GLORIA HEIM - Sniveling Artist
Kay Kane
Thanks for the exposure. Now everyone will (finally) notice me. Oh, joy! I
thought I'd repay the favor in kind.
Since you have snipped off much of my original statements and included those
of others, let's focus on why I "flamed" you. You made a statement (correct
me if I'm wrong) to the effect "...my younger sister could fling a jar of
paint on a canvas and call it art." to which I replied that you must be
talking about Jackson Pollock. I responded so strongly because I get so
very SICK AND TIRED of similar responses from people who have no knowledge
of art. Some students in my art appreciation class respond similarly, but I
don't get angry with them because the majority of them have never been to a
museum or gallery and have had no exposure to art. You, however, call
yourself educated. You claim to be an artist. It angers me that with these
"alleged" credentials you would make such an ignorant statement! Both of
our original statements pretty much sum us up as artists and I'm sure this
NG's participants can and have categorized us according to their own
artistic sensibilities. At this time, we are doing nothing more than
providing them a bit of entertainment with our little "cat fight," which
frankly, doesn't bother me a bit since my engagement with you relieves me of
any necessity for critical thought.
Regarding, "flaming": Anyone who posts here does so with the possibility of
being flamed, sometimes with reason, sometimes unjustly. Grow up! Get used
to it. It truly DOES NOT matter! I get flamed, so does Marilyn, "N",
Ariane, Bryn, Mani, Mark, John (not Eric, everyone seems to like him),
Phillip, Neil, Peter, Gabriel, Burningchrome, etc... Some react angrily,
some react with justification of their original posts and flames of their
own, some don't react. Do whatever you like. I may respond, I may not. It
DOES NOT MATTER. Get it?
Kay
P.S. As for your challenge to show my art (LOL), I've stated my skepticism
of people with web pages but have also stated that by next year, I may put
one up. My reluctance in doing so (as previously stated) reflects upon the
myriad of horrible art I've seen on the net. I have seen 3 very good web
sites from members of this NG. Yours was, unfortunately, not one of them.
To use a TV sports analogy for our respective artistic standings: I may be
on a losing team, but I'm playing in the "Superbowl"; you are on "Bowling
For Dollars".
Vi...@ordinaire.com
out for you.
Seriously, Kay - what are the three good sites you've seen from this group?
My art preference and sensibility is close to yours, I think. I, too, have
had it up to here with shitty art - but why should the web be any
different from galleries, come to think about it?
Best,
Vinny
Marilyn
>
>
> Regarding, "flaming": Anyone who posts here does so with the possibility of
> being flamed, sometimes with reason, sometimes unjustly. Grow up! Get used
> to it. It truly DOES NOT matter! I get flamed, so does Marilyn, "N",
> Ariane, Bryn, Mani, Mark, John (not Eric, everyone seems to like him),
> Phillip, Neil, Peter, Gabriel, Burningchrome, etc... Some react angrily,
> some react with justification of their original posts and flames of their
> own, some don't react. Do whatever you like. I may respond, I may not. It
> DOES NOT MATTER. Get it?
> Kay
Hey Kay,
I really resent that. I have flamed Erik on more than one occasion
and you didn't even notice.
Marilyn
Kay Kane
Marilyn wrote in message <36F81C...@bc.ca>...
Amazing! (But, has Erik ever flamed YOU?) I really didn't notice..
Kay
>
zi...@interport.net
Dear Kay:
I have no idea where she is coming from. But you have taken a
maoritarian position within the ranks of the art world on Pollock.
I require an artist to be intelligent and to herslef/himself choose
the content of the work of art. I require that each work of art
should be as much as possible separately metaphoric and precisely so.
My fasvorite critic, whom artists should read, by the way was Robert
Blackmur. He loves Stevens and Yeats hit e e cummings and Ezra Pound
very hard. One of his problems with bad poetry is that the metaphors
are too general. His major complaint about cummings was that he hing
his poems on words which were too general and had insufficient
spoecificity in meaning sound or shape to stand for anything
particular. for example such a word in cummins was "flower".
