Can a new art Movement be Started?
Dilettante
color field, movements, etc. Can anyone think of a movement that can
be started now to express artists' feelings about the world and to
make a contribution to art itself?
Should it be realist, abstract, or expressionist? should it be a
return to classical values? Is there a new path art can take now?
Or is the idea of schools and movements passe?
Dilettante
Jiri Borsky
>
> In the past there have been the surrealist, cubist, impressionist,
> color field, movements, etc. Can anyone think of a movement that can
> be started now to express artists' feelings about the world and to
> make a contribution to art itself?
>
> Should it be realist, abstract, or expressionist? should it be a
> return to classical values? Is there a new path art can take now?
Yes.
Expensivism.
Jiri Borsky
Paul Mesken
IMO There're many "schools", all happening at the same time. Some more
dominant than others in a certain period. I believe the -isms just to
be an invention of art historians. Surely artists follow a "school" or
"movement" but I think only because they're exposed to it and want to
give it a shot themselves (it's all about style/technique).
I don't think movements get started as part of some grand scheme.
Something (some style/technique) just gets popular for some reason and
because of this it's quickly innovated. That "manga" stuff is quite
popular nowadays (in the West and Far East at least) and I'm sure I
can see a renewed appreciation of realism/naturalism.
Dr. Slick
Yes.
It's called DrSlickism:
Andrew Werby
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:hbdqqvs0acaho8clh...@4ax.com...
> On 8 Nov 2003 03:32:50 -0800, hu...@myself.com (Dilettante) wrote:
>
> >In the past there have been the surrealist, cubist, impressionist,
> >color field, movements, etc. Can anyone think of a movement that can
> >be started now to express artists' feelings about the world and to
> >make a contribution to art itself?
> >
> >Should it be realist, abstract, or expressionist? should it be a
> >return to classical values? Is there a new path art can take now?
> >
> >Or is the idea of schools and movements passe?
>
> IMO There're many "schools", all happening at the same time. Some more
> dominant than others in a certain period. I believe the -isms just to
> be an invention of art historians.
[Some were; others, like Surrealism and Furturism, were started by artists.
They issued manifestos, had meetings, and debated whether a certain artist
should be kept in or kicked out. (I think Salvador Dali was expelled from
the Surrealist movement for failing to comply with its prevalent socialistic
mindset.). But others, like Minimalism and Conceptualism, were invented
after the fact, either as marketing tools or academic referents.
If you were to look at the art of the 1990s, now coming into focus in
hindsight, can you identify any art movements as emerging from that period,
(which saw the first flowering of the Internet, among other paradigm
shifts)? ]
Surely artists follow a "school" or
> "movement" but I think only because they're exposed to it and want to
> give it a shot themselves (it's all about style/technique).
[Or perhaps because that's what they feel they have to do to be perceived as
artists of their time, as opposed to reactionaries clinging to obsolete
artistic modes?]
>
> I don't think movements get started as part of some grand scheme.
> Something (some style/technique) just gets popular for some reason and
> because of this it's quickly innovated. That "manga" stuff is quite
> popular nowadays (in the West and Far East at least)
[Yech...]
and I'm sure I
> can see a renewed appreciation of realism/naturalism.
[Would you say that's primarily a retreat to the safety of the artistic
past, or do you see anything new going on in this direction? ]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
>
Matthew Parry
> In the past there have been the surrealist, cubist, impressionist,
> color field, movements, etc. Can anyone think of a movement that can
> be started now to express artists' feelings about the world and to
> make a contribution to art itself?
According to post-modernism all movements were an aspect of
modernism and are therefore something to be ridiculed through
`ironic' use or `subversion' of the modernist aesthetics.
Personally however I think that post-modernism is just a
little insular club. Every post-modern painting is really
a test to see if you are a member of the club or not. For example,
a picture of caucasians on a third world beach could be interpreted
as just a pretty picture, but expressing that opinion would
mark you out as a non-member. The correct interpretation
is that it is about `capitalist colonisation' etc ad nauseum.
Or if a picture is deliberately ugly then you had better
not say that it is ugly or the members will giggle and
ridicule you for failing to give the secret handshake
by saying that it is an ironic attack on modernist aesthetics.
So, in answer to your question, I think that the next art
movement has to be post-post-modernism - Or an attack on
the exclusiveness and snootery of post-modernists. To use
the wanky language of the post-modernist:
The post-post-modernist subverts the post-modernist
notion of the artist/viewer duality by appropriating
the Modernist icon arts practice of the readymade
and thus deconstruct the gallery/op-shop
distinction and authorship hedgemonies.
Or in plain english. All you have to do to be a
post-post-modernist is to follow in Duchamp's footsteps
and make lots of readymades whenever you go into an
art gallery. Do you like a particular painting? Hey presto!
It's a readymade artwork that you created by selecting
the painitng. If Duchamp can choose a hat rack and call
it his work simply because he chose it then every time
you visit a post-modernist exhibition you can create
any art work you want simply by choosing one. So if
any post-modernist snickers at you for not giving the
secret handshake then you can snicker at him for not
recognising that you created the said readymade and therefore
the interpretation you gave is in fact correct.
--
Matthew Parry, <me...@tpg.com.au> <URL:http://users.tpg.com.au/mettw/>
"Remember that early release of `rn' that prevented a posting
unless it contained more new lines than included lines? That
was actually a pretty good idea." - Peter van der Linden.
Lauri Levanto
There is something strange in the notation that artists created an -ism by
publishing a manifesto.
Maniferstos did occur, but the must have been a concensus among a group of
artists
that "art sucks, we must do something".
There are many who think that contemporary art sucks, so there is the soil for a
new revolution
to grow.
