clarification on what is art
James Thomas
Hello to one an all,
Thanks for the responses to the questions. I knew that this had probably
come up many times in the past but being new to this newgroup I decided to
ask anyway. The interest I had was finding out the opinions of those on
this newsgroup as to "what is art", etc. I should have explained this with
the posting. Sorry to have brought up an old subject, however, many times
our perceptions and understandings change with time and this time could be
very quick. Up until a few weeks ago I never understood abstract art until
a lecture in art class when the subject came up and was presented with
slides. Four slides displayed the progress from realism to distortion and
finally to the total abstract using the same subject - a large tree. I
began to have a new understanding of the abstract art. Perhaps some of you
have had a change in your understanding of some artforms recently.
My experience with the abstract has brought me to seek a common ground
between my own personal art and art in the abstract.
Anyone else have any recent experiences with a change in their perception
of art?
Perhaps that is a better way to ask the question - "what is art"
Andrew Werby
"James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net> wrote:
Up until a few weeks ago I never understood abstract art until
>a lecture in art class when the subject came up and was presented with
>slides. Four slides displayed the progress from realism to distortion and
>finally to the total abstract using the same subject - a large tree.
[I'm afraid you still don't get it. If the work represents a subject,
such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by definition,
does not make reference to external subject matter. Progressive
distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is a
depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
Nita Leland
>>Abstract art, by definition,does not make reference to external subject
matter. <<
I believe you are defining nonobjective or nonrepresentational art.
Nonobjective art is pure design without any reference to a subject.
Abstract art is the process of refining and reorganizing a realistic image
or mental concept to reveal the essence of a subject, without regard for
its physical appearance.
Nita Leland
nle...@erinet.com
dhou...@coastnet.com
I'm looking for 11 other artists with websites who want to form a
group (or circle) of interlinking sites. This group would
advertise with full-page, full-color spreads,
monthly (sharing the costs) in a high-profile art magazine, thus
gaining exposure for all, every month of the year.
Each artist would have his or her work featured in the advertising
once/year and all 12 URLs would be listed in every advertisement.
As initiator of the group, I will choose the artists to
participate with me. Once the group is formed, we will "draw
straws" to determine the order in which the ads will appear.
The expected costs will be around $2000.00 per artist (per year).
Artists may represent themselves or may want to point their web
site to the galleries that represent them.
My main focus is to promote the galleries which promote me. This
seems to work best for everybody.
Please look at my web page at http://coastnet.com/dhouston/
to get a sense of my work, which may help you decide whether
you want to collaborate with me.
Hope to hear from you soon,
Deryk
Hill
In article <01bc34aa$36ba6080$7d74...@nleland.erinet.com>, "Nita Leland"
<nle...@erinet.com> wrote:
I'm with you. Except the image can refer to things physical appearance, so
not exactly without regard. Abstract, as in to abstract from, draw from,
to remove something from a seperate thing. Hey, those trees sound like
some Mondrian paintings.
Charles Eicher
In article <5gpa7l$553$2...@cronkite.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
<dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
> "James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net> wrote:
> Up until a few weeks ago I never understood abstract art until
> >a lecture in art class when the subject came up and was presented with
> >slides. Four slides displayed the progress from realism to distortion and
> >finally to the total abstract using the same subject - a large tree.
>
> [I'm afraid you still don't get it. If the work represents a subject,
> such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by definition,
> does not make reference to external subject matter.
That's the definition for "non-objective art", not 'abstract art'..
Progressive
> distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is a
> depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
Oh bull. All art is abstraction. Plenty of artworks, even some severely
abstract ones, contain references to objects. Even in my own paintings,
when I try to make them completely non-objective, or 'non-referential' they
still contain symbolic references to real objects. The odd thing is, people
point them out to me, I don't notice them while I work on the painting.
| Charles Eicher |
| -=- |
| cei...@inav.net |
Brother Alphabet
On 19 Mar 1997, Andrew Werby wrote:
> [I'm afraid you still don't get it. If the work represents a subject,
> such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by definition,
> does not make reference to external subject matter. Progressive
> distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is a
> depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
I think you are still confusing 'non-objective' or
'non-representational' abstract art -vs- the entire scope of abstraction.
Almost all art forms are abstract, mostly because to be NOT abstract, the
object would have to be photorealistic. Any 'filtration' of an otherwise
concrete object from 'reality' into a 2 dimensional form is an abstraction
of that 'reality'.
On the other hand, ALL art can be said to be realism and not at all
abstract due to the fact that thoughts, while intangible, are real, and
transliteration of thought is also real, so that anything made by the
mind's eye is real by that default, while still not realistically
RENDERING an object or scenario.
Abstract, in the loosest artistic sense, means any derivation from
actual perceived 'real' form.
