MODERN ART STRIKES AGAIN
Brian Shapiro
peter nelson
Brian Shapiro wrote in message <7g3m5q$q2q$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
>http://www.foxnews.com/national/042699/overexposure.sml
Often I agree with your comments but I'm not sure
what you're trying to say with this reference, although
I suspect it's critical by the Subject header.
Could you elaborate a bit?
Is photography not art?
Is the human figure not an acceptable art subject?
Is it not true that art often attempts to provoke, challenge,
or confront the establishment?
The only real question, as I see it, is whether Spencer Tunick
has any real skill in these areas, and since I haven't seen
his work I have no opinion on that. But if that were an issue
then how about if a photographer with some demonstrable skill
in such a subject - say Bruce Weber or Herb Ritts - attempted
a shoot like that?
I think it's a very interesting concept . The contrast between the urban
street setting - all gray and black and cold and hard and angular, and
the sea of bodies - all soft and rounded and pink and warm, would have
been very interesting. I have seen photos like this which were taken
in broad daylight with pedestrians around in places like Paris
and Amsterdam and I don't think anyone got bent out of shape
about it. (but then when I was in Amsterdam a few years ago they
were advertising a play with were big posters up all over the city,
perfectly legally, showing a woman staring at very close range at
a man's very erect penis. The world did not cave in and last I checked
the Netherlands were still enjoying a free society and a robust economy. )
Maybe New York, despite all its claims to be hip and cosmopolitan, needs
to loosen up a bit!
---peter
Quintu...@rome.com
> Brian Shapiro wrote in message <7g3m5q$q2q$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>...
> >http://www.foxnews.com/national/042699/overexposure.sml
Peter -
I think you're reading too much into this. Mr. Shapiro is merely echoing
a common American belief: if it's not a realistic painting or sculpture,
depicting certain restricted subject matter, it is not art. Probably
subversive, and certainly pornographic.
I liked the pic, myself. Viva art! Viva naked people! Viva photography!
Quintus
Brian Shapiro
Peter Nelson, on the other hand, didn't make any assumptions.
<Quintu...@Rome.com> wrote in message
news:19990427162759.605$7...@newsreader.com...
Brian Shapiro
> Often I agree with your comments but I'm not sure
> what you're trying to say with this reference, although
> I suspect it's critical by the Subject header.
It's not necessarily critical or non-critical... I am leaving you all to
decide for yourselves what you think.
> Is photography not art?
I personally think it is, though that point is debatable.
> Is the human figure not an acceptable art subject?
Yes, although this does not necessarily mean that any use of the human
figure should be acceptable.
> Is it not true that art often attempts to provoke, challenge,
> or confront the establishment?
Is that question about what certain artists have attempted to do, or about
what art should be involved in doing? If it is the second, my response would
be not necessarily. People should have their views on matters regardless of
what the 'establishment' thinks on those views, and thus should chose the
subject of their art regardless of what the establishment thinks of it. If
your views happen to clash with the establishment, it will be seen as a
challenge or provokation. However, artists should not, in my opinion, do
something soley for the sake of shocking people.
> The only real question, as I see it, is whether Spencer Tunick
> has any real skill in these areas, and since I haven't seen
> his work I have no opinion on that. But if that were an issue
> then how about if a photographer with some demonstrable skill
> in such a subject - say Bruce Weber or Herb Ritts - attempted
> a shoot like that?
I have seen his photographs and in my opinion he has no exceptional
photographic skill. My answer to your second question will be after the
paragraphs below...
> I think it's a very interesting concept . The contrast between the urban
> street setting - all gray and black and cold and hard and angular, and
> the sea of bodies - all soft and rounded and pink and warm, would have
> been very interesting. I have seen photos like this which were taken
> in broad daylight with pedestrians around in places like Paris
> and Amsterdam and I don't think anyone got bent out of shape
> about it. (but then when I was in Amsterdam a few years ago they
> were advertising a play with were big posters up all over the city,
> perfectly legally, showing a woman staring at very close range at
> a man's very erect penis. The world did not cave in and last I checked
> the Netherlands were still enjoying a free society and a robust economy. )
From what I have seen of his work, all that this photographer does is
photograph groups of nude people in different cities. And he isn't even good
at it. Personally, I don't think this is lewd though. And by the way, I do
think your Amsterdam example is kind of lewd, and acceptance of such art as
okay can be damaging to a culture--not necessarily artistically, but
morally. Before you go on gushing about the economy in the Netherlands,
maybe you should mention that they have huge drug and prostitution problems,
etc...
> Maybe New York, despite all its claims to be hip and cosmopolitan, needs
> to loosen up a bit!
When the artist was arrested he blamed Guliani for being to obsessed about
nudity. The guy disrupted a main street in New York in the middle of a busy
period in the day...
> ---peter
--Brian Shapiro
Peter Nelson
>> I think it's a very interesting concept . The contrast between the urban
>> street setting - all gray and black and cold and hard and angular, and
>> the sea of bodies - all soft and rounded and pink and warm, would have
>> been very interesting. I have seen photos like this which were taken
>> in broad daylight with pedestrians around in places like Paris
>> and Amsterdam and I don't think anyone got bent out of shape
>> about it. (but then when I was in Amsterdam a few years ago they
>> were advertising a play with were big posters up all over the city,
>> perfectly legally, showing a woman staring at very close range at
>> a man's very erect penis. The world did not cave in and last I checked
>> the Netherlands were still enjoying a free society and a robust
economy. )
>
>From what I have seen of his work, all that this photographer does is
>photograph groups of nude people in different cities. And he isn't even
good
>at it. Personally, I don't think this is lewd though. And by the way, I do
>think your Amsterdam example is kind of lewd, and acceptance of such art as
>okay can be damaging to a culture--not necessarily artistically, but
>morally. Before you go on gushing about the economy in the Netherlands,
>maybe you should mention that they have huge drug and prostitution
problems,
>etc...
I'm not sure their drug and prostitution problems are any
worse than ours. Overall they have a lower rate of crime
- both crimes against persons and crimes against than
the US (OECD figures in The Economist) than the US.
I was surprised at the overall acceptance of sexuality
in perfectly public places. I'm a country boy at heart
and have never been comfortable with the big gray
forbidding cities in the US, but I liked Amsterdam - large
parts of it have little quaint old building only a free stories
high, and it's broken up by parks and canals and this
gives it a much more human scale and feel.
>
>> Maybe New York, despite all its claims to be hip and cosmopolitan, needs
>> to loosen up a bit!
>
>When the artist was arrested he blamed Guliani for being to obsessed about
>nudity. The guy disrupted a main street in New York in the middle of a busy
>period in the day...
True, but I don't think that's why he was arrested.
---peter
dsi...@panix.com
"Brian Shapiro" <ba...@uclink4.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> When the artist was arrested he blamed Guliani for being to obsessed about
> nudity. The guy disrupted a main street in New York in the middle of a busy
> period in the day...
>
The shoot took place at 6:00 AM on SUNDAY morning. Even in NYC, that is NOT a
busy time of the day. In fact, Spencer should be credited for scheduling his
shoots at the LEAST busy time of the entire week.
I happen to like Spencer Tunick's work very much, and have been aware of his
group shoots on the streets of NY for years. The only reason the cops have
become interested, thus generating all this publicity, is that Spencer has
achieved the requisite level of notoriety to appear on certain radar screens.
I think it's a shame that such a big deal is being made of this, and that
Spencer's group shoots on the streets of NY may fast become a thing of the
past.
As far as Mr. Shapiro's opinion of Tunick's work, he's entitled to it. That
he appears to believe that his personal lack of regard for Tunick's work
somehow implies that Tunick should be permitted less freedom to create his
art than a "Shapiro approved" artist is a position I find quite arrogant, and
completely beside the point.
I know Spencer Tunick, and believe he has the spirit of a true artist. His
work is his life and he does his work because it is what he is driven to do,
not for any commercial concern. Artists like Tunick should be applauded for
thoughtfully challenging cultural taboos and creating work that is
conceptually interesting and fun. Artists like Tunick are what make New York
such a great city---I wish our mayor and police department understood that.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> I know Spencer Tunick, and believe he has the spirit of a true artist.
His
> work is his life and he does his work because it is what he is driven to do,
> not for any commercial concern. Artists like Tunick should be applauded for
> thoughtfully challenging cultural taboos and creating work that is
> conceptually interesting and fun. Artists like Tunick are what make New York
> such a great city---I wish our mayor and police department understood that.
One might also say that jewel thieves "thoughtfully challenge" such cultural
concepts as the law code. Or that assassins "call into question such
traditional concepts as the value of human life". And might we not also say
that book-burning is a "powerful comment on the social power of literature"?
Some might say that the aforementioned hypothetical criminals have
"challenged" society.