>
> >> and I'm sure I
> > >can see a renewed appreciation of realism/naturalism.
>
> >[Would you say that's primarily a retreat to the safety of the artistic
> >past, or do you see anything new going on in this direction? ](Andrew Werby)
>
Music has different genre. Some like baroque, some jazz, some pop.
I think the art markets are segmenting that way. There is a large demand for
the "safety of the artistic past" like there is a demand for Vivaldi.
Then there is a smaller but better paying segment for "the contemporary"
whatever.
Our National Gallery in Finland has three departments:
Domestic art
European art
Contemporary art.
Only the last one is interested in pieces created since 1960.
Whatever is made domestic or international in our days
has to struggle hard to get reckognised, if it does not fit in the
agenda of "contemporary".
-lauri
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <3FADF8CF...@netti.fi>):
> There is something strange in the notation that artists created an -ism by
> publishing a manifesto.
> Maniferstos did occur, but the must have been a concensus among a group of
> artists
> that "art sucks, we must do something".
Come to think of it, there is a current movement, of sorts, going on. The
whole Adbusters world -- using art and design to deride commercialism and
corporate domination. Seems to me that this particular philosophy could
become more artsy, given time.
How many of you would consider this sort of thing art?
http://www.billboardliberation.com
Creating art that mocks advertising, that belittles consumerism, that
encourages people to think about the way our economy enslaves the third world
in order to keep the western world stocked with cheap goods -- seems like an
interesting movement to get involved in.
I'm not sure how a "traditional" artist -- say, someone who paints portraits
or landscapes or abstract art -- could take part in such a movement, mind
you.
Sometimes Adbusters strikes me as TOO artsy. What started of as a political
magazine encouraging every day people to take over the world slowly turned
into a magazine for people in commercial design to complain about their jobs.
Still, there might be something here that interests some of you.
Pin Toes
>Look at where it started, and what defined it, then following
>it's development to "Free Jazz". As I understand it Free Jazz is
>music without any form whatever.
I love the "Dixieland" jazz sound, and listen to
a lot of jazz generally, and I must admit, I am
not any sort of authority on it. But I've never
heard the term "Free Jazz" applied to jazz played
over the airwaves in the USA. "Progressive jazz"
would seem to be what it's referred to in USA.
I've heard "contemporary jazz" used too, but not
sure what that term implies unless it means the
same as "progressive." Maybe I'll wander on over
to the music newsgroups and see how many versions
of jazz are listed there.
Well, I found this one:
alt.music.jazz.squirrel-nut-zippers
And these:
alt.music.acid-jazz
tnn.music.jazz-fusion (I've heard the term "fusion"
applied to Philip Glass compositions, and similar
discordant musical sounds, and less frequently to jazz.)
And there are some others that are just "____.jazz"
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>
>There is something strange in the notation that artists created an -ism by
>publishing a manifesto.
>Maniferstos did occur, but the must have been a concensus among a group of
>artists
>that "art sucks, we must do something".
>
>There are many who think that contemporary art sucks, so there is the soil for a
>new revolution
>to grow.
Yeah, looks to me more like politics (with ideas of domination, groups
of people united by a philosophy, etc.) than art. Very interesting for
art historians of course. I guess that's why these little groups get
so much exposure in art history books while people like Walt Disney,
Vargas, Rockwell, etc. were far more influential in the real world.
>> >> and I'm sure I
>> > >can see a renewed appreciation of realism/naturalism.
>>
>> >[Would you say that's primarily a retreat to the safety of the artistic
>> >past, or do you see anything new going on in this direction? ](Andrew Werby)
[to Werby]
Personally I believe the post modernists (or whatever they call
themselves, I'm talking about the people who have DeLi foaming at the
mouth ;-) are mostly copying their predecessors nowadays and their
complete lack of a hint of skill leaves people with the feeling
they're being fooled by hack artists. Their rubbish is in any gallery.
We live in a cynical time where everything seems to revolve around
making money : politics, wars, art, all governed by greed. Words are
nothing but a concealed sales pitch. The trust in them is evaporating
and without words PM art is nothing else but something my little niece
could have made.
I don't think people will take much more of "high brow philosophies"
that are merely a vehicle for money making schemes. It's my believe
that we will see a return to a more "earthly" purity. This requires
realism/naturalism. It will be about desire, lust, fear, etc., more
earthy than those PM intangible ideas. It will be close to humans
instead of far removed (the realm of ideas and philosophies) and it
will require great skill because great skill is genuine and there's
far too much fakery going on nowadays.
I don't think it's a return to the safety of the past but more like a
return to earth because there seems to be nothing up in the sky.
Well, at least that's what I believe :-)
>Our National Gallery in Finland has three departments:
>Domestic art
>European art
>Contemporary art.
>
>Only the last one is interested in pieces created since 1960.
>Whatever is made domestic or international in our days
>has to struggle hard to get reckognised, if it does not fit in the
>agenda of "contemporary".
Yeah, it's a quite common phenomenon. But that doesn't matter, museums
are becoming less and less the stage for contemporary art (both
domestic and international :-) Nowadays you go to a museum to see "old
stuff", the "new stuff" is happening everywhere but the museums :-)
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <aIorb.968$Tc2....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>, a@spamless.z says...
>
>>Look at where it started, and what defined it, then following
>>it's development to "Free Jazz". As I understand it Free Jazz is
>>music without any form whatever.
>
>I love the "Dixieland" jazz sound, and listen to
>a lot of jazz generally, and I must admit, I am
>not any sort of authority on it.
I like Steely Dan/Donald Fagen, isn't that Jazz as well (a sort of?)
Paul Mesken
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>How many of you would consider this sort of thing art?
