, I don't know what to say.
Like I mentioned, keep trying.
Joe Bennett
Joseph Bennett
Earlier, you were simply incomprehensible. Now, you are profanely
incomprehensible and prone to ad hominems.
Maybe you should just ream out Mani in your first language and leave English
for later.
Joe Bennett
Joseph Bennett
Now, you are trying my patience..
>
> Actually, the command that in order to be considered worthy, an art
> student must be able to produce a verifiably accurate life-study
> denies creativity at a far deeper level. For the existence of the
> camera obscura PROVES that the ability to produce drawings of high
> accuracy is not creative at all.
It PROVES absolutely, totally nothing at all!!!
>
>>
> This argument is confused as shown by the way it produces confusion
> and is addressed indirectly by Theodore Adorno's work on the occult.
> For in the phenomenon of the petty-bourgeois occult, as seen in 1950s
> Los Angeles astrology columns, Adorno recognized the false resolution
> of a genuine desire for transcendance.
I have to hand it to you. You sure know how to confuse confusion. Now,
let's take a deeper look into "the phenomenon of the petty-bourgeois
occult." I'm sure it will all come clear.
By the way, who are the "petty-bourgeois?" Am I one?
Regards....
Bennett, again, and for the last time in this stupid thread.
Joseph Bennett
"discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
news:IEqU7.75$qS6....@newsr2.u-net.net...
>
> "gswork" <gsw...@mailcity.com> wrote in message
> news:81f33a98.01121...@posting.google.com...
>
> I would like to ask just what is in the eye of the beholders
> of minimalist abstract 'works'?
> The people who praise this stuff must be seeing something,
> but can it be what the creator intended?
What makes you think they "must be seeing something"? They don't have to be
seeing anything but the reality that if they don't pronounce it profound, in
the most profound terms, somebody will think they are stupid. So they get
profound. That doesn't mean they are actually "seeing" something. As for
artistis intention, just read the abominable "artist's statement" posted
next to the work. The artist's intention is no doubt proclaimed in the most
impressively profound terms, just like Miss America's "I want to save the
world" response to the "What do you want to do with your life?' question.
So you really shouldn't worry about this. Also, don't wait too long for the
check. It isn't in the mail. And it won't be, because you have betrayed
yourself as a smart aleck. The In-Crowd now knows about you. You will
never get a check from anybody, ever.
Congratualtions. Now you are welcome in our outsiders' club!
Joe Bennett
Chris
>
> By the way, who are the "petty-bourgeois?" Am I one?
>
> Regards....
>
> Bennett,
Well, if you love freedom, respect other people's right to life, liberty, and
property, want to to govern your own life and make of yourself what you will,
by reasonable means, then, yeah. You're a petit bourgeois. So am I, & I love
it.
Cheers;
Chris
Edward G. Nilges
> Edward...
>
> I congratulate you for trying to write in English. Keep working at it. You
> will get there.
>
> Meantime, I haven't the faintest idea of what you are trying to say!
>
> "Edward G. Nilges" <
> > Actually, you have improved. I agree that all the aids allow is one
> > to draw lines. However, artistic neoconservatives want, in a
> > contradictory fashion, to believe in a hypostatized "talent" that is
> > "undefinable" and yet show that their talent, of that of their
> > favorites, is decidable.
>
> What on earth does this mean?
It does contain a typo and should read at its end "or that of their
favorites." But I suspect your difficulty is more global.
We assume, pal, that society makes sense but it may not. Thus people
who like traditional art and think only traditional art shows "talent"
may be literally self contradictory. For they want to assure us that
artists are specially selected people, but at the same time, they need
to explain and justify their selection from the herd.
Most people who troop through picture galleries lead, not the life
they would have chosen, but one in which their talents and dreams are
stunted, and foully misused. They see an Artist like Picasso who is
getting the chicks and the bucks and, at one and the same time, they
need to approve, yet justify his selection. Therefore they tend to
applaud when the artist (like Picasso in his entrance examination for
Barcelona's art school) shows the minor ability to draw without aids.
He's passed a test, like they had to to renew their driver's license.