Hutto
-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-=+=-
"I paint what I think, not what I see..." - Pablo Picasso
"You're not the boss of me!..." - J. A. Hutto (Pre age 3)
http://www2.msstate.edu/~jah10 + ja...@ra.msstate.edu
Tony Karp
"James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net> wrote:
[--snip--]
>Anyone else have any recent experiences with a change in their perception
>of art?
>
>Perhaps that is a better way to ask the question - "what is art"
An interesting approach would be to ask: What isn't art?
It may be easier to get agreement on this.
Then, whatever remains is, by definition, art.
For instance:
"It's not art if the same work could have been produced by vandalism."
> Pablo PigCasso
"It's not art if it can't be distinguished from something else that is
not art."
> Vincent van Gui
"It's not art if the same work could have been the result of a science
project."
> Willem de Cunning
"It's not art if it's art because it was done by an artist."
> Jasper Junk, on Warhol's "Coffee stain on gray rug"
and especially:
"It's not art if someone has to explain it to you."
> L' Architecte Karp
Tony Karp, TLC Systems Corp
- tk...@tlc-systems.com - tk...@interport.net
Visit our web sites:
Techno-Impressionist gallery: http://www.techno-impressionist.com
TLC Systems: http://www.tlc-systems.com
Web-Scope (tm) statistics: http://www.web-scope.com
James Thomas
Hill <notm...@e.mail> wrote in article
<notmyreal-200...@pa7dsp12.roanoke.infi.net>...
> > I believe you are defining nonobjective or nonrepresentational art.
> > Nonobjective art is pure design without any reference to a subject.
> > Abstract art is the process of refining and reorganizing a realistic
image
> > or mental concept to reveal the essence of a subject, without regard
for
> > its physical appearance.
Nonrepresentational art is often mistaken as abstract - which is what I
thought - abstract art was nonrepresentational. I have recently learned &
realised that nonrepresentational art uses shape which could be geometrical
or biometrical but not representing any specific object. Abstract art has
taken the natural form and broken it up into its basic parts. The tree I
referenced was painted in the abstract as shades of green interspersed
throughout shades of blues and reds (very cool color shades) all made of
splotches with a very faint hint of greyish black border around each. Hard
to describe and sorry I can't remember the artist. The important point is
that I could see the elements of the tree in this frame.
> I'm with you. Except the image can refer to things physical appearance,
so
> not exactly without regard. Abstract, as in to abstract from, draw from,
> to remove something from a seperate thing. Hey, those trees sound like
> some Mondrian paintings.
>
I do wish I could remember the artist. I shall ask at class Monday night
and let you all know.
Ben Mandus
Oh, Tony!
I LIKE these! May I quote them?
Thanks for sharing them, they went great with my morning
coffee, and I can always use a good chuckle in the morning!
Cheryl Mandus
http://www.angel-mask.com
James Thomas
Charles Eicher <cei...@inav.net> wrote in article
<ceicher-ya0230800...@news.inav.net>...
> Oh bull. All art is abstraction. Plenty of artworks, even some severely
> abstract ones, contain references to objects. Even in my own paintings,
> when I try to make them completely non-objective, or 'non-referential'
they
> still contain symbolic references to real objects. The odd thing is,
people
> point them out to me, I don't notice them while I work on the painting.
>
> | Charles Eicher |
> | -=- |
> | cei...@inav.net |
>
orange shades background over the whole piece with a thing just of center,
rather large madeup of deep blues with a bands of emeralgreen, burnt
sienne, and yellow ocre. I was just playing around with the oils. My son
comes through takes a short look and says "looks like a surrealistic
buffalo escaping a large prarie fire. I was amazed.
Brother Alphabet
On 21 Mar 1997, James Thomas wrote:
> Nonrepresentational art is often mistaken as abstract
How is that a mistake?
> I have recently learned &
> realised that nonrepresentational art uses shape which could be geometrical
> or biometrical but not representing any specific object.
Right, but is this not an abstract presentation?
> Abstract art has
> taken the natural form and broken it up into its basic parts. The tree I
> referenced was painted in the abstract as shades of green interspersed
> throughout shades of blues and reds (very cool color shades) all made of
> splotches with a very faint hint of greyish black border around each. Hard
> to describe and sorry I can't remember the artist. The important point is
> that I could see the elements of the tree in this frame.
But abstraction is also a photo-real tree with 'un-real' color.
Any derivation from 'real' is abstract, even if the composition did not
BEGIn with any 'real' reference - Nonrepresentational abstraction is only
a more pure, or 'complete' abstraction.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 20 Mar 1997, Tony Karp wrote:
> An interesting approach would be to ask: What isn't art?
> "It's not art if someone has to explain it to you."
> > L' Architecte Karp
And it's not art if it's architecture.
Jonathan Clift
In article <01bc342c$8eaf74c0$370115d1@jrthomas>, James Thomas
<jrth...@value.net> wrote
>My experience with the abstract has brought me to seek a common ground
>between my own personal art and art in the abstract.
>
>Anyone else have any recent experiences with a change in their perception
>of art?