>
>http://www.adbusters.org/
>
>http://www.billboardliberation.com
Great stuff Maack! Thanks for the links.
"Old fashioned notions about art, science and spirituality being the
peak achievements and the noblest goals of the spirit of man have been
dashed on the crystalline shores of Acquisition; the holy pursuit of
consumer goods."
I love it! :-) This art certainly holds up a mirror to society.
>Sometimes Adbusters strikes me as TOO artsy. What started of as a political
>magazine encouraging every day people to take over the world slowly turned
>into a magazine for people in commercial design to complain about their jobs.
> Still, there might be something here that interests some of you.
That doesn't matter. Adbusters is only a sign of the "anti
consumerism" movement. The movement is still there, with or without
adbusters.
UBUjean-jacques viala
>Dilettante <hu...@myself.com> wrote:
>> In the past there have been the surrealist, cubist, impressionist,
>> color field, movements, etc. Can anyone think of a movement that can
>> be started now to express artists' feelings about the world and to
>> make a contribution to art itself?
>
you better have to join Oxanism:
.
UBU.
Fogiel: pourquoi avez vous fait ce livre?
Brigitte Bardot: Parce que ce sont mes idées.
Fogiel: Mais pourquoi les exprimez-vous?
Andrew Werby
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 10:20:32 +0200, Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >There is something strange in the notation that artists created an -ism
by
> >publishing a manifesto.
> >Maniferstos did occur, but the must have been a concensus among a group
of
> >artists
> >that "art sucks, we must do something".
[That seems like a pretty good motivation to me...]
> >
> >There are many who think that contemporary art sucks, so there is the
soil for a
> >new revolution
> >to grow.
[The people who think that have a rather monolithic idea of contemporary
art, and don't go out of their way to find examples that contradict their
preconceived opinion. I know, I feel the same way about contemporary music.
I turn on the radio, and hear nothing but fomulaic reiterations of the same
tired themes - it doesn't make me want to listen more; I turn the dial to
the classical channel. But if I bothered to seek it out, there are musicians
doing good work even now; they just don't get much airplay. The same thing
is true of contemporary art. There are people out there doing amazing
things, but you don't hear about them- clowns like Koons or tired hacks like
Kinkaid get all the publicity.]
> Yeah, looks to me more like politics (with ideas of domination, groups
> of people united by a philosophy, etc.) than art. Very interesting for
> art historians of course. I guess that's why these little groups get
> so much exposure in art history books while people like Walt Disney,
> Vargas, Rockwell, etc. were far more influential in the real world.
[People write about what's interesting to them, by and large. If you have a
theory of art that places Disney et al at the center of a movement that took
the world by storm, then by all means write it down. Maybe you'll be the
high priest of a new art-historical orthodoxy, which subsequent generations
will have to rebel against in their turn, asserting the primacy of a new set
of unrecognized art heros- perhaps the hitherto anonymous creatives at the
big American advertising agencies of the mid-twentieth century, who put
together the seminal audio-visual constructs that have so profoundly
influenced our times...]
> >> >> and I'm sure I
> >> > >can see a renewed appreciation of realism/naturalism.
> >>
> >> >[Would you say that's primarily a retreat to the safety of the
artistic
> >> >past, or do you see anything new going on in this direction? ](Andrew
Werby)
>
> [to Werby]
>
> Personally I believe the post modernists (or whatever they call
> themselves, I'm talking about the people who have DeLi foaming at the
> mouth ;-) are mostly copying their predecessors nowadays and their
> complete lack of a hint of skill leaves people with the feeling
> they're being fooled by hack artists. Their rubbish is in any gallery.
> We live in a cynical time where everything seems to revolve around
> making money : politics, wars, art, all governed by greed. Words are
> nothing but a concealed sales pitch. The trust in them is evaporating
> and without words PM art is nothing else but something my little niece
> could have made.
[Where have I heard that comment before? Actually, much post-modern art does
involve a modicum of skill; in order to parody something effectively, one
must be able to produce a convincing impression of it. I think you're really
referring to an earlier movement - abstract expressionism - which put direct
expression of "feelings" on a higher level than any demonstration of
technical virtuosity. Drained of its original passion and codified by
academia, it became a stultifying network of prohibitions (no figures, no
blended colors, no illusion of depth, etc.) which gave many artists of the
latter part of the last century something something to conform to, others
something to rebel against..]
>
> I don't think people will take much more of "high brow philosophies"
> that are merely a vehicle for money making schemes.
[Oh, that will always be popular...]
It's my believe
> that we will see a return to a more "earthly" purity. This requires
> realism/naturalism. It will be about desire, lust, fear, etc., more
> earthy than those PM intangible ideas. It will be close to humans
> instead of far removed (the realm of ideas and philosophies) and it
> will require great skill because great skill is genuine and there's
> far too much fakery going on nowadays.
[I wouldn't call it fakery. Most artists are quite sincere; after all, it's
not like this is a very lucrative career path. But in trying to create work
that's "in the mode", they often lose their way. As for the "earthy" ideas
(which sound more like deadly sins than purity); are you sure they are best
expressed by visual art? Aren't dramatic art and literature better suited to
this sort of thing?]
>
> I don't think it's a return to the safety of the past but more like a
> return to earth because there seems to be nothing up in the sky.
>
> Well, at least that's what I believe :-)
[Maybe you just need to fly a little higher...]
Andrew Werby
www.unitedartworks.com
Paul Mesken
<and...@computersculpture.com> wrote:
>
>"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
>news:32psqv8hm7pbrj6q8...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 10:20:32 +0200, Lauri Levanto <laur...@netti.fi>
>> wrote:
>[The people who think that have a rather monolithic idea of contemporary
>art, and don't go out of their way to find examples that contradict their
>preconceived opinion. I know, I feel the same way about contemporary music.