The alternatives are numerous and would include subsidizing ANYBODY
who says "yo, I am an artist." Of course, I am well aware as a
taxpayer that the response would be "yo, get lost" because we PREFER
as a society to waste money on nuclear submarines.
>
> >
> > The contradiction is in bourgeois society in which one must at any
> > given time be prepared to give an account of why one should not be
> > reduced to the status of the proletarian. The contradiction produces
> > uniquely bad forms of Surrealism and the foul late Dali.
>
> I'd love to argue with you, but gosh, I don't know what to say.
>
Read a biography of Dali, who was merely a guy on the make.
Edward G. Nilges
I too think highly of the petite bourgeois and I too am one. But this
happens to be logically consistent with the idea that the thinking of
the petite bourgeois may be empirically limited by circumstances and
there are ways of thinking outside the box.
The guy who goes to an art gallery, who says loudly "my kid could do
dat", is thinking inside the box in which production must be
pre-authorized, a box which excludes creation *ex nihilo*. It is
necessary for me and other petite bourgeois to think this way on the
job, but this does not mean I have to receive art in the same way.
The problem, today, is that petite bourgeois ways of thinking are all
that is authorized. This is to add to petite bourgeois thought a
closure condition, an additional axiom or rule, that says "this is the
only valid way of thought."
silverpoint
driver's license.
Hogwash. Drawing, the language of form and rhythm that one sees in art from
the most ancient cave paintings, classical antiquity, the Renaissance, and
yes, even in modern works such as Picasso's Vollard Suite, for one of but
thousands of examples, is a deeper thing that merely learning "the minor
ability to draw without aids." What it is must be a complete mystery, if
you take young art students mere academic student efforts as an example of
it, even those of Picasso. The training of artists has been no mystery
for thousands of years, yet only a few ever attained the full blown status
of being a real one. Thus, for most of history, there was something
special attached to the idea that someone is an artist. Certain religions
even forbade the making of graven images, such were the powers ascribed to
artists, and even minor nobodies like the Greek philosophers had interesting
ideas and suspicions about artists, all because of their "minor ability."
Great artists typically keep "passing the test" for as many years as it
takes to be able to create something powerful and original, as seen in the
work and student efforts of artists as diverse as Raphael, Rubens,
Rembrandt, and Picasso. This "minor ability" is not so easy to acquire, and
often the greatest artists are the ones who made the greatest efforts. Even
Van Gogh, the poster boy of creativity and self expression who learned to
see and feel nature in a unique way and paint it like no one else ever had,
spent his first few years as a student copying hundreds of engravings by
Holbein and others. Likewise, after 5 to 10 years of intense study, that's
how the old masters learned to create figures and entire compositions
completely out of their heads, often with only quick and cursory studies
from the model that were completely changed and adapted to their
compositional ideas.
Artists who lack the humility or energy to thus acquire this "minor ability"
either attribute the abilities of others to some mere mechanical process, or
get lost in the typical and cliched flurry of neo-neo-neo-neo Grad School
Dadaist Questions about "What Art Is."
"Edward G. Nilges" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5dda427.01122...@posting.google.com...
> "Joseph Bennett" <joseph...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:<9vvn27$hq8ir$1...@ID-75635.news.dfncis.de>...
> Most people who troop through picture galleries lead, not the life
Chris
>
> I too think highly of the petite bourgeois and I too am one. But this
> happens to be logically consistent with the idea that the thinking of
> the petite bourgeois may be empirically limited by circumstances and
> there are ways of thinking outside the box.
>
> The guy who goes to an art gallery, who says loudly "my kid could do
> dat", is thinking inside the box in which production must be
> pre-authorized, a box which excludes creation *ex nihilo*. It is
> necessary for me and other petite bourgeois to think this way on the
> job, but this does not mean I have to receive art in the same way.
>
> The problem, today, is that petite bourgeois ways of thinking are all
> that is authorized. This is to add to petite bourgeois thought a
> closure condition, an additional axiom or rule, that says "this is the
> only valid way of thought."
LOL...Edward, the first sign someone is "thinking inside the box" is when they start prattling
on about "thinking outside the box". Me, I'm just happy thinking - like Aristotle said, that
and sex are man's two greatest pleasures :)
As for authority, you seem to have a fixation about it. Who "authorizes" what? Look at your own
writing - it's hardly "authorized thinking" (though I think the real conflict here is in using
the word thnking, rather than authorized)...But are there Gestapo knocking on your door?
