Rothko and Carravaggio the real Question...
br...@wralaw.com
> If you admit _genre_ paintings, then it will be extremely easy to
> produce a Caravaggio - perhaps some sort of "painting by numbers"
> technique would suffice. Further, even the crudest approximation
I admit that this is a cop-out. I had made the claim that
Carravaggio was on the same level or higher than Rothko in the
realm of emotional expression, color and composition. The debate
of technique is rhetorical and leads me to assume that perhaphs
'you' and others who share this opinion(that Rothko's technique
equals Carravaggios) might not have any real non-verbal
understanding of oil painting to asses the other criteria either.
In response to the painting by numbers.
'Painting by Numbers' will not produce a real carravaggio because of
the blending and glazing involved. A highly intracate photomechanical
painting by numbers, (either with small sections and/or a large canvas)
would be necessary and close colors would have to be used. I think
the straight foward method of underpainting, overpainting and
glazing would be easier, unless one needed the borders in which case
the photomechanical method would be longer but more reliable.
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
John Haber
artist to dismiss artists? I got goosebumps when I visited the
Caravaggio churches in Rome, and I felt time stand still at Rothko's
retrospective or in the Rothko Chapel.
br...@wralaw.com
jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
> Why is this forum always using some irrelevant standard or another
> artist to dismiss artists?
Interesting .... I can no longer believe it.
Purely a to-this response!
and finaly they come alive...
> I got goosebumps when I visited the
> Caravaggio churches in Rome, and I felt time stand still at Rothko's
> retrospective or in the Rothko Chapel.
Bryn Ayers
Frederic Goudal
> Why is this forum always using some irrelevant standard or another
> artist to dismiss artists? I got goosebumps when I visited the
> Caravaggio churches in Rome, and I felt time stand still at Rothko's
> retrospective or in the Rothko Chapel.
THere is two kind of people :
- the one that have enough talent so they can stand by themselves,
- the one that need to destroy the others to proove they exists.
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
peter nelson
Frederic Goudal wrote in message ...
>jh...@columbia.edu (John Haber) writes:
>
>> Why is this forum always using some irrelevant standard or another
>> artist to dismiss artists? I got goosebumps when I visited the
>> Caravaggio churches in Rome, and I felt time stand still at Rothko's
>> retrospective or in the Rothko Chapel.
>
>THere is two kind of people :
>- the one that have enough talent so they can stand by themselves,
>- the one that need to destroy the others to proove they exists.
I'm not concerned by the amount of criticism I see here;
it seems like a reasonable activity for an arts newsgroup.
(I'm reading this on rec.arts.fine) Rather, I'm concerned
with the quality of the criticism.
It's fine to have an opinion about a piece, or about an artist.
But to declare that something is "bad art" or that someone
is a "bad artist" is treading on thin ice if the claim is not
based on something solid.
Personally, I try to avoid making such sweeping claims except
in regard to the skill displayed in the work (I cited the example
of a vertical green stripe on a white canvas I saw at the MOMA
a few years ago). Otherwise I try to make clear that I'm giving
a totally personal opinion - I personally find the floral still-lifes
favored by the amateur art society set banal - and that such
opinions say more about the speaker than the art.
The art-crit I object to is pronouncements from the high
priesthood of art criticism about what passes muster.
These are the people who think that vertical green stripes
on canvas hanging in a major metropolitan museum are
art of a higher order than than a skillfully composed and
rendered painting commissioned to illustrate an article
in Esquire or the Atlantic Monthly. The only time I was
ever kicked off a radio talk show was when I took on
a couple of critics on NPR's "Connections" who
dismissed Herb Ritts' show at Boston's MFA *not*
on the basis of the quality of his work, but because
it was photography, and commercial photography at
that! Horrors!
---peter
SCARLETT DECKER
it not art? Validate your assertion or you are no better than your average
landscape/seascape lover who claims that all contemporary art is no good!
Also, you say there is no skill involved in this work... so? What is the
works' intent? It must have some validity to get into the MOMA... You got
kicked off of a radio station for expressing an opinion about photography?
Doesn't have the ring of truth to me...
peter nelson wrote in message <77nvd0$i67$1...@ligarius.ultra.net>...
mdeli
>THere is two kind of people :
>- the one that have enough talent so they can stand by themselves,
>- the one that need to destroy the others to proove they exists.
>
Anyone who only believes in these to kinds of people has got to be a
nut case.
--
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
Check out my webpage to see some of my work and read about a skeptical view of Modern Art at: http://www.interlog.com/~hugod
Jim Humphreys
>>[jh] If you admit _genre_ paintings, then it will be extremely easy to
>> produce a Caravaggio - perhaps some sort of "painting by numbers"
>> technique would suffice. Further, even the crudest approximation
>I admit that this is a cop-out. I had made the claim that
>Carravaggio was on the same level or higher than Rothko in the
>realm of emotional expression, color and composition.
Which is a fairly meaningless thing to say, as there is not available a set
of
unproblematic criteria that we can use to compare paintings in this way.
What, for example, does it mean to say that a particular painting is
"on a higher level in the realm of colour"?
>The debate
>of technique is rhetorical and leads me to assume that perhaphs
'>you' and others who share this opinion(that Rothko's technique
>equals Carravaggios) might not have any real non-verbal
>understanding of oil painting to asses the other criteria either.
I don't recall saying that Rothko's technique "equals" Caravaggio's.
Broadly I've argued that attempts, such as mdeli's, to evaluate paintings
from different periods according to a criterion such as "skill" ( or indeed
criteria such as yours above) are misguided.
>In response to the painting by numbers.
'>Painting by Numbers' will not produce a real carravaggio because of
>the blending and glazing involved.
This wasn't the claim that I was making.
>A highly intracate photomechanical
>painting by numbers, (either with small sections and/or a large canvas)
>would be necessary and close colors would have to be used. I think
>the straight foward method of underpainting, overpainting and
>glazing would be easier, unless one needed the borders in which case
>the photomechanical method would be longer but more reliable.
It would indeed be challenging to produce an exact imitation - my point
was that this would also apply to a contemporary paintings eg a
Pollock. I also said that it would not be very difficult to produce
paintings which were simply "in the style of" a particular master.
Jim Humphreys
Peter Nelson
>What "green stripe on white canvas" at MOMA are you
> talking about.
I don't remember - I was there about 5 years ago.
> WHY is it not art?
It requires no skill to produce and no insight to plan or design.
If a nine year old in third grade made it the teacher would
request a conference with his parent to see if he needed to
go into a remedial class.
>Also, you say there is no skill involved in this work... so? What is the
>works' intent? It must have some validity to get into the MOMA...
In logic this is known as "assuming your conclusion".
>You got kicked off of a radio station for expressing an opinion
>about photography? Doesn't have the ring of truth to me...
Too bad - there were thousands of earwitnesses to it -
Chris Lydon's "Connections" show is nationally syndicated.
---peter
br...@wralaw.com
"Jim Humphreys" :
> Bryn
> >>[jh] If you admit _genre_ paintings, then it will be extremely easy to
> >Carravaggio was on the same level or higher than Rothko in the
> >realm of emotional expression, color and composition.
> Which is a fairly meaningless thing to say,
No it's not... All major artists inspire testimonies on their
compositional abilities, color, and expressiveness/meaning.
> as there is not available
> a set of unproblematic criteria that we can use to compare paintings...
Nor will there ever...
> What, for example, does it mean to say that a particular painting is
> "on a higher level in the realm of colour"?
This would be a testimony to ones response to the use of color by the
artist.
>that attempts, such as mdeli's, to evaluate paintings
> from different periods according to a criterion such as "skill" ( or indeed
> criteria such as yours above) are misguided.
I would say they are incomplete but not misguided. I do consider an
artists skill, and colors, and especially the emotional content(although
I do buy that you and many other don't get this) in relationship to
the work. I also maintain that these criteria are verbal, and are
only better adjectives to describe what are more or less Universal
responses to art than other adjectives.
> >In response to the painting by numbers.
> '>Painting by Numbers' will not produce a real carravaggio because of
> >the blending and glazing involved.
> This wasn't the claim that I was making.
Of course you weren't.
> Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
Bryn Ayers writes:
> >>I admit that this is a cop-out. I had made the claim that
> >>Carravaggio was on the same level or higher than Rothko in the
> >>realm of emotional expression, color and composition.
> >Which is a fairly meaningless thing to say,
>No it's not... All major artists inspire testimonies on their
>compositional abilities, color, and expressiveness/meaning.
My comment was directed at your making a *comparison* between
two different painters, from quite different periods in the history of
painting,
as regards their "expressiveness" [ you are, for example, alleging that
Caravaggio is "more expressive" than a Rothko]. This I maintain is merely
a matter of subjective preference. It is also debateable, too, whether
works
of art actually express emotion.
>> as there is not available
>> a set of unproblematic criteria that we can use to compare paintings...
>Nor will there ever...
If there are no such criteria, then you have effectively conceded
that your assessment of Caravaggio is a subjective one.Mdeli ,
I take it, is trying to argue for objective criteria. You are simply
saying that Caravggio is , for you, more expressive than Rothko.
The situation might be different for some other individual.
> >What, for example, does it mean to say that a particular painting is
> >"on a higher level in the realm of colour"?
>This would be a testimony to ones response to the use of color by the
>artist.
Again, this is a subjective matter. If an individual states that he finds
Rothko's work more expressive, you have no objective criterion that
you can refer to as a basis for disagreeing.
>>>that attempts, such as mdeli's, to evaluate paintings
>>> from different periods according to a criterion such as "skill" ( or
indeed
>>> criteria such as yours above) are misguided.
>>I would say they are incomplete but not misguided. I do consider an
>>artists skill, and colors, and especially the emotional content(although
>>I do buy that you and many other don't get this) in relationship to
>the work. I also maintain that these criteria are verbal, and are
>only better adjectives to describ what are more or less Universal
>responses to art than other adjectives.
Works of art , in my view, do not express emotion at all. Which is not to
say that they may not elicit an emotional response from the viewer ot
listener. I also questio whether there are in fact "Universal responses"
to art.
> >In response to the painting by numbers.
> '>Painting by Numbers' will not produce a real carravaggio
> >because of the blending and glazing involved.
> >This wasn't the claim that I was making.
>Of course you weren't.
My claim, to reiterate, was that one could produce a painting that
was a *rough imitation* of a Caravaggio by using a painting
by numbers technique. The purpose of this example was to
demonstrate that the concept of *imitation* being used by mdeli
and others was inadequate, or ill-defined.
Jim Humphreys
br...@wralaw.com
"Jim Humphreys" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> My comment was directed at your making a *comparison* between
> two different painters, from quite different periods in the history of
> painting,
The Comparison is according to Modern criteria only...And is not a
competition.
> as regards their "expressiveness" [ you are, for example, alleging that
> Caravaggio is "more expressive" than a Rothko].
Yes. However that isn't point I am making. Carravaggios work holds up
to Modern criteria, Modern esthetic, Modern prejudice, despite his
technical merits.
> This I maintain is merely
> a matter of subjective preference.
You called the criteria meaningless not subjective. I pointed out that
these are the normal criteria of art. Art can not be divorced from the
subject or viewer.
I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by calling it 'merely a
matter of subjective preference'. Except to diminish the subjective
response with the word 'merely.' Now having discovered that artistic
criteria are directly related to the subjector viewer, and the subject
-creator, we can dismiss them entirely when they are not in our favor.
I thought I made this easy. Your responses are -can I take what you
said and find some premise that I can run away and hide with. The
questions are thought experiments, what do I think of C's art
negligent of its outstanding technique?(you can certainly run away
with this)...
>It is also debateable, too, whether
> works
> of art actually express emotion.
Emotional expression is cited by artists as a main reason to
do art. () Vis communication expresses many of the same things
words do. Emotion can be debated and emotion will win.
Apparently the questions at hand are not debatable without an
appeal to ambiguity.
> My claim, to reiterate, was that one could produce a painting that
> was a *rough imitation*
> of a Caravaggio by using a painting
> by numbers technique.
> The purpose of this example was to
> demonstrate that the concept of *imitation* being used by mdeli
> and others was inadequate, or ill-defined.
I am not MDeli, none of the artists Mentioned in this thread painted
by numbers. Rothko painted with the square bristle brush, applying
pure colors till he abruptly stopped 'when it felt right.' Pollack
used a stick and buckets of pure colors, walking over and on the
canvas, and stretching the canvas after the painting(for some) is
finished. Carravagio used several brushes and layers of paint(where
needed). Carravaggio used both pure colors and specially mixed colors.
Carravaggio used drawing and underpainting, The overpainting
is more like 'painting' by numbers than R or P but we have to
understand that Carravaggio produced the borders. Not the same as a
Factory producing them for a home painting kit.
In your paint-by-numbers Carravaggio fantasy, who is going to draw
the image and decide what pigments go where and premix the colors?
You chose 'paint by numbers' as a prejudicial example since most
come already made, (not to mention the association with real Kitsch),
and take little skill to produce. However the bulk of the work in
you Carravaggio fantasy is not done. Someone has to make the drawing.
Mix the 20 or so fleshtones, ship the giant Canvas, and ignor the
blending and overpainting etc.
A Pollack paint by numbers would drive a person insane since he would
have to hand paint 20,000 or so individual drips with three colors.
A Rothko paint by Numbers concievable. Definitely the easiest.
(On precision)
Atom by Atom, 'precise' copies of any of these artist work can not be
accomplished by any known physical process. Since the atom-by-atom
end results are less likely to occure than a Monkey typing the works
of Shakespear. Since Carravagios work uses more colors than those
by Pollack or Rothko, and more layers of paint(+glazes) according to
the thermodynamics of these processes Carravaggios is more difficult
by about another exponential order. Things that make his work appear
more ordered actually increase the entropy, for instance brushing out
fields of color in the backgrounds, disperses the paint, and makes it
more dissordered.
A more simple approximation is what work did the artists do, on their
canvasas. Certainly none of them could make a 'precise' copy of their
own work. Nor do they(case in point Da Vinci's Madonna of the Rocks).
jha...@om.com.au
"Jim Humphreys" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> My claim, to reiterate, was that one could produce a painting that
> was a *rough imitation* of a Caravaggio by using a painting
> by numbers technique. The purpose of this example was to
> demonstrate that the concept of *imitation* being used by mdeli
> and others was inadequate, or ill-defined.
>
alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
John Hagan
Jim Humphreys
Bryn Ayer's writes:
>> [jh]as regards their "expressiveness" [ you are, for example, alleging
that
>> Caravaggio is "more expressive" than a Rothko].
>Yes. However that isn't point I am making. Carravaggios work holds up
>to Modern criteria, Modern esthetic, Modern prejudice, despite his
>technical merits.
I don't agree that there is some single set of "modern criteria" for us to
evaluate art with. There have been many quite diverse approaches to art
criticism during the twentieth century. I am not, BTW, trying to
underestimate
Caravaggio's work which I am particularly familiar with from time spent
living
in Italy. Rather I am seeking to criticize the reactionary dismissal of
abstract
expressionism.
<snip>
>I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by calling it 'merely a
>matter of subjective preference'. Except to diminish the subjective
>response with the word 'merely.' Now having discovered that artistic
>criteria are directly related to the subjector viewer, and the subject
>-creator, we can dismiss them entirely when they are not in our favor.
You are missing the point entirely here. If there are only subjective
criteria
such as "expressiveness" for evaluating paintings, then there is no basis
for claiming that Caravaggio's work is superior to Rothko's - this is what
mdeli is arguing (I presume that that is your position too).
<snip>
>>It is also debateable, too, whether
>> works of art actually express emotion.
>Emotional expression is cited by artists as a main reason to
>do art.
The fact that artists *cite* emotional expression as a reason to do
art, does not establish that their work in some way "contains emotional
expression". This is a much debated topic in aesthetics. For myself,
I do not see how a work of art can express emotion - it can however
elicit an emotional response in the viewer or listener.
>Vis communication expresses many of the same things
>words do. Emotion can be debated and emotion will win.
You must answer then how we can tell what emotion a particular
painting expresses. Lets take as an example Boticelli's La Primavera.
What emotion(s) does that express? How would we know?
<snip>
You have obviously misunderstood the purpose of my example. I am
claiming that some hypothetical painting constructed using a Painting
by Numbers technique, could qualify as a rough imitation This was to
argue against the view put forward by mdeli that it was difficult to make
a painting which imitated Caravaggio - it is *not* I maintain. Of course
I do not wish to suggest that a painting constructed in this way ought to be
valued as much as an original Caravaggio ( or, indeed, as a Rothko).
<snip>
>(On precision)
>Atom by Atom, 'precise' copies of any of these artist work can not be
>accomplished by any known physical process. Since the atom-by-atom
>end results are less likely to occure than a Monkey typing the works
>of Shakespear. Since Carravagios work uses more colors than those
>by Pollack or Rothko, and more layers of paint(+glazes) according to
>the thermodynamics of these processes Carravaggios is more difficult
>by about another exponential order. Things that make his work appear
>more ordered actually increase the entropy, for instance brushing out
>fields of color in the backgrounds, disperses the paint, and makes it
>more dissordered.
Do you wish to argue then that the more colours a work has, or the more
intricate it is, the greater its artistic merit?
Jim Humphreys
Jim Humphreys
>> My claim, to reiterate, was that one could produce a painting that
>> was a *rough imitation* of a Caravaggio by using a painting
>> by numbers technique. The purpose of this example was to
>> demonstrate that the concept of *imitation* being used by mdeli
>> and others was inadequate, or ill-defined.
>>
>the use of numbers, the
>alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
The comparison does not work -Einstein's formula as written on a piece
of paper does not possess any particular aesthetic merit ( which is not to
say that the mathematics underlying it do not have certain aesthetic
qualities).
>Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
>surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
I dispute this claim. Rothko's work is distinctive. Monkeys with paint etc
would
be most unlikely to produce anything like his work "in a short time"- even
a very long time.
Jim Humphreys
G*rd*n
| >surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
"Jim Humphreys" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk>:
| I dispute this claim. Rothko's work is distinctive. Monkeys with paint etc
| would
| be most unlikely to produce anything like his work "in a short time"- even
| a very long time.
I wonder from the above if the critic has ever actually
looked at any of Rothko's work.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
Marilyn
A Monkey can do this?
"Rothko used magna colors diluted with turpentine, thinning
his paint almost to a stain. He left just enough opacity to
cover the simple shapes with a consistent color, a frontal
film that radiates like an atomspheric glow. These thin coats
of paint create a silent aura of light,
an expanding atmosphere. The paint's texture cannot be seen;
all we see is the weave of the canvas. In other words, the paint
& the canvas are one."
Joseph Albers "Colour THeory & Painting"
M.
Chris Pelletier
same thing, though I suspect the monkey would display infinitely more
talent......
later,
chris
Frederic Goudal
> On 15 Jan 1999 08:51:34 +0100, Frederic Goudal <goudal
>
> >THere is two kind of people :
> >- the one that have enough talent so they can stand by themselves,
> >- the one that need to destroy the others to proove they exists.
> >
> Anyone who only believes in these to kinds of people has got to be a
> nut case.
More clearly for you : you belongs to the second categorie.
You are someone who say "NO !!" and I prefer people with an open mind. People who say "Yes".
f.g
Frederic Goudal
> In article <77sn9e$krq$1...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>,
> "Jim Humphreys" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > My claim, to reiterate, was that one could produce a painting that
> > was a *rough imitation* of a Caravaggio by using a painting
> > by numbers technique. The purpose of this example was to
> > demonstrate that the concept of *imitation* being used by mdeli
> > and others was inadequate, or ill-defined.
> >
> One could also produce a 'rough imitation' of E=MC2 by the use of numbers, the
> alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
> Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
> surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
Sure, you don't understand nothing to
1 - painting
2 - statistics.
f.g.
mdeli
>>Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
>>surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
>
>I dispute this claim. Rothko's work is distinctive. Monkeys with paint etc
>would be most unlikely to produce anything like his work "in a short time"- even
>a very long time.
I totally agree.
However Rothko never painted as distinctively as a monkey. (any given
his chance as an artist). We must also remember that most monkeys are
far better than Rothko. They just never get to wine and dine critics
and express their opinions in Artforum.
--
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
br...@wralaw.com
"Jim Humphreys" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> My claim, to reiterate, was that one could produce a painting that
> >> was a *rough imitation* of a Caravaggio by using a painting
> >> by numbers technique. The purpose of this example was to
> >> demonstrate that the concept of *imitation* being used by mdeli
> >> and others was inadequate, or ill-defined.
> >>
> >the use of numbers, the
> >alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
You have beautiful eyes...
>
> The comparison does not work -Einstein's formula as written on a piece
> of paper does not possess any particular aesthetic merit ( which is not to
> say that the mathematics underlying it do not have certain aesthetic
> qualities).
>
elegant and stunning come to mind...
> >Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
> >surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
>
> I dispute this claim. Rothko's work is distinctive. Monkeys with paint etc
> would
> be most unlikely to produce anything like his work "in a short time"- even
> a very long time.
>
> Jim Humphreys
And we are getting closer to Hammering out the collective works of
Shakespeare...
>
Bryn Ayers
Frederic Goudal
What a brillant critic !! What strong arguments, what intelligence.
f.g.
P.S. I understand why you prefer the monkey... near same intellectual level as yours..
The...@pi-international.com
Thank you to those of you who answered my letter the other day, but nobody
answered my questions concerning how long does it take an oil painting to dry.
A few people told me to forget about using Ross's method, as it really wasn't
art. To those I ask, What is art? Isn't it just a form of expression?
While I realize that the Bob Ross method may not be the best way to learn, I do
feel it is a great way for someone who is all thumbs, or someone who is short
on funds to start painting.
I have finished my 3rd painting. I am learning as I go along, with each
painting getting better as I learn better control of the tools. The one thing
that Bob Ross does not cover is the basic questions like, How long does it take
to dry? What do you do, if you want to make a change after the painting drys...
A few of you said to take lessons...That is not an option, due to fact of my
finances.
If this is not the correct forum for asking these questions, I will go
elsewhere, but I thought as a "Fine Arts" group...it would be the logical place
to ask.
Please reply thru the news group since I am using someone elses computer.
Thanks again in advance
Mike Maier
Scott Burkett
Hi there, Mike.
First some quick answers to your questions:
Generally speaking, oil painting will dry to the touch within a week or two. The
actual drying time will depend upon the type of pigments used, as some colors tend
to dry quicker than others. Once it is dry to the touch, you can still work on the
painting, applying fresh paint over already layers that are already dry. Just
remember to stick to the fat-over-lean rule, where you always apply thicker layers
on top of thinner layers - unless you want your painting to "crack" down the road.
Generally speaking, once you have finished a painting, it will take around 6 months
(give or take a few, again, depending upon the pigments used) for the oil paint to
"cure". Then, you can varnish and frame.
Ok, hope that helped :-)
On to Bob Ross. There are a few schools of thought on Bob Ross. Simplified for
discussion, one, is that he was a brilliant artist, the other is that he was merely
a craftsman who delivered a teachable method. There are those that think he stole
technique from Bill Alexander, others that he was a disciple of art.
Frankly, it really doesn't matter what school of thought you, or anyone else
subscribes to. If Bob Ross introduced you into the world of painting, great! The
world of Art (and your well-being) will be greatly served. If he has allowed you
to discover a wonderful new world, great! Don't let anyone ever take that away
from you. Yes, his art can be repetetive, but then again, in my opinion, so does
Picasso's. Yes, his techniques are fairly easy, but then again, every artist has
techniques, quite a lot of them teachable. Yes, his art may look cheesy to an
experienced art aficianado, but then again, quite a lot of what I see in galleries
today could be bested by my 10 year old nephew. One man's junk is another man's
art - and vice versa.
When I first started out, I have to admit, I learned and used his methods. They
brought me an equal amount of frustration and satisfaction. However, I quickly
found the act of painting to be much more enjoyable (personally) as I developed my
own style and techniques. While I don't act as a promoter for Bob Ross, I
certainly won't ignore the fact that he had a large part in introducing me to a
whole new side of myself.
My advice to you is to ignore folks who take hard stances either way on Bob Ross
and his methods. Try it out for a while - get used to the tools, the paints, etc.
Then, when you feel comfortable, branch out on your own. Run down to your local
bookstore and snag a couple of books by Margaret Kessler or William Palluth. Grab
the "Big Book of Painting Nature in Oil", or "Painting Better Landscapes". The
more artists, styles and techniques that you are exposed to, the better!
Experiment, enjoy, and don't be discouraged.
Regards.
Scott Burkett
sco...@wetcanvas.com
http://www.wetcanvas.com
br...@wralaw.com
"Jim Humphreys" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Bryn Ayer's writes:
> I don't agree that there is some single set of "modern criteria" for us to
> evaluate art with.
Nor do I... I also do not believe that it is wise to evaluate art
as much as it has been done.
>There have been many quite diverse approaches to art
> criticism during the twentieth century.
Most criticism is testimony to ones own experience of art. Put a
person on peyote' in front of strange rocks or in front of a Pollack.
Give them a pen and they will write more or less the same thing.
>I am not, BTW, trying to
> underestimate
> Caravaggio's work which I am particularly familiar with from time spent
> living
> in Italy.
That must have been exciting. I loved Italy particularly Rome.
>Rather I am seeking to criticize the reactionary dismissal of
> abstract
> expressionism.
I can not save Abstract Expressionism. It has already been dismissed
by its supporters as a passe form of antiquated modern art.
> <snip>
> >I don't know what you are trying to accomplish by calling it 'merely a
> >matter of subjective preference'. Except to diminish the subjective
> >response with the word 'merely.'
(snip )
>If there are only subjective
> criteria
now the word 'only' replaces 'merely'
> such as "expressiveness" for evaluating paintings, then there is no basis
> for claiming that Caravaggio's work is superior to Rothko's
Subjective criteria estabolish a subjective basis. Remove subjecitivity
and we are more or less only left with rote technique.
> >>It is also debateable, too, whether
> >> works of art actually express emotion.
> >Emotional expression is cited by artists as a main reason to
> >do art.
> The fact that artists *cite* emotional expression as a reason to do
> art, does not establish that their work in some way "contains emotional
> expression".
No but it goes directly to 'intent' as the words of Motherwell, and
Picasso suggest.
> This is a much debated topic in aesthetics. For myself,
> I do not see how a work of art can express emotion - it can however
> elicit an emotional response in the viewer or listener.
Art expresses emotion by eliciting an emotional response! You said
it best I think.
> >Vis communication expresses many of the same things
> >words do. Emotion can be debated and emotion will win.
> You must answer then how we can tell what emotion a particular
> painting expresses.
The best way to tell is by ones own response. Subtract from this
the imperfections (or entropic problems) of perception.
> Lets take as an example Boticelli's La Primavera.
> What emotion(s) does that express? How would we know?
I don't have a good response to this.
> >In your paint-by-numbers Carravaggio fantasy, who is going to draw
> >the image and decide what pigments go where and premix the colors?
> >You chose 'paint by numbers' as a prejudicial example since most
> >come already made, (not to mention the association with real Kitsch),
> >and take little skill to produce. However the bulk of the work in
> >you Carravaggio fantasy is not done. Someone has to make the drawing.
> >Mix the 20 or so fleshtones, ship the giant Canvas, and ignor the
> >blending and overpainting etc.
> You have obviously misunderstood the purpose of my example. I am
> claiming that some hypothetical painting constructed using a Painting
> by Numbers technique, could qualify as a rough imitation
'Rough' is an adjective of Ambiguity. You can not make this case
without an appeal to ambiguity nor is your appeal to ambiguity
very intense. It is only assertion ad-nasium.
The difficulty in actual production is what is relevant not in the
two extremities of 'rough'-meaning anything anyone does as extremely
weak immitation of the actual art, and 'precise' -meaning so difficult
that no artist or physical process can ever produce it realistically.
>This was to
> argue against the view put forward by mdeli that it was difficult to make
> a painting which imitated Caravaggio - it is *not* I maintain.
I certainly do not want to help maintian this fallacy.
>Of course
> I do not wish to suggest that a painting constructed in this way ought to be
> valued as much as an original Caravaggio ( or, indeed, as a Rothko).
Market Value of their signatures is worth more.
> <snip>
> >(On precision)
> >Atom by Atom, 'precise' copies of any of these artist work can not be
> >accomplished by any known physical process. Since the atom-by-atom
> >end results are less likely to occure than a Monkey typing the works
> >of Shakespear. Since Carravagios work uses more colors than those
> >by Pollack or Rothko, and more layers of paint(+glazes) according to
> >the thermodynamics of these processes Carravaggios is more difficult
> >by about another exponential order. Things that make his work appear
> >more ordered actually increase the entropy, for instance brushing out
> >fields of color in the backgrounds, disperses the paint, and makes it
> >more dissordered.
> Do you wish to argue then that the more colours a work has, or the more
> intricate it is, the greater its artistic merit?
No...
jha...@om.com.au
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n) wrote:
> | >Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
> | >surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
>
> | I dispute this claim. Rothko's work is distinctive. Monkeys with paint etc
> | would
> | be most unlikely to produce anything like his work "in a short time"- even
> | a very long time.
>
> looked at any of Rothko's work.
>
John Hagan.
> --
> }"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
> { http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Chris Pelletier
when I read about Rothko's work and hear him say things like "I adhere
to the material reality of the world and the substance of things
engendered by God" (1949) and then consider paintings like "Golden
composition" and "Maroon on blue", I cant help but see him contradict
himself, unless of course he is talking about some other material
reality than the one I know. In that case an explanation of hs paintings
would require alot of claptrap, eliteist art babble. Also, where is the
painterly skill in a piece like "Maroon on blue".
Here's a bit on Rothko by critic Dan Wheeler (I believe it is wheeler
though not 100% positive)......"Consequently, the singleness of image,
with its built in paradox, tends to yield a strange and tantalizing
complexity when contemplated at length, in an intimite space, and under
a soft subdued light." What the hell is he talking about? Is there now a
recipie for enjoying art? If I dont follow these guidelines will I never
"get it"?
The old masters required nothing to qualify heir work. They were as
masterful in skill as they were concept. It was work that could be
enjoyed and revered on all levels without eliteist art squabble to
justify it. Rothko had none of the above and his work could eventually
be done by a monkey......
later,
chris
mdeli
>A Monkey can do this?
>
>"Rothko used magna colors diluted with turpentine, thinning
>his paint almost to a stain.
How unbelievably clever.
> He left just enough opacity to
>cover the simple shapes with a consistent color, a frontal
>film that radiates like an atomspheric glow. These thin coats
>of paint create a silent aura of light, an expanding atmosphere.
Nice artspeak.
Its the sort that impressed thousand of art students who are to dull
to think for themselves.
>The paint's texture cannot be seen;
WOW that sure is original.
>all we see is the weave of the canvas. In other words, the paint
>& the canvas are one."
The fronts of his paintings are about as interesting as the backs of
the canvas. Its just that you are never are allowed to see the other
side.
>
>Joseph Albers
The man who's influence ruined more students than anyone else. Now
that's hard to achieve.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
The...@pi-international.com wrote:
> Hi Group,
>
> Thank you to those of you who answered my letter the other day, but nobody
> answered my questions concerning how long does it take an oil painting to dry.
> A few people told me to forget about using Ross's method, as it really wasn't
> art. To those I ask, What is art? Isn't it just a form of expression?
> While I realize that the Bob Ross method may not be the best way to learn, I do
> feel it is a great way for someone who is all thumbs, or someone who is short
> on funds to start painting.
> I have finished my 3rd painting. I am learning as I go along, with each
> painting getting better as I learn better control of the tools. The one thing
> that Bob Ross does not cover is the basic questions like, How long does it take
> to dry? What do you do, if you want to make a change after the painting drys...
> A few of you said to take lessons...That is not an option, due to fact of my
> finances.
> If this is not the correct forum for asking these questions, I will go
> elsewhere, but I thought as a "Fine Arts" group...it would be the logical place
> to ask.
> Please reply thru the news group since I am using someone elses computer.
>
> Thanks again in advance
> Mike Maier
>
I was just cruising around and ran across your post.
Different colors dry at different rates. Most will dry to the touch in a few
days, depending of ambient temperature and relative humidity. There are also
drying agents you can purchase at an art supply store. There are a couple of
colors like Alizarin Chrimson that takes weeks to dry, but often manufacturers
add dryers to these on some of their product lines. The best thing to do is
just keep fooling around with the paint, and eventually you'll be able to tame
it. Getting some books on paints and grounds doesn't hurt either.
But the linseed oil actually takes about 200 years to dry. I'm not joking.
On the practical side, it is dry in a few weeks, but your painting will go
through some changes for the next two centuries. If you've ever seen an
original Rembrandt in a museum, up close, you can see a wonderful
transparency in the paint, like you are looking through several layers of
glass. When they were originally painted, they were no so transparent. But
during the 200 year drying cycle of linseed oil, it actually collects pigment
particles into lumps (you can't see the lumps with the naked eye) and the
whole thing becomes more transparent.
Bob Ross is as good a jumping off place into oil painting as any, as far as I
am concerned. I got a kick out of watching him on TV. He was really
entertaining. In the long run you'll start trying things out for yourself
anyway. Good luck.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
But aren't you characterizing what you don't understand as 'claptrap' and
'babble' and 'art squabble' simply on the basis that you don't understand
what's being said? I would assume so, since you do not attempt to address
the merits or lack of merits of the statements. This sort of 'labeling' only
communicates the idea that you are uninterested or even hostile to art theory
and criticism.
Whoever you think the 'old masters' are, you are exactly wrong about your
assumptions. As a matter of historical fact, whether you are talking about
the Italian Rennaissance artists, Ancient Greek artists, or whoever the 'old
masters' might be, these artists regularly engaged in 'elitist art squabble'
(although the discourse had a more delicate term) and often were required to
justify their work. Just taking the Italian Renaissance as example, the rank
and file Florentine citizen had little access to Titian, Botticelli, or
Bounorotti's works or art, nor were the citizens overly enthusiastic about
it. It is estimated that the attrition rate of art of this period was around
95%, and the 'taste' of Florentines leaned heavily to what we would call
kitsch today, nearly all of which perished. And why did the 'old masters'
work survive? Because the patrons, that elitist bunch of scaliwags like
Lorenzo d' Medici, had the financial resources to preserve it, as did their
descendents. It's a wonderful irony, I think. The 'old masters,' which we
have been indroctrinated to see as the 'standard' by which 'art' is measured,
became 'old masters' because they catered to the social elite. You know,
when the 'circle of the Medici,' which was somewhat like the more modern
cigar smoke filled gentlemen's club, sat around and drank wine and nibbled on
pickled peacock's tongue and discussed the recently rediscoverd Greek
classical civilization, they also invented the idea of art as investment
collateral.
One very nice thing about the development of art today is the creation of a
middle class art market. I'm not being sarcastic about this. It means that
thousands of artist can earn a living making art without ever having to
understand what Art with a capital "A" is all about. In many ways the middle
class art market is more direct in terms ot the relationship between the
artist, work of art, and the consumer, and the 'qualities' of the work of art
in this market are very unambiguous. People tend to enjoy the things they
are familiar with, and an artist who an produce familiar art forms with a
modicrum of skill can do very well.
I think where things begin to fall apart is when the dynamics of the middle
class art market are confused with the dynamics of the Art with a capital "A"
market. They are very disimiliar. You don't have art theorists and critics,
for example, reviewing art exhibits in shopping mall galleries. These people
haunt places where a lot of money is exchanged. And that's what its all
about, money. When Jasper Johns sold a painting for eight million dollars a
few years back, he was asked if it validated his art (since he became the
highest paid livning painter in the world with that sale) and he said no, it
had nothing to do with his position as an artist. It was business, in Johns'
view. So when, in a discussion such as this thread, you begin to measure one
market economy by the criteria of another, confusion sets in.
Wherever you have a lot of people around with a lot of money you also have a
lot of elitism, a lot of pretention, well, we all know the scene from the
movies. But associated with this is a huge cultural industry, which includes
scholars who practice a precise terminology about discussing Art. That may
be of interest, or it may not be of interest, to any of us. What you will be
sure of, however, is that they will not be discussing works of art that are
valued by people who are really pushing it to spend five grand on a painting,
simply because they really love the painting. It just doesn't work that way.
Art theory and criticism addresses 'culture' with 'Art' as its mechanism.
You can't just jump in and join the discourse unless you commit yourself to
learn its language. If one doesn't want to learn this language, why complain
about others who do? No one is forced to read elitist art squabble.
Erik Mattila (obviously an elitist)
Frederic Goudal
> In article <20904-36A...@newsd-251.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
> chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
> > Okay okay....so I didnt have time to get into it in my last post. But
> > when I read about Rothko's work and hear him say things like "I adhere
> > to the material reality of the world and the substance of things
> > engendered by God" (1949) and then consider paintings like "Golden
> > composition" and "Maroon on blue", I cant help but see him contradict
> > himself, unless of course he is talking about some other material
> > reality than the one I know. In that case an explanation of hs paintings
> > would require alot of claptrap, eliteist art babble. Also, where is the
> > painterly skill in a piece like "Maroon on blue".
> But aren't you characterizing what you don't understand as 'claptrap' and
> 'babble' and 'art squabble' simply on the basis that you don't understand
> what's being said? I would assume so, since you do not attempt to address
> the merits or lack of merits of the statements. This sort of 'labeling' only
> communicates the idea that you are uninterested or even hostile to art theory
> and criticism.
>
> Whoever you think the 'old masters' are, you are exactly wrong about your
> assumptions. As a matter of historical fact, whether you are talking about
> the Italian Rennaissance artists, Ancient Greek artists, or whoever the 'old
> masters' might be, these artists regularly engaged in 'elitist art squabble'
> (although the discourse had a more delicate term) and often were required to
> justify their work. Just taking the Italian Renaissance as example, the rank
> and file Florentine citizen had little access to Titian, Botticelli, or
> Bounorotti's works or art, nor were the citizens overly enthusiastic about
> it.
It should be easy to demonstrate that be seen the éducation level of
the time (Botticelli one), the proportion of the population who could
understand all the mythological or biblical quote in the painting should be
very small.
f.g.
Chris Pelletier
thinking about the Renaissance) "never" engaged in justification of
their work. I said they did'nt require it for their work to be enjoyed
on all levels. An average Florentine citizen who saw "David" could enjoy
it immensely and not know a single thing about the concept of man as a
cool dtermined master of his own destiny in the face of Goliath. In
short, it stands on it's own mastery of skill. The concept is as
masterful as the skill and makes it that much more a simply stunning
piece.
In art history classes I have truly tried to understand painters like
Rothko, and simply could not see the correlation betwee his statements
and work. I distinctly recall alot of talk and concept debate about the
piece "The omen of the Eagle"(1942). I his own words Rothko says "The
theme here is derived from the Agememnon Trilogyof Aeschylus. The
picture deals not with the particular anecdote, but rather the Spirit of
myth which is generic to all myths at all times." Here he was trying to
evoke a spirit of myth in distinctly "modern terms". A pictoral tragedy
using only abstract forms.I understand the concept but the painting
falls very short of it. If someome didnt tell me that greek tragedy
masks and "Promethian transcendance" were represented here, I would
never have guessed it. Perhaps it is my own short-coming but I cant look
down on myself for simply not seeing anything correlating between
concept and piece, aside from the use of abstract frms.......
later,
chris
John Haber
to the material reality of the world and the substance of things
engendered by God" (1949) and then consider paintings like "Golden
composition" and "Maroon on blue", I cant help but see him contradict
himself, unless of course he is talking about some other material
reality than the one I know.<<
He means that nothing in realistic painting exists in the world, only
in our conventional imaginings of it, whereas the materiality of
paint, color, canvas, its relation to its surroundings, and the
experiences these bring are very real indeed.
I would never knock the old masters (and don't believe he did), so
don't take it that way either. He just works in a world after Cubism
made the substance of vision tumble forward into one's arms, instead
of recede from someone standing with one eye (and most of one's mind
closed), and after Surrealism made the mind as material a part of
reality as a distant mountain. If art can no longer plausibly decide
for each viewer whether to be the artist's mirror or window, paint can
attain the familiarity and otherness of a person one touched
intimately.
John (www.haberarts.com, with a review on Rothko up there)
br...@wralaw.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <20904-36A...@newsd-251.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
> > In that case an explanation of hs paintings
> > would require alot of claptrap, eliteist art babble.
> But aren't you characterizing what you don't understand as 'claptrap' and
> 'babble' and 'art squabble' simply on the basis that you don't understand
> what's being said?
I don't think the poster was saying that. Your response is a classic
strawman.
>making art without ever having to
> understand what Art with a capital "A" is all about.
Many who speak Art with a capital A have no Idea what Art with a
capital A is about. It only takes asking the question 'what is
POst-MOdernism' to generate a 3000 word essay saying 'I'm not
really sure but it comes after Modern.' If we add to that the
fact that the critic of the now Antiquated and Passe' Modern Art
(the real meaning of POMO) does not know a lot about artistic
technique. You have the recipe for 'art squabble' -something I
have a gift for!
> In many ways the middle
> class art market is more direct in terms ot the relationship between the
> artist, work of art, and the consumer, and the 'qualities' of the work of art
> in this market are very unambiguous. People tend to enjoy the things they
> are familiar with,
Like television. -the drug...
> Erik Mattila (obviously an elitist)
You hope.....
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
br...@wralaw.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> emat...@tomatoweb.com writes:
> It should be easy to demonstrate that be seen the éducation level of
> the time (Botticelli one), the proportion of the population who could
> understand all the mythological or biblical quote in the painting should be
> very small.
When I was in Rome a Priest showed me that many of these paintings
were done in order to show the bible stories.
Of course demonstrating that the people, in the know, of the past,
prefered art of high technique does not justify anything. The point
of these arguments is to debate if the elite have not been had.
My own point of view is not anti-elitist at all -nor is it an
argument for the status quo.
> f.g.
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
emat...@tomatoweb.com
> It should be easy to demonstrate that be seen the éducation level of
> the time (Botticelli one), the proportion of the population who could
> understand all the mythological or biblical quote in the painting should be
> very small.
>
> f.g.
I would think so. What interests me about the history of this time and place
is how it has become the paradigm we have today of Art. Roland Barthes wrote
a remarkable little bood, "Empire is Signs" which is about Japan. But not
the real Japan, rather the Japan that exists in the imagination of the modern
French. Our contempory concept of 16th Century Florence is another 'Empire
is Signs' and when one plunges into the history another picture emerges that
is quite unlike our fiction.
So I did a little study a few years back. I collected some books that were
accounts of "World Art" such as Gardner's Art Through the Ages, and did a
statistical study. I counted the pages that were devoted to the Italian
Renaissance and calculated the percentage of the whole, and averaged this
figure out with six or seven different volumns. The figure came out to be
34%, as I recall, of space devoted to the Italian Renaissance. Considering
that these tomes were addressed to the total art of the world, the percentage
demonstrates a notibly strong bias.
Comparing Rothko to Carravaggio, as this thread does, is a recapitulation of
this bias. It's not surprising, considering the fact that Italian art is the
paradigm that all art is measured by.
And why is this so? Could it have something to do with the flood of capital
that was flowing into Europe (by the boat load) at the time from the economic
exploitation of the so-called "new world?" The problem I see with the
'craftsmanship' agrument in this thread is the presence of an abundance of
non- art forms that exhibit the same meticulous craftsmanship that was
applied to painting. If you go to a museum, for example, you can look at
fire arms with the most intricate and technically perfect inlays of silver
and gold, which all attest to the fact that there was a lot of wealth around
for discretionary spending. These fire arms were created to go into the
wunderkammerns of the Nuvo Riche as ostentatous displays of wealth.
Erik Mattila
Chris Pelletier
"imagined" Japan of modern french?? The east has aways been, and still
is to a point, foreign to the west. I certainly think that the least
informed of this group would have more of a grasp of 16th century
Florence than the modern French do of an "imagined" Japan.
The Gardner text you refered to was my text in art-school for a survey
class. It was one of three texts (for three survey courses) by him
covering world art and were chronologically arranged beginning with cave
paintings and ending with "post modernism". Was your analysis covering
the three texts or the 2nd volume dealing with the Renaissance? I doubt
it was all three as 34% of one volume is a quick overview of a period as
signifigant as the Italian Renaissance.
Why is Italian art the paradigm for us today? Because concept and skill
were on a higher level than before or since. How does a "promethian
transcendance" of Rothko stnd up to Renaissance ideas? Not very well by
my standards, especially when the pieces' (ex."The Omen of the Eagle")
obscure and blotched technique dont match the bubbly and small concept
assigned to it......
later,
chris
emat...@tomatoweb.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> I don't think the poster was saying that. Your response is a classic
> strawman.
I have to confess I don't understand the term 'strawman.' I've read it a
couple of times in this ng, but I wasn't able to understand what it means.
So, if you could be so kind...
> Many who speak Art with a capital A have no Idea what Art with a
> capital A is about. It only takes asking the question 'what is
> POst-MOdernism' to generate a 3000 word essay saying 'I'm not
> really sure but it comes after Modern.' If we add to that the
> fact that the critic of the now Antiquated and Passe' Modern Art
> (the real meaning of POMO) does not know a lot about artistic
> technique. You have the recipe for 'art squabble' -something I
> have a gift for!
But the term 'post-modern' is very easy to define. It is a historical
period, just as in 'early modern' and 'late modern.' The reason social
scientists came up with the term was in response to significant social
changes that occured globally in the late 1960s. What changed, broadly
speaking, is that people stopped believing that some sort of grand ideology,
like capitalism, communisn ir techno-utopianism, was applicable to the
solution of social problems. The social scientists call this a 'crises' or
the failure of the old paradigm. Instead, the new flagship is people's belief
in dealing directly with social problems on a much more local level, rather
than through the lens of a unifying grand ideology.
It spills over to Art becuse many believe there is a relationship between
society and Art. What the social scientists expect actually has occurred.
The trademark of Post Modern art is eclecticism. So in galleries we see art
that is anal-retentive with respect to obsessive technique, as well as art
that is completely committed to anti-tecnique (such as paintings that self
destruct in a few days). "Bad Art" has become a movement, as well as
Neo-classical kitsche. It's all very wonderful, in my opinion. So I don't
know what all the mystery is about the term 'post-modern.' It's pretty
clear-cut and simple.
>
> > In many ways the middle
> > class art market is more direct in terms ot the relationship between the
> > artist, work of art, and the consumer, and the 'qualities' of the work of art
> > in this market are very unambiguous. People tend to enjoy the things they
> > are familiar with,
>
> Like television. -the drug...
Call it as you see it, Bryn. Personally, I don't have any disparaging
feelings towards the Shopping Mall gallery. I would just argue that
confusing the works of art that are there with works of art in Castelli's or
the Tate will just lead to greater confusion, since they are two entirely
different things. But, hell, I enjoy the drug television also.
Erik Mattila
-N.
chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
> I see your point, but I did'nt say that the 'old masters' (I was
> thinking about the Renaissance) "never" engaged in justification of
> their work. I said they did'nt require it for their work to be enjoyed
> on all levels. An average Florentine citizen who saw "David" could enjoy
> it immensely and not know a single thing about the concept of man as a
> cool dtermined master of his own destiny in the face of Goliath.
Rothko's work is availible to anyone interested in art in the latter part
of this century...the heavy crowding at his popular retrospective at the
Whitney Museum of Amercian Art attests to this.
If you are not able to have a genuine experience in the presence of his
work (not from a book mind you), maybe the problem lies with the operator,
not the equipment.
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
-N.
than their differences. My experience is that they have more in common
with each other than they have differences.
The greatness of each of these artists does not lie in technique.
True, technique is needed to produce each of the works, but it is the
pictorial conception that the technique is put in service of that makes
the works by these artists significant. Without their particular
contribution to pictorial development in painting, these artist's
technique would not be of interest whatsoever. Indeed, as far as technique
goes, perhaps Rothko and Pollock are more advanced in their own
generation as far as innovating in techniques, thannCarrovagio was in his
time as an innovator of technique. That is not to say Carrovaggio's
technique and paint application alone should be discounted.
But without his pictorial imagination and conception, there is nothing
special about Carravaggio's painting, nothing really that would
distinguish his painting from that of his peers, nothing at least, in the
realm of technical execution.
Pollock and Rothko have a great deal in common with Carravaggio, and other
artists in the lineage of great pictorial innovators, which is why they
exist in a similiar tradition. The pictorial innovations are not easily
come by, and they are not a matter of simply applying paint. They are
conceptual pictorial painting issues.One needs to focus on more than brush
strokes in Carrovagio to appreciate the range of his accomplishments and
why they are on the level of those in Pollock and Rothko, and likewise
Pollocks skeins of paint and Rothkos veils are the technical means by
which a pictorial effect is expressed and communicated. Pictorially, the
works of these three artists are very much alike, they all represent a
high point of pictorial power that exists in the Western painting
tradition, and they are very similiar in their analysis of art and how
they locate themselves in the tradition of western pictorialism,,during
their respective eras.
Inability to appreciate their similarities is perhaps attributable to an
inability to experience space in painting, to appreciate western pictorial
conception and excecution.
As far as obstensible subject matter, I am not too keen on looking at a
painting of Jesus; what makes Carravaggio interesting is his pictorial
power. I suppose one can say the same about drips as Jesus or veils. The
power in those paintings are from another level altogether...and these are
not works about technique...many fine contemporary technicians could not
generate the pictorial innovative imaginative power that Carrovaggio had,
nor did any technical dripper do likewise as Pollock. Of course, both
these artists can now be immitated, as well as Rothko. What makes them
stand out in history is that at the time they were active, they, and no
one else, did what they did. Afterwards, it was obvious what they had
done, but their contributions were not availible to the culture before
they arrived on the scene. They were the medium by which new pictorial
conceptions were introduced into the tradition of western painting.
Hindsight, whether in appreciation or in immitation, is still hind sight,
no matter how you cut it...or copy it.
Cheers,
-N.
chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
> Okay okay....so I didnt have time to get into it in my last post. But
> when I read about Rothko's work and hear him say things like "I adhere
> to the material reality of the world and the substance of things
> engendered by God" (1949) and then consider paintings like "Golden
> composition" and "Maroon on blue", I cant help but see him contradict
> himself, unless of course he is talking about some other material
> reality than the one I know. In that case an explanation of hs paintings
> would require alot of claptrap, eliteist art babble. Also, where is the
> painterly skill in a piece like "Maroon on blue".
> Here's a bit on Rothko by critic Dan Wheeler (I believe it is wheeler
> though not 100% positive)......"Consequently, the singleness of image,
> with its built in paradox, tends to yield a strange and tantalizing
> complexity when contemplated at length, in an intimite space, and under
> a soft subdued light." What the hell is he talking about? Is there now a
> recipie for enjoying art? If I dont follow these guidelines will I never
> "get it"?
> The old masters required nothing to qualify heir work. They were as
> masterful in skill as they were concept. It was work that could be
> enjoyed and revered on all levels without eliteist art squabble to
> justify it. Rothko had none of the above and his work could eventually
> be done by a monkey......
> later,
> chris
You might try looking at art and nudging your nose out of the books...I
sense from your posts someone who has not a great range of looking and
furthermore, an developed pictorial intelligence. Appreciating Carravaggio
is not harder than appreciating Rothko, and visa versa, they are very
similiar. If you can't appreciate the pictorialism of the one, you will
not be able to appreciate the pictorialism of the other. On the other
hand, if you are just looking for technique, and figurative technique at
that, than you needn't bother with Carravaggio...there are better
technicians of paint. If, however, you are ready to experience powerful
pictorial conception, and can identitfy and feel it when it is there,
Rothko, Pollock, and Carravaggio may have a good deal to offer you. If you
are not ready for that yet, you needn't worry...the paintings will be
around for some time to come whenever you become ready. You may wish to
read about conventions of western representation and cultural
indoctrination to understand how what appears to be an innocent, natural
interpretation and response to artwork is nothing of the sort, and how
'qualification' was a decades, centuries long slowly developing process,
not the instant natural recognition you assume it to be.
In the meantime, you appear to have more in common with the monkey, than
you do with the community of pictorially intelligent art viewers. Like
you, I do not think that animals have been proven to possess the
sophistication to be able to read complex pictorial space. Maybe at some
time you will be able to distinguish Rothko from the work of a monkey. Or
Carrovaggio from Maratta. We all have to start somewhere.
Regards to the Monkey House,
John Haber
shows the slow growth of a great deal of technique. His early
paintings are often powerful, but technically no big deal, and yet you
know how carefully he's studying a wide range of influences. At least
he's looking and learning, which (as you point out) is more than this
thread is doing to HIS and Rothko's work.
More important, he eventually developed a remarkable technique, just
as did Rothko. I have a friend, and I bought a painting of hers in a
style reminiscent of Pollock's I like a lot. But it's about different
things, so it never aspires to his techniques. Hers is all marks on a
surface in a uniform brush. But at the retrospective you see how much
it took to control such a range of different applications of paint,
the eye for intense colors amid an effect one often recalls as
monochrome, and the working of layers of paint and imagery so that the
end result is yet another surface, no longer recalling the old
technique of a figure against a ground.
The retrospective's curators focus on technique in their rooms off to
the side. They include re-creations of technique of application on
various swatches of canvas, as well as a mock-up of the shed in which
he worked. They show films of him at work, and the catalogue essay by
Pepe Karmel picks at the famous Namuth photos of him at work. It's
kind of a lie: a way of focusing on technique, so that he won't be
the larger than life formalist or expressionist, but rather something
more at home after the age of down-to-earth performance. But no
question it's a reminder of how good he was at his best. Awesome.
John (www.haberarts.com)
John Haber
accessible to an elite. He painted for it, and his Neoplatonism
points back to Plato's view of a highly hierarchical society. So I'm
not thrown by being forced to interpret his work with heavy machinery;
they're part of what he had in mind.
It's interesting to place him side-by-side with Donatello. David is
public art, and Donatello thinks of life as public, gritty, and nasty,
but with the fierce pride of a Florentine patriot. The nastiness of
life is also at least something we all can share. On the other hand,
it's not a simple contrast with Boticelli, who's also an ardent
Florentine (only associating the city with a hierarchy of meanings in
the world). So he has an appeal to sentiment, too, one that still
works now and makes him such a greeting-card artist. And his
Neoplatonic insistence on mathematics as the highest art leads him to
a refined one-point perspective that by its own ideology and
insistence is a line of sight available to all. Lots of tensions
here.
The tough question second: how did Italian art become so important to
Western art? I think I want to back off here. It started with the
Italians themselves. (Remember Michelangelo saying that Northern
Renaissance art is for women and children?) It hides incredible
cultural interchanges between north and south back then.
(Michelangelo was reacting against the awe of oil painting in his own
city, especially after van der Goes's Portinari Alterpiece reached
Florence.)
It helps that the next breakthrough, the Baroque, started in Italy
(with Caravaggio); that art centers were NOT in Italy but north, so
that one had to make a pilgrimmage south; that the church and the
reformation against it dominated so much of Europe's history; that an
academic tradition around the 18th century equated art with
"good"drawing ("realism") and thus sought Italy as a model (against
northern "color"); that Berenson was at the right place at the right
time to feed an emerging private market with his attributions of
Italian art; that the enlightenment spoke of man, meaning figure
painting as opposed to northern landscape and genre; that the
discipline of art history grew up as a way of historicizing styles
(which in turn means elevating paintings least obsessed with
"content," as no doubt genre seemed to them).
I know this question has been studied to death, so I apologize for
even attempting an off-the-cuff answer.
John (www.haberarts.com)
br...@wralaw.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <7861vj$dvi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > I don't think the poster was saying that. Your response is a classic
> > strawman.
> I have to confess I don't understand the term 'strawman.' I've read it a
> couple of times in this ng, but I wasn't able to understand what it means.
> So, if you could be so kind...
It is either responding to another position that is esier to defend
against 'a straw man.' Or building up a false argument so that you
can attack it -that argument being called a 'straw-man.'
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
Frederic Goudal
> In article <uxemoqx...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr>,
> Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
> > emat...@tomatoweb.com writes:
>
> > It should be easy to demonstrate that be seen the éducation level of
> > the time (Botticelli one), the proportion of the population who could
> > understand all the mythological or biblical quote in the painting should be
> > very small.
>
> When I was in Rome a Priest showed me that many of these paintings
> were done in order to show the bible stories.
Sure. But if you carefully look at the painting, you can read them at
2 level. The very easy level is the story narated. But the intersting
level is the artistic one. And this one is much more difficult to
handle.
If you take the Caravagio example, I'm not sure that a painting like
the boy beaten by a lizar was correctly interpreted by the average specator.
Frederic Goudal
About the comparison bewtween carravaggio and people like rothko :
Some people here have stated that it is more difficult to copy
carravagio than rothko.
I wonder if it is not a total fantasm : they are plenty of business
that are devoted to sell copy of old masters. So I allow me to
conclude that it is not needed to be a genius to copy a master.
And I suppose that to go from a standard copy to a copy that have the
same power, there is no difference between rotlho or carravaggio : the
copist must be a master painter to put the spiritual level in the painting.
mark webber
(snip to the scolding)
>
> You might try looking at art and nudging your nose out of the books...I
> sense from your posts someone who has not a great range of looking and
> furthermore, an developed pictorial intelligence. Appreciating Carravaggio
> is not harder than appreciating Rothko, and visa versa, they are very
> similiar. If you can't appreciate the pictorialism of the one, you will
> not be able to appreciate the pictorialism of the other. On the other
> hand, if you are just looking for technique, and figurative technique at
> that, than you needn't bother with Carravaggio...there are better
> technicians of paint. If, however, you are ready to experience powerful
> pictorial conception, and can identitfy and feel it when it is there,
> Rothko, Pollock, and Carravaggio may have a good deal to offer you. If you
> are not ready for that yet, you needn't worry...the paintings will be
> around for some time to come whenever you become ready.
(snip remainder of scold)
Now, N, you are sounding like a formalist here. You don't really buy all
that post-structuralist trendiness, do you?
And when you sound like a formalist, you are good! Pummel the monkey!
Mark
-N.
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
Attribute it to my ever shifting center(s).
Was it Barthes that quipped about the shortcomings of too little formalism
in a work of art, as well as the shortcomings of too much formalism?
Formal analysis is a form of eroticism to me. Its sexy.
Chris Pelletier
devoted to sell copy of old masters. So I allow me to conclude that it
is not needed to be a genius to copy a master.
No, you dont need to be a genius, you just need a color copier.
Obviously not the same thing as creating the work in the first
place.....
And I suppose that to go from a standard copy to a copy that have the
same power, there is no difference between rotlho or carravaggio : the
copist must be a master painter to put the spiritual level in the
painting.
f.g.
Again, totally not even in the same leauge. Have you ever seen an
original Carrivagio??
If not, try to do so and then look at a copy. If you do this, my point
will illustrate itself.....
later,
chris
Chris Pelletier
emat...@tomatoweb.com
chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
> How can you compare our conception of 16th century Florence with an
> "imagined" Japan of modern french?? The east has aways been, and still
> is to a point, foreign to the west. I certainly think that the least
> informed of this group would have more of a grasp of 16th century
> Florence than the modern French do of an "imagined" Japan.
The 'comparison' is based on the fact that both are 'codes.' It's certain
that both the imagined Renaissance and Japan are quite unlike the originals.
But you need at least a basic understanding of semiology to understand what a
'code' is. While understanding how the French imagine Japan will not provide
any insight into the history of Florence, it will give you insight a culture,
such as ours, bends history and fact to suit its iterests. So I'm not
comparing Japan with Florence, but rather defining a difference between the
natural world and the mental world. As far as our 'grasp' on 16th C.
Florence being greater than the grasp of the French on Japan, it is very
doubtful. If you read "Empire of Signs," which is a very short book and
quite enjoyable (Barthes is a wonderful writer) you will have a better idea
of what I am talking about.
> The Gardner text you refered to was my text in art-school for a survey
> class. It was one of three texts (for three survey courses) by him
> covering world art and were chronologically arranged beginning with cave
> paintings and ending with "post modernism". Was your analysis covering
> the three texts or the 2nd volume dealing with the Renaissance? I doubt
> it was all three as 34% of one volume is a quick overview of a period as
> signifigant as the Italian Renaissance.
You're actually correct about this. I dug up some of this 'research' I used
in a paper, and I was confusing Gardner's w/ Janson's. Here's the breakdown
I came up with (and bear in mind that Gardner's has several editions, and I
don't remember which one I used (I recall it was a two volume set, probably
185-6, and that the 34% is an average of 5 or 6 books).
Gardner's text gives us a good example for comparison:
I. The Ancient World (273 pp. 27.2%)
II. The Middle Ages (190 pp. 19%)
III.The Non-European World (100 pp. 10%)
IV. The Renaissance, Baroque, & Rococo (265 pp. 26.5%)
V. The Modern World (173 pp. 17.3%)
Janson's History of Art is another example:
1. The Ancient World (139 pp. 32.6%)
2. The Middle Ages (44 pp. 10.3%)
3. The Renaissance (150 pp. 35.2%)
4. The Modern World (85 pp. 19.9%)
Postscript: Meeting of East & West (8 pp. 2%)
>
> Why is Italian art the paradigm for us today? Because concept and skill
> were on a higher level than before or since. How does a "promethian
> transcendance" of Rothko stnd up to Renaissance ideas? Not very well by
> my standards, especially when the pieces' (ex."The Omen of the Eagle")
> obscure and blotched technique dont match the bubbly and small concept
> assigned to it......
But there doesn't seem to be any argument that the Renaissance is the
paradigm, and that was the point I was making (although I would say it is an
'imagined' Renaissance).
Rothko is another matter entirely. By the time Rothko was painting the
entire trajectory of painting had changed radically since Carravagio. This
groups' focus on technique and representation is meaningless in that regard.
There are, however, other grounds to debunk abstract expressionism if that is
one's wish. I would recommend Edgar Wind's little book "Art and Anarchy" for
that purpose -- of getting a handle on valid grounds with which to criticize
late modern works of art. The only problem is that Wind was attacking the
entire edifice of Jungian psychology which was an important informant to AE
artists. I think this will be a problem because so many posts I have read on
this ng seem to be heavily bought into ideas of archetypes, spirituality,
mythology, collective unconscious, etc. So there's some apparent
cross-purposes here.
Erik Mattila
emat...@tomatoweb.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In article <786tj7$575$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> > In article <7861vj$dvi$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
> > > I don't think the poster was saying that. Your response is a classic
> > > strawman.
>
> > I have to confess I don't understand the term 'strawman.' I've read it a
> > couple of times in this ng, but I wasn't able to understand what it means.
> > So, if you could be so kind...
>
> It is either responding to another position that is esier to defend
> against 'a straw man.' Or building up a false argument so that you
> can attack it -that argument being called a 'straw-man.'
>
So I assume you are holding me accountable for the latter instance. How does
that work? Rather than saying something substantive about the quoted
statements by a critic, the poster just labled them as 'clap-trap' etc. My
idea was that the poster did not understand the statements, since they seemed
okay to me, even though I may have disagreed with them. How is this a 'false
argument'?
On top of that it was a question, not an argument:
"But aren't you characterizing what you don't understand as 'claptrap' and
'babble' and 'art squabble' simply on the basis that you don't understand
what's being said?
How is this false?
Erik Mattila
mdeli
wrote:
>The similarities between Rothko, Carravagio, and Pollock intrigue me more
>than their differences. My experience is that they have more in common
>with each other than they have differences.
WHich goes to show the extent of your experience.
>The greatness of each of these artists does not lie in technique.
>True, technique is needed to produce each of the works,
Rothko and Pollock, what technique?
> Indeed, as far as technique
>goes, perhaps Rothko and Pollock are more advanced in their own
>generation as far as innovating in techniques,
Indeed?
>Pollock and Rothko have a great deal in common with Carravaggio, and other
>artists in the lineage of great pictorial innovators,
Yes, they used paint and occasionally wore hats.
>which is why they
>exist in a similiar tradition.
What tradition is that? Was Carravaggio a drunkard?
>The pictorial innovations are not easily
>come by, and they are not a matter of simply applying paint. They are
>conceptual pictorial painting issues.One needs to focus on more than brush
>strokes in Carrovagio to appreciate the range of his accomplishments and
>why they are on the level of those in Pollock and Rothko, and likewise
>Pollocks skeins of paint and Rothkos veils are the technical means by
>which a pictorial effect is expressed and communicated. Pictorially, the
>works of these three artists are very much alike,
Do you have any difficulty telling them apart?
>they all represent a
>high point of pictorial power that exists in the Western painting
>tradition, and they are very similiar in their analysis of art and how
>they locate themselves in the tradition of western pictorialism,,during
>their respective eras.
Boring Artspeak.
Boring Artspeak snip
mdeli
wrote:
>. Appreciating Carravaggio
>is not harder than appreciating Rothko, and visa versa, they are very
>similiar.
I think this guy has eye problems.
He also suffers from Lawyer's constipation. He goes on and on.
> If you can't appreciate the pictorialism of the one, you will
>not be able to appreciate the pictorialism of the other. On the other
>hand, if you are just looking for technique, and figurative technique at
>that, than you needn't bother with Carravaggio...there are better
>technicians of paint. If, however, you are ready to experience powerful
>pictorial conception, and can identitfy and feel it when it is there,
>Rothko, Pollock, and Carravaggio may have a good deal to offer you. If you
>are not ready for that yet, you needn't worry...the paintings will be
>around for some time to come whenever you become ready. You may wish to
>read about conventions of western representation and cultural
>indoctrination to understand how what appears to be an innocent, natural
>interpretation and response to artwork is nothing of the sort, and how
>'qualification' was a decades, centuries long slowly developing process,
>not the instant natural recognition you assume it to be.
>In the meantime, you appear to have more in common with the monkey, than
>you do with the community of pictorially intelligent art viewers. Like
>you, I do not think that animals have been proven to possess the
>sophistication to be able to read complex pictorial space. Maybe at some
>time you will be able to distinguish Rothko from the work of a monkey. Or
>Carrovaggio from Maratta. We all have to start somewhere.
>
Your problem is how long it takes you to end.
Chris Pelletier
"comparison' is based on the fact that both are
'codes.' It's certain that both the imagined Renaissance and Japan are
quite unlike the originals. But you need at least a basic understanding
of semiology to understand what a 'code' is. While understanding how the
French imagine Japan will not provide any insight into the history of
Florence, it will give you insight a culture, such as ours, bends
history and fact to suit its iterests. So I'm not comparing Japan with
Florence, but rather defining a difference between the natural world and
the mental world. As far as our 'grasp' on 16th C. Florence being
greater than the grasp of the French on Japan, it is very doubtful. If
you read "Empire of Signs," which is a very short book and quite
enjoyable (Barthes is a wonderful writer) you will have a better idea of
what I am talking about."
What I said was how does the conception of an "imagined" japan to
the French compare with our conception of 16thcentury Florence. I knew
you werent comparing Japan with Florence, it's the parallel you make in
conceptions of the two. I think I will take a look at "empire...." .
Barthes is a fantastic writer .
you wrote:
"But there doesn't seem to be any argument that the Renaissance is the
paradigm, and that was the point I was making (although I would say it
is an 'imagined' Renaissance)."
I was responding to your question of why italian art is the
paradigmby which we measure art. Do you remember what you wrote in your
earlier post? How in the world do you arrive at an "imagined"
renaissance????? 16th century florence was well recorded enough in
histories, artwork, and literature that if we assign a term like
"imagined" to it, the statement is confusing at best.
you wrote:
There are, however, other grounds to debunk abstract expressionism if
that is one's wish. I would recommend Edgar Wind's little book "Art and
Anarchy" for that purpose -- of getting a handle on valid grounds with
which to criticize late modern works of art.
Itis not my intent to bebunk abstract expressionism (the
work itself does a fine job of that on it's own) and "valid grounds" for
criticism come from observation, study and informed commentary.,
P.S. I apoligize for my terrible "cut and paste" abilities ....i wil get
the hang of this yet !!!!
later,
chris
-N.
> There are, however, other grounds to debunk abstract expressionism if that is
> one's wish. I would recommend Edgar Wind's little book "Art and Anarchy" for
> that purpose -- of getting a handle on valid grounds with which to criticize
> late modern works of art. The only problem is that Wind was attacking the
> entire edifice of Jungian psychology which was an important informant to AE
> artists.
Hi ya Eric,
I'd like to witness some AbEx debunking, but unfortunately I don't have
the time to read your sources.
Certainly Jung was one influence among many, upon many artists of that
generation, but what if any effect would "attacking the entire edifice of
Jungian psychology" do to debunk, say, the formal qualities of the art
produced that was as well rooted in a trajectory of painting deeply
related in tradition to Carravagio?
Additionally, one can dismiss Jung's ideas entirely, and still view an
AbEx painting (my state of viewership) with significant effect. Debunking
Jung would not defuse the art. The AbEx work is still around, with or
without Jung.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
I used 'debunk' with tongue in cheek. Wind's book is pretty straightforward.
He challenged the idea of many artists that too much thinking would somehow
deny them acess to the 'precious ore of the unconscious mind - the source of
great art' and cited the 'automatic writing' project of New York art as the
example. (He was British, remember, and pissed-off that NY 'stole modern
art.'). But he goes into a very interesting area - mostly in his footnotes
-- and more or less sums up the opposition to Jung's ideas about primitive
man and the unconscious mind. He gathered in some heavyweights like
Levi-Strauss and Levi-Bruhl who thought Jung's ideas stank. But Wind's bias
was obviously to classical art. Nevertheless a wonderful essay. It's only
about 90 pages, not too much of a chore after some of the dense tomes I
suspect you have read.
Wind must have felt the foundation of AE was in Jungian psychology. His view
of the formal qualities would have been, I guess, not too different than
those who compare Rothko to a monkey. I don't share these views,
incidentally.
But expressionists must have gurus, I think. Wasn't Madame Blavatsky a
Jungian prototype, or was it an archetype?
Erik
emat...@tomatoweb.com
chri...@webtv.net (Chris Pelletier) wrote:
>
> What I said was how does the conception of an "imagined" japan to
> the French compare with our conception of 16thcentury Florence. I knew
> you werent comparing Japan with Florence, it's the parallel you make in
> conceptions of the two. I think I will take a look at "empire...." .
> Barthes is a fantastic writer.
We might be able to beleager this point and come up with a wonderful book
about Florence. The whole point of Barthes essay is to demonstrate code
building, which was his interest. What I'm saying about Florence is also
code building. So we have one framework on which we can stretch two different
hydes, and the framework will remain the same. You know, certain Florentines
believed that they were inheritors rather than appropriators of Greek
civilization -- yet the actual connection was ideological rather than genetic
or historical.
>
> you wrote:
>
> "But there doesn't seem to be any argument that the Renaissance is the
> paradigm, and that was the point I was making (although I would say it
> is an 'imagined' Renaissance)."
>
> I was responding to your question of why italian art is the
> paradigmby which we measure art. Do you remember what you wrote in your
> earlier post? How in the world do you arrive at an "imagined"
> renaissance????? 16th century florence was well recorded enough in
> histories, artwork, and literature that if we assign a term like
> "imagined" to it, the statement is confusing at best.
I think it goes back to the old General Semantics axiom "The map is not the
territory." History is very selective -- what is remembered and what is
forgotten -- and what we are left with is a shell or crust. The way we use
history is to assign values and meanings to artifacts, whether they are
manuscripts, works of art, or rusty nails. In this way the past subserves
the present. The more disciplined in cold objectivity a history becomes,
under the thumb of an academic science, the more distant it becomes from our
lives, and therefore less meaningful to us. It becomes exotic. If the idea
of the Italian Renaissance is warm and friendly, it is because we have
invested our values and logic into the past.
>
> you wrote:
>
> There are, however, other grounds to debunk abstract expressionism if
> that is one's wish. I would recommend Edgar Wind's little book "Art and
> Anarchy" for that purpose -- of getting a handle on valid grounds with
> which to criticize late modern works of art.
>
> Itis not my intent to bebunk abstract expressionism (the
> work itself does a fine job of that on it's own) and "valid grounds" for
> criticism come from observation, study and informed commentary.,
But you see, Chris, you are saying that AE fails on grounds other than your
personal preference. Once you do this, it pushes the discussion into the
terrain of art criticism -- which is full of clap-trap, art squabble and
those sorts of things. When you use these sorts of terms, I am led to
believe that you don't think well of that type of discussion. I guess I just
don't understand why you would not be satisfied with personally disliking AE
and leave it at that.
>
> P.S. I apoligize for my terrible "cut and paste" abilities ....i wil get
> the hang of this yet !!!!
> later,
> chris
>
Go to the art library and look up German Expression and read about Hannah Hoch
and her tour de force "Cut with the Kitchen Knife." It's art history for "cut
and paste."
luego, Erik
-N.
> One could also produce a 'rough imitation' of E=MC2 by the use of numbers, the
> alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
> Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
> surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
> John Hagan
Idle speculation.
You would have to do an experiment to prove this.
I would love to observe this: I'd even be willing to wager sustantial
amounts against your claims.
Here's the deal: If you can get the monkeys to produce passable copies of
a Rothko (we will together arrive at a paintng for them reproduce...a
'classic' Rothko). I will pay you a sum of money agreed upon by the both
of us if your monkys succeed. You can use trained monkeys if you
wish...instead of you having to put up a wager on your end, we will simply
add the provision that you cannot leave the test environment until your
monkeys produce the acceptably executed surfeit Rothko (regardless of how
many days, months, or years this may entail). Perhaps some sociologists or
other interested party will chip in for your support costs, food, etc.
P.S.: The other "Monkey Based Critics" on RAF can critique the work in
progress and give us updates. If I win, I would just ask for an interview
somewhere into your third year or so, and some video footage for my
personal purposes (whatever they might be).
Frederic Goudal
> On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:14:38 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
> wrote:
>
> >. Appreciating Carravaggio
> >is not harder than appreciating Rothko, and visa versa, they are very
> >similiar.
>
> I think this guy has eye problems.
Anybody that don't see the world the same way as you has a problem...
How do you pretend to discuss art with such assumption.
Art is first an apperture to the world. But you are just so closed
that I could develop my negative in the darkness of your mind...
Frederic Goudal
Please quote correctly.
>> if it is not a total fantasm : they are plenty of business that are
>> devoted to sell copy of old masters. So I allow me to conclude that it
>> is not needed to be a genius to copy a master.
>
> No, you dont need to be a genius, you just need a color copier.
> Obviously not the same thing as creating the work in the first
> place.....
>
>> And I suppose that to go from a standard copy to a copy that have the
>> same power, there is no difference between rotlho or carravaggio : the
>> copist must be a master painter to put the spiritual level in the
>> painting.
>> f.g.
>
> Again, totally not even in the same leauge. Have you ever seen an
> original Carrivagio??
I have seen several.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Frederic Goudal <gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr> wrote:
>
> About the comparison bewtween carravaggio and people like rothko :
>
> Some people here have stated that it is more difficult to copy
> carravagio than rothko.
>
> that are devoted to sell copy of old masters. So I allow me to
> conclude that it is not needed to be a genius to copy a master.
>
> same power, there is no difference between rotlho or carravaggio : the
> copist must be a master painter to put the spiritual level in the painting.
>
> f.g.
>
Let me ask you a question, Frederic. There's a french word for the
overwhelming aesthetic experince one may experience inside Chartes Cathedral,
or in a great concert performance, or in front of a painting. "Fresonne?"
It hits you powerfully, making you weep. Do you know what I'm talking about?
There is no English word for this emotional encounter that many people
experience.
Erik Mattila
G*rd*n
|> One could also produce a 'rough imitation' of E=MC2 by the use of numbers, the
|> alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
|> Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
|> surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.):
| Idle speculation.
| You would have to do an experiment to prove this.
| I would love to observe this: I'd even be willing to wager sustantial
| amounts against your claims.
| ...
It's extremely unlikely that a monkey would do the kind of
layering Rothko does. Monkeys have a different aesthetic,
as J. Hagan ought to know. But while he's possibly
familiar with monkeys, he's obviously never seen anything
by Rothko. No great loss on either side, I'm sure.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 1/10 <-adv't
John Haber
me, quoting things I didn't write. I believe it's because someone
else in the threads is named John Hagen, which is confusable with my
name.
John
br...@wralaw.com
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> In article <787jl1$ntc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > > br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> > > > I don't think the poster was saying that. Your response is a classic
> > > > strawman.
> > > I have to confess I don't understand the term 'strawman.' I've read it a
> > against 'a straw man.' Or building up a false argument so that you
> > can attack it -that argument being called a 'straw-man.'
> So I assume you are holding me accountable for the latter instance.
No the Former... You were responding, IMHO to an opinion not held
by the first poster. I did not believe that clap-trap and babble
came from what the poster thought he did not understand(though it might)
> How does
> that work? Rather than saying something substantive about the quoted
> statements by a critic, the poster just labled them as 'clap-trap' etc. My
> idea was that the poster did not understand the statements, since they seemed
> okay to me, even though I may have disagreed with them. How is this a 'false
> argument'?
A straw man in the second case must be a hypothetical argument. I
do not reject 'straw-man' arguments since they can illustrate what
a typical fallacy being made is in which case it is a 'analogical
argument'-perhaps...
> On top of that it was a question, not an argument:
> "But aren't you characterizing what you don't understand as 'claptrap' and
> 'babble' and 'art squabble' simply on the basis that you don't understand
> what's being said?
Oh I see... This might not really fit the def then. But I do see the
question as rhetorical. This whole thread is in fact based on a
Question of 'Cvs' and Rko's technique that I meant as rhetorical.
> How is this false?
In meaning a rhetorical question is false if the answere is no.
Isn't that true? But in logic questions have no +-truth (I think).
> Erik Mattila
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Marilyn
>
> In article <77u76j$ksk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jha...@om.com.au wrote:
>
> > One could also produce a 'rough imitation' of E=MC2 by the use of numbers, the
> > alphabet and a trained monkey. So what?
> > Then again, many untrained monkeys, given brush and paint, could produce a
> > surfeit of Rothko's in a very short time, but alas, very few Caravaggios.
>
> Idle speculation.
> You would have to do an experiment to prove this.
> I would love to observe this: I'd even be willing to wager sustantial
> amounts against your claims.
> a Rothko (we will together arrive at a paintng for them reproduce...a
> 'classic' Rothko). I will pay you a sum of money agreed upon by the both
> of us if your monkys succeed. You can use trained monkeys if you
> wish...instead of you having to put up a wager on your end, we will simply
> add the provision that you cannot leave the test environment until your
> monkeys produce the acceptably executed surfeit Rothko (regardless of how
> many days, months, or years this may entail). Perhaps some sociologists or
> other interested party will chip in for your support costs, food, etc.
>
> P.S.: The other "Monkey Based Critics" on RAF can critique the work in
> progress and give us updates. If I win, I would just ask for an interview
> somewhere into your third year or so, and some video footage for my
> personal purposes (whatever they might be).
>
> --
> N
> To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
It won't work.
1. The Rothko monkeys will faint from over exposure to
turpentine while attempting the Rothko.
2. The Carravaio monkeys will faint from over exposure to narrative
while attempting the Carravagio.
Besides, as soon as I find out where you intend to conduct this
experiment, I will notify the ASPCA to raid the place with a
sqat team, as you would be charged with animal cruelty &
exploitation.
....
(The monkey/Rothko debate shows less intelligence than the
smart ravens outside my studio. They're laughing.)
Marilyn
mdeli
wrote:
Please accept my apology.
This has also happened to me on occasion. Sometimes messages get mixed
up. It usually occurs when someone mixes several quotes and requotes.
mdeli
In Referring to monkeys imitating Rothko:
>
>It won't work.
>1. The Rothko monkeys will faint from over exposure to
> turpentine while attempting the Rothko.
Both Marilyn an N have it ass backwards as usual.
The question is, could Rothko imitate the work of the monkey? Perhaps
since Rothko aint around you and M might use you talents to achieve
this goal.
As to compensation for the job you'll have to consult the monkey.
>....
>(The monkey/Rothko debate shows less intelligence than the
>smart ravens outside my studio. They're laughing.)
They must be looking at your paintings
mdeli
a fine painting. This, because the painting is judged mainly in terms
of quality rather than the signature.
However with most modern academic art everything depends on the
authenticity of the signature. The actual image is of no interest
whatever. If a big Rothko schmier was found to be a fake it would
arouse about as much interest as a monkey painting and would instantly
disappear from the sacred museum wall.
The artzy fartzy blow bags here who sprout a new theory every ten
minutes and then present it with excessive verbal drivel haven't
figured this out yet.
John Haber
lifestyle, but otoh, I have to remember he almost certainly murdered
at least one person. So those dreadful swamps in Malta are only his
own fault. <grin>
And you know, monkees at the typewriter wouldn't take at all long to
create this thread. Alas, that's a question for people who do
probability and statistics, so I won't ask if they'd also reach this
understanding of modern art.
John
Kay Kane
a little sexism and renaming it: "Frankenthaler and Gentileschi the real
Question"? (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
Frankenthaler, but Carravaggio is highly overrated and pales in comparison
to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
subject matter, but, Gentileschi's excells!
Kay
zi...@interport.net
I am afraid that this is itself sexism. Caravaggio initiated the
style. It was a very radical innovation to have so much light and
shadow that art mimicked reality. It also solved a peculiar and
serious problem of the post mannerist artists: "How to make a
believable space, now that perspective was only a tool and not a
firmly held belief." So many of the artists had a terrible time
placing figures in space and standing on the ground after mannerism.
Look at Lodovico Carracci, for example, the older brother of Annibale.
So, Caravaggio, the great and radical figure who was thought to be
something of a miracle man, by his contempoararies -and he helped
create that feeling by destroying all of his drawings, so that no one
could know how he prrepared his paintings - is less of an artist than
the daughter of one of his followers. That is similar to saying that
Eakins was a greater painter than Ingres, whose student, Gerome, was
Eakins teacher.
I like Artemisia Gentileschi . I have seen many of her paintings in
the flesh. I have seen nearly all of the Caravaggios [not the new one
in Dublin]. There is no doubt in my mind that the founder of the
school was, much of the time, its greatest proponent. There are
specific paintings of hers which are his equal, just as there area few
[very few] by Ribera, and others, but it does not change the
importance and quality of his major works in the early and middle
periods of his life. There was a great dropping off later [as in the
paintings from Malta], but those were little known during his
lifetime. The large early and middle period commissions are
breathtaking, seen in the churches for which they were painted.
Gabriel
John Haber
the woman's team. It's ok to talk about Rothko and Pollock. The
alternative is to evade the whole dominance of men, the loss of years
of Krasner's career. The alternative is also to miss fresh insights,
and I think a fresh love, of their work. A lot of good feminist work
has talked about body imagery in art. You ought to read Carolyn
Bynum's book from Zone Books about female attributes of Jesus in the
late Middle Ages. I had that as my unmentioned background when I
tried to tackle Pollock in my Web upload,
John
John Haber
it out on Caravaggio. He invented the entire visual vocabulary of
Gentilleschi's age -- the return to solid earth after Mannerism, the
rebirth of shadow and color, the new use of perspective to challenge
the observer to participate in the painting's space, the psychological
complexity.
What's amazing and sadly sexist about her is that she's one of the
very few indeed who "got it," and yet she was always peripheral to
art-historical accounts of the others in the generation after the
founder.
I feel reluctant to compare those two paintings (or really several,
you know, as she re-worked the theme a good four times). For one
thing, it's not my favorite of his by any stretch; the drawing is
often harder than his usual, and the figures feel unconnected. When
he's on a roll, even she can't come close to his brush. (Just look at
the texture of the tomb lid in the entombment). But that's only
because NO ONE could.
For another, I hate to have their psyches compared. When she has the
figures relate that way, it signals something very specially hers.
She makes the center of action the center of the painting. In the
Uffizi version, the figures spiral in. It emphasizes the power of the
two women acting in consort, for the dread of their relation to the
deed and the victim, for the viewers engagement with the deed as well.
In his, the emphasis is on the horror of murder as a deed one can
execute with the cold focus we've learned about since the Holocaust.
But this is the man who was capable of showing his own horrified and
horrifying features on a beheaded villaim, David's Goliath. The
complexity of that still has me reeling.
There's been some backlash against her recently from feminists as well
as others, for having too long to be the poster girl for feminist art
history. People are denigrating whether she deserves it, whether she
questions her own visions enough in a proper semiotic fashion. They
pick especially on Garrard's book. But gosh, I treasure it.
-- John (www.haberarts.com)
Chris Pelletier
<<<While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting
rid of a little sexism and renaming it: "Frankenthaler and
Gentileschi>>>>
Why the hell does someone always have to find a way to introduce
sexism into the mix????? Awwwwwwwww......are female artists not being
discussed enough for you?? .....poor thing.
Well, that aside, ...yes, Gentelischi did do much for the movement and
is truly an artist (or does "artistette", or "artistess" suit you
better?) who deserves more credit. I'm sure you are familiar with her
tragic life with men (hence the subject matter of the Holofernes
paintings). It is a shame, given the time period, that she was'nt more
widely recognized.
later,
chris
Chris Pelletier
something of a miracle man, by his contempoararies -and he helped create
that feeling by destroying all of his drawings, so that no one could
know how he prrepared his paintings - is less of an artist than the
daughter of one of his followers.>>>>>
Michelangelo is also known to have created "that feeling" by
destroying most of his drawings for the Cistine cieling (why do you
think there are so few?). Does this make him less of an artist than
Artemesia? I think not.
Many artists were known to destroy their drawings so as to give a bit of
mystique to their work. You point out nothing either new or exclusive
about Caravaggio.
Even if your argument had an iota of validity to it, the end result is
different than the process. What does it matter that he destroyed his
drawings when we have the end results? Although I must admit, it is more
interesting when we see the process.....
later,
chris
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting rid of
> Question"? (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
> Frankenthaler, but Carravaggio is highly overrated and pales in comparison
> to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
> subject matter, but, Gentileschi's excells!
> Kay
>
better way to discuss Renaissance hedgemony than through the case of
Gentileschi.
Very late on, I believe the early seventies, there was a retropective of the
works of Gabriella Münter held in München. A review of the show referred to
her as "Kandinsky's girl friend" rather than the driving force of der Blau
Reiter that she was.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
br...@wralaw.com wrote:
> In meaning a rhetorical question is false if the answere is no.
> Isn't that true? But in logic questions have no +-truth (I think).
[[all statements inside the double bracketts are false]]
Thank you, Bertrand!
br...@wralaw.com
"Kay Kane" carelessly scribbles in the space-time continuim:
> While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting rid of
> a little sexism and renaming it: "Frankenthaler and Gentileschi"
You had your opportunity but I still see Rko' and C' del carravagio.
Bryn Ayers
"Man has measured Heaven, has studied the path of the comets, he has
discovered the traction, has invented the steam engine...and he still
is not able to grow truffles". M.Burnet (1836)
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
br...@wralaw.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting rid of
> Question"?
After criticising you for not changing the subject line I realized that
your server might not have this as an automatic and easy option.
(Though It should)... Bable away...
> (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
> Frankenthaler, but Carravaggio is highly overrated and pales in comparison
> to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
> subject matter, but, Gentileschi's excells!
Unfortunately Gentileschi is a follower of Carravaggio and also
her technique is somewhat less. However I do none the less think
that her work excells. I think the 'violence' angle in her work
does warrent the same *esthetic* comparasin to Rothko' as
Carravaggio.
Since I introduced Carravaggio as an artist who 'broke with
tradition' I would not pick Gentileschi as the 'woman' artist
but Audrey Flack (the first ""Photorealist"")...
I also don't know who Frankenthaler is...
>Kay
DFRussell
|> hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) writes:
|>
|> > On Thu, 21 Jan 1999 06:14:38 -0500, redi...@earthlink.net_xxx (-N.)
|> > wrote:
|> >
|> > >. Appreciating Carravaggio
|> > >is not harder than appreciating Rothko, and visa versa, they are very
|> > >similiar.
|> >
|> > I think this guy has eye problems.
|>
|> Anybody that don't see the world the same way as you has a problem...
:)
Whenever you make this statement, you are guilty of that which you complain.
That is, pot.... kettle...... black.
|>
|> How do you pretend to discuss art with such assumption.
Probably the same way you and most other people "discussing"
it do :)
|> Art is first an apperture to the world.
Personal opinion. You're allowed.
|> But you are just so closed
Translation: you won't change your opinion and I don't share it!
|> that I could develop my negative in the darkness of your mind...
... with a few personal insults thrown in for effect :)
--
Views expressed are personal and not necessarily shared by my employer.
John Haber
Helen Frankenthaler (b. 1928) was of the "color-field" half-generation
of abstraction that followed the Abstract Expressionists in the late
1950s. Although pouring onto unprimed canvas enters into details of
Pollock and others before her, she's credited with making whole
paintings this way before Morris Louis. We're talking big time.
Her work is large in scale, with a soft intensity of color. Compared
to a younger artist like Joan Mitchell, it's much grander, reaching to
the edges of the canvas ("all over") without getting neo-Impressionist
or anything. Certainly no "essentialist" approach to feminism,
equation women with flowers! Still, compared to Louis it's less
geometrical, less layered, and perhaps similar to the previous
generation in its big blocks of abstract imagery, like a Gorky or
Gottleib. Her titles started finding connections to landscape,
including the concepts ("mountains and sea") one associates with
flowing.
The key gallery for that generation, Emmerich, finally closed, but her
work is in most modern museums. A major monograph by John Elderfield
is a decade old, and a book by Brown and Cross, "Between Mountains and
Sea," is recent. She was the subject of a recent symposium at the
Guggenheim Bilbao. A don't-miss artist. (BTW, I love Morris Louis.)
John
br...@wralaw.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> expired...
> Question"? (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
> Frankenthaler,
It is hard to make a point using obscure artists like Frankenthaler.
And why should we be discussing Frankenthaler, if it is only your
testimony that you appreciate her less than Rothko?
> but Carravaggio is highly overrated
I suppose you mean that you are angry at him for being skilled as
well as being technically gifted...and Maybe male...
> and pales in comparison
> to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
> subject matter,
I would add that I do not believe that a work of art that is based
on another is superior to the one it is based upon if the detail
is greater or the skill is greater or if even the esthetics(or
for that matter all of the above are better).
> but, Gentileschi's excells!
Without an XX chromosone you would have no Idea who this artist
is... Care to discuss Buoneri or other obscure artists of
Carravagism?
Brian Shapiro
like they are praising art that is made by elephants ;)
mdeli <hug...@interlog.com> wrote in message
news:36a8bc78...@news.interlog.com...
Kay Kane
br...@wralaw.com wrote in message <78hoto$foa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <2KKq2.22626$MW1....@news2.giganews.com>,
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>> While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting rid
of
>> a little sexism and renaming it: "Frankenthaler and Gentileschi the real
>> Question"?
>
>After criticising you for not changing the subject line I realized that
>your server might not have this as an automatic and easy option.
>(Though It should)... Bable away...
**It's babble, and quite insulting!
>
>> (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
>> Frankenthaler, but Carravaggio is highly overrated and pales in
comparison
>> to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
>> subject matter, but, Gentileschi's excells!
>
>Unfortunately Gentileschi is a follower of Carravaggio and also
>her technique is somewhat less.
**Being a "follower" of someone doesn't make their work "inferior" or "less"
(the students of Hans Hoffman for example).
However I do none the less think
>that her work excells. I think the 'violence' angle in her work
>does warrent the same *esthetic* comparasin to Rothko' as
>Carravaggio.
**I was trying for an open dialogue on a specific painting "Judith
Decapitating Holefernes", Carravaggio's work of the same name pales in
comparison.
>
>Since I introduced Carravaggio as an artist who 'broke with
>tradition' I would not pick Gentileschi as the 'woman' artist
>but Audrey Flack (the first ""Photorealist"")...
**Indeed, Audrey Flack is the first, perhaps the best "Photorealist", but I
used Gentileschi for the style, technique, geographical location, and time
period.
>
>I also don't know who Frankenthaler is...
**If you don't know who Frankenthaler is, then it seems as though your art
history education terminated before this century and you should read up a
bit before responding further. How can you validate your replies?
**Kay>
br...@wralaw.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> br...@wralaw.com wrote in message <78hoto$foa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> >In article <2KKq2.22626$MW1....@news2.giganews.com>,
> > "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> >> While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting rid
> of
> >> a little sexism and renaming it: "Frankenthaler and Gentileschi the real
> >> Question"?
> >> (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
> >> Frankenthaler,
is THIS Rothko vs. Frankethaler... I assumed you thought the same
comparison can be derived from Rko and Cv' as Frankenthaler and
Gentileschi...
> >> but Carravaggio is highly overrated and pales in
> comparison
> >> to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
> >> subject matter, but, Gentileschi's excells!
> >
> >Unfortunately Gentileschi is a follower of Carravaggio and also
> >her technique is somewhat less.
> **Being a "follower" of someone doesn't make their work "inferior" or "less"
> (the students of Hans Hoffman for example).
In the sense of 'artistic' invention yes... It also strains a
comparison.
> However I do none the less think
> >that her work excells. I think the 'violence' angle in her work
> >does warrent the same *esthetic* comparasin to Rothko' as
> >Carravaggio.
> **I was trying for an open dialogue on a specific painting "Judith
> Decapitating Holefernes",
This issue will for most favor Carravaggio. The technique is simply
better but Gentileschi's is not bad...
> >Since I introduced Carravaggio as an artist who 'broke with
> >tradition' I would not pick Gentileschi as the 'woman' artist
> >but Audrey Flack (the first ""Photorealist"")...
> **Indeed, Audrey Flack is the first, perhaps the best "Photorealist",
Exactly!
> but I
> used Gentileschi for the style, technique, geographical location, and time
> period.
Gentileschi was not the first Carravagist.
> >I also don't know who Frankenthaler is...
> **If you don't know who Frankenthaler is, then it seems as though your art
> history education terminated before this century
Thank God Flack came before the turn of the century... By the way who is
this Picasso character?
>and you should read up a
> bit before responding further. How can you validate your replies?
> **Kay>
> >-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Kay Kane
br...@wralaw.com wrote in message <78lhhd$kar$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <w14r2.21048$bf6....@news1.giganews.com>,
> "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
> > br...@wralaw.com wrote in message <78hoto$foa$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> >In article <2KKq2.22626$MW1....@news2.giganews.com>,
>> > "Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>> >> While this topic has been very interesting reading, how about getting
rid
>> of
>> >> a little sexism and renaming it: "Frankenthaler and Gentileschi the
real
>> >> Question"?
>
>> >> (Although, to be honest, I appreciate Rothko a bit more than
>> >> Frankenthaler,
>
>is THIS Rothko vs. Frankethaler... I assumed you thought the same
>comparison can be derived from Rko and Cv' as Frankenthaler and
>Gentileschi...
>
I've been a bit hasty in declaring my preference for Rothko. Her works ARE
exquisite!
>> >> but Carravaggio is highly overrated and pales in
>> comparison
>> >> to Artemesia Gentileschi (see "Judith Decapitating Holofernes" - same
>> >> subject matter, but, Gentileschi's excells!
>> >
>> >Unfortunately Gentileschi is a follower of Carravaggio and also
>> >her technique is somewhat less.
>
>> **Being a "follower" of someone doesn't make their work "inferior" or
"less"
>> (the students of Hans Hoffman for example).
>
>In the sense of 'artistic' invention yes... It also strains a
>comparison.
**Again, look to the students of Hans Hoffman.
>> However I do none the less think
>> >that her work excells. I think the 'violence' angle in her work
>> >does warrent the same *esthetic* comparasin to Rothko' as
>> >Carravaggio.
>
>> **I was trying for an open dialogue on a specific painting "Judith
>> Decapitating Holefernes",
>
>This issue will for most favor Carravaggio. The technique is simply
>better but Gentileschi's is not bad...
** Subjective. I stand by my original preference of this work.
>> >Since I introduced Carravaggio as an artist who 'broke with
>> >tradition' I would not pick Gentileschi as the 'woman' artist
>> >but Audrey Flack (the first ""Photorealist"")...
>
>> **Indeed, Audrey Flack is the first, perhaps the best "Photorealist",
** Also, I just looked at some of Flack's writings (in a book by Cindy
Nemser (sp?) published around 1975 and Flack claims to be the first
"narrative painter".
>Exactly!
>
>> but I
>> used Gentileschi for the style, technique, geographical location, and
time
>> period.
>
>Gentileschi was not the first Carravagist.
**So?
>> >I also don't know who Frankenthaler is...
>> **If you don't know who Frankenthaler is, then it seems as though your
art
>> history education terminated before this century
>
>Thank God Flack came before the turn of the century... By the way who is
>this Picasso character?
** I guess I was unclear. I meant 20th century, not the one after Dec.
31st. You humor (Picasso) was greatly appreciated, though.
John Haber
its permanent, dominant residents to debate which wonderful artist of
this century can match which wonderful artist of that century.
Minor problem is that it's a stupid exercise, as if art were
championship wrestling and was always doing this obvious,
quantifiable, unchanged thing related to skill. But we're wasting our
time dismissing this obvious stupidity over and over and over until we
want to vomit.
But the major problem is that it's a hidden stand-in for something.
The people setting these puzzles take it as a substitute for setting
their art up against the major names of this century. Rothko and
Frankenthaler can or can't represent midnight murder in a tent, so
that just proves, presumably, how good Mani is. Spare me.
mdeli
wrote:
>Note a sign of how useless this forum is: we'll always be forced by
>its permanent, dominant residents to debate which wonderful artist of
>this century can match which wonderful artist of that century.
I suppose you don't compare things to on another. You like all
paintings equally and want to deny us our preferences.
>Minor problem is that it's a stupid exercise, as if art were
>championship wrestling and was always doing this obvious,
>quantifiable, unchanged thing related to skill. But we're wasting our
>time dismissing this obvious stupidity over and over and over until we
>want to vomit.
Why not just vomit and address other issues. You don't speak for "we."
>
>But the major problem is that it's a hidden stand-in for something.
>The people setting these puzzles take it as a substitute for setting
>their art up against the major names of this century. Rothko and
>Frankenthaler can or can't represent midnight murder in a tent, so
>that just proves, presumably, how good Mani is. Spare me.
And what is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you might translate this
sort of POMO twaddle into English.
Kay Kane
John Haber wrote in message <36af250...@news.cc.columbia.edu>...
[snip]
>
>But the major problem is that it's a hidden stand-in for something.
>The people setting these puzzles take it as a substitute for setting
>their art up against the major names of this century. Rothko and
>Frankenthaler can or can't represent midnight murder in a tent, so
>that just proves, presumably, how good Mani is. Spare me.
But they can make you feel and have a spiritual experience. What is the
point of representing midnight murder in a tent? (Watch some TV news; it
gets much more exciting than midnight murder in a tent).
Kay Kane
Frederic Goudal
> Note a sign of how useless this forum is: we'll always be forced by
> its permanent, dominant residents to debate which wonderful artist of
> this century can match which wonderful artist of that century.
The more fun is that this debate is a non sense, as there is no
progress in art.
> Minor problem is that it's a stupid exercise, as if art were
> championship wrestling and was always doing this obvious,
> quantifiable, unchanged thing related to skill. But we're wasting our
> time dismissing this obvious stupidity over and over and over until we
> want to vomit.
>
> But the major problem is that it's a hidden stand-in for something.
> The people setting these puzzles take it as a substitute for setting
> their art up against the major names of this century. Rothko and
> Frankenthaler can or can't represent midnight murder in a tent, so
> that just proves, presumably, how good Mani is. Spare me.
Yeahhhh.....
f.g.
--
FiLH photography. A taste of freedom in a conventional world.
New web site address http://www.i-france.com/filh
e-mail gou...@enserb.u-bordeaux.fr
FAQ frp : http://www.enserb.u-bordeaux.fr/~goudal/frp/faq.html
br...@wralaw.com
"Kay Kane" <scarl...@theriver.com> wrote:
>>
> >> However I do none the less think
> >> >that her work excells. I think the 'violence' angle in her work
> >> >does warrent the same *esthetic* comparasin to Rothko' as
> >> >Carravaggio.
> >> **I was trying for an open dialogue on a specific painting "Judith
> >> Decapitating Holefernes",
> >This issue will for most favor Carravaggio. The technique is simply
> >better but Gentileschi's is not bad...
> ** Subjective. I stand by my original preference of this work.
I really have nothing to add.
br...@wralaw.com
jh...@columbia.edu wrote:
John reveals the truth of:
> But the major problem is that it's a hidden stand-in for something.
> The people setting these puzzles take it as a substitute for setting
> their art up against the major names of this century.
As one of the architects of this thread I am always willing to compare
my work to the Major names of this century.
I however realized today that one of the reason's I got into art in
the first place was a dislike of pure competitiveness.
The questions so far have been better than the answeres...
> Rothko and
> Frankenthaler can or can't represent midnight murder in a tent, so
> that just proves, presumably, how good Mani is. Spare me.
Bryn Ayers
John Haber
I'm a little leery of your formulation, in case it kind of levels them
to one huge spiritual mush, but I absolutely see your point. We're
both trying to move the argument past this garbage about
art=imitation, which virtually no one believes anyhow.
John
ME: >>But the major problem is that it's a hidden stand-in for
something. The people setting these puzzles take it as a substitute
for setting their art up against the major names of this century.
Rothko and Frankenthaler can or can't represent midnight murder in a
tent, so that just proves, presumably, how good Mani is. Spare me.<<
YOU: >>But they can make you feel and have a spiritual experience.
What is the point of representing midnight murder in a tent? (Watch
some TV news; it gets much more exciting than midnight murder in a
tent.)<<
br...@wralaw.com
I (Bryn) wrote:
> >This issue will for most favor Carravaggio. The technique is simply
> >better but Gentileschi's is not bad...
Kay Kane responds:
> ** Subjective. I stand by my original preference of this work.
Technique is most objective criteria. Although Carravaggios work
is not a day and night comparison like comparing the technique in a
Gentileschi to that in Rothko.
Asserting that this is purely subjective and standing by it is
'pro-quo' in my opinion.
And now the commission of another pro-quo fallacy by me...
> >> **Being a "follower" of someone doesn't make their work "inferior" or
> "less"
> >> (the students of Hans Hoffman for example).
> >In the sense of 'artistic' invention yes... It also strains a
> >comparison.
> **Again, look to the students of Hans Hoffman.
Could this also be a subjective observation?
Kay Kane
br...@wralaw.com wrote in message <78tc8q$bna$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
>I (Bryn) wrote:
>> >This issue will for most favor Carravaggio. The technique is simply
>> >better but Gentileschi's is not bad...
>
>Kay Kane responds:
>> ** Subjective. I stand by my original preference of this work.
>
>Technique is most objective criteria. Although Carravaggios work
>is not a day and night comparison like comparing the technique in a
>Gentileschi to that in Rothko.
>
>Asserting that this is purely subjective and standing by it is
>'pro-quo' in my opinion.
>
>And now the commission of another pro-quo fallacy by me...
>> >> **Being a "follower" of someone doesn't make their work "inferior" or
>> "less"
>> >> (the students of Hans Hoffman for example).
>
>> >In the sense of 'artistic' invention yes... It also strains a
>> >comparison.
>
>> **Again, look to the students of Hans Hoffman.
>
>Could this also be a subjective observation?
>
Eventually I can be made to realize that I was wrong all along and change my
views. I will then dispute my original stand. Very postmodern of me, don't
you think?>
-N.
> > >. Appreciating Carravaggio
> > >is not harder than appreciating Rothko, and visa versa, they are very
> > >similiar.
> >
> > I think this guy has eye problems.
>
> Anybody that don't see the world the same way as you has a problem...
If one makes overtly dismissive and insulting charges about artists and
their work, which they can not and do not qualify (rather than refering to
hypothetical scenarios containing monkeys) then yes, they have a problem,
with their looking and concption, as well as communication.
> How do you pretend to discuss art with such assumption.
I am not pretending to discuss art, I am.
> But you are just so closed that I could develop my negative in the
darkness of your mind...
Can you?
Post your results.
When you are done with that, you can develop (in the darkness of my mind)
your answer how pictorially appreciating Rothko is harder than Carravagio
(or visa versa) as my post stated.
Thanks for the cogent contribution to the thread.
Shining Like a Black Sun,
-N.
--
N
To reach me, remove _xxx from my address.
Kay Kane
make interesting points. No, I have not seen the group in San Luigi
Francese, but hope to someday have that opportunity.
Kay
zi...@interport.net wrote in message
<36b3e187...@news.interport.net>...
>By the way, while we are on this -Do you remember that I said as well
>that Gentileschi, the daughter of a fol,ower of Caravaggio was clearly
>in no way capable of competing with Caravaggio.
>
>Have you really seen the Caravaggios in place, such as the group in
>San Luigi Francese in Roma? And you feel that Gentileschi is better. I
>don't believe you have seen therm. The Caravaggios which came to New
>York included exactly one large scale picture which was a great one.
>The earlier version of the Last Supper. If that is your basis for
>prefering Gentiliechi -her show versus his. You are right. But that
>was the top of Gentileschi and not the top of Caravaggio.
>
>There is a huge falling off in the late works. So You may be right by
>your lights, but wait for some wonderful surprizes when you get to
>Italy. [Not Malta -those are not wonderful].
>Gabriel
>
>
>On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 22:21:25 GMT, br...@wralaw.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I (Bryn) wrote:
>>> >This issue will for most favor Carravaggio. The technique is simply
>>> >better but Gentileschi's is not bad...
>>
>>Kay Kane responds:
>>> ** Subjective. I stand by my original preference of this work.
>>
>>Technique is most objective criteria. Although Carravaggios work
>>is not a day and night comparison like comparing the technique in a
>>Gentileschi to that in Rothko.
>>
>>Asserting that this is purely subjective and standing by it is
>>'pro-quo' in my opinion.
>>
>>And now the commission of another pro-quo fallacy by me...
>>> >> **Being a "follower" of someone doesn't make their work "inferior" or
>>> "less"
>>> >> (the students of Hans Hoffman for example).
>>
>>> >In the sense of 'artistic' invention yes... It also strains a
>>> >comparison.
>>
>>> **Again, look to the students of Hans Hoffman.
>>
>>Could this also be a subjective observation?
>>
>>
>>
zi...@interport.net
There is one thing in this threadcthat really outrages me. Linking
Rothko with Frankenthaler. Rothko made paintings which did something.
Helen Frankenthaler was always a bum. Her work was never anything at
all. It looked like the right "school" it had the image ofvAE. But
what did it do? It just sat there puddling away. Motherwell at least
had one painting, which,m unfortunately he painted more xthan once
-The Spanish elegies. After that his work was about as good as hers.
She, for sure does not belong in the same breath as ony of the first
or second generatiuon AEers. If you need a woman for parity, like the
anchor people in the newscasts, you might pick Sue Mitchell, at least.
She has something in her paintings.
If either of you have actually been moved by a Frankenthaler, I would
submit it was the story line and/or her being a Rep. before you hit
the art world, therefore in without question.
I do believe that there was something that happened in the paintings
of most of the first generation AEers. Even a few of the second. But
Frankenthaler in there is hard for me to take.
Did either of you ever hear her lecture?
"Well uh, then, uh I did that one, with the green, uh,uh, I think it
might have been in the spring, er ,er or maybe the summer. The next
one is 6 feet square. I uh, think uh it is good to do a square now an
then. Hard, you know. This one was painted with a foot wide roller.
Good line maker."
Gabriel
I know I am being mean, But it is Frankenthaler I mean to hit, not
you. I think she was probably symbolic. So pick better symbols the
next time. There were several good AE women -Janice Biala who was
Tworkov's sister showed at Betty Parsons, so did Perle Fine, And then
you have Krasner [pollock's wife, but a Hofmann student]. Ann Ryan was
painting and showing paintings and collages with Betty Parons then
too. Also Sonia Sekula, whom I hear has been rediscovered in her home
country of Switzerland. And of course in France there is Vieira Da
Silva -she was always considered a major artist there together with
Hartung, Wols, and De Stael-and on the same level. She had alot more
good years than De Stael, too. . All of them are real painters. Maybe
you could squeeze in Fanny Hillsmith[not AE]. By the way one of the
very best abstract painters we have produced in this country was
Gertrude Greene [Peter to her friends]. She was married to Balcomb
Greene, and taught him how to paint. She was always a painter. He was
trained as a writer. She not only did wonderful paintings but
wonderful constructions in wood. Unfortunately she died too young.
Gabriel
On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 16:29:26 GMT, jh...@columbia.edu (John Haber)
wrote:
>They can make you do a lot, see a lot, feel a lot, think about a lot.