>I turn on the radio, and hear nothing but fomulaic reiterations of the same
>tired themes - it doesn't make me want to listen more; I turn the dial to
>the classical channel. But if I bothered to seek it out, there are musicians
>doing good work even now; they just don't get much airplay. The same thing
>is true of contemporary art. There are people out there doing amazing
>things, but you don't hear about them- clowns like Koons or tired hacks like
>Kinkaid get all the publicity.]
Yeah, it's a business. I've read a piece about how small independent
radio stations (those with their own sound) are largely taken over by
big broadcasting companies. A few big companies calling the shots on
what we can pick up from the radio waves. And it all sounds the same.
The formula behind it probably the result of extensive market
research.
I don't listen to the radio anymore and don't watch MTV (I do like to
see "Pop Of The Tops" of the BBC though, it shows a potpourri of all
kinds of stuff. I guess the public stations are the last line of
defense against global uniformity (and even they are crumbling, at
least in the Netherlands, to give way to a more commercial sound
because someone thinks they need to compete with the commercial
stations).
I simply buy CDs of groups I like (but typically aren't broadcasted).
Amazon warns me when something new comes out :-)
>It's my believe
>> that we will see a return to a more "earthly" purity. This requires
>> realism/naturalism. It will be about desire, lust, fear, etc., more
>> earthy than those PM intangible ideas. It will be close to humans
>> instead of far removed (the realm of ideas and philosophies) and it
>> will require great skill because great skill is genuine and there's
>> far too much fakery going on nowadays.
>
>[I wouldn't call it fakery. Most artists are quite sincere; after all, it's
>not like this is a very lucrative career path. But in trying to create work
>that's "in the mode", they often lose their way. As for the "earthy" ideas
>(which sound more like deadly sins than purity); are you sure they are best
>expressed by visual art? Aren't dramatic art and literature better suited to
>this sort of thing?]
I believe the visual medium is one of the most direct ones and
therefor very well suited to adress our lowly desires. It might be
sinful but only because people think it to be obscene to think of
themselves as mere animals governed by desires and fears. We like to
think of ourselves as more than that, as an elevated being whose
purpose is higher and other than merely satisfying the lowly desires.
>> I don't think it's a return to the safety of the past but more like a
>> return to earth because there seems to be nothing up in the sky.
>>
>> Well, at least that's what I believe :-)
>
>[Maybe you just need to fly a little higher...]
Perhaps, but IMO the only good thing about being up in the sky is that
it gives you a better view of the earth below you. If you look up then
there's nothing :-)
Pin Toes
says...
>
>x-no-archive: yes
>Just try the words Free Jazz into Google.
>Thur
I did, and got the returns that include "free"
as in "you don't have to pay" along with the
music form references which are largely of
European, Russian, etc origins. That was my
comment in the first place. I don't think the
term "free jazz" is one familiar to most jazz
buffs in the USA - but I also said I am surely
no authority on the subject - just an avid
listener!
Pin Toes
nikm...@sympatico.ca says...
>How many of you would consider this sort of thing art?
Not me. "Artful" perhaps. Propaganda certainly.
Sort of propaganda in opposition to propaganda.
There is art out there that delightfully spoofs
advertising art. I've seen it but can't say
where or when or how one might put their finger
on it. Certainly "The Warhol" was one of the
best at the spoofing of commercialism. But I've
seen others over the years who were more imaginative.
It's all very passe nowadays.
Pin Toes
says...
>Perhaps, but IMO the only good thing about being up in the sky is that
>it gives you a better view of the earth below you. If you look up then
>there's nothing :-)
You're joking, right? If not, I suggest you
invest in both a good telescope and do a bit
of browsing on those web sites devoted to such
topics as big-bang theory, black holes and etc.
But watch out that you don't let astronomy go
to your head - which is no place to see stars!
Leo Papandreou
There is no art genre or convention called post-modernism. Post-modernism
stands for many, often contradictory, ways of thinking about the world post
modernly. It's a rejection of modern principles articulated in the so-called
age of reason. In painting, post-modernism accepts all styles and rejects
distinctions between "art", such as Picasso and Bouguereau, and popular
culture, such as "Disney, Vargas, Rockwell, etc." You, Paul, are a post-modern
artist.
Post-modern art does not mean art that looks more "modern" than so-called
modern art. It's not like Star Trek NG. Of course, you can make words mean
anything you want; words are defined relative to a conceptual framework and
people are always dictating the terms of a debate by framing virtually every
issue from their perspective. But it isn't very useful to frame words in mushy
ways that obliterate differences and summon into existence monolithic good or
evil entities and connections that do not really exist. Why would anyone want
to do that? Well I think the answer is somewhere in the difference between
knowledge of what other people do and self-affirmation, between understanding
and domination.
OK, look. Do we really need to agonize about whether a painting is less or
more post-modern? Is that evanescent word so important we cannot appreciate
that different people in different social contexts will make sense of the
world in a bewildering variety of ways? It would seem to me diversity is a
wonderful thing, that we don't have to subscribe to a cultural category that
happens to be popular with some and fashionably unpopular with others.
> I don't think people will take much more of "high brow philosophies"
> that are merely a vehicle for money making schemes.
*Everything* is a vehicle for money making. "Disney, Vargas, Rockwell" are very
profitable enterprises, meaning post-modernism is a money making "scheme." The
world is in the grip of capital, the relentless logic of which dictates it must
expand. Capitalism is a life or death predicament.