Talibytes? Hardly.
You know, a really good exercise for a painter is to look at what colours you use the most, and
take them off your palette. It forces you to see the world afresh. For people who want to write
about politics, ditto for words like "bourgeois", and the references to the Great Authorities
Who Rule Everything. Try writing without cliches and buzzwords, and see what you can come up
with.
Cheers;
Chris
--
What Can I Do? : http://www.theadvocates.org/terrorism.html
discussion
field"
problem. When in the same horizontal plane as and focussed on the face, the
outer parts of the image were blurred or out of focus.
Therefore, he proposed, the fixed position camera obscura was pointed at
differing portions of the image , in this case, the madonna model.
If you take a torch with a circular beam, and play it from a fixed point at
different
parts of a wall you will see that the shortest beam produces a circular
image, but
as the torch is pointed away from the fixed point, then the image
distorts into an egg shaped ellipse (if that is not a misnomer), getting
larger and more
distorted the greater the angle from the centre.
I hope the this idea copied from the tv film is clear enough
A further interesting example was given of a Franz Hals picture which
contained about
four humans and a monkey. All were behaving in a left-handed manner. Hockney
claimed this proved the image was a mirror image of true (statistically
speaking) and
showed the reverse image. Quite compelling.
The camera obscura was well within the technical knowledge span of the time,
especially if you conclude it was made from a curved mirror. Leonardo wrote
of
and knew well about the same. The first working telescope was produced by a
Dutchman in 1608, by people who were already producing lenses for
spectacles.
Ok, I know we are on an art ng, and emotion must rule, but "long been well
explained and understood" doesn't quite get there. Hockney is providing new
ideas which, if they stand
up to criticism, may mean that old ones may have to be discarded.
N.H
"silverpoint" <etenthstr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9vj6h3$o6a$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> I recall an episode of The Simpsons where Bart was touring the Duff Beer
> Park with his homely Aunt Selma. At the souvenier stand were trick
glasses
> labeled "See the world through the eyes of a drunk!!" When he tried the
> glasses on, his view of his poor aunt changed to that of a slobberingly
> beautiful young blonde.
>
> Art, however, does not work this way. Parmigiano could have drawn his
> figures as totemic figures 4 heads high, or more like Raphael. The
> "distortions" in the works of the Mannerists, El Greco, and others have
long
> been well explained and understood, and are not the result of optics or
> lenses.
>
>
> "discussion" <ne...@nharris.dotu-net.com> wrote in message
> news:WH1T7.170$1F2.3...@newsr2.u-net.net...
> > Take a look at "Madonna with the long neck" by Parmigianino (about 1540)
>snipped<
Peter H.M. Brooks
> A further interesting example was given of a Franz Hals picture which
> contained about
> four humans and a monkey. All were behaving in a left-handed manner.
Hockney
> claimed this proved the image was a mirror image of true
(statistically
> speaking) and
> showed the reverse image. Quite compelling.
>
of course, do. The odds of there being four left-handers in a picture if
taken at random from the population are quite small - for men the
proportion is about 10%, so the odds would be 0.0001, or 1 in 10,000.
Quite small odds, but not convincing.
Particularly since the number of left-handed artists, male ones anyway,
is considerably higher than in the general population, so, if the people
were artist friends of Hals, the odds might have been as law as 1 in 10
against, which, when Hals might have been left handed himself and used
his bias, means that the argument doesn't convince much at all.
It is, however, possible, and a clever argument.
You can probably guess that I have an interest in the matter, being
left-handed myself!
--
The truth is an ambition which is beyond us.
Peter Ustinov
Edward G. Nilges
> Yes, we read it here-- learning to draw is as easy as renewing one's
> driver's license.
Mastering the PROPER use of the camera *obscura* is difficult. But
what the mystifiers (of "talent") cannot admit is that the workingman
is not made into a subhuman by his use of technology.
For the mystifiers want us to accept that there is an 'artist' whose
skills are 'above' daily life and the available technology. As Robert
Crumb (who knows how to draw) sez, "I wuz meant to be culled out" (cf.