I would say that these criminals are instead "socially challenged" - possibly
"morally".
-- Seven Octaves
Ariane
On Thu, 29 Apr 1999, Louis Moreau Gottschalk wrote:
> One might also say that jewel thieves "thoughtfully challenge" such cultural
> concepts as the law code. Or that assassins "call into question such
> traditional concepts as the value of human life". And might we not also say
> that book-burning is a "powerful comment on the social power of literature"?
>
> Some might say that the aforementioned hypothetical criminals have
> "challenged" society.
>
> I would say that these criminals are instead "socially challenged" - possibly
> "morally".
>
> -- Seven Octaves
=== And by implication, does that mean that certain styles of making art
are morally superior to others?
curieux,
A.
peter nelson
<7g8qtc$ler$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>> I know Spencer Tunick, and believe he has the spirit of a true artist.
>His
>> work is his life and he does his work because it is what he is driven to
do,
>> not for any commercial concern. Artists like Tunick should be applauded
for
>> thoughtfully challenging cultural taboos and creating work that is
>> conceptually interesting and fun. Artists like Tunick are what make New
York
>> such a great city---I wish our mayor and police department understood
that.
>
cultural
>concepts as the law code. Or that assassins "call into question such
>traditional concepts as the value of human life". And might we not also say
>that book-burning is a "powerful comment on the social power of
literature"?
I think it's ridiculous to compare thievery or destruction of ideas and
property to being naked in public. Some laws and notions SHOULD
be challenged, and artists are the ones who traditionally challenge
society's values.
American society continues to have a sick-o hangup about the undraped
human body, while at the same time it's perfectly happy to CELEBRATE
violence and true moral degradation. The New York Times recently ran
an article indicating how difficult it will be to get a conviction of the
New
York City cops who shot unarmed West African immigrant Amadou Diallo
19 times (they fired 41 shots). Who do you think will receive a more
severe punishment, those cops or Tunick?
---peter
mark webber
>
>
> > I know Spencer Tunick, and believe he has the spirit of a true artist.
> His
> > work is his life and he does his work because it is what he is driven to do,
> > not for any commercial concern. Artists like Tunick should be applauded for
> > thoughtfully challenging cultural taboos and creating work that is
> > conceptually interesting and fun. Artists like Tunick are what make New York
> > such a great city---I wish our mayor and police department understood that.
>
> One might also say that jewel thieves "thoughtfully challenge" such cultural
> concepts as the law code. Or that assassins "call into question such
> traditional concepts as the value of human life". And might we not also say
> that book-burning is a "powerful comment on the social power of literature"?
>
> Some might say that the aforementioned hypothetical criminals have
> "challenged" society.
>
> I would say that these criminals are instead "socially challenged" - possibly
> "morally".
>
> -- Seven Octaves
>
Iian, is there any way you could demonstrate for us, perhaps with a jpeg
on your web page, where and how much skin has been flayed from your back?
What is the big problem, laddy? Isn't it possible that all this hyperbole
of your's diminishes the meaning of words like criminal, thieves and
assassins?
You're a kid; lighten up.
fond regards,
Mark
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> >> I know Spencer Tunick, and believe he has the spirit of a true artist.
> >His
> >> work is his life and he does his work because it is what he is driven to
> do,
> >> not for any commercial concern. Artists like Tunick should be applauded
> for
> >> thoughtfully challenging cultural taboos and creating work that is
> >> conceptually interesting and fun. Artists like Tunick are what make New
> York
> >> such a great city---I wish our mayor and police department understood
> that.
> >
> >One might also say that jewel thieves "thoughtfully challenge" such
> cultural
> >concepts as the law code. Or that assassins "call into question such
> >traditional concepts as the value of human life". And might we not also say
> >that book-burning is a "powerful comment on the social power of
> literature"?
>
> property to being naked in public. Some laws and notions SHOULD
> be challenged, and artists are the ones who traditionally challenge
> society's values.
I will not disagree with your observation that there are unfair and even
silly laws - and there may be occassions where a "revolutionary" act is also
artistic. (One need only think of the number of texts throughout history that
have been suppressed for their "questionable" themes - 'The Marriage of
Figaro' by Beaumarchais comes to mind.) But this allowed, I think that there
are some boundaries between art and ethics - or at least art and law. When an
artist "transgresses these boundaries" it "calls into question" the
"traditional concept" of the "Post-Modern aesthetic act". In other words,
there are crimes that are not redeemed by "art".
> American society continues to have a sick-o hangup about the undraped
> human body, while at the same time it's perfectly happy to CELEBRATE
> violence and true moral degradation. The New York Times recently ran
> an article indicating how difficult it will be to get a conviction of the
> New York City cops who shot unarmed West African immigrant Amadou Diallo
> 19 times (they fired 41 shots). Who do you think will receive a more
> severe punishment, those cops or Tunick?
My post was not so much a direct assault on Spencer Tunick, but on the
aesthetic system that allows, or even encourages, contemporary artists to
flaunt the laws of society. When these laws are corrupt then such "flaunting"
may prove to be beneficial - but some laws exist to maintain a civilized
standard of co-existence, and to "transgress" them is to merely become a
criminal.
Unfortunately, there are some criminals in existence today who masquerade
their acts as "art", and it is to these that I address my objections.
prophet...@my-dejanews.com
"O Oracle, are certain styles of making art morally superior to others?"
The world ere Modernism was a dark, heretical land, where blasphemers
produced works which resembled visible things, and in them they promoted the
myth that the world is a beauteous place, and that Man is a rational animal.
But the arrival of Prince Picasso, who descended from Mount Cezanne, brought
the lantern of enlightenment to the earth, and the baubles of men's vanity
were stripped from the temples and interned in the crypts of the False Gods.
For what else were nineteenth century museums but the tombs and sepulchres of
the False Gods? In after-years the world was visited by other martyrs, and
through their devotion to the One True Art they cleansed the world of the
taint of realism, and brought upon it the blessing of MOMA. But work remained
to be done, and there were those who scorned the Word. It was therefore with
the aim of drawing the infidel to the flock that MOMA sent forth the mighty
Hosts, and they brought fire not only to the Tombs of the False Gods, but to
the Cities of Man also. For the Hosts preached the Law of MOMA, which was in
defiance of the temporal edicts of Man. And they showed to the world many
miracles which were enacted in the sacred rites of the Performance of the
Art, and the Infidel imprisoned them in cells and mocked them in print. The
Hosts spread the Word even today, but the Infidel cling still to their
antediluvian beliefs and persecute the Messengers of MOMA.
In closing, it is well to remember another great messenger who thoughtfully
challenged society, transgressed boundaries, questioned traditional concepts,
and was as cutting edge as the surgeon's scalpel. This mendicant was like
unto the artists of our own time, and he also was persecuted by the
Philistine. But the day shall come when the precursor, Doctor Frankenstein,
shall be remembered as the one whose experiments pointed the way, and all the
faithful shall revere his wisdom and his devotion.
All praise the One True Art of Modernism, and its prophet Spencer Tunick, who
dwelleth in the paradise of MOMA forever and ever.
Amen.
prophet...@my-dejanews.com
prophet...@my-dejanews.com
The world ere Modernism was a dark, heretical land, where deviants produced
works which resembled visible things, and in them they promoted the myth that
the world is a beauteous place, and that Man is a rational animal. But the
arrival of Prince Picasso, who descended from Mount Cezanne, brought the
lantern of enlightenment to the earth, and the baubles of men's vanity were
stripped from the temples and interned in the crypts of the False Gods. For
what else were nineteenth century museums but the tombs and sepulchres of the
False Gods? In after-years the world was visited by other martyrs, and
through their devotion to the One True Art they cleansed the world of the
taint of realism, and brought upon it the blessing of MOMA. But work remained
to be done, and there were those who scorned the Word. It was therefore with
the aim of drawing the infidel to the flock that MOMA sent forth the Baptist,
and he brought fire not only to the Tombs of the False Gods, but to the
Cities of Man also. For the Baptist preached the Law of MOMA, which was in
defiance of the temporal edicts of Man. And he showed to the world many
miracles which were enacted in the sacred rites of the Performance of the
Art, and the Infidel imprisoned him in cells and mocked him in print. The
Baptist spreads the Word even today, but the Infidel cling still to their
antediluvian beliefs and persecute the Messenger of MOMA.
Bryn_Ayers
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> > I would say that these criminals are instead "socially challenged" -
possibly
> > "morally".
> === And by implication, does that mean that certain styles of making art
> are morally superior to others?
I think you would say Yes...
Any Morality in art stems from a tautology of interest and Beauty...
The Commoners(called serfs for the cognoscienti and Bourgoise for the
Intelligencia) fall for different tricks(namely sentimentality) than
the Elite who fall for convoluted hat-tricks(theories).