Of course, no one is "scheming." That is a "modern" frame. One post-modern
version of the story is society has a structure, which you cannot change by
writing sentences or painting pictures. It changes *you* with a world of facts
and structural imperatives outside the mind, yet which impose obligation on the
thinking process. A single man can change the world, but he has to be the right
man at the right time.
As for whether art will become this instead of that -- to the extent "art"
becomes anything outside the art historian's narrative and imagination -- who
knows? If you don't know why a bug turns left instead of right (and you don't)
then you don't know whether entire social systems will move up instead of down,
or whether art will become more "earthy" instead or less.
Personally, I do not think art has ever been in better shape. You can find
whatever you like out there.
--
Leo Papandreou
Wherever you see the word "art" in a textbook, substitute the word "cookie."
Paul Mesken
wrote:
>In article <4fbtqv438q9msmcja...@4ax.com>, usu...@euronet.nl
Oh Jack. *sigh* I'm talking metaphorically. You know : Earth, Fire,
Water and Air. Air is a symbol for the realm of words, emotional
detachment, distinction between Good and Evil, law, science, that kind
of stuff. Whereas Earth stands for the body, food, sex, pain, that
stuff. Ya know?
[meeting blank gaze]
Ah well! Tinman knows what I'm talking about ;-)
Dilettante
> Yes.
> Expensivism.
>
> Jiri Borsky
Sounds good. I'll join if it means artists would target clients who
want expensive art, and so pay commensurately.
What would be the aesthetic, as opposed to marketing, principles of
the movement?
Dilettante
Dilettante
>
> I love it! :-) This art certainly holds up a mirror to society.
>
> >Sometimes Adbusters strikes me as TOO artsy. What started of as a political
> >magazine encouraging every day people to take over the world slowly turned
> >into a magazine for people in commercial design to complain about their jobs.
> > Still, there might be something here that interests some of you.
>
> That doesn't matter. Adbusters is only a sign of the "anti
> consumerism" movement. The movement is still there, with or without
> adbusters.
It is not precisely creative though. It requires the original
adverising art to feed off. It is more of a social activist movement.
such people often have noble goals but can be notoriously doctrinaire
and difficult in person.
Artists often become so in order to do their own work at their own
pace and in private, so such movements might exclude a great many
artists.
Dilettante
Dilettante
It's my believe
> that we will see a return to a more "earthly" purity. This requires
> realism/naturalism. It will be about desire, lust, fear, etc., more
> earthy than those PM intangible ideas. It will be close to humans
> instead of far removed (the realm of ideas and philosophies)...
Unfortunately, to say that better art is necessarily realism ignores
the fact that the earth itself, before and after any art is created,
does not create classical realism. Visuals that natural forces create
are much closer to abstract expressionism. I think your attitude will
turn into retrograde escapist nostalgia, like the crap the nazi's
thought was art. We cannot return to thinking that the sun revolves
around the earth and the the Christian god created everything in 7
days.
>
> Yeah, it's a quite common phenomenon. But that doesn't matter, museums
> are becoming less and less the stage for contemporary art (both
> domestic and international :-) Nowadays you go to a museum to see "old
> stuff", the "new stuff" is happening everywhere but the museums :-)
Except that what is created outside museums is often created by
private or special interests trying to butter their own bread or
sharpen their own knives. Often pop culture, which I think you are
referring to, is meant only for the quick thrill, made to look flashy
at first but having no depth that would give it sustaining interest.
Dilettante
Dilettante
The
> world is in the grip of capital, the relentless logic of which dictates it must
> expand.
But even this idea is a type of cliche picked up by people who think
having what seems like a big scary idea and waving it around will make
them seem important. There are motivating forces in the world more
fundamental than this idea of capital, which motivate capital itself,
which is merely the eternal drive to self-aggrandisement of the ego to
protect its spiritual existence.
So let's do a little better next time.
Dilettante
Dilettante
Interesting notion, although I don't think you are serious, whereas my
original post was. In addition, it could be that photography has
usurped much of the province of found or interpreted art that you
suggest.
Dilettante
Dilettante
No. Oxana will make money but she makes shit. I could never live with
myself past the first brush stroke if I tried that.
Dilettante
Pin Toes
says...
>Oh Jack. *sigh* I'm talking metaphorically.
I know, but I have a hard time understanding
languages other than English. And even then
it has to have southwestern USA twang for me
to really get it!
Pin Toes
>>Just try the words Free Jazz into Google.
>>Thur
"genres of jazz"
I tried this word combination and got a
great site that explains the history of
jazz and it's various genres in detail:
http://www.hypermusic.ca/jazz/free.html
And wouldn't you know, it's a Canadian
web site, not USA.
Now I can sleep through the night without
worrying about the meaning of "free jazz."
Pin Toes
koan...@earthling.net says...
>There is no art genre or convention called post-modernism.
If you want to get into some really serious
discussions on the topic, try one of the
USENET groups that discusses that topic, for
example: alt.postmodern
Paul Mesken
Yeah, it's a schemata she uses. She makes the same thing over and over
again. Schemata's don't start movements. She looks cute though ;-)
Paul Mesken
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<32psqv8hm7pbrj6q8...@4ax.com>...
>> Yeah, it's a quite common phenomenon. But that doesn't matter, museums
>> are becoming less and less the stage for contemporary art (both
>> domestic and international :-) Nowadays you go to a museum to see "old
>> stuff", the "new stuff" is happening everywhere but the museums :-)
>
>Except that what is created outside museums is often created by
>private or special interests trying to butter their own bread or
>sharpen their own knives. Often pop culture, which I think you are
>referring to, is meant only for the quick thrill, made to look flashy
>at first but having no depth that would give it sustaining interest.