He objected to Pounds cfdazy quilt of quotations which did not so much
add up to poetry as to a string of crackpot ideas which did not
resonate but fell with a dull thud. This of one of the greatest
technicians of poesy in the century.
Now, when I look at Pollock I get those same two reactions and one
more. First the metaphor is not only general and not specific, but it
is fuzzy. It seems to me that it was unclear to him what it was.
Second of all underneath a lot of drippy brushstrokes are hiding
groups of shapes which are antaognisitic to one another and do not
relate to the dripped paint. They are partiall obscured, but what
comes out is , as it were a "misquote" from some famous work of art
which isfuzzily in his head.
The third problem is that theideation behind his work was not his own
ideation but that of his Jungian therapist. It is about like working
for a consefvative chruchman and having to kowtow to all his demands
while working at your painting.
So he does not show me much. I find mcuh more good in Klee, the early
brushy Kandinsly and certain later periods, the paintings of Andre
Masson [not all of them but ther are great ones] -he by the way was
the most direct influence on the late drip style of Pollock. The Fog
has some of those very large drawings, and they are often on display.
Torres Garcia really tries to make a paintings poem, and if I want big
brushstrokes I ,uch prefer DeKooning through 1952 and occasionally
thereafter, like Easter Monday, Kline, or even Wols, whoese best work
was all drip. Pollock, and his lack of ideation and serious
develoipment is the avant garde's Dali.
Forget him and look at the rest of the world of art back then. Look at
Bradley Walker Tomlin, Sonia Sekula, Vieira Da Silva, Anne Ryan, the
great De Staels from 1947 to 1953. Pollock's work does not fit in and
not because he was too original, but because he was limited as a
person and painter. He just hit the right spot of the new rising
cultural establishment. He was the first Basquiat.
Gabriel
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:53:18 -0700, "Kay Kane"
<scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>Hi Gloria,
>Thanks for the exposure. Now everyone will (finally) notice me. Oh, joy! I
>thought I'd repay the favor in kind.
>
>Since you have snipped off much of my original statements and included those
>of others, let's focus on why I "flamed" you. You made a statement (correct
>me if I'm wrong) to the effect "...my younger sister could fling a jar of
>paint on a canvas and call it art." to which I replied that you must be
>talking about Jackson Pollock. I responded so strongly because I get so
>very SICK AND TIRED of similar responses from people who have no knowledge
>of art. Some students in my art appreciation class respond similarly, but I
>don't get angry with them because the majority of them have never been to a
>museum or gallery and have had no exposure to art. You, however, call
>yourself educated. You claim to be an artist. It angers me that with these
>"alleged" credentials you would make such an ignorant statement! Both of
>our original statements pretty much sum us up as artists and I'm sure this
>NG's participants can and have categorized us according to their own
>artistic sensibilities. At this time, we are doing nothing more than
>providing them a bit of entertainment with our little "cat fight," which
>frankly, doesn't bother me a bit since my engagement with you relieves me of
>any necessity for critical thought.
>
>Regarding, "flaming": Anyone who posts here does so with the possibility of
>being flamed, sometimes with reason, sometimes unjustly. Grow up! Get used
>to it. It truly DOES NOT matter! I get flamed, so does Marilyn, "N",
>Ariane, Bryn, Mani, Mark, John (not Eric, everyone seems to like him),
>Phillip, Neil, Peter, Gabriel, Burningchrome, etc... Some react angrily,
>some react with justification of their original posts and flames of their
>own, some don't react. Do whatever you like. I may respond, I may not. It
>DOES NOT MATTER. Get it?
>Kay
>
peter nelson
(correct
> me if I'm wrong) to the effect "...my younger sister could fling a jar of
> paint on a canvas and call it art." to which I replied that you must be
> talking about Jackson Pollock. I responded so strongly because I get so
> very SICK AND TIRED of similar responses from people who have no knowledge
> of art
Well, I have studied Art History, Art Appreciation, etc and got straight
A's.