In essence both sentimentality and theory are necessary for a refined
art... However the production of such art is not an end product for
consumerism but a begining for the viewer and a consequence for the
artist of enlightend thought.
> curieux,
> A.
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"O senseless man, who cannot possibly make a worm and yet will make
Gods by the dozen!" -- Michel de Montaigne (1533-92).
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Marilyn
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Oh yawn,
Hitler said it all before at the "Degenerate Art Show."
M.
Glenn Geist
>
>Oh yawn,
>Hitler said it all before at the "Degenerate Art Show."
>
>M.
I wish I could yawn that easily. When the US starts treating peaceful
assembly or public demonstration as criminal, or the US flag as
"Sacred" as Congress did yesterday, it make the bombast from the Group
Blowhards scarier. Why every one of them seems to think he can
dictate taste and behaviour I don't know and why every one of them
tries to cover up his Mussolini act by railing about the *other
dictators I don't know either.
Who cares if someone doesn't like Rothko, it's the fact that people
want to prohibit and punish that scares me.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
think this -- it's hard to imagine.
But looking back to Berlin in 1933, I'm wondering how incredulous the
proposition of fascism seemed then to people. Here was a great flowering of
the arts -- Berlin at this time was the 'center' of culture. There was great
enthusiasm, utopian vision, and all that. In the background individuals were
being kidnapped, pushed into limosines, driven to the woods and shot by
inteneret Freicorp members. Suddenly, when it was too late, it was apparent
that this was unstoppable.
I realize that this sort of thinking is alarmist, and I critize myself for
it. It's always a question of what degree of vigilance is reasonable, or
excessive. But I think that the Nazis thought that art, or degenerate art,
was responsible for the "decline of society," as opposed to seeing art as
symptomatic. That's where I get uneasy, when something as benign as dislike
for art gets framed in a political context as the cause of the imagined
'decline of the west' (whatever that means). Such thinking strikes me as
dangerous, and indeed ironic since freedom of choice is a much tauted virtue
of democratic institutions.
Erik Mattila
mark webber
(snip)
> Who cares if someone doesn't like Rothko, it's the fact that people
> want to prohibit and punish that scares me.
>
>
>
Right on, Glenn. I repeat my question for Iian (and for that matter the
other hysterics): Just what skin is it off your backs? I mean, why put so
much energy into spouting "morality"? Isn't there a fundamentalist
religious group that would be more supportive?
Why does it bother you (Iian, not Glenn) so much that someone enjoys
something you don't enjoy?
I'm not even interested in trying to share information with this sour
grapes crowd anymore. I simply can't figure out why anyone would allow a
differing viewpoint to upset them so much.
truly baffled,
Mark
Glenn Geist
>You are right. In Canada, we are more laid back.
>We really do have free speech up here, (well, except at the
>APEC conference in Vancouver, the mounties got a bit rough).
>It takes a lot more courage to be a dissident in the US.
>
>M.
Indeed, and if you had a warmer climate, I would have been there long
ago. <s>
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>
>I'm not even interested in trying to share information with this sour
>grapes crowd anymore. I simply can't figure out why anyone would allow a
>differing viewpoint to upset them so much.
>
>truly baffled,
>
>Mark
>
There does seem to be much more than a lack of appreciation for Rothko
behind this and it does remind me of religious fervor and Old
Testament prophecy. Besides one would think, with all the art
history types areound here that one would rember how very silly some
of the most fervent critics of the past seem now.
Really if one wants to look fro signs of the apocalypse, why not bring
up Koons? <GDR>
Glenn Geist
>
>What is the big problem, laddy? Isn't it possible that all this hyperbole
>of your's diminishes the meaning of words like criminal, thieves and
>assassins?
>
>You're a kid; lighten up.
>
>fond regards,
>
>Mark
>
definitions of those words and which stone are you reading from?
There seem to be more pontiffs in here than there were in medieval
times.
Glenn Geist
>I think the 'yawn' is a way of saying 'it can't happen here.' In some ways I
>think this -- it's hard to imagine.
Many of the people who remained in Germany to die had trouble
imagining too. Perhaps that's what it takes to make it happen.
>
>But looking back to Berlin in 1933, I'm wondering how incredulous the
>proposition of fascism seemed then to people. Here was a great flowering of
>the arts -- Berlin at this time was the 'center' of culture. There was great
>enthusiasm, utopian vision, and all that. In the background individuals were
>being kidnapped, pushed into limosines, driven to the woods and shot by
>inteneret Freicorp members. Suddenly, when it was too late, it was apparent
>that this was unstoppable.
Exactly
>
>I realize that this sort of thinking is alarmist, and I critize myself for
>it. It's always a question of what degree of vigilance is reasonable, or
>excessive. But I think that the Nazis thought that art, or degenerate art,
>was responsible for the "decline of society," as opposed to seeing art as
>symptomatic. That's where I get uneasy, when something as benign as dislike
>for art gets framed in a political context as the cause of the imagined
>'decline of the west' (whatever that means). Such thinking strikes me as
>dangerous, and indeed ironic since freedom of choice is a much tauted virtue
>of democratic institutions.
>
I guess I agree. I don't think the US is going fascist this week, but
I do worry when people look for signs of doom or try hard to make
everyone afraid. It's really OK to hate all modern art, but it's
suspect when it's presented as symptomatic of something we're in
danger from. After all that's part of the technique of getting people
to give up freedom.
It really isn't OK to pose as the pinnacle of esthetic sensibility
either. Time disposes of these sorts quite handily, and a little
humility would go a long way here in this group.
Marilyn Welch
Hi Glenn,
Speaking from the 'Malibu of Canada' I can warn you off.
For one thing, the sight of those blue Olympic mountains, what a bore!
And today, the pink blossoms in the gutters of all the city streets,
what a chore!
Worse than snow, it don't melt.
Then there is the temperate rain forest, 20 minutes from town,
seen one, seen 'em all. So what if the salmon jump in the fall,
and the eagles swoop down on them.
M.
John Haber
>behind this and it does remind me of religious fervor and Old
>Testament prophecy. Besides one would think, with all the art
>history types areound here that one would rember how very silly some
>of the most fervent critics of the past seem now.
Ever seen Pat Buchanan's catalogue essay for David Salle?
Seriously, that really is a piece by Veronica Geng, the humorist
you'll probably remember from old New Yorker articles. Wish I could
quote it. BTW, they've just put out as complete a collection of her
in one small paperback as we'll get (although, alas, missing a Pauline
Kael parody I've never seen, originally in the New York Review of
Books).
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
Glenn Geist
>>
>I don't know Tunick from Tuna, but just what are the absolute
>definitions of those words and which stone are you reading from?
>
>There seem to be more pontiffs in here than there were in medieval
>times.
>
You know that sounded really rude of me - and I didn't mean it that
way. I'm sorry Mark.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>Seriously, that really is a piece by Veronica Geng, the humorist
>you'll probably remember from old New Yorker articles. Wish I could
>quote it. BTW, they've just put out as complete a collection of her
>in one small paperback as we'll get (although, alas, missing a Pauline
>Kael parody I've never seen, originally in the New York Review of
>Books).
>
>John (jha...@haberarts.com)
That's something I'll look for
Glenn
Glenn Geist
> So what if the salmon jump in the fall,
>and the eagles swoop down on them.
>
>M.
Yeah, sounds really awful.
Oh give me a home, where the Sport Utility Vehicles roam
and the gangs and the baseball caps play
where seldom is heard
an intelligent word
and the skys they are smoggy all day.
mdeli
wrote:
>Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Oh yawn,
>>Hitler said it all before at the "Degenerate Art Show."
>>
>>M.
>
>I wish I could yawn that easily. When the US starts treating peaceful
>assembly or public demonstration as criminal, or the US flag as
>"Sacred" as Congress did yesterday, it make the bombast from the Group
>Blowhards scarier. Why every one of them seems to think he can
>dictate taste and behaviour I don't know and why every one of them
>tries to cover up his Mussolini act by railing about the *other
>dictators I don't know either.
>
>Who cares if someone doesn't like Rothko, it's the fact that people
>want to prohibit and punish that scares me.
>
I quite agree with the above. It is in this light that I make:
A Modest Proposal
What can be done about musuems and critics?
I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
popular with a large facet of the public, that which present critics
dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in
museums. Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific
artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an
opportunity to have their original work shown to that audience.
I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Kay Kane
>In article <372b6...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
>> and the eagles swoop down on them.
>>
>> M.
>
>mold and the sweet sneeze of chronic, pollen driven allergies. It's all
>relative. (Can't you see I'm green with envy?} My wife just told me the
>weather prognosis here in the desert -- one more cold snap and the heat
will
>come. Oh boy. The Desert Iguanas on the deck are jumping with joy. Life on
>the Devil's Anvil.