Yes, there are some quick thrills out there but I guess that's only a
sign of our times. A quick medicine to chase away boredom. Besides :
everything is changing rapidly nowadays.
But what I meant was that museums seem to me as if they're no longer
in touch with what's happening now in the art world (then again : you
shouldn't really trust me on that one since I don't visit museums very
often ;-)
Galleries OTOH are popping up everywhere. Even in my little town
(about 15,000 inhabitants) there are about 10 galleries!
Mani Deli
actual paintings are of little interest. what counts is the mass of
Artspeak about them and whether critics can get it read.
To the Ism-ites, those who spend their lives detecting isms, I offer
my view of 20th century isms. These are all subsets of the major
popular 20th century movement BULLSHITISM.
Modern Academic Art comprises those Artworks which are fashionably
praised as masterpieces but range between third rate and ridiculous on
a technical level and most all other levels. It comprises about 95%
of the stuff that presently hangs in the modern sections of museums. I
mention some top examples, a few masters and the ism they inhabit.
no skill realism:
-its greatest exponent is of course Matisse. Also, Picasso's
portraits, Bonnard, Cezanne, Marin, Rivers, Hockney, Katz, and
Expressionist schmierers.
Abstractified hack realism:
starting with cubism, Morandi, de Kooning, Picasso, Matisse, Leger.
Cartoonism-Critically glorified second rate cartoons:
Guernica and Picasso's attempts at drawing are the best examples..
Stripism-Striped textile design and horse blankets not showing enough
skill to match a patch quilt:
Mondrian, Newman, Rothko
Kindergartenism:
Kandinski, Albers, Twombley, Diebenkorn, Still
Childishism . Creative senility posing as childishness with
philosophical Importance:
Matisse, Guston, Twombley, Johns
Champanzeeism. Talented chimpanzee competition
Most Abstract expressionism, Kline, Pollock, de Kooning.
Tired of Modern Art? check
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/
Mani Deli
>Paul Mesken <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message news:<32psqv8hm7pbrj6q8...@4ax.com>...
>
> It's my believe
>> that we will see a return to a more "earthly" purity. This requires
>> realism/naturalism. It will be about desire, lust, fear, etc., more
>> earthy than those PM intangible ideas. It will be close to humans
>> instead of far removed (the realm of ideas and philosophies)...
>
>Unfortunately, to say that better art is necessarily realism ignores
>the fact that the earth itself, before and after any art is created,
>does not create classical realism. Visuals that natural forces create
>are much closer to abstract expressionism. I think your attitude will
>turn into retrograde escapist nostalgia, like the crap the nazi's
>thought was art. We cannot return to thinking that the sun revolves
>around the earth and the the Christian god created everything in 7
>days.
Nice Artspeak. I always appreciate equating Nazi's with those who
disagree with them. Perhaps you can also mention Hitler to support
your valuable points.
>> Yeah, it's a quite common phenomenon. But that doesn't matter, museums
>> are becoming less and less the stage for contemporary art (both
>> domestic and international :-) Nowadays you go to a museum to see "old
>> stuff", the "new stuff" is happening everywhere but the museums :-)
That's because the crap there hasn't advanced since DaDA.
>Except that what is created outside museums is often created by
>private or special interests trying to butter their own bread or
>sharpen their own knives.
Anything wrong with money?
Mani Deli
wrote:
>Personally however I think that post-modernism is just a
>little insular club. Every post-modern painting is really
>a test to see if you are a member of the club or not. For example,
Modern Academic Art:
a range between incompetent realism and poorly done abstract
decoration necessarily supported by vast amounts of Artspeak.
Academic post-modern:
the same crap with a new line of Artspeak.
What counts in all Modern Academic Art is the Artspeak, the artwork is
of little interest.
Leo Papandreou
Capital is not "merely" the "external drive to self-aggrandisement of
the ego to protect its spiritual existence." That's just you speaking
in tongues.
You know, most people attending to their souls are trying to quell the
ego, not protect it by competing for survival in the market, producing,
distributing and consuming goods and services. But perhaps I misunderstood
your Satanic gibberish.
> So let's do a little better next time.
Shoor, shoor. Click here: <http://tinyurl.com/uej8>
> Dilettante
Nikolaus Maack
(in message <ba63903f.03111...@posting.google.com>):
> http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr
>
>No. Oxana will make money but she makes shit. I could never live with
>myself past the first brush stroke if I tried that.
You were so harsh, I had to go look for myself. Fluffy, cute art. Nothing
profound, but some of it made me giggle. What exactly is it about this tuff
that made you vomit blood?
keith o'connor
of art and then explore how that definition has changed over time in terms
of time moving forwards and backwards from your definition.
Mani goes into a rant over artspeak which is essentially a redefinition of
traditional craft based art as idea based art.
Landscape painters traditionally use a foreground, middleground,
background/sky structure. Within that system are various devices that point
the eye into an illusionary space.
Abstract painters tend to foreground traditional recessional space and play
with a variety of textures and colours.
Art moves between the intellectual concept of form and the sensual context
of colour-texture. Some artists are bridge artists occupying both areas and
introducing the intellectuals to emotions and the emotional to the clarity
of the intellectual.
Unless you are willing to explore a variety of artistic concepts under the
umbrella term "art" with out ranting as though someone who uses the term
"art" has cursed your god you will understand nothing beyond your god and
that is in effect turning art into religion.
--
take care: Keith
The eye should not be lead where there is nothing to see.
Robert Henri - The Art Spirit
Pin Toes
ke...@tinmangallery.com says...
>
>The starting point for such a discussion is to agree on a working definition
>of art
You're a hoot! That would be akin to
trying to sculpt with water - or as is more
commonly said of artists - akin to
trying to herd cats!