I'm a regular attendee and member of several MODERN art museums,
and I agree with Gloria's characterization of Jackson Pollock. I
even watched a video of him working to learn more about his
technique.
People are always debating "what is art?" I think that an
absolute minimum requirement as basic even as mdeli's
mantra of "skill" is that art has to be deliberate. A hurricane
may arrange debris in a visually appealing manner; a Tomahawk
cruise missile may scatter civilian bodies in an interesting way.
But these are just accidents of physics, so they aren't art.
Pollock's method relies too much on accidents of physics to
be art.
There is a difference between "education" and "indocrination" when
it comes to art. There are those in the modern art community
who desire to indocrinate students into accepting their definition
of "art", even though they don't actually have one they can state.
Instead they throw tantrums, as we see here with Kay, when people
don't show proper respect for Pollock, Rothko, and other demigods
in their pantheon.
>P.S. As for your challenge to show my art (LOL), I've stated my skepticism
>of people with web pages but have also stated that by next year, I may put
>one up. My reluctance in doing so (as previously stated) reflects upon the
>myriad of horrible art I've seen on the net. I have seen 3 very good web
>sites from members of this NG. Yours was, unfortunately, not one of them.
>To use a TV sports analogy for our respective artistic standings: I may be
>on a losing team, but I'm playing in the "Superbowl"; you are on "Bowling
>For Dollars".
Catty, catty, catty! Years from now when you don't have these mood
swings your postings will still be archived for all to see on the
Internet. So, see? Your "art" is already on a website.
---peter
John Haber
figure out what's right or wrong with the writing, as well as what
kind of writing you admire. You express high standards, and you also
include an example of a model, R. P. Blackmur, who's superb.
You're engaging Kay and the rest of us on our turf, and that's very
different from the refusal to read. (Well, you did the latter a
couple of times, too, focusing on Marilyn's or the source's typos.
But it's honestly not worth it.)
John (www.haberarts.com
mdeli
Large snip of convoluted gas.
>Now, when I look at Pollock I get those same two reactions and one
>more. First the metaphor is not only general and not specific, but it
>is fuzzy. It seems to me that it was unclear to him what it was.
>Second of all underneath a lot of drippy brushstrokes are hiding
>groups of shapes which are antaognisitic to one another and do not
>relate to the dripped paint. They are partiall obscured, but what
>comes out is , as it were a "misquote" from some famous work of art
>which isfuzzily in his head.
It ain't that complicated.
Pollock's paintings are crap because the paint remains an image of
just paint, he can be easily imitated and his works are completely
dependent on the coveted signature, without which they would be
considered the garbage they are.
>The third problem is that theideation behind his work was not his own
>ideation but that of his Jungian therapist. It is about like working
>for a consefvative chruchman and having to kowtow to all his demands
>while working at your painting.
Artspeak
>
snip
> I ,uch prefer DeKooning through 1952 and occasionally
>thereafter, like Easter Monday, Kline, or even Wols, whoese best work
>was all drip.
They are all just as bad as Pollock
>Pollock, and his lack of ideation and serious
>develoipment is the avant garde's Dali.
?
>Forget him and look at the rest of the world of art back then. Look at
>Bradley Walker Tomlin, Sonia Sekula, Vieira Da Silva, Anne Ryan, the
>great De Staels from 1947 to 1953.
These artists, who were the cat's ass in the 1950's are little more
then an Artspeak echo today. Most younger artzy fartzies enjoy the
same stupidity but with a more contemporary signiture. They hardly
know these has-beens who are even worse than Pollock. At least Pollock
had the balls and the PR savy to pass off a well used house painter's
drop cloth as art.
The stuff Gabriel mentioins, especially that schmierer De Staels, who
was the de Kooning of his day, was far worse than Pollock.
Gabriel can't seem to be rational about the moderns he has been
brought up with.
> Pollock's work does not fit in and
>not because he was too original, but because he was limited as a
>person and painter. He just hit the right spot of the new rising
>cultural establishment. He was the first Basquiat.
Pollock is no more phoney than Picasso and Matisse.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Kay Kane
peter nelson wrote in message <7dbi9d$to5$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>...
>> You made a statement
>(correct
>> me if I'm wrong) to the effect "...my younger sister could fling a jar of
>> paint on a canvas and call it art." to which I replied that you must be
>> talking about Jackson Pollock. I responded so strongly because I get so
>> very SICK AND TIRED of similar responses from people who have no
knowledge
>> of art
>
>Well, I have studied Art History, Art Appreciation, etc and got straight
>A's.
You should be proud! Art History (presumably Prehistoric through Gothic and
then Renaissance through Present), Art Appreciation - hey, wait a minute - I
teach Art Appreciation, but I never actually TOOK Art Appreciation as a
student because it doesn't apply to degree requirements for ART MAJORS!
O.K. You weren't an art major, no big deal. You can know a lot about art
(maybe). Pete, what does "etc." mean? Does it mean you took "One" upper
division art history class -i.e. "European Art of the Late 19th Century"? or
"Renaissance Art in Northern Italy"? or "Introduction to Contemporary Art"?
or??? Sounds like you took the basic freshman level Art History. You must
have memorized the entire book to get so much knowledge from that class!
>I'm a regular attendee and member of several MODERN art museums,
Unlike anyone else in this NG?
>and I agree with Gloria's characterization of Jackson Pollock. I
>even watched a video of him working to learn more about his
>technique.
So Pete, do you make remarks like my younger sister, brother, dog, ape, etc.
could throw paint on a canvas and call it art? Do you AGREE???
>People are always debating "what is art?" I think that an
>absolute minimum requirement as basic even as mdeli's
>mantra of "skill" is that art has to be deliberate.
Well, then you have not only dismissed most Abstract Expressionists, you
have also dismissed Automatist Surrealists. Perhaps I am misunderstanding
your use of the word deliberate...
A hurricane
>may arrange debris in a visually appealing manner; a Tomahawk
>cruise missile may scatter civilian bodies in an interesting way.
>But these are just accidents of physics, so they aren't art.
But if you use these "visually apealing" formations of the "accidents' in
your previous statement, using art materials, how is it not "visually
appealing" ART?
>Pollock's method relies too much on accidents of physics to
>be art.
Procreation's method relies too much on accidents of physics to become
birth. (Does this sound like a logical assumption?)
>There is a difference between "education" and "indocrination" when
>it comes to art. There are those in the modern art community
>who desire to indocrinate students into accepting their definition
>of "art", even though they don't actually have one they can state.
Unclear. The last part really didn't make sense...
>Instead they throw tantrums, as we see here with Kay, when people
>don't show proper respect for Pollock, Rothko, and other demigods
>in their pantheon.
They are simply artists who are part of the artistic "Big Picture". You
have never heard me criticize any particular art "style". I even like
realism if done by Photorealists (i.e. Superrealists), which isn't actually
realism, as most would define it, at all. I dispute statements. From what I
see, you are throwing a tantrum.
>>P.S. As for your challenge to show my art (LOL), I've stated my skepticism
>>of people with web pages but have also stated that by next year, I may put
>>one up. My reluctance in doing so (as previously stated) reflects upon
the
>>myriad of horrible art I've seen on the net. I have seen 3 very good web
>>sites from members of this NG. Yours was, unfortunately, not one of them.
>>To use a TV sports analogy for our respective artistic standings: I may be
>>on a losing team, but I'm playing in the "Superbowl"; you are on "Bowling
>>For Dollars".
>Catty, catty, catty! Years from now when you don't have these mood
>swings
Psychiatric term for your attitude: "projecting"
> your postings will still be archived for all to see on the
>Internet.
If anyone would care, years from now, they would be pathetic!
So, see? Your "art" is already on a website.
>
>---peter
Don't want a website, Peter. Considering it only. How can you go to
museums with a closed mind? What is your purpose?
Marilyn
>
> On Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:51:30 GMT, zi...@interport.net wrote:
>
> Large snip of convoluted gas.