>
>Erik
>
Oh, Erik, you are going to make everyone so green with envy but you left out
the magnificence of the greenery in the desert (which others mistakenly call
brownery) our wonderful culinary dishes (Mexican food - breakfast, lunch,
dinner), our view - the sahuaro cactus, jumping cactus, barrel cactus, etc.
I was just contemplating the beauty of the desert today when I decided to
dust and was able to write my name on the *new* dust on the TV screen a
half-hour later! Did you get snow in your neck of the desert on Easter like
we did (6 inches)? I'd better go shake out my shoes to make sure there are
no scorpions in them before I put them on (ditto black widows) and then go
walk through my yard without my feet actually touching the desert grass
(which people not familiar with it don't realize is extremely painful). As
soon as Greyhound tickets are down to $25, I'm going to B.C.! Don't even
get me started on our *monsoon* season....
Yours in anticipation of 115 degree weather this month,
Kay
__
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Erik
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mark webber
> mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> >
> >What is the big problem, laddy? Isn't it possible that all this hyperbole
> >of your's diminishes the meaning of words like criminal, thieves and
> >assassins?
> >
> >You're a kid; lighten up.
> >
> >fond regards,
> >
> >Mark
> >
> I don't know Tunick from Tuna, but just what are the absolute
> definitions of those words and which stone are you reading from?
Absolute definitions! Please sign me up! I want in on this one if you get
any responses!
>
> There seem to be more pontiffs in here than there were in medieval
> times.
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound that way. Iian and I have a history that
goes back about a year. He doesn't approve of my thinking that there is
something other than representation going on in the paintings that both he
and I like. He used to reply to my posts, but now appears to prefer
a Savonarolesque stance with me and some of the others here.
regards,
Mark
mark webber
> You know that sounded really rude of me - and I didn't mean it that
> way. I'm sorry Mark.
>
> Glenn
Oh that's really alright. You're on top of my list of good contributors
right now, so if you need to put me in my place, I need to listen.
Mark
Glenn Geist
>A Modest Proposal
>
>What can be done about musuems and critics?
>
>I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
>However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
>in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
>side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
>artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
>will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
>debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
>happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
>
>Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
>popular with a large facet of the public, that which present critics
>dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in
>museums. Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific
>artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an
>opportunity to have their original work shown to that audience.
>
>I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
>who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
>interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
>any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
>
If only there were only two sides, two types of taste or two opposite
curators. The Elvis on Black Velvet folks might hate the Elvis made
out of feathers set. Personally I prefer to go to the large
international art shows and the galleries where there's a greater
variety of art and where the public validates it with Visa cards. Of
course the audience is slanted towards those who care enough to look,
which is a small audience, but the Museums are not the art world.
Museums hang the relics of old battles.
There's a difference between what sells and what shows at the MOMA and
it seems to me that the former includes far less populist, kitchy or
sentimental art than you might think. Basically most Americans don't
approve of art enough to pay for the framing.. If they buy Elvis
pictures or Dogs Playing Poker, it's because they like Elvis or Poker
or Dogs, not art.
When it comes down to calling something Kitsch though, I'm a bit
reluctant to do so, since it's another matter of personal taste, which
also means fashion. I remember being lectured to that Ingres was
Kitsch, and perhaps he is, but maybe he's not.
GLenn
mdeli
wrote:
>Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Oh yawn,
>>Hitler said it all before at the "Degenerate Art Show."
>>
>>M.
>
>I wish I could yawn that easily. When the US starts treating peaceful
>assembly or public demonstration as criminal, or the US flag as
>"Sacred" as Congress did yesterday, it make the bombast from the Group
>Blowhards scarier. Why every one of them seems to think he can
>dictate taste and behaviour I don't know and why every one of them
>tries to cover up his Mussolini act by railing about the *other
>dictators I don't know either.
>
>Who cares if someone doesn't like Rothko, it's the fact that people
>want to prohibit and punish that scares me.
>
I quite agree with the above. It is in this light that I make:
A Modest Proposal
What can be done about musuems and critics?
I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
popular with a large facet of the public, that which present critics
dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in
museums. Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific
artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an
opportunity to have their original work shown to that audience.
I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
Mani DeLi
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> (snip)
> > Who cares if someone doesn't like Rothko, it's the fact that people
> > want to prohibit and punish that scares me.
>
> Right on, Glenn. I repeat my question for Iian (and for that matter the
> other hysterics): Just what skin is it off your backs? I mean, why put so
> much energy into spouting "morality"?
A poster to this group brought to our attention a work of art that had been
made that transgressed the law of the land. I responded by questioning the
widely held assumption amongst Post-Modernists that illegal activities can be
artistic. To clarify my position, I pointed out that there had obviously been
works in history which were socially subversive, but which were still great
art - and I also noted that we naturally praise those works which subvert
silly or pernicious laws. How this position is "hysterical", I cannot quite
fathom.
It was also observed in my post that I had no great problem with Spencer
Tunick's particular art work - public nudity is not a very big issue. What was
more on my mind was the recent news of an art work that had been created by
animal sacrifice - and I dared to ask the question: "How far can this go? Are
there any boundaries our artists will not transgress? Is the dictum 'art for
art's sake' now a license for illegal or unethical behaviour?"
You speak to me, Mark Webber, of religious fundamentalism. Hasn't it ever
struck you as odd that the contemporary art establishment does not decry the
"experiments" of artists who indulge in animal sacrifice as a form of
aesthetic expression? If you are so intent on drawing analogies to religion,
why then can you not see the similarity of this aesthetic act to the
sacrificial one?
> Isn't there a fundamentalist
> religious group that would be more supportive?
Not for aetheists, no.
> Why does it bother you (Iian, not Glenn) so much that someone enjoys
> something you don't enjoy?
I will answer this because it has been posed a number of times, despite my
having answered it before. I will try to be more lucid in this account.
It does not concern me that a man enjoys something I do not - that you admire
works by Rothko or Pollock affects me as little as if you enjoyed drinking
vinegar - your personal taste is of no concern to me.
What *is* of concern to me is critical dishonesty. In my view Pollock,
Rothko, Rauschenberg, etc., are not deserving of the praise heaped at their
altars. Again, if this were a purely personal view, then I would not care -
but the fact is that it is not. It can never be when museums, art galleries
and universities are involved - when an art form is being endorsed and
supported by the government and the intelligentsia. In this case a personal
issue becomes a public one, and I have just as much right to praise or
criticize as you do.
> I'm not even interested in trying to share information with this sour
> grapes crowd anymore. I simply can't figure out why anyone would allow a
> differing viewpoint to upset them so much.
I consider most Modernist art - and a fair amount of Post-Modernist work - to
be devoid of skill and craftsmanship. To me these qualities are what
determines whether a work of art is of value. It often amuses me to reflect
that those critics who assert that skill and crafstmanship is irrelevant (in
some circumstances, I will grant you) feel no compunction at all against
wholeheartedly supporting musical competence. Apparently technique is more
important in music performance than it is in the visual arts. I am not sure
whether anyone has explained why this is so, satisfactorily.
If you are truly interested in a dialogue, then perhaps you could answer this
question for me?
Regards,
Seven Octaves
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> > There seem to be more pontiffs in here than there were in medieval
> > times.
>
> Sorry, I didn't mean to sound that way. Iian and I have a history that
> goes back about a year. He doesn't approve of my thinking that there is
> something other than representation going on in the paintings that both he
> and I like.
With all due respect, Mark, I think that you misunderstand me. I do agree
that there is "something other than representation" going on in great works
of art. I also agree that this "something" - whether you call it a symphonic
interplay, form, or whatever - is very important, and raises realistic art
above imitation. Where I disagree with you is that this "something" is just
as great in Modernist art as it is in, say, Poussin, Raphael, Rubens, etc.
> He used to reply to my posts, but now appears to prefer
> a Savonarolesque stance with me and some of the others here.
I used to reply to your posts because I thought it was possible for me to
compose my ideas into an indestructible edifice of logic. I now think
differently. I realize that some of my premises will not be accepted by
others, and that I do not accept some of theirs. It is therefore pointless to
continue responding in the old style until my reasoning faculties are such
that my arguments are more accurate and more convincing.
I therefore decided against arguing every point, and only concentrating on
those that I thought I could make a case for - necessarily, many of these
points seem to be (at least to me) more extreme, hence the tone of my
responses. And lo! the Prophet arises, and he satirizes, not criticizes - he
laughs, not yells. And there are those who find laughter a more bitter pill
to swallow. But the Prophet, through his mimickry and exaggeration, he
draweth attention to those points which heretofore were regarded with the
utmost seriousness and mental composure. The more serious the point, the more
ridiculous the Prophet's dithyrambs.