Flying_Naked_People
> (in message <ba63903f.03111...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr
> >
> >No. Oxana will make money but she makes shit. I could never live with
> >myself past the first brush stroke if I tried that.
>
>
I would like to hear some specifics to support such a brash statement, too.
But I just don't think they'll surface.
Mani Deli
>The starting point for such a discussion is to agree on a working definition
>of art.
Well, give us a good definition. Bet he can't!
> and then explore how that definition has changed over time in terms
>of time moving forwards and backwards from your definition.
ANd how has it changed?
>
> Mani goes into a rant over artspeak which is essentially a redefinition of
>traditional craft based art as idea based art.
The type of vacuous mostly meaningless verbal gas which you effuse is
Artspeak.
>Landscape painters traditionally use a foreground, middleground,
>background/sky structure. Within that system are various devices that point
>the eye into an illusionary space.
>
>Abstract painters tend to foreground traditional recessional space and play
>with a variety of textures and colours.
Abstract painters paint flat looking decoration, because they lack the
ability to create much else.
>
>Art moves between the intellectual concept of form and the sensual context
>of colour-texture. Some artists are bridge artists occupying both areas and
>introducing the intellectuals to emotions and the emotional to the clarity
>of the intellectual.
What's an "intellectual" concept of form?
>Unless you are willing to explore a variety of artistic concepts under the
>umbrella term "art"
Who doesn't Keith?
>with out ranting as though someone who uses the term
>"art" has cursed your god you will understand nothing beyond your god and
>that is in effect turning art into religion.
A rant is any statement that gets Keith upset.
A look at Keith's incompetent artwork hints at his muddled mind.
UBUjean-jacques viala
wrote:
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/detail/details9.htm
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/Oxana3/archontes.htm
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/Oxana3/fruits.htm
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/detail/details1.htm
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/Oxana3/animaux.htm
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/unpeu de tout.htm
of course she also has to make a living, and paint what is sold, but
look better.
>She looks cute though ;-)
could help for promotion of the school.
TV, modern life.
.
>
UBU.
Fogiel: pourquoi avez vous fait ce livre?
Brigitte Bardot: Parce que ce sont mes idées.
Fogiel: Mais pourquoi les exprimez-vous?
UBUjean-jacques viala
<nikm...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 7:47:15 -0500, Dilettante wrote
>(in message <ba63903f.03111...@posting.google.com>):
>
>> http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr
>>
>>No. Oxana will make money but she makes shit. I could never live with
>>myself past the first brush stroke if I tried that.
>
>You were so harsh, I had to go look for myself. Fluffy, cute art. Nothing
>profound,
http://oxana.yambykh.free.fr/detail/details9.htm
the passing thoughts
see other details
Paul Mesken
<ke...@tinmangallery.com> wrote:
>The starting point for such a discussion is to agree on a working definition
>of art and then explore how that definition has changed over time in terms
>of time moving forwards and backwards from your definition.
Well, I don't believe it's that hard to come up with a working
definition of Art (I posted my own a good time ago) but I believe it
is impossible to agree upon one since a lot of people simply won't
acknowledge *any* definition of Art (apart from non-definitions like
"Art is Everything" or "Art is Everywhere").
Erik A. Mattila
> x-no-archive: yes
> Apologies to all for OT posts.
>
> If you use (with the quotes) "Free Jazz" or "Free Jazz" Miles Davis,
> or "Free Jazz" definition, then all kinds of artists including greats
> from USA are listed
>
> for some examples:-
> http://www.geocities.com/BourbonStreet/Square/9063/index/davis.html
> After a stint with Thelonious Monk he returned and the Quintet was more
> popular than ever. The group finally did fall apart but Davis returned to
> the scene in 1963, with a new Quintet. This one featured Herbie Hancock on
> piano, Ron Carter on bass, Tony Williams on drums, and George Coleman on
> tenor. Early on they were overshadowed by Coltrane and other great artists
> of the day but they eventually brought new fans when they brought together
> hard bop and free jazz.
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~scala/
>
> http://www.stuntzner.brent.org/
> free jazz transcriptions of jazz Greats include music by Grant Green, Kenny
> Burrell, John Coltrane, Wes Montgomery, Johnny Griffin, Jimmy Bruno, Joe
> Pass, Charlie Parker, Jim Hall, Pat Metheny, John Scofield, Django
> Reinhardt, Pat Martino, Jimmy Smith, George Benson and others. Offered in
> standard notation and guitar TAB, with MIDI representations (for learning by
> ear) and Jam Tracks (for practice).
>
> Enter the words "free jazz" definition and you get:-
> Web definition:
> FREE JAZZ - A somewhat dangerous name for the area of music that straddles
> the border zone between Jazz and Free Improvisation. When this name was used
> to promote an Ornette Coleman concert, the audience refused to pay
> admission, so the promoter refused to pay the musicians, so the musicians
> refused to play. When it is played, most Free Jazz has tended to degenerate
> into a sort of disjointed Bebop.
> members.aol.com/MartinRD/NewMuDic.html -
>
> What a laugh, that the Coleman fans thought "free" meant free access!
> Note what I had already quoted about it leading nowhere.
> My point being that structure is required in almost any case I can think of
> for an art form.
> Where can this structure come from if everything and everyone is trying
> to be totally unique?
> Davis and others moved on, into other forms which really do/did have
> structures familiar to their listeners.
> I hope this brings some light on this.
> Thur
>
>
> "Pin Toes" <spott...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
> news:3fae...@news.zianet.com...
>
>>In article <zntrb.961$gS4...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>, a@spamless.z
>>says...