>
Yes. In putting together a sculpure trail for a web site. Trying to work
out how to represent a sculpture with a two-dimensional photograph, and
making all the inevitable mistakes taught me far more than any amount of
reading of books. Then there was writing about each one, and talking to
some of the sculptors involved. I now think about sculpture in terms of
possibilities, sketching out ideas because I just might get to use them.
And, I have an enthusiasm that's feeding back into painting, an area
that had become a bit stagnant for me. I don't have much clue how to go
further, but one way or another I will.
--
Jonathan Clift
mdeli
I believe that rigorous attempts to define art are usually a wasted
effort. I have yet to read an argument that can’t be punctured or
isn't relatively meaningless . It is not that people can’t sense what
art is, it just that it hasn’t been rigorously defined. Art at some
point is always a subjective matter. One can say how art makes you
feel and list some of its properties, but trying to define art leads
into a quagmire.
The "everything is art" Artzy fartzies crowd always attempt what I
call the "prove its not art," ploy. They always try to present you
with an object others would consider a put-on and insist it is art.
The ploy here is to try to make you prove it isn’t art. Well if you
both knew what art was the argument could instantly be settled.
I can’t show that something isn’t art any more than I can prove that
Santa Claus doesn’t exist. But I can state what I believe are some of
the properties of art and infer that an object lacking them can’t be
considered to have much artistic merit. My opponent can now argue that
art doesn’t need these properties in order to be labeled art. This is
valid.
When I see a put-on presented as art I will always agree that it is
art but I will always ask how it compares with other art. This
immediately avoids the, "it is or isn’t art" argument. How do the
elements of an artwork compare with what most consider to be the fine
art of the past? In other words comparatively speaking, what are the
merits of the work ? A nihilist often claims that you can’t compare.
But in fact you can. The unavoidable question, why do you like this
and not that always arises. Even the nihilist has preferences.
Here are some very basic, not all the properties of an object people
consider art:
-it attracts a viewers visual and mental attention.
-It is Something many wish they can do but can’t.
-It exhibits a degree of skill very apparent to the viewer.
One needn’t agree here. I doubt that Duchamp’s urinal defenders or any
Dadaist here will agree that the above properties are essential. But
you can ask someone whether he would rather have a Norman Rockwell or
a Duchamp urinal. With this line of argument in mind one can
effectively heckle a lecturer at the MOMA.
Taste in art is really a series of mental comparisons. It is important
to note that these are NOT static and unchanging.
This all leads to the really important question, how does one at
least to some degree, determine the merits of artwork? For this one
must turn to what a consensus has been long considered the great
artwork of the past.
Mani DeLi
...…no skill no art
William DeRaymond
Andrew Werby wrote:
"James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net> wrote:
Up until a few weeks ago I never understood abstract art until
>a lecture in art class when the subject came up and was presented
with
>slides. Four slides displayed the progress from realism to
distortion and
>finally to the total abstract using the same subject - a large
tree.
[I'm afraid you still don't get it. If the work represents a
subject,
such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by
definition,
does not make reference to external subject matter. Progressive
distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is
a
depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
http://users.lanminds.com/~drewid
I happen to disagree. You are speaking from a conceptual viewpoint,
not from direct experience. By direct experience I mean, just what you
are looking at, as opposed to the conceptual, associative reponses of
your own mind to what you are looking at (generally a rather academic
approach or based in someone elses's idea of knowledge). In my opinion,
true art is at once both abstract and representational, and is always
more than simply an image, whether or not that image is (conceptually
speaking) "abstract' or 'representational.
To me, external can mean all manner of non physical phenomenon,
emotions, thoughts, intuitions, etc. They are still outside of who I
am. Just as the physical sphere is considered conventionally to be
external. Another viewpoint would be, it is all inside of me, or you.
All of visual reality, the intimate, internal, conception of God.
That's the only conceptual viewpont I would consider truly valid.
--
William DeRaymond/Artist
http://www.worldlightproductions.com
'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
Andrew Werby
cei...@inav.net (Charles Eicher) wrote:
>In article <5gpa7l$553$2...@cronkite.lanminds.com>, Andrew Werby
><dre...@lanminds.com> wrote:
If the work represents a subject,
>> such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by definition,
>> does not make reference to external subject matter.
>
>That's the definition for "non-objective art", not 'abstract art'..
[Perhaps I should have said: "Art is abstract to the degree that it does
not make reference to external subject matter." "Non-objective" is a
term that never really caught on; most people say "abstract".
Would you rename the Abstract Expressionists the Nonobjective
Expressionists? Do we have to call Geometric Abstraction - Geometric
Nonobjectivism? (It doesn't exactly trip lightly off the tongue.) ]
>
> Progressive
>> distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is a
>> depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
>
>Oh bull. All art is abstraction.
[Although I knew we weren't going to agree on what all art was, I thought
it would be possible to reach a rough consensus on what abstract art was-
guess not.]
Plenty of artworks, even some severely
>abstract ones, contain references to objects.