"Mister Sensitive Can't Take It.")
I say, stop yammering about yer precious ability to draw free hand and
start by ending the DESTRUCTION of art as made by children and people
not yet beaten into mininum wage jobs, who make art because they are
HUMAN and not because they have a mystical 'talent.'
>
> Hogwash. Drawing, the language of form and rhythm that one sees in art from
> the most ancient cave paintings, classical antiquity, the Renaissance, and
> yes, even in modern works such as Picasso's Vollard Suite, for one of but
> thousands of examples, is a deeper thing that merely learning "the minor
> ability to draw without aids." What it is must be a complete mystery, if
> you take young art students mere academic student efforts as an example of
> it, even those of Picasso. The training of artists has been no mystery
> for thousands of years, yet only a few ever attained the full blown status
> of being a real one. Thus, for most of history, there was something
Does a Marine who survives Iwo Jima have a "talent" for stayin' alive?
> special attached to the idea that someone is an artist. Certain religions
> even forbade the making of graven images, such were the powers ascribed to
> artists, and even minor nobodies like the Greek philosophers had interesting
> ideas and suspicions about artists, all because of their "minor ability."
>
> Great artists typically keep "passing the test" for as many years as it
> takes to be able to create something powerful and original, as seen in the
> work and student efforts of artists as diverse as Raphael, Rubens,
> Rembrandt, and Picasso. This "minor ability" is not so easy to acquire, and
> often the greatest artists are the ones who made the greatest efforts. Even
> Van Gogh, the poster boy of creativity and self expression who learned to
> see and feel nature in a unique way and paint it like no one else ever had,
> spent his first few years as a student copying hundreds of engravings by
> Holbein and others. Likewise, after 5 to 10 years of intense study, that's
Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
enhance their artistic development. Most of the Impressionists could
not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
mdeli
Nilges) wrote:
>Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
>willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
>enhance their artistic development. Most of the Impressionists could
>not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
>functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
What Modern Academic Art school did you learn this baloney? Most
impressionists didn't go to schools run by state functionaries.
As I often said here, the 19th century art history one learns from
books today is a fabrication which attempts to justify Modern Academic
Art. The average artzy fartsy failure here has hardly looked at
anything beyond impression in 19th century art.
An view of artistic skill sickens artzy fartzies because it serves to
remind them that they have none.
Edward G. Nilges
> On 26 Dec 2001 15:09:17 -0800, spino...@yahoo.com (Edward G.
> Nilges) wrote:
>
>
> >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
> >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
> >enhance their artistic development. Most of the Impressionists could
> >not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
> >functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
>
>
> What Modern Academic Art school did you learn this baloney? Most
> impressionists didn't go to schools run by state functionaries.
>
view, shows Monet, Manet, Cezanne et al. interacting throughout their
careers with the Salon and the state-funded French art establishment.
These artists did indeed attend classes run under Napoleon III's
sponsorship of art and they did indeed have to unlearn the
overemphasis on the "line" that the French Salon inherited from
Ingres. Hockney's work shows how Ingres superior "talent" was
probably not constituted in an apelike ability to follow a shape in
nature free-hand, for it now appears that Ingres used tools.
Nonetheless, Ingres' example (and that of David, who not only used
tools but also large numbers of assistants) was used to discourage the
Impressionist's genuine artistic research into an alternative to
photographic reproduction, which Daguerre had automated.
The heroism of the Impressionists was that they found an alternative
to photographic reproduction and thus saved art from premature
extinction. Of course, you're trying to destroy art.
> As I often said here, the 19th century art history one learns from
> books today is a fabrication which attempts to justify Modern Academic
> Art. The average artzy fartsy failure here has hardly looked at
> anything beyond impression in 19th century art.
>
To what? Meissonier's garbage? Monster canvases of Napoleon which
obscure the dying men? Bouguereau's pornography? The dysfunctional
paintings of the pre-Raphaelites?
If you had half an eye, you'd see that Corot had more art in his
little finger than Bouguereau or Ingres. Some of the latter's work is
just ugly because it presents overstuffed people dishonestly posing
for their picture in a moment of vain-glory. They literally belong
with the rest of the canaille from which they emerged (by way of
sweating work men in primitive factories) in a photographer's studio.