>
> >more. First the metaphor is not only general and not specific, but it
> >is fuzzy. It seems to me that it was unclear to him what it was.
> >Second of all underneath a lot of drippy brushstrokes are hiding
> >groups of shapes which are antaognisitic to one another and do not
> >relate to the dripped paint. They are partiall obscured, but what
> >comes out is , as it were a "misquote" from some famous work of art
> >which isfuzzily in his head.
>
> Pollock's paintings are crap because the paint remains an image of
> just paint, he can be easily imitated and his works are completely
> dependent on the coveted signature, without which they would be
> considered the garbage they are.
>
> >ideation but that of his Jungian therapist. It is about like working
> >for a consefvative chruchman and having to kowtow to all his demands
> >while working at your painting.
>
> >
> snip
>
> > I ,uch prefer DeKooning through 1952 and occasionally
> >thereafter, like Easter Monday, Kline, or even Wols, whoese best work
> >was all drip.
>
>
> >develoipment is the avant garde's Dali.
>
>
> >Forget him and look at the rest of the world of art back then. Look at
> >Bradley Walker Tomlin, Sonia Sekula, Vieira Da Silva, Anne Ryan, the
> >great De Staels from 1947 to 1953.
>
> then an Artspeak echo today. Most younger artzy fartzies enjoy the
> same stupidity but with a more contemporary signiture. They hardly
> know these has-beens who are even worse than Pollock. At least Pollock
> had the balls and the PR savy to pass off a well used house painter's
> drop cloth as art.
>
> The stuff Gabriel mentioins, especially that schmierer De Staels, who
> was the de Kooning of his day, was far worse than Pollock.
>
> Gabriel can't seem to be rational about the moderns he has been
> brought up with.
>
> >not because he was too original, but because he was limited as a
> >person and painter. He just hit the right spot of the new rising
> >cultural establishment. He was the first Basquiat.
>
>
> Mani DeLi
> ...no skill no art
>
> A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
> check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
> http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
"Garbage & crap" that's your idea of an art critique?
Give me so called artspeak anyday.
M.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>
> Marilyn wrote in message <36F81C...@bc.ca>...
> >Kay Kane wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> of
> >> being flamed, sometimes with reason, sometimes unjustly. Grow up! Get
> used
> >> to it. It truly DOES NOT matter! I get flamed, so does Marilyn, "N",
> >> Ariane, Bryn, Mani, Mark, John (not Eric, everyone seems to like him),
> >> Phillip, Neil, Peter, Gabriel, Burningchrome, etc... Some react angrily,
> >> some react with justification of their original posts and flames of their
> >> own, some don't react. Do whatever you like. I may respond, I may not.
> It
> >> DOES NOT MATTER. Get it?
> >> Kay
> >
> >
> >
> >I really resent that. I have flamed Erik on more than one occasion
> >and you didn't even notice.
> >
> >Marilyn
>
> Amazing! (But, has Erik ever flamed YOU?) I really didn't notice..
> Kay
> >
immune to flaming - the BC mists always puts the fires out.
Erik
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
peter nelson
>>I'm a regular attendee and member of several MODERN art museums,
>
>Unlike anyone else in this NG?
My point was that I have nothing against modern art in general.
>>and I agree with Gloria's characterization of Jackson Pollock. I
>>even watched a video of him working to learn more about his
>>technique.
>
>So Pete, do you make remarks like my younger sister, brother, dog, ape,
etc.
>could throw paint on a canvas and call it art? Do you AGREE???
Based on the fascination some galleries have with "Outsider
Art" I think it's a reasonable assumption that someone would
call it art. "Art" consisting of various bodily fluids has been
displayed in several major art museums in recent years.
>
>>People are always debating "what is art?" I think that an
>>absolute minimum requirement as basic even as mdeli's
>>mantra of "skill" is that art has to be deliberate.
>
>Well, then you have not only dismissed most Abstract Expressionists, you
>have also dismissed Automatist Surrealists.