[Can't we say these are less abstract than the ones that refrain from
this?]
Even in my own paintings,
>when I try to make them completely non-objective, or 'non-referential' they
>still contain symbolic references to real objects. The odd thing is, people
>point them out to me, I don't notice them while I work on the painting.
[This is another problem entirely, more akin to ink-blot testing than
art criticism. Just because people, even the artist himself, see faces,
figures, or other accidental resemblances to real objects in a random
series of marks does not mean that the art in question is not abstract.]
-Andrew
>
>
>| Charles Eicher |
>| -=- |
>| cei...@inav.net |
Now at last you can see the art of Andrew Werby: sculpture, jewelry, and graphics.
Browse the "techniques" section for information on various art processes.
Link to places on the web with information useful to artists.
Be the first on your block to know what "juxtamorphic" art is!
Andrew Werby - United Artworks
wsp
> >Anyone else have any recent experiences with a change in their perception
> >of art?
> >
>
>
>
> Then, whatever remains is, by definition, art.
>
Art or not art has to do with the contextualization of the object of
gesture. It is the active process of the mind to invent new
relationships or see old established ones between disparate events or
objects.
IOW, something is or is not art depending on the motivation or immediate
interests or point of view, of the viewer.
If I have lost my brakes and am about to smash thru a museum window with
the VanGogh I see getting closer and closer, about to kill me is not
art. The person who is about to get hurt standing in front of it is
looking at art. Funny the same object has meaning as art and not art,
ergo the object or gesture exists as art only in the mind of the viewer
(depending on his/her mental orientation at the time).
mrb...@mail.zynet.co.uk
On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 09:20:23 -0800, William DeRaymond
<dray...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
>Andrew Werby wrote:
>
> "James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net> wrote:
> Up until a few weeks ago I never understood abstract art until
> >a lecture in art class when the subject came up and was presented
> with
> >slides. Four slides displayed the progress from realism to
> distortion and
> >finally to the total abstract using the same subject - a large
> tree.
>
> [I'm afraid you still don't get it. If the work represents a
> subject,
> such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by
> definition,
> does not make reference to external subject matter. Progressive
> distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is
> a
> depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
>
Kandinsky is considered one of the founding fathers of
abstraction. He wrote;
"From what has been said of the combination of colour
and form, the way to the new art can be traced. This way
lies today between too dangers. On the one hand is the
totally arbitrary application of colour to geometrical
form - pure patterning. On the other hand is the more
naturalistic use of colour in bodily form - pure phantasy.
(by which he means representational art)".
p51. Concerning the Spiritual in Art./Wassily Kandinsky/
Dover Publications/New York.
Ian Abbott
wsp wrote:
> >
> If I have lost my brakes and am about to smash thru a museum window with
> the VanGogh I see getting closer and closer, about to kill me is not
> art. The person who is about to get hurt standing in front of it is
> looking at art. Funny the same object has meaning as art and not art,
> ergo the object or gesture exists as art only in the mind of the viewer
> (depending on his/her mental orientation at the time).
Would this not be "Performance Art"..........:)
Ian
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
mrb...@mail.zynet.co.uk wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><I> -snip-</I>
<BR>Kandinsky is considered one of the founding fathers of
<BR>abstraction. He wrote;
<BR>
<BR>"From what has been said of the combination of colour
<BR>and form, the way to the new art can be traced. This way
<BR>lies today between too dangers. On the one hand is the
<BR>totally arbitrary application of colour to geometrical
<BR>form - pure patterning. On the other hand is the more
<BR>naturalistic use of colour in bodily form - pure phantasy.
<BR>(by which he means representational art)".
<BR>
<BR>p51. Concerning the Spiritual in Art./Wassily Kandinsky/
<BR>Dover Publications/New York.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
" I certainly do not refer or look to Kandinsky for guidance, inspiration
or knowledge. I think he was a lousy neo-classical painter before
he arrived at his market niche of 'abstraction'. That seems to be
a pattern in the 20th C.
<BR>
<BR>Just a comment on the quote. Form and color are not two different
things. they are one. My Master pointed this out to me.
It is an essential realization for the artist with regards to their understanding
of the nature of visual reality. It has great import as to how they
are able to deal with their mediums. Shape is something else, and
what makes one shape preferable to another, whether 'real' or 'imagined',
whether 'abstract' or 'representational', is the artist's decision to deal
with, however they need to, or want to.
<BR> If you consider painting or sculpture as visual
music, you realize the painter's pallette is a most sophisticated instrument
able to reproduce a veritably infinite range of notes and tones,
limited only by the consciousness of the artist. Add the qualities
of brush and relationship to the 'world' or 'motif' and you have painting.
It is all only limited by the artist's consciousness, and the boundaries
or foundation principles of the medium itself, ie. color, brush, motif,
artist, viewer.
<BR> Color and form are one.
<BR> All mature artists work out of this realization. Kandinsky
ain't one of them."