That some were angered by the Prophet's utterances was inevitable - that most
did not respond in kind was disappointing. Only one mocked the momatheistic
utterings of the prophet from the kangaroo shrine in the south - and his
laughter was much enjoyed.
You invoke Girolama Savonarola - but what books has the Prophet burned? If
you read his words you will find that he never called for the destruction of
art - instead he donned the painter's smock, dyed it purple, ascended the
podium - and laughed.
Fond regards,
Iian Neill.
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> Hitler said it all before at the "Degenerate Art Show."
I assume that you are responding only to the last line of my post - otherwise
your statement is rather puzzling.
My question can be reduced to this: "Was the art work worth the sacrifice?"
It is not my aim here to condemn revolutionaries - rather, I am questioning
the assumption that art NECESSARILY redeems crime.
I wonder whether we are compelled to forget the act of creation in art
itself. We look at an abstract expressionist wrought from animal sacrifice
and we may admire the work - fair enough. The picture exists on its own
terms. The picture, however, didn't just materialize into existence without
the artist - someone painted it.
The picture is immune from ethics, as it should be.
But is the artist?
That is the question I pose to you.
Regards,
emat...@tomatoweb.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
>
> If only there were only two sides, two types of taste or two opposite
> curators. The Elvis on Black Velvet folks might hate the Elvis made
> out of feathers set. Personally I prefer to go to the large
> international art shows and the galleries where there's a greater
> variety of art and where the public validates it with Visa cards. Of
> course the audience is slanted towards those who care enough to look,
> which is a small audience, but the Museums are not the art world.
> Museums hang the relics of old battles.
>
> There's a difference between what sells and what shows at the MOMA and
> it seems to me that the former includes far less populist, kitchy or
> sentimental art than you might think. Basically most Americans don't
> approve of art enough to pay for the framing.. If they buy Elvis
> pictures or Dogs Playing Poker, it's because they like Elvis or Poker
> or Dogs, not art.
>
> When it comes down to calling something Kitsch though, I'm a bit
> reluctant to do so, since it's another matter of personal taste, which
> also means fashion. I remember being lectured to that Ingres was
> Kitsch, and perhaps he is, but maybe he's not.
>
> GLenn
>
The only time I've really ever heard this treated as a 'debate,' as such, is
in the trade magaizine for Shopping Mall art industry, "Sunshine Artist."
It's a very interesting publication (if one is interested in studing diverse
markets for art). So a great deal of press is given to two strategies a
'Sunshine' artist can make -- go for sales or go for prizes. Realism is
descibed as the target for sales, while abstration is the target for prizes.
They are speaking of the difference between the visa card holders (the
public) and judges (other artists or academicians). So in the submarket
there does seem to be a great 'debate' going on. It seems patrons who want
to buy a New England Covered Bridge in just the right fall colors to set-off
the new carpet are concerned about these kinds of issues. By the way, I'm
not knocking this market, it employs a lot of folks who can proudly say
they'r earning their keep as artists.
Erik Mattila
A.A. Raimes
<grg...@earthlink.net> writes
>If only there were only two sides, two types of taste or two opposite
>curators.
Exactly Glenn. Maybe we have a huge cultural void across the pond but
all this talk of winners and losers; good and evil; right and wrong
leaves me dismayed on these newsgroups. Britain debates and they do it
aggressively. When there is a conflict it is discussed and much of
television airtime/newspaper space is devoted to discussions between
people from different academic levels and intellectual backgrounds.
Politicians are grilled, and I really mean this, by television
presenters. So are artists. It has become an accepted part of our
culture that if one makes a claim or portrays a particular political or
artistic leaning in public it must be proven before the *court*, the
court being the *public*. Debating isn't a matter of winning or losing
but a matter of a group of people coming together with a huge variety of
diverse ideas which could, if constructively discussed, alter
perceptions and in turn have some form of effect on the course of modern
art.
>The Elvis on Black Velvet folks might hate the Elvis made
>out of feathers set. Personally I prefer to go to the large
>international art shows and the galleries where there's a greater
>variety of art and where the public validates it with Visa cards. Of
>course the audience is slanted towards those who care enough to look,
>which is a small audience, but the Museums are not the art world.
>Museums hang the relics of old battles.
Again this confuses me because in Britain the galleries/museums show
equally, art that slots into all these categories - photography;
illustration; graphics; computer art and so on. I don't see this
restriction to *Modern Academic Art* that Mani purports to be the sole
existence of museum contents. Perhaps there is less snobbery here?
(which seems like a strange statement from a Brit that are historically
renowned for that). In our own gallery we have two artists who call
themselves illustrators; one who calls himself a graphic designer; one
who makes lamp shades; two computer artists; several photographers and
the rest are either 3D or 2D fine artists. Outside of London certain
areas of the country are renowned for innovation in certain fields
generally dependant on which has the best reputation at the universities
in those particular fields. The northern universities have been funded
for computer arts and more experimental art, whilst London seems to
remain locked into traditional painting and sculpture teaching
(Goldsmiths aside). Artists are attracted to the area that suit their
artistic concerns.
One goes to the gallery/museum where one expects to see a particular
type of art and that is a voluntary choice. At the Institute of
Contemporary Art there is currently a contemporary design show on. At
the Tate the Pollock. The queues are generally at the Tate and not at
the ICA for instance. If this is what the *public* want then so be it -
if they wanted to queue at the ICA they would, and please don't start
telling me how gullible the public are. All this talk of the art you
speak of not being available falls on stony ground in Britain.
>There's a difference between what sells and what shows at the MOMA and
>it seems to me that the former includes far less populist, kitchy or
>sentimental art than you might think. Basically most Americans don't
>approve of art enough to pay for the framing.. If they buy Elvis
>pictures or Dogs Playing Poker, it's because they like Elvis or Poker
>or Dogs, not art.
That's a pretty sweeping statement. Most Americans don't approve of art
? yet the MOMA thrives on their patronage in the same way as the Tate
does - or doesn't it ? These museums are businesses - they wouldn't be
open if the public didn't support them.
>
>When it comes down to calling something Kitsch though, I'm a bit
>reluctant to do so, since it's another matter of personal taste, which
>also means fashion. I remember being lectured to that Ingres was
>Kitsch, and perhaps he is, but maybe he's not.
>
>GLenn
>
Taste is an individual and very sacred thing. I like what Mani says in
respect that galleries should offer two sides of criticism but I agree
with you, Glenn, that it is not as simple as that. It seems strange to
read you all and in particular to read what Mani has to say because I
feel like I am in an observation tank where there are two sides and
little middle ground - just the occasional concession to make sure no
one thinks you are completely close minded. For instance in one of
Mani's essays he references a portrait by Picasso and compares it with a
very poor portrait by a talentless unknown who thinks women's arms are
fat lifeless sausages. Mani fails to draw reference to the incredible
drawings of Picasso's that fill hundreds of sketchbooks dating back to
when he was a child - anyone who has visited the Picasso museum in
Barcelona will know the ones I talk of, though good reproductions are
readily available without much effort. In doing this, Mani fails to
discuss the reasons that Picasso would abandon a *skill* that is
unquestionable and in so doing attempts to create a history that is
weighted in the very way that he advocates a reversal of. It is totally
one sided in other words. That is the dilemma as I see it.
It seems to me that the lack of debating skills is the problem with many
of the discussions on groups like this and that, I think, may be a
result of feeling the need to be on one or the other side without any
option to step into the middle ground. Its back to the winning and
losing scenario and as a friend of mine always says: Winning is for
losers and losers never win.
Cheers !
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th - 23rd May 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
Marilyn Welch
>
>In article [12] <37298E...@bc.ca>,
> Marilyn <m...@bc.ca> wrote:
Iian wrote: in part
>> >
>> > My post was not so much a direct assault on Spencer Tunick, but on the
>> > aesthetic system that allows, or even encourages, contemporary artists to
>> > flaunt the laws of society. When these laws are corrupt then such
>"flaunting"
>> > may prove to be beneficial - but some laws exist to maintain a civilized
>> > standard of co-existence, and to "transgress" them is to merely become a
>> > criminal.
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, there are some criminals in existence today who masquerade
>> > their acts as "art", and it is to these that I address my objections.
>>
>> Oh yawn,
>> Hitler said it all before at the "Degenerate Art Show."
>
>I assume that you are responding only to the last line of my post - otherwise
>your statement is rather puzzling.
>
No, I'm responding to the fact that you will use extreme examples of
contemporary 'art' to prove your point that all Modern Art is degenerate.
You might even mention certain German 'artists' who mutilate themselves
during performance art.
>My question can be reduced to this: "Was the art work worth the sacrifice?"
>
Not in my opinion since, I believe life to be sacred, even the life of
sentient beings. Even so, I wouldn't weep at the death of a Norway rat
for example.
>It is not my aim here to condemn revolutionaries - rather, I am questioning
>the assumption that art NECESSARILY redeems crime.
You are using the broad term 'art.' Are Gacey's (mass murderer) paintings
art?
Anyone can use the term 'artist' and under that umberella
do some outrageous act in public. No wonder people hesitate
to call themselves artists even though their whole life is
devoted to art work.
>I wonder whether we are compelled to forget the act of creation in art
>itself. We look at an abstract expressionist wrought from animal sacrifice
>and we may admire the work - fair enough. The picture exists on its own
>terms. The picture, however, didn't just materialize into existence without
>the artist - someone painted it.
What do you think of the illustrative work of Aubodon, and Peterson?
All of it done from dead birds, which they captured and killed.
Some people can separate the person from the work.
Most people do. Personally I won't go to see a Woody Allen film.
>The picture is immune from ethics, as it should be.
>
No it isn't. Child porn for example.
>But is the artist?
>
>That is the question I pose to you.
Silly. Is anyone "immune from ethics" as you put it.
No. How about the ethics of using extreme examples
of 'art' to put across your point that all Modern Art
is degenerate?
M.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
>
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>[13] http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Marilyn Welch
I guess you haven't heard of the mass produced
assembly-line pictures done in studios where
one person paints blue, another person paints the
yellow etc. Sure it's employment but aren't there
better ways to make a living?
M.
mark webber
> A poster to this group brought to our attention a work of art that had been
> made that transgressed the law of the land. I responded by questioning the
> widely held assumption amongst Post-Modernists that illegal activities can be
> artistic.
Iian, I didn't know such high horses could be found in the Southern
hemisphere.
I don't think any post modernist would give me the time of day, but I
think any activity, legal or illegal, can be artistic.
Press charges, if you like, but remember that that wouldn't be sound art
criticism.
>
> You speak to me, Mark Webber, of religious fundamentalism. Hasn't it ever
> struck you as odd that the contemporary art establishment does not decry the
> "experiments" of artists who indulge in animal sacrifice as a form of
> aesthetic expression?
I speak to you that way, Iian, because you sound more like a television
preacher than an art student. And no, that hasn't ever struck me as odd;
if I don't like something another artist is doing, I just ignor it. There
are plenty of great paintings to look at, plenty to learn from. I wouldn't
waste the energy on something I found silly. I'm beginning to feel that
cut-off switch figdeting even now.
> If you are so intent on drawing analogies to religion,
> why then can you not see the similarity of this aesthetic act to the
> sacrificial one?
I'm not intent on drawing analogies to religion, mate, I'm intent on
pointing out to you that you are an affected, fingershaking Swaggart.
>
> > Isn't there a fundamentalist
> > religious group that would be more supportive?
>
> Not for aetheists, no.
Then what is the problem? Why the screeching?
> ...and I have just as much right to praise or
> criticize as you do.
Of course you do and I look forward to reading your criticisms whan you
have learned that there is something more important to art than depicting
"macabre fantasies."
You don't want to learn - that doesn't bother me. But don't pretend that
you know anything about anything. One hasn't consumed great art by simply
aligning oneself with it. Gottschalk my ass. It takes years for someone
who is open-minded, mate. It simply doesn't happen for prigs.
>
> I consider most Modernist art - and a fair amount of Post-Modernist work - to
> be devoid of skill and craftsmanship. To me these qualities are what
> determines whether a work of art is of value. It often amuses me to reflect
> that those critics who assert that skill and crafstmanship is irrelevant (in
> some circumstances, I will grant you) feel no compunction at all against
> wholeheartedly supporting musical competence. Apparently technique is more
> important in music performance than it is in the visual arts. I am not sure
> whether anyone has explained why this is so, satisfactorily.
>
> If you are truly interested in a dialogue, then perhaps you could answer this
> question for me?
Would you like a list of the questions to which you owe me answers?
One of the earliest has to do with the same topic of musical technique.
You cited a pianist - I don't remember which one, as having "blistering
technique", and I pointed out that that simply made him a performer. The
compositions he played, whether or not his own, are at least half of the
art.
I don't expect anyone to rate sensibility a more important feature to
artistic expression than technical skill - unless they know what it is.
By the way, if you really want to frost your ass, try listening to Wayne
Shorter play saxophone. A recording like "Night Dreamer", which is great
art, mate, is forty minutes of felt time. Great skill is involved in
playing the saxophone in such a "blistering" manner, but it will be too
modern for you, I am sure.
Iian, have you ever read any books on esthetics? Not that that is the best
way to learn, but considering your handicap, ever method should be
employed. Certainly before you tell me that there is no skill in
Dekooning.
with equal warmth,
Webber
John Haber
>of people coming together with a huge variety of diverse ideas which
>could, if constructively discussed, alter perceptions and in turn have
>some form of effect on the course of modern art.
We can't claim at all to have Britain's live tradition of real
political discussions. Pity. Even here, though, when debates about
art enter the public arena, it's worth noting that it's not about
"realism" vs "modernism" but about the occasional grant to an artist
that someone, somewhere perceives as quasi-porn.
I mention this because it's another indication of how the conservative
contingent in this group has problems with facts. It has stacked the
deck by suggesting "its side" need representation: perhaps there are
not just many sides, as Glenn says, but its side is only a tiny facet
on the stone, of interest chiefly to itself.
>Again this confuses me because in Britain the galleries/museums show
>equally, art that slots into all these categories - photography;
>illustration; graphics; computer art and so on. I don't see this
>restriction to *Modern Academic Art* that Mani purports to be the sole
>existence of museum contents. Perhaps there is less snobbery here?
Or perhaps Mani's side is just cheating yet again. Here many dealers,
as I'm sure is true there, have a strong love and commitment to a form
or style. Say, I admire Witkin for pursuing photography for so many
decades, starting before it was officially quite so much "art." And
now that abstraction without irony is a bit out of fashion, I also
admire the few dealers (Lennon Weinberg, Stux, Thatcher, etc.) who
specialize in it. John Webber still seems like a memorial to Robert
Smithson's estate.
And so on. But the truth is that the galleries with real prestige
aren't at all associated with any medium. That makes sense: after
all, contemporary art is perhaps defined only by denying some kind of
Greenbergian perfection of a medium as the core of art.
Mani wants his kind of academic art to get equal time? Since he has
no idea what constitutes academic art or art today, he'll never be
able to articulate what should get equal time to what. All he can do
is create a self-serving debate we'd best ignore.
John (jha...@haberarts.com)
mark webber
>
> With all due respect, Mark, I think that you misunderstand me. I do agree
> that there is "something other than representation" going on in great works
> of art. I also agree that this "something" - whether you call it a symphonic
> interplay, form, or whatever - is very important, and raises realistic art
> above imitation. Where I disagree with you is that this "something" is just
> as great in Modernist art as it is in, say, Poussin, Raphael, Rubens, etc.
Not in all modern art. In great modern art. The only difference between a
good Dekooning and a good Poussin is that the Dekooning is difficult for
someone who doesn't appreciate as well as he thinks. The only diffenerence
between Picasso and Raphael is that Raphael includes depiction.
Music doesn't have to depict, Iian. Why does painting?
Webber
mdeli
Yeah. Paint like Rothko. He does the blue, the yellow, etc. all by
himself. Only not as well.
Of course I guess the best Marilyn can do is get a subshopping mall
price, unlike Rothko.
mdeli
>Not in all modern art. In great modern art. The only difference between a
>good Dekooning and a good Poussin is that the Dekooning is difficult for
>someone who doesn't appreciate as well as he thinks. The only diffenerence
>between Picasso and Raphael is that Raphael includes depiction.
That so? SO what's the difference between you and da Vinci. Not that
he might paint slightly better than you or Rothko.
>Music doesn't have to depict, Iian. Why does painting?
These idiots imagine that anyone who doesn't like Modern Academic Art
only craves "depiction of realism."
This is utter nonsense. Much islamic and oriental art is totally
abstract. It is abstraction done with the skill and craft utterly
missing from most of the modern crap hanging as masterpieces in
museums. Classical and fine contemporary work is full of abstraction.
My complaint is about minimalism, practically nothing-art and
don't-laugh-art and the pseudo philosophical bullshit that accompanies
it.
Most artzy fartzies complain about realism of any sort because they
haven't the fundamentals to draw a safety pin. Webber is a good
example.
mdeli
wrote:
>hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>
>>I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
>>However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
>>in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
>>side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
>>artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates.
snip
>
>If only there were only two sides, two types of taste or two opposite
>curators.
There is a whole side of art carefully kept out of museums at present.
There certainly is another side to the debate. That' s why we disagree
> The Elvis on Black Velvet folks might hate the Elvis made
>out of feathers set.
You say this because your contemporary experience imagines that stuff
that doesn't conform to Modern Academic taste lies in the realm of
Velvet Elvis's.
> Personally I prefer to go to the large
>international art shows and the galleries where there's a greater
>variety of art and where the public validates it with Visa cards. Of
>course the audience is slanted towards those who care enough to look,
>which is a small audience, but the Museums are not the art world.
>Museums hang the relics of old battles.
>
>There's a difference between what sells and what shows at the MOMA and
>it seems to me that the former includes far less populist, kitchy or
>sentimental art than you might think. Basically most Americans don't
>approve of art enough to pay for the framing.. If they buy Elvis
>pictures or Dogs Playing Poker, it's because they like Elvis or Poker
>or Dogs, not art.
Of course only pompous asses like you like ART. BTW I much prefer dogs
playing poker to Webber's dogs. He couldn't paint a dog playing with
himself to a degree of detail beyond fuzz. I even prefer that to most
Picasso's.
>When it comes down to calling something Kitsch though, I'm a bit
>reluctant to do so, since it's another matter of personal taste, which
>also means fashion. I remember being lectured to that Ingres was
>Kitsch, and perhaps he is, but maybe he's not.
Artzy fartzies prefer to divert any question in art away from asking
whether a work has any merit or not. The worst of kitsch is far
superior to any Modern Academic put-on. At best it's great art.
A.A. Raimes
100...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU>, mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> writes
>By the way, if you really want to frost your ass, try listening to Wayne
>Shorter play saxophone. A recording like "Night Dreamer", which is great
>art, mate, is forty minutes of felt time. Great skill is involved in
>playing the saxophone in such a "blistering" manner, but it will be too
>modern for you, I am sure.
Have you heard Andy Sheppard in action Mark ? he would be way too modern
for some of these old timers ! I still melt in front of that romantic
David Sanborn though - in fact he was the reason I started playing sax
in the first place.
Alison
Glenn Geist
>
> Where I disagree with you is that this "something" is just
>as great in Modernist art as it is in, say, Poussin, Raphael, Rubens, etc.
>
That's a much better thing to be talking about than whether Rothko is
the death of art. I wonder though, what you mean by "great?" I'm not
sure that grandness of theme is the scale we measure artistic worth
by, or that our perception of importance can be separated from our own
favorite themes. Certainly I find more import in the hideous grin on
the torturer's face in a Leon Golub painting than the fatuous features
of an Arcadian Shepard, but that says as much about me as anything
else.
I wonder that we don't hear as many arguments that we ought to be
writing music just like J.S. Bach than I do that we ought to be
painting like Poussin.
>I therefore decided against arguing every point, and only concentrating on
>those that I thought I could make a case for - necessarily, many of these
>points seem to be (at least to me) more extreme, hence the tone of my
>responses.
Sounds wise to me.
> And lo! the Prophet arises, and he satirizes, not criticizes - he
>laughs, not yells. And there are those who find laughter a more bitter pill
>to swallow.
Amen
> But the Prophet, through his mimickry and exaggeration, he
>draweth attention to those points which heretofore were regarded with the
>utmost seriousness and mental composure. The more serious the point, the more
>ridiculous the Prophet's dithyrambs.
>
I know what you mean, but I've been hammered - perhaps rightly - for
trying the same. On the screen, they can't tell you're wearing the
Motley.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
> but now appears to prefer a Savonarolesque stance with me and some of the others here.
>
Nice comparison - a bonfire of the vanities it is for sure, and of
course I'm part of the problem too. <s>
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>Exactly Glenn. Maybe we have a huge cultural void across the pond but
>all this talk of winners and losers; good and evil; right and wrong
>leaves me dismayed on these newsgroups. Britain debates and they do it
>aggressively. When there is a conflict it is discussed and much of
>television airtime/newspaper space is devoted to discussions between
>people from different academic levels and intellectual backgrounds.
>Politicians are grilled, and I really mean this, by television
>presenters. So are artists. It has become an accepted part of our
>culture that if one makes a claim or portrays a particular political or
>artistic leaning in public it must be proven before the *court*, the
>court being the *public*. Debating isn't a matter of winning or losing
>but a matter of a group of people coming together with a huge variety of
>diverse ideas which could, if constructively discussed, alter
>perceptions and in turn have some form of effect on the course of modern
>art.
Debating is also a lot of fun.
>
>Again this confuses me because in Britain the galleries/museums show
>equally, art that slots into all these categories - photography;
>illustration; graphics; computer art and so on. I don't see this
>restriction to *Modern Academic Art* that Mani purports to be the sole
>existence of museum contents. Perhaps there is less snobbery here?
We certainly are the same - and I don't see the rule of academia here
at all. I've been trying to point that out to him, I think.
>
>One goes to the gallery/museum where one expects to see a particular
>type of art and that is a voluntary choice. At the Institute of
>Contemporary Art there is currently a contemporary design show on. At
>the Tate the Pollock. The queues are generally at the Tate and not at
>the ICA for instance. If this is what the *public* want then so be it -
>if they wanted to queue at the ICA they would, and please don't start
>telling me how gullible the public are. All this talk of the art you
>speak of not being available falls on stony ground in Britain.
>
I saw the Pollock show in New York - twice - I spent 8 0r 9 hours
there in total and each time in the company of smoe very knowledgeable
and articulate people, who didn't seem the type to have fallen for
media hype in the 50's. Yes it was very well attended, though not one
tenth as much as say the Monet show in chicago a few years ago, but
you have to remember that we have nearly 300 million people in the US.
One percent is still a lot of people. But the point is correct - it's
all out there and available, from shopping mall shows to major
museums.
>>There's a difference between what sells and what shows at the MOMA and
>>it seems to me that the former includes far less populist, kitchy or
>>sentimental art than you might think. Basically most Americans don't
>>approve of art enough to pay for the framing.. If they buy Elvis
>>pictures or Dogs Playing Poker, it's because they like Elvis or Poker
>>or Dogs, not art.
>
>That's a pretty sweeping statement. Most Americans don't approve of art
>? yet the MOMA thrives on their patronage in the same way as the Tate
>does - or doesn't it ? These museums are businesses - they wouldn't be
>open if the public didn't support them.
>
As I said, it's a very big country. I love to listen to the comments
of museum goers here, and the "my dog could do that" set, in their
shorts and baseball caps sometimes attend the way they would a freak
show. To be fair, I saw the Seurat show at the Nationl Gallery not
long ago and heard the same silly things "So are all these original?"
I do think of this as an anti-intellectual country and perhaps some of
the American voices here illustrate this. Perhaps I'm just a
tempermental elitist, and I have had some experience trying to sell
art to the philistines. <s> I do look around at my neighbors, each
with at least a brace of $75,000 Sport Utility Vehicles in the
driveway, and I see no art on the walls at all - perhaps the odd
poster. I think we still suffer the influence of those Puritans and
other flotsam you allowd to drift to our shores.
>>
>Taste is an individual and very sacred thing. I like what Mani says in
>respect that galleries should offer two sides of criticism but I agree
>with you, Glenn, that it is not as simple as that. It seems strange to
>read you all and in particular to read what Mani has to say because I
>feel like I am in an observation tank where there are two sides and
>little middle ground - just the occasional concession to make sure no
>one thinks you are completely close minded.
American "debates" all seem to admit only of two viewpoints - one of
which must, by necessity, be that of the Devil; so I'm trying to point
out that the proposal to have two kinds of museums - one for Mani's
favorites and one for all the awful stuff - fits right in. My
position is that ther can be nothing of the sort and there's already a
venue for anything anyone calls art.
>For instance in one of
>Mani's essays he references a portrait by Picasso and compares it with a
>very poor portrait by a talentless unknown who thinks women's arms are
>fat lifeless sausages. Mani fails to draw reference to the incredible
>drawings of Picasso's that fill hundreds of sketchbooks dating back to
>when he was a child - anyone who has visited the Picasso museum in
>Barcelona will know the ones I talk of, though good reproductions are
>readily available without much effort. In doing this, Mani fails to
>discuss the reasons that Picasso would abandon a *skill* that is
>unquestionable and in so doing attempts to create a history that is
>weighted in the very way that he advocates a reversal of. It is totally
>one sided in other words. That is the dilemma as I see it.
I've not been to Barcelona, but I've seen my share of Picasso; the
Picasso Museum in Paris is a favourite place of mine. My feelings for
his importance are so strong that I can't really understand any other
position. The negative reactions I hear here make no more sense than
the anti-heretical ravings of the Inquisition. In fact many of the
anti-moderns sound like defenders of some faith.
>
>It seems to me that the lack of debating skills is the problem with many
>of the discussions on groups like this and that, I think, may be a
>result of feeling the need to be on one or the other side without any
>option to step into the middle ground. Its back to the winning and
>losing scenario and as a friend of mine always says: Winning is for
>losers and losers never win.
>
Of course, when you say "lack of debating skills" you exclude me. <s>
But you're right, I see a lot of proclamation and peremptory bombast -
a kind of extroverted solipsism saying "all that is knowable is my
opinion - and you'll have to take it on faith because you can't know
why"
>"Winning for losers"
I love this and fully intend to steal it.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>
>The only time I've really ever heard this treated as a 'debate,' as such, is
>in the trade magaizine for Shopping Mall art industry, "Sunshine Artist."
>It's a very interesting publication (if one is interested in studing diverse
>markets for art). So a great deal of press is given to two strategies a
>'Sunshine' artist can make -- go for sales or go for prizes. Realism is
>descibed as the target for sales, while abstration is the target for prizes.
>They are speaking of the difference between the visa card holders (the
>public) and judges (other artists or academicians). So in the submarket
>there does seem to be a great 'debate' going on. It seems patrons who want
>to buy a New England Covered Bridge in just the right fall colors to set-off
>the new carpet are concerned about these kinds of issues. By the way, I'm
>not knocking this market, it employs a lot of folks who can proudly say
>they'r earning their keep as artists.
>
>Erik Mattila
I know that publication - there is a whole other art market, it's
true. It's usually get's dismissed as "Decorative" although Rembrandt
can be decorative too, I guess, if one has that kind of option.
There is a more educated, or experienced clientel though - I'm
thinking more of the folks who keep the major galleries alive, or the
people who attend Art Basel or the Venice Bienalle, etc. with serious
intent. You will not find the kind of Representational Vs. Abstract
contest that seems to be in the air here. You'll see an Alan Feltus
next to a Nam June Paik, next to a Cindy Sherman, next to a Picasso. .
.
It's not like art has, or should have only one thing to say or a way
to say it. We don't apply such rules to literature or music nearly as
often or as heatedly as we do to art, and as Robin Leach says so
nasally "I don't know why!"
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>Oh that's really alright. You're on top of my list of good contributors
>right now, so if you need to put me in my place, I need to listen.
>
>Mark
>
Sometimes what I intend as a good natured dig comes through like a
whack with a shovel. I think a lot of these disputes would be laughed
off in a face to face situation. <S> and <G> notwithstanding it's
hard to judge tone.
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>Shopping Mall Art:
>
>I guess you haven't heard of the mass produced
>assembly-line pictures done in studios where
>one person paints blue, another person paints the
>yellow etc. Sure it's employment but aren't there
>better ways to make a living?
>
>M.
I've certainly seen these things - they sell like crazy. Buyers
praise the craftsmanship, the colors and the pleasant subject matter.
Most of them are done in the Phillipines or Malaysia these days, and I
don't begrudge the painters a job. They do an excellent product for
the kind of taste many Americans feel good about having.
I had someone - upon seeing an abstract bronze in my living room -
that she would take me to the Cowboy Museum to show me a buffalo that
"really looked like a buffalo" If I had been quicker witted I would
have mentioned that the zoo was much closer.
John Haber
>favorites and one for all the awful stuff - fits right in.
You sure there aren't plenty of museums devoted to things he'd like
already? Most recently, setting aside even a Dali museum or other
display of near kitsch, the Dagliesh museum in midtown Manhattan has
gotten some favorable press.
I can't be blamed if they don't get a huge public or show his work.
But again, the "two kinds" already stacks the deck in his favor. Then
again, why doesn't he just come right out and say the country needs
two kinds, one devoted to him and one one to everyone else?
jh
emat...@tomatoweb.com
wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> Shopping Mall Art:
>
> I guess you haven't heard of the mass produced
> assembly-line pictures done in studios where
> one person paints blue, another person paints the
> yellow etc. Sure it's employment but aren't there
> better ways to make a living?
>
> M.
>
Hi M, I couldn't tell what post you were referencing, but maybe it was mine.
I posted a recollection a few weeks back about my working in such a place.
But I wasn't refering to mass-produced art, rather the industry that has art
shows in Malls, Parks, Fairs, Art Festivals etc. The argument that "Sunshine
Artists" makes about this is that a couple of thousand percent more people
will see exhibitors works in a weekend compared to if your work is hanging in
a gallery for two months.
I have a friend who used to invest a lot of time and effort getting water
colors together for a yearly display at the Laguna Beach Art Festival. He
did pretty well for about three years running. On the fourth year, since the
'selection committee' for the festival was composed of local business types,
he was rejected. Here he had a years worth of paintings and no place to sell
them. So he decided to got across the street to the arts and crafts "Sawdust
Festival" and sell some prints he had in stock (he was a graphic designer,
and had done some very nice promotional pieces for a printing company,
showing off their embossing and foil stamping capabilities.) Form there he
completely changed his tactics, and continued creating and marketing prints.
He has been very succussful with this.
Erik Mattila
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
mark webber
>
> Have you heard Andy Sheppard in action Mark ? he would be way too modern
> for some of these old timers ! I still melt in front of that romantic
> David Sanborn though - in fact he was the reason I started playing sax
> in the first place.
>
> Alison
>
Yes, good players! I have a slight preference for players of the 40s 50s
and 60s - mostly because the more recent players seem to come out of them
so much. Sonny Rollins, Cannonball, Bennie Golson, Lucky Thompson and
Trane; Lester Young, Carlie Parker... these guys blow me away.
Are you still playing?
Mark
burnin...@my-dejanews.com
mark webber <webb...@TIGER.UOFS.EDU> wrote:
> On Mon, 3 May 1999, Louis Moreau Gottschalk wrote:
>
> > A poster to this group brought to our attention a work of art that had been
> > made that transgressed the law of the land. I responded by questioning the
> > widely held assumption amongst Post-Modernists that illegal activities can
be
> > artistic.
>
> Iian, I didn't know such high horses could be found in the Southern
> hemisphere.
I don't suppose you've looked under your arse recently?
A.A. Raimes
>Yes, good players! I have a slight preference for players of the 40s 50s
>and 60s - mostly because the more recent players seem to come out of them
>so much. Sonny Rollins, Cannonball, Bennie Golson, Lucky Thompson and
>Trane; Lester Young, Carlie Parker... these guys blow me away.
>
>Are you still playing?
>
>Mark
Sold it to buy paint ! Still have my tape deck though.
(Did you get my Email - they kept bouncing back ?)
mark webber
I don't know - I don't see anything you are writing as baiting or pious -
not in the least. But perhaps I should just stop reading Iian. He used to
interest me, but he's decided that he knows all he needs to know.
The energy he wastes on attacking what he doesn't get or doesn't want to
like is pretty comic, though.
best,
Mark
mark webber
>
> Sold it to buy paint ! Still have my tape deck though.
>
Ouch.
> (Did you get my Email - they kept bouncing back ?)
>
No. I'll try emailing you. Let me know if you get it.
Mark
mdeli
wrote:
>I do think of this as an anti-intellectual country and perhaps some of
>the American voices here illustrate this.
This guy is all American Intellectual.
> Perhaps I'm just a
>tempermental elitist, and I have had some experience trying to sell
>art to the philistines.
RIght, all those who reject what you call art are "philistines."
> I do look around at my neighbors, each
>with at least a brace of $75,000 Sport Utility Vehicles in the
>driveway, and I see no art on the walls at all - perhaps the odd
>poster. I think we still suffer the influence of those Puritans and
>other flotsam you allowd to drift to our shores.
In this phony's mind anyone not interested in art or laughs at what he
likes is just " flotsam you allowd to drift to our shores." And this
guy accuses me of liking Nixon and Agnew.
>American "debates" all seem to admit only of two viewpoints - one of
>which must, by necessity, be that of the Devil; so I'm trying to point
>out that the proposal to have two kinds of museums - one for Mani's
>favorites and one for all the awful stuff - fits right in.
This schmuck can't even read. I proposed two curators not two museums
and suggested that viewers should judge for themselves by being
allowed to compare.
mdeli
wrote:
>wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
>
>>Shopping Mall Art:
>>
>>I guess you haven't heard of the mass produced
>>assembly-line pictures done in studios where
>>one person paints blue, another person paints the
>>yellow etc. Sure it's employment but aren't there
>>better ways to make a living?
>>
>>M.
>
>I've certainly seen these things - they sell like crazy. Buyers
>praise the craftsmanship, the colors and the pleasant subject matter.
Gee sounds just like Rothko etc.
>Most of them are done in the Phillipines or Malaysia these days, and I
>don't begrudge the painters a job. They do an excellent product for
>the kind of taste many Americans feel good about having.
Something most artzy fartzies don't have the skill to do.
>
>I had someone - upon seeing an abstract bronze in my living room -
>that she would take me to the Cowboy Museum to show me a buffalo that
>"really looked like a buffalo" If I had been quicker witted I would