>>
>>>x-no-archive: yes
>>>Just try the words Free Jazz into Google.
>>>Thur
>>
>>as in "you don't have to pay" along with the
>>music form references which are largely of
>>European, Russian, etc origins. That was my
>>comment in the first place. I don't think the
>>term "free jazz" is one familiar to most jazz
>>buffs in the USA - but I also said I am surely
>>no authority on the subject - just an avid
>>listener!
wow, amazing that Pharoah Sanders wasn't on the roster you retrived.
The freeest of the free. http://members.aol.com/ishorst/love/sanders.html
erik
>>
>>
>
>
>
Dilettante
There is no need to agree on a definition of art. That can be leap
frogged and left to the philosophers.
What needs to be decided is what areas the movement needs to explore,
i.e., surface, color, subject matter, technique...
A fixed regime should be recommended for ensuring the artist's command
of his or her materials, technique, and subject matter. For example--
1. a minimum of 20 preliminary sketches should be prescribed.
2. color scheme, and composition should be worked out beforehand in
the preliminary sketches.
Dilettante
Dilettante
> I would like to hear some specifics to support such a brash statement, too.
> But I just don't think they'll surface.
Ok since two of you asked. my statement is not brash at all. Shit it
shit.
Firstly, paintings of this type are not fine art but cartoons.
Secondly, this comes as the latest in a long line of cartoon art. It
is always draws its humour from dumpy little figures in a variety of
costumes representing varying social positions and occupations.
Whether the figures are young or old, of whatever occupation, they
always have the same face. This is where the humour is supposed to
reside, except that this trick has been done so many time.
This figures are not really characatures because they do not represent
real people and the faces themselves never vary. Think how much work
that takes, to make exactly the same head and face on every figure you
make, only changing the head and the hat.
Charles Bragg did this a few years ago. Currently there are some
pictures by another humourist like this going around with fairly good
technique. Fernando Bottero is probably the best of this line,
because there is a suggestion of real depth of feeling, but only a
suggestion, in some of his little paintings. But basically he like
oxana have just developed a stylistic gimmick that they only milk to
make money. There is no attempt to say anything or to develop or to
contribute in any of these.
And since oxana's are worse than all the people she is imitating, they
are indeed shit. She is merely a superficial exploiter probably making
money selling to tourist junk galleries.
Dilettante
Chris
this? LOL...
Chris
"Dilettante" <hu...@myself.com> wrote in message
news:ba63903f.03111...@posting.google.com...
Flying_Naked_People
says...
> "Flying_Naked_People" <http://www.rcip.com/nerdgerl/email.htm> wrote in
message
>
> > I would like to hear some specifics to support such a brash statement,
too.
> > But I just don't think they'll surface.
>
> shit.
>
> Firstly, paintings of this type are not fine art but cartoons.
I don't know what "fine art" is anymore (myself), so I can not argue here. I
assume anything created with materials purchased from a "fine art" store, or
catelog, is "fine art".
> Secondly, this comes as the latest in a long line of cartoon art. It
> is always draws its humour from dumpy little figures in a variety of
> costumes representing varying social positions and occupations.
> Whether the figures are young or old, of whatever occupation, they
> always have the same face. This is where the humour is supposed to
> reside, except that this trick has been done so many time.
So your crit is with the subject matter...
> This figures are not really characatures because they do not represent
> real people and the faces themselves never vary. Think how much work
> that takes, to make exactly the same head and face on every figure you
> make, only changing the head and the hat.
I would think that takes a tremendous amount of effort and concentration - so
I would have to respect that.
> Charles Bragg did this a few years ago. Currently there are some
> pictures by another humourist like this going around with fairly good
> technique. Fernando Bottero is probably the best of this line,
> because there is a suggestion of real depth of feeling, but only a
> suggestion, in some of his little paintings. But basically he like
> oxana have just developed a stylistic gimmick that they only milk to
> make money. There is no attempt to say anything or to develop or to
> contribute in any of these.
Is such an attempt so easy to detect? Some messages (the best, imo) are subtle
- sometimes begging the necessity to ask the artist, "What the hell did you do
that for!" What delight there is in discovering the message is something you
would have never considered.
What she has contributed (imo) is an alternative view of the human figure in a
way that embodies the basics of design. And that makes it acceptable (to me).
I have, honestly, never seen this type of figure rendition before. So shoot
me.
> And since oxana's are worse than all the people she is imitating, they
> are indeed shit.
They are not shit. A real effort (on many levels) is obvious in her work and
I've seen worse portrayed as "master art," where hardly any effort is apparent
at all!
> She is merely a superficial exploiter probably making
> money selling to tourist junk galleries.
I found her work to be a fresh distraction from reality. She apparently has
skill, knows composition, has a good grasp of color scheme, knows (and
insterestingly distorted) anatomy. Her work is creative (to me) - a bit
bizarre - but in a good way.
These are my objective observations (lol) - In other words, measurable
(observable) qualities that have been unnecessarily trashed.
> Dilettante
>
Dilettante
> Do I detect a wee touch - well more than a wee touch - of sour grapes in all
> this? LOL...
>
> Chris
No, you don't detect either a wee touch or more than a wee touch. you
project it on the basis of a cliched response. It will not help your
intellectual development to use the sour grapes line every time you
hear a negative critique of an artist, or anything else.
Dilettante
Mike Stengl
leave me out of this lame "movement".
Mike Stengl
> pictures by another humourist like this going around with fairly good
> technique. Fernando Bottero is probably the best of this line,
> because there is a suggestion of real depth of feeling, but only a
> suggestion, in some of his little paintings. >
now yer dissin' charles brag, one of my favorite painters, i don't
think i like you at all...