<BR>--
<BR>William DeRaymond/Artist
<BR><A HREF="http://www.worldlightproductions.com">http://www.worldlightproductions.com</A>
<BR>'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
James Thomas
Andrew, excellent definitions. Non-objective has indeed blended into
abstract in the usage of the terms. I suppose if you drag out the art
theory books one can find exacting definitions for non-objective / abstract
/ distortion, however, I see an overlaping of these three art forms.
Non-objective can easily become abstract and distortion can be so distorted
as to approach the abstract - in fact - to become abstract. In reference
to the tree I spoke of earlier. Had I not seen the slides going from
realistic thru levels of distortion and finally the abstract form I would
not have seen the tree in the last abstract slide. In fact, one person in
the class saw a form of pink flowers/green leaves with blue sky around
them. I guess the abstract can be interpreted by our brains in the manner
it interpretes most things we see. Humans tend to look for shape and form
- even in the abstract and thanks to the operation of the left/right brain
we will see a form or shape in anyones abstract even though we may not see
the form the artist had in mind, assuming he had a form in mind.
I looked at a recent drawing in colored pencil by a high school art student
who was expressing in the abstact their feeling (emotions) of a day at
school. Very interesting forms and shapes with excellent color
combinations but one would be hard pressed to find a shape. Keeping in
mind the artists intent your could "see the forms and colors patterns
showing the quick, hurried race between classes and the still quite moments
of a test" - explains the artist. This work was about as abstract as you
can get and yet there was an intent to have random shapes/forms/colors
expressing the feelings of the artist. The artwork may be interpreted by
some as non-objective if viewed without the knowledge of the artists
intent.
Ron
jrth...@value.net
Andrew Werby wrote in article.....
mrb...@mail.zynet.co.uk
Kandinsky himself saw his abstract art as achieving the same emotional
resonance as music. He often compared his forms and colours with
specific sounds.
However towards the end of his theorising on abstraction he begins to
acknowledge that besides what happens on canvass there is an awful lot
going on outside the canvass, ie. " the artist's consciousness, and
the boundaries or foundation principles of the medium itself, ie.
color, brush, motif, artist, viewer." (cue discussions on the death of
the author.)
However as this thread is talking mainly about what is abstract art it
seems we have a problem simply of definition. Words have different
meanings within different cultures. Those cultures can exist on a
micro level. The "rules" that those cultures use to govern meaning are
constantly changing. Inevitably diferent "micro cultures" will
attribute different meanings to the word abstraction. Trying to
imagine how many different "micro cultures" (lets call them tribes
because that probably more accurately reflects the process of human
behaviour that brings those micro cultures into being) exist on the
net is a bit like trying to count the number of galaxies in the
universe. So we wont reach agreement on what is abstract art. All we
will demonstrate is that we come from different tribes.
Kandinsky is probably a bit out of date for helping us to define what
is abstract art by todays terminology, but the process of bringing
definitions into being is to collectively fix a reference point that
is generally accepted as being useful in defining the boundaries of
the meaning of a word. Kandinsky is a useful reference point.
Abstraction covers such a wide range of art forms that it's meaning is
too general to be of much use without further qualification.
For those interested in the the creation of meanings and definitions
try http://www.massey.ac.nz/~ALock 'Now I Can Go On':
Wittgenstein and Communication. Though the article talks primarily
about text, the creation of meaning through visual codes is similar.
(Now theres a sweeping statement worthy of further discussion!)
Mr Bunny.
Andrew Werby
William DeRaymond <dray...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
I certainly do not refer or look to Kandinsky for guidance, inspiration
>he arrived at his market niche of 'abstraction' That seems to be
>a pattern in the 20th C.
[Kandinsky originated this "pattern", when he single-handedly pioneered abstract art
as a modern mode of expression. He was dissatisfied with the limits of neo-classical
painting, so he did something about it. He didn't see why a painting had to be "about"
something any more than a musical composition does, so he set about creating work that
was independent of subject matter, but that did have harmony of composition, balance
of color, and elegance of line; basic qualities of painting that are shared between
abstract and representational art. You don't have to like it, but the sneering is
unjustified.]
>Form and color are not two different
>things. they are one. My Master pointed this out to me.
>It is an essential realization for the artist with regards to their
>understanding of the nature of visual reality. It has great import as
>to how they are able to deal with their mediums. Shape is something
>else, and what makes one shape preferable to another, whether 'real' or
>'imagined', whether 'abstract' or 'representational', is the artist's
>decision to deal with, however they need to, or want to.
>If you consider painting or sculpture as visual music,
[If you do, you owe a debt to Kandinsky.]
> you realize the painter's pallette is a most sophisticated instrument
>able to reproduce a veritably infinite range of notes and tones,
>limited only by the consciousness of the artist. Add the qualities
>of brush and relationship to the 'world' or 'motif' and you have painting.