"Most" abstract expressionists are quite deliberate in their designs. But
I agree that much automatist surrealism is not deliberate and therefore
not art. Other types of automatist art are debatable. The bottom line
is that the conception must first exist in the artist's mind - he or she
must
INTEND to create the result. If it just happens by accident then it has
no more claim to being "art" than the jumbe left behind after a NATO
cruise missile goes off course and smashes a hardware store.
> A hurricane
>>may arrange debris in a visually appealing manner; a Tomahawk
>>cruise missile may scatter civilian bodies in an interesting way.
>>But these are just accidents of physics, so they aren't art.
>
>But if you use these "visually apealing" formations of the "accidents' in
>your previous statement, using art materials, how is it not "visually
>appealing" ART?
The "art" part comes about in the creative process by which
the artist renders or arranges the accidents. Invite 10 painters
to the scene of a train-wreck and you will get 10 very different
results.
>Procreation's method relies too much on accidents of physics to become
>birth. (Does this sound like a logical assumption?)
No at all. It's a complete nonsequitur. Sexual reproduction really
DOES depend on random accidents to ensure genetic variation.
That's why 4 offspring of the same parents will all be genetically
distinct (barring twins, etc).
---peter
mdeli
peter nelson wrote
>>People are always debating "what is art?" I think that an
>>absolute minimum requirement as basic even as mdeli's
>>mantra of "skill" is that art has to be deliberate.
>
>Well, then you have not only dismissed most Abstract Expressionists, you
>have also dismissed Automatist Surrealists. Perhaps I am misunderstanding
>your use of the word deliberate...
He dismissed artwork which shows a lack of skill. He didn't dismiss a
style or an ism.
>
> A hurricane
>>may arrange debris in a visually appealing manner; a Tomahawk
>>cruise missile may scatter civilian bodies in an interesting way.
>>But these are just accidents of physics, so they aren't art.
>But if you use these "visually apealing" formations of the "accidents' in
>your previous statement, using art materials, how is it not "visually
>appealing" ART?
---because an accident of nature isn't art.
>
>>Pollock's method relies too much on accidents of physics to
>>be art.
>
>Procreation's method relies too much on accidents of physics to become
>birth. (Does this sound like a logical assumption?)
No. Its sounds like meaningless muddle.
>
>>There is a difference between "education" and "indocrination" when
>>it comes to art. There are those in the modern art community
>>who desire to indocrinate students into accepting their definition
>>of "art", even though they don't actually have one they can state.
>
>Unclear. The last part really didn't make sense...
I agree.
>Psychiatric term for your attitude: "projecting"
The ordinary term for most of your writing, "stupid."
mdeli
snip
>> It ain't that complicated.
>> Pollock's paintings are crap because the paint remains an image of
>> just paint, he can be easily imitated and his works are completely
>> dependent on the coveted signature, without which they would be
>> considered the garbage they are.
>
>"Garbage & crap" that's your idea of an art critique?
No darling that's my Idea of Pollock and I gave my reasons, which you
are too dense to address.
However, If you prefer a more long winded explanation which amounts to
about the same thing, without the profane terms which so offend your
sensitive soul read Peter's and Bryian's messages
>Give me so called artspeak anyday.
You got it and not much else.
Jennifer Eiserman
peter nelson wrote:
> "Most" abstract expressionists are quite deliberate in their designs. But
> I agree that much automatist surrealism is not deliberate and therefore
> not art. Other types of automatist art are debatable. The bottom line
> is that the conception must first exist in the artist's mind - he or she
> must
> INTEND to create the result. If it just happens by accident then it has
> no more claim to being "art" than the jumbe left behind after a NATO
> cruise missile goes off course and smashes a hardware store.
I like the way Jean Arp and his wife (Sophia?) explained their first few
attempts at automatism: First, they would cut or rip pieces of paper. Then,
they would drop the pieces from a distance onto a support. Last, they would
rearrange the pieces and then glue them in place. I bet lots of automatist art
got made that way.
Cheers,
Terry