Edward
--------------------------------------
> > >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
> > >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
> > >enhance their artistic development.
There is NOTHING in ART HISTORY to support this absurd statement. Not
all impressionists were the same, they had different background and
different skills. No need to generalize. Van Gogh is another story and
do not really belong to this assertion at all, because formally he is
not associated with Impressionism at all and second, he was a dauber and
too crazy to take seriously.
> > >Most of the Impressionists could
> > >not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
> > >functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
Another nonsense. People!!! Where you manage to pick up these wild
ideas?
French school was perfect.
They painted various salon stuff which was very boring and repetitive,
often tasteless and of low interest at all.
That's true. Nobody says it was great art pieces.
But all the time you are arguing about technique and skills - and that's
where French academy was very strong and reputable.
Academic techniques: slightest relations of light and shade, colour
tints and hues, perfect lines, unquestionable compositions (in academic
way, of course), balance between static and motion.... etc. And, no
stupid cameras or lenses, believe me.
That were requirements of study.
After all nobody twisted artists' hands after they graduated.
I don't see how mastering classic technique can kill an artist.
Everywhere and always it was on the contrary - good technical school
would benefit any artist and it's extremely difficult to pass through
it.
BTW, I am sure that 90% of modern artists will not meet technical
requirements of 1-year students of such an academy. But when you ask
such an ambitious modern "self-made artist" (i.e. dauber) about it -
you'd hear all about "dead art" and "useless burden of the past".
Sure, sure - looks like - the less you can do with your hands (the less
skills you have) - the more "talent" you preserve...
Umhu...
Nice Story for country bumpkins.
And if you learn more about art and artists of the past you'd see that
impressionists were AGAINST stale perception that French academics were
obtruding upon public. None of artists were ever AGAINST technique.
Technique was an attribute of boring salon art and it happened to be on
the way. Nothing wrong was with with classic technique itself.
But in order to liberate themselves and their art, impressionists turned
this perception upside down.
Denied it. Showed that new vision of art could be different. Optic
impression of picture. Fresh. Free.
Etc. Etc.
When we are talking about impressionists we imply more of manifestation
than technique, because the technique is extremely simple and for ONE
with ACADEMIC school behind - it's matter of days to master colour/optic
rendering of this sort.
The rest is TALENT (if one has it): vision, idea, manifestation,
language of images and forms...
And all these lazy simpletons, who somewhat got zombified by idea that
art is all in "talent" and "self-expression", deny everything that goes
close to FINE art, nice technique, and subtle & proficient RENDITION
artist's own IDEA. To spread dirty spots of paint over huge canvases and
hide behind fake pose of truly modern "artist" is much more easier that
to learn HOW to EXPRESS own ideas in proper way. Or maybe majority of
abstract painters have no idea to express?
> Hockney's work shows how Ingres superior "talent" was
> probably not constituted in an apelike ability to follow a shape in
> nature free-hand, for it now appears that Ingres used tools.
It can be more ape-like to smear canvases WITHOUT following anything at
all.
Except for following instinctive maintaining of colour balance and spots
on canvas.
Eyes and hands working, brain is asleep (if it's still functional on the
whole).
> The heroism of the Impressionists was that they found an alternative
> to photographic reproduction and thus saved art from premature
> extinction. Of course, you're trying to destroy art.
More of nonsense.
William Blake and Francisco Goya (for example) made this achievement
some 50 years before impressionists made their first exhibition in
Paris...
It's always advisable to look in history first before coming out with
erroneous statements.
> If you had half an eye, you'd see that Corot had more art in his
> little finger than Bouguereau or Ingres. Some of the latter's work is
> just ugly because it presents overstuffed people dishonestly posing
> for their picture in a moment of vain-glory. They literally belong
> with the rest of the canaille from which they emerged (by way of
> sweating work men in primitive factories) in a photographer's studio.
Revolutionary ideas? Hmmm. What's good in complaining about that. Tell
me WHEN art was affordable for poor people? Then? Now?
Many people are still agonizing in manual labour and factories at these
days. What improvements you can see after so many years?
