new group??
Jorge Luis Otero
--Jorge--
George Young
wrote:
> Has anyone thought of starting a new group for fine art collectors?
>
I would like to see a group for both collectors and dealers interested in
exchanging information about artists collected and about the art market.
Maybe for a start, though, those interested with Jorge and me could just
start as a thread, say "Collector's Thread" or something and that way we
would know that anything posted there might be of interest, and those not
interested in collecting or dealing or the market would know this would be
a thread they could skip.
Other thoughts?
All best
George Young
Lianne Hargreaves
>> Has anyone thought of starting a new group for fine art collectors?
>>
Rgds
Scott MacLaren
: Has anyone thought of starting a new group for fine art collectors?
I'd certainly be interested in such a group, or perhaps a related mailing
list. Does anyone know of such a mailing list already existing?
- Scott MacLaren
Holtzer
Mani Deli
very informative and useful. Now that I have been writing here
for a while I would like to point out what I believe are some of
the misconceptions of most of the Modern Academic Art crowd here
and elsewhere.
Before listing what I think these misconceptions are I'd like to
make a point about the style of most of the writing I find here.
Clarity and concise writing is definitely out. Convolutions and
murkiness prevail. Logic is out when it comes to addressing
arguments in favor of Meta-Artspeak (repetition of hack slogans).
Never the less the main misconceptions can be distilled out and
expressed in clear English. Which is what I will attempt here.
The major MISCONCEPTIONS of those whose art experience has been
kept within the confines of Modern Academic Art are:
-an inability to destinguish between the rational and the aesthetic.
-a belief that skill in technique and craftsmanship are no longer considered
necessary to the artist in creating fine work. Indeed in many
cases this is considered a detriment.
-A lack of knowledge of how the Modern Art system operates on the
commercial and social level.
-the belief in the starving artist myth. Namely that great
artists are generally misunderstood paupers.
-Those who dare express any negative criticism of Modern Academic
Art are neurotic, unhappy, bitter, exhibit subintellegence and
are probably terrible artists.
-that art history can is roughly divided
into what it considers antiquated realism and abstraction.
-that realism when the term is used as a negative description is
conceived as a photographic rendition of reality.
-a belief in dualism in relation to the arts produced in
this century. There is fine art, which conforms to precepts
demanded of our Modern Museums and the majority of teaching
institutions and then there is all that "other stuff." That is,
Painting not holy-critic approved, illustration, animation and
anything to do with commercial art, etc.
- a firmly held believe that 20th Century Modern abstract
art is utterly new, unique, original and conforms to no past
tenets.
-the idea that the tendency towards flatness found in most
accepted Modern Art has some sort of transcendental quality. This
is most commonly identified using the term "fourth dimension,"
but allows for tomes of confused babble.
- a belief that the appreciation of modern tendencies will
continuously prevail.
- ism-itis. Long futile discussions confined
to labeling works with particular isms. To which ism does a piece
belong? (more prevalent among critics and academics)
-subject-matter-phobia. If a piece is considered to illustrate
unfashionable subject matter it can no longer be considered for
any further evaluation as fine art. It is usually labeled with
such terms as Kitsch, illustration, commercial etc. If these
labels are applied the implication is, "blasphemy, end of
discussion."
-Elitist understanding. The illusion of special revelation
namely, that one has a personal understanding of which the
ordinary person seems utterly incapable. It is often described as
the understanding "the language of Modern Art."
-eccentro-phelia or anything-goes-art, the believe that anything
seen as a novel idea no matter how stupid is worthy of lengthily
discussion and artistic consideration because it is considered to
be a first and very personal expression of a particular
eccentricity (which it usually isn't).
I already learned of most of the above misconceptions in art school.
Judging by what is to be
seen in so called fine art galleries today it is not surprising
that these misconceptions are now even more widely held then before.
And yet it is amazing how much fine work was and is presently being produced in
spite of prevailing fashion.
Mani DeLi
... No skill no art.
Thomas C. Waters
mani...@canrem.com (Mani Deli) writes:
> Before listing what I think these misconceptions are I'd like to
> make a point about the style of most of the writing I find here.
> Clarity and concise writing is definitely out. Convolutions and
> murkiness prevail. Logic is out when it comes to addressing
> arguments in favor of Meta-Artspeak (repetition of hack slogans).
> Never the less the main misconceptions can be distilled out and
> expressed in clear English. Which is what I will attempt here.
Mani describes his own form of expression.
He returns time and time again to overgeneralized, vague, sound-bite
style quips and refuses to go beyond them. Any discussion from others
which does attempt to explain a popint, he discredits as artspeak...
thereby shutting down the discussion.
His slam of artspeak as hack slogans is too funny considering the
number of times he has written "mega-smear.." and other similar
comments. Maybe he is so busy criticizing others so he doesn't have to
look at his own lack of ability in the articulation department....
Frankly, trying to have a discussion with someone like Mani is, IMHO,
really futile and a waste of time and bandwidth. His mind is made up
and he says the same thing over and over. Guess he has a lot of spare
time on his hands.
There is a level and amount of artspeak (and artwork for that matter)
which function as artist's masturbation. But after following Mani's
commnets for.. how many months has it been?? Feels like YEARS... he is
just as guilty and displays the same self-gratification as any other
type of individual so busy with self stimulation.
Mani, how about move your comments to alt.artcom, where a discussion of
illustration, art/comunications, and commercialism seem to get a wide
variety of readers... you may find more people sympathetic to your
sentiments. On the other hand, maybe a lack of substansive discourse
is what you thrive on.
As a working artist, I find so little value in slamming a bunch of dead
artists. Nor do I find much value in broad sweeping claims and slogans
(Mani, your's included). I make the work I make. I do the best job I
can. And then I sit back and evaluate it... see where I really
succeeded and where I need to grow. And then I make more art. As I
look for ways to express whatever it is I want to express, I explore
mediums and techniques. Sometimes in the work the content is stronger
than the technique and at othertimes, the content is suipported by
technique alone. For me this doesn't happen too often, I shy away from
making work which is technically perfect/ slick and shallow.
Sometimes, I finish a piece which is "perfect" for me in terms of
content, but the technical aspects suck. So I see it as a learning
process and keep going. I'm currently remaking a video called "love
letters" which fit this description.
The most successful work, IMHO, balances all these things, technique,
aesthetics, content, style, accesibility... <make this list as long as
you want> But not all work produced contains that balance. All work
however is part of the process of finding that balance, finding that
place of success.
Some people are happy to "get good" at one thing, usually a technique,
and then they just keep doing it over and over. Mani, I have a feeling
you fit into this category. And that is fine if it makes you happy.
But not everyone finds happiness there. Frankly, I 'd rather sell
insurance that comfortably sit around doing something safe over and
over and over.
Thomas C. Waters
twa...@pitt.edu
MrTay
Mani Deli writes (and writes, and writes):
>Clarity and concise writing is definitely out. Convolutions and
>murkiness prevail. Logic is out when it comes to addressing
>arguments in favor of Meta-Artspeak
Has it occured to you that the convolutions, murkiness and lack of clarity
may be on your side of the coin? I find much of the writing in
rec.arts.fine to be well thought out, clear, and very interesting, perhaps
you're just missing the points espoused. I think many of the regular
contributors are extremely knowledgeable, yet remain open-minded enough to
consider other viewpoints - something you seem incapable of doing.
In response to ALL of your alleged "misconceptions"....
I find almost all of them unfounded. You seem unable to recognize that art
in this world is an EXTREMELY diverse practice. You've decided the little
art world you see is the only art world. Take the blinders off, and
lighten up. To address a few (not sure I know why I'm bothering)...
>- a firmly held believe [sic] that 20th Century Modern abstract
>art is utterly new, unique, original and conforms to no past
>tenets.
I doubt there are many contributors to this newsgroup, or modern abstract
art aficionados, who would deny abstract art's connections with art of the
past.
aside: Your conception of Modern Art seems rooted in a huge abstract vs.
realism struggle. As a movement defining the boundries of art, Modernism
is history; thus abstraction is history. Abstraction, as a cutting-edge
movement in art, reached its peak in the twenties and thirties. That
doesn't mean abstraction is invalid as a contemporary art form. It simply
means its existence on the "edge" of of what we call art has passed.
You're arguing an arguement that has been dead for at least 30 years.
>- a belief that the appreciation of modern tendencies will
>continuously prevail.
Ever heard of post-modern tendencies? The deconstruction of "isms"? (this
is where Mani accuses me of "artspeak"... his favorite word)
>- ism-itis. Long futile discussions confined
>to labeling works with particular isms. To which ism does a piece
>belong? (more prevalent among critics and academics)
"isms" are simply tools used in discussing art. Anyone who doesn't
recognize that an ism is a permutable label, doesn't comprehend the finer
points of aesthetic/art historical discussion. To be sure, they are used
unsparingly, and often as a simple pigeonhole, but use of isms doesn't
render a discussion invalid.
>-subject-matter-phobia. If a piece is considered to illustrate
>unfashionable subject matter it can no longer be considered for
>any further evaluation as fine art.
What would you deem "unfashionable subject matter"? I've seen accepted
works of a HUGE variety of subject matter, from the fantastical, to the
lurid, the gory, the insipid, the ...you name it.
>-eccentro-phelia or anything-goes-art, the believe that anything
>seen as a novel idea no matter how stupid is worthy of lengthily
>discussion and artistic consideration because it is considered to
>be a first and very personal expression of a particular
>eccentricity (which it usually isn't).
I suppose if something doesn't meet the criteria of the great-and-holy
Mani Deli, it is deemed (by said all-knowing-art-entity) to be "stupid"
and not worthy of discussion or artistic consideration. Once againx try
removing the blinders. Has it EVER occured to you that you are not the
arbiter of taste and aesthetic knowledge for the world?
>-Elitist understanding. The illusion of special revelation
>namely, that one has a personal understanding of which the
>ordinary person seems utterly incapable.
Sounds like a good description of your post - and perpetual point of view.
> tomes of confused babble.
Sounds like another good description of your post. To "confused" I would
add "pompous" and "narrow".
Batten down the hatches, I feel a storm brewin'
MrTay
TexMexTamale
In answer to Mani Deli, Mr. Tay writes:
>Has it occured to you that the convolutions, murkiness and lack of clarity
>may be on your side of the coin? I find much of the writing in
>rec.arts.fine to be well thought out, clear, and very interesting, perhaps
>you're just missing the points espoused.
Mr. Tay has illuminated the problem that I perceive when reading articles and the
responses/debates/flames in response to them--READING COMPREHENSION.
Or maybe it is just that I comprehend differently than others(?).
Often times the responses indicate the reader/responder got the exact
inverse message from what I thought the writer of the article intended to convey.
--
****** TexMexTamale ******
*** Fiery going In. ***
** Flames coming out. **
*********************************
Charles Eicher
Deli) wrote:
> I already learned of most of the above misconceptions in art school.
Things have changed quite a bit in the many decades since you dropped out
of art school. But apparently YOU haven't changed one bit.
> And yet it is amazing how much fine work was and is presently being produced
> in spite of prevailing fashion.
and will continue to be produced, despite anything YOU have to say about it.
Let me hit you again with one of my favorite art quotes:
"Hardening of the Categories will give you an Art Attack."
Loosen up, mani. You're going to blow a gasket if you keep up like this.
You're so inflexible I bet you can't even bend at the waist...
------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@netins.net
------------------