>It is all only limited by the artist's consciousness, and the boundaries
>or foundation principles of the medium itself, ie. color, brush, motif,
[Haven't we heard this particular one-note samba before? This little
"realization" works much better if you leave sculpture out of it, because
to a sculptor form and color are very different things. For a painter,
yes, form can certainly be suggested by color, although it can also be
contradicted by it as well. To a two-dimensional creature (an inhabitant
of "Flatland") a line perpendicular to his world is experienced as a point.
Therefore from his point of view, they are the same. This doesn't make it
so for the rest of us, however.]
>Color and form are one. All mature artists work out of this realization. Kandinsky
>ain't one of them.
[So Kandinsky was immature, but you're not?]
Andrew
wsp
LOL, Only if it were to make the local TV news!
Tony Karp
Ben Mandus <bma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Oh, Tony!
>
>I LIKE these! May I quote them?
>Thanks for sharing them, they went great with my morning
>coffee, and I can always use a good chuckle in the morning!
Sure. Go right ahead.
Lots more quotes (and other stuff) at:
http://www.techno-impressionist.com
"It's easy to find an appropriate quote when you make them up yourself."
> Vincent van Gui
Tony Karp
wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
[sneep]
>If I have lost my brakes and am about to smash thru a museum window with
>the VanGogh I see getting closer and closer, about to kill me is not
>art. The person who is about to get hurt standing in front of it is
>looking at art. Funny the same object has meaning as art and not art,
>ergo the object or gesture exists as art only in the mind of the viewer
>(depending on his/her mental orientation at the time).
Depends on who's driving.
If Jasper Johns is driving the car, what's about to happen is art. The
guy who's going to be hit by the car is about to become art history.
"Jasper Johns' new work 'Red stain on museum wall' conveys an immediacy
that redefines his work, turning it from the abstract to the concrete."
> Art Speaker, Cutting Edge Art in America, June 1997
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
To see a qutoe on style and some work of my Master here is the correct
url ( I made a mistake on the first post): <A HREF="http://www.worldlightproductions.com/retro.html">http://www.worldlightproductions.com/retro.html</A>
<BR>Thanks,
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>William DeRaymond/Artist
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
William DeRaymond
<HTML><BODY>
Andrew Werby wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>William DeRaymond <dray...@worldlightproductions.com>
wrote:
<BR> I certainly do not refer or look to Kandinsky for guidance, inspiration
<BR><I>>or knowledge. I think he was a lousy neo-classical painter before</I>
<BR><I>>he arrived at his market niche of 'abstraction' That seems to be</I>
<BR><I>>a pattern in the 20th C.</I>
<BR>
<BR>[Kandinsky originated this "pattern", when he single-handedly
pioneered abstract art
<BR>as a modern mode of expression. He was dissatisfied with the limits of
neo-classical
<BR>painting, so he did something about it.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Liike I said, He was a lousy neo-classicist, not a good one. What
he did was look for something new
<BR>to survive in the marketplace. Isn't this a particularly 20th Century
phenomenon - the SELFconscious
<BR>search for a style to set one apart.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>He didn't see why a painting had to be "about"
<BR>something any more than a musical composition does, so he set about creating
work that
<BR>was independent of subject matter, but that did have harmony of composition,
balance
<BR> of color, and elegance of line; basic qualities of painting that
are shared between
<BR>abstract and representational art. You don't have to like it, but the sneering
is
<BR>unjustified.]
</BLOCKQUOTE>
As far as I can see his work represents itself exactly as it is.
I think there is nothing so real as so called non representational
<BR>art. A blot is very real. If you want to go on about the conceptual
associations that might arise out of contemplating an 'abstract work',
you enter into the realm of relative value, and speculation. Any
real painting is about colour, line, relationships, and harmonies.
It has always been so and will always be so. That is the artform.
<BR> I wasn't sneering,
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR><I>>Form and color are not two different</I>
<BR><I>>things. they are one. My Master pointed this out to me.</I>
<BR><I>>It is an essential realization for the artist with regards to their</I>
<BR><I> >understanding of the nature of visual reality. It has great
import as</I>
<BR><I> >to how they are able to deal with their mediums. Shape is
something</I>
<BR><I> >else, and what makes one shape preferable to another, whether
'real' or</I>
<BR><I> >'imagined', whether 'abstract' or 'representational', is the
artist's</I>
<BR><I>>decision to deal with, however they need to, or want to.</I>
<BR><I>>If you consider painting or sculpture as visual music,</I>
<BR>
<BR>[If you do, you owe a debt to Kandinsky.]
<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I owe no debt to Kandinsky! I refer to Monet and Cezanne, Van Gogh
and Sisley, Gauguin and Bernard. Morisot and Degas, Manet and Daumier,
Pissarro and etc, These and many more are in my opinion vastly superior
to Kandinsky and all of them far more spiritual as artists. It is
to these artists that Kandinsky in fact owed his career, even though he
never truly realized what they had in fact done.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR><I>> you realize the painter's pallette is a most sophisticated instrument</I>
<BR><I>>able to reproduce a veritably infinite range of notes and tones,</I>
<BR><I>>limited only by the consciousness of the artist. Add the qualities</I>
<BR><I>>of brush and relationship to the 'world' or 'motif' and you have
painting.</I>
<BR><I>>It is all only limited by the artist's consciousness, and the boundaries</I>
<BR><I>>or foundation principles of the medium itself, ie. color, brush,
motif,</I>
<BR>
<BR>[Haven't we heard this particular one-note samba before? This little
<BR>"realization" works much better if you leave sculpture out of
it, because
<BR>to a sculptor form and color are very different things. For a painter,
<BR>yes, form can certainly be suggested by color, although it can also be
<BR>contradicted by it as well. To a two-dimensional creature (an inhabitant
<BR>of "Flatland") a line perpendicular to his world is experienced
as a point.
<BR>Therefore from his point of view, they are the same. This doesn't make
it
<BR>so for the rest of us, however.]
</BLOCKQUOTE>
My master who was a genius of sculpture and painting talked of sculpture
in terms of color. <A HREF="http://www.worldlightproductions/retro.html">http://www.worldlightproductions/retro.html</A>
It took me some time to understand where he was coming from.You need to
spend a little time considering that there is absolutely no form without
color. Unless you wish to speak of something that is totally transparent.
Then you would have nothing to look at would you?
<BR>No painting or sculpture would be visible without color. You tell
me how they are different.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>
<BR><I>>Color and form are one. All mature artists work out of this realization.
Kandinsky</I>
<BR><I>>ain't one of them.</I>
<BR>
<BR>[So Kandinsky was immature, but you're not?
</BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm not.
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<BR>Andrew
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>--
<BR>William DeRaymond/Artist
<BR><A HREF="http://www.worldlightproductions.com">http://www.worldlightproductions.com</A>
<BR>'The abstract nature of reality is the source of beauty.'
<BR>
</BODY>
</HTML>
wsp
Tony Karp wrote:
>
> wsp <w...@olympus.net> wrote:
>
> [sneep]
>
> >If I have lost my brakes and am about to smash thru a museum window with
> >the VanGogh I see getting closer and closer, about to kill me is not
> >art. The person who is about to get hurt standing in front of it is
> >looking at art. Funny the same object has meaning as art and not art,
> >ergo the object or gesture exists as art only in the mind of the viewer
> >(depending on his/her mental orientation at the time).
>
> Depends on who's driving.
That would be your shift in perspective and your doing what human beings
do: recontextualiuze objects or actions and therefore create art.
>
> If Jasper Johns is driving the car, what's about to happen is art. The
> guy who's going to be hit by the car is about to become art history.
No,the point is, *at the moment it occurs* it is going to be a serious
injury accident. Afterthat it can be anything you want it to be,
depending on how you shift your perspective. A spectator can see the
injury and death of someone else as art. But the guy who is getting
(possibly) killed will never see the instants before his own possible or
actual death as art. So we have now a limit on what can be considered
art.
Paris Flammonde
mrb...@mail.zynet.co.uk wrote:
>
> On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 09:20:23 -0800, William DeRaymond
> <dray...@worldlightproductions.com> wrote:
>
> >Andrew Werby wrote:
> >
> > "James Thomas" <jrth...@value.net> wrote:
> > Up until a few weeks ago I never understood abstract art until
> > >a lecture in art class when the subject came up and was presented
> > with
> > >slides. Four slides displayed the progress from realism to
> > distortion and
> > >finally to the total abstract using the same subject - a large
> > tree.
> >
> > [I'm afraid you still don't get it. If the work represents a
> > subject,
> > such as a tree, it is not totally abstract. Abstract art, by
> > definition,
> > does not make reference to external subject matter. Progressive
> > distortion will get you closer to the abstract, but as long as it is
> > a
> > depiction of an object it is not abstract art.]
> >
>
> "From what has been said of the combination of colour
>
> p51. Concerning the Spiritual in Art./Wassily Kandinsky/
The term "abstract" in relationship to art has a very general
application and, in that sense, means any non-representational
expression (including much that is purely decorative craft). However,
the more specific (initially European) definition was that developement
of painting that eschewed the imitation of nature or of things as they
actually appear. Two sub-division are drawn from such attitudes: the
reduction of the apparent appearances to ultimate essentials (cf.
Brancusi, Epstein, Moore, Pollack, et. al.) and the construction of
"art" from non-representational fundamental forms.
Kandinsky is generally credited with having shown the first
genuinely non-representational painting around 1910. Soon, some of the
Cubist turned to the school, from which emerged other attitudes of the
approach or divergences.
Abstraction EXPRESSIONISM, while deriving from the above, took
the term unto itself with the popularization of the New York School,
despite the fact that some of its best known members were not
practiscing it. Some were not abstract (de Kooning, Gottlieb), nor
expressionistic (Kline, Rothko). The group merely assumed the
nomenclature to reflect a very general outlook of rebellion against
traditional disciplines and philosophy.
paris flammonde
l
RoyGBivart
Dear Hugood:
Your presented question/answer shows some intellegence and thought.
However, it is very pompous.
Art is simply defined if you study and/or have an art education. Art, to
be art, must have two of 3 attributes. These are:
1) Originality.
2) Exellent technique.
3) A phylosophical reason for being.
Any work that has two of these 3 is a work of art. If you have a problem
understanding this, please feel free to E-mail me, and I will give you
examples.
Please note: Beauty has nothing to do with something being art. Neither
does the name of the person who did said work. Or medium used, etc.,
etc., etc.
Sincerely,
Roy
mdeli
On 3 Apr 1997 22:42:01 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
>Dear Hugood:
>
>Your presented question/answer shows some intellegence and thought.
>However, it is very pompous.
>
>Art is simply defined if you study and/or have an art education. Art, to
>be art, must have two of 3 attributes. These are:
>
You haven't defined art .
>1) Originality.
>2) Exellent technique.
>3) A phylosophical reason for being.
Not that there is anything wrong with originality. but Art doesn't
need originality. Much great art isn't at all original.
All artwork to be of any note requires a mastery technique and that is
precisely why most of the modern stuff in museums is so inferior.
Art has almost nothing to do with philosophy.
>
>Any work that has two of these 3 is a work of art. If you have a problem
>understanding this, please feel free to E-mail me, and I will give you
>examples.
What is original about a portrait by Rembrandt besides perhaps the
technique and what is philosophical about it?
>Please note: Beauty has nothing to do with something being art.
I presume you prefer ugliness.
> Neither
>does the name of the person who did said work. Or medium used, etc.,
>etc., etc.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
David Falk
mdeli (hug...@interlog.com) wrote:
: On 3 Apr 1997 22:42:01 GMT, roygb...@aol.com (RoyGBivart) wrote:
: >
: >Art is simply defined if you study and/or have an art education. Art, to
: >be art, must have two of 3 attributes. These are:
: >
: You haven't defined art .
Mani's correct here. Art is generally undefinable. However,
general philosophical persuasions can influence what is
accepted as art.
: >1) Originality.
: >2) Exellent technique.
: >3) A phylosophical reason for being.
: Not that there is anything wrong with originality. but Art doesn't
: need originality. Much great art isn't at all original.
:
: All artwork to be of any note requires a mastery technique and that is
: precisely why most of the modern stuff in museums is so inferior.
:
: Art has almost nothing to do with philosophy.
Art has as much to do with philosophy as it does with
excellence of technique, which is almost nothing.
Defining excellence of technique is the same damned
slippery slope as asking "what is good?" However,
there is something to excellent technique that must
be considered.
: What is original about a portrait by Rembrandt besides perhaps the
: technique and what is philosophical about it?
The techniques of Rembrandt were as much assembly-line
production as anything else. Much of the great paintings
of the Old Masters were very production in their techniques,
which more or less led up to the obscelescence of these
techniques. However, there were many lesser known
contemporary painters who had mastered this style of painting.
So, then what separated Rembrandt's paintings from the other?
Rembrandt's painting have an aesthetic sence that was
superior to his contemporaries. While many had mastered the
technique, it takes a Rembrandt to turn that into something
aestheticly excellent.
: >Please note: Beauty has nothing to do with something being art.
:
: I presume you prefer ugliness.
Beauty isn't everything, neither is technique. Both have
their place, but even an ugly painting can be aestheticly
appealing enough to have artistic merit.
: Mani DeLi
: ...no skill no art
Dave.
...no aesthetics no art
--
David Falk URL http://www.sparrowarts.com
(da...@sparrowarts.com) Sparrow Arts Gallery
Sparrow Arts has moved! Check out the new Sparrow Arts Web site.
Jeweler, Artist, Bladesmith, Philosopher, SysAdmin, Danzan Ryu - Rokyu
RoyGBivart
Dear Dave:
I guess you can't read very well. What did I say?! Origionality, ONE OF
THREE! Art must have 2 of the three. Originality does not have to be as
long as the other two are present! I love when someone comments when he
or she doesn't have the ability to understand what is said.
You don't undersatnd excelence ot technique? You must be in 4th grade.
There are commercial artists that have made it to being called artists by
the uneducated because of their superior technique. It's amazing how
little you know.
Rembrandt was assembly-line? You have no understanding of the times and
educational processes of the time. I should only have a car produced by a
Rembrandt assembly-line. I thought I had read other people at this site
that were stupid. You have gone beyond all of them. As a side note,
remember what Domenico Theotocopoulos said about Rembrandt, (which
afterwards he was asked to leave the city). "He (Rembrandt), is a second
rate draftsman." He was mad, for the big R got a commission he wanted.
Dave, you are remarkable. Please, keep making a fool of yourself. It's
entertaining.
Sincerely,
Roy