Who is buying expensive pictures and art pieces now?
Corporate lawyers and house wives of stock-exchange dealers.
Is that your "working class" that can afford art nowadays?
> >An view of artistic skill sickens artzy fartzies because it serves to
> > remind them that they have none.
Quite so.
--------------------------------
EDWARD
Edward G. Nilges
> SOME COMMENTS to useless conversation
> --------------------------------------
>
> > > >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
> > > >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
> > > >enhance their artistic development.
>
> There is NOTHING in ART HISTORY to support this absurd statement. Not
> all impressionists were the same, they had different background and
> different skills. No need to generalize. Van Gogh is another story and
> do not really belong to this assertion at all, because formally he is
> not associated with Impressionism at all and second, he was a dauber and
> too crazy to take seriously.
Many people would disagree with you about van Gogh. And read the
surviving journals and letters of the artists who were at best
ambivalent about "life" drawing classes that forced the model to adopt
only "classical" poses. Of course, good artists are engaged in an
Oedipal dialectic with tradition, and of course, they took what they
needed and left the rest. But part of the shock of Manet's Olympia
and his Dejeuner was the vernacular and un-idealized reality of the
models and his rendering of them.
>
> > > >Most of the Impressionists could
> > > >not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
> > > >functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
>
> Another nonsense. People!!! Where you manage to pick up these wild
> ideas?
> French school was perfect.
> They painted various salon stuff which was very boring and repetitive,
> often tasteless and of low interest at all.
> That's true. Nobody says it was great art pieces.
>
> But all the time you are arguing about technique and skills - and that's
> where French academy was very strong and reputable.
>
Essentially, what the 19th century academy did was to fund a form of
laborious photography the need for which required Government support,
because Daguerre had automated the process.
It is true that first-rate intellect went into the process but
unfortunately, its political purpose was the glorification of Napoleon
III's lunatic "empire", which invaded Mexico when he thought we (the
USA) weren't looking, and who systematically underestimated Germany
until his armies were defeated in 1870.
The Salon artists, in a tradition begun by Louis XIV's hacks like
Vouet, continued by David (a hack for the worst men of the period of
the terror) and under Louie Napoleon by Meissonier and Bouguereau,
manufactured consent to a bullshit French outlook which failed to see
how France was losing ground to Britain, and later Germany and the
USA. Artists were trained to view reality as drenched in brown soup.
Many honest French intellectuals noticed how a certain set of bullshit
cultural and political notions were fostered under the French empire.
Flaubert, for example, listed the set of knee-jerk, received opinions
that a respectable urban male was expected, in the *salons* of the
era, to parrot.
The current popularity of Salon work in the USA is probably due to the
fact that in recent years people in the USA have been trained by their
media to repeat bullshit pieties instead of thinking for themselves,
while of course claiming their originality.
This rant is an exhibition of what Marcuse calls "surplus repression"
in which the psyche attempts to define itself as fully in favor of
repression. It fails to admit that part of us would indeed like to
throw paint on a canvas and have the result make us instantaneously
rich and famous, with access to hot chicks.
In other words, people who write as above are out of touch with a part
of their personality who would rather the world was one in which we
could make art and otherwise live off the fat of the land. The louder
the above defense of tradition is made, the more obvious this is.
mdeli
>> >Most of the Impressionists, including Van Gogh, felt that copying,
>> >willingly or by force, statues and engravings RETARDED and did not
>> >enhance their artistic development. Most of the Impressionists could
>> >not wait to get out of life drawing classes taught by state
>> >functionaries who made it their mission to destroy real artists.
>>
>>
>> What Modern Academic Art school did you learn this baloney? Most
>> impressionists didn't go to schools run by state functionaries.
>>
>The record, from a variety of sources with a variety of points of
>view, shows Monet, Manet, Cezanne et al. interacting throughout their
>careers with the Salon and the state-funded French art establishment.
That doesn't justify your point.
Here is your sentence again:
Most of the Impressionists could not wait to get out of life drawing
classes taught by state functionaries who made it their mission to
destroy real artists.
ITS BULLSHIT!
...no skill no art
Tired of Modern Art? Check out my web page UPDATED November, 01!
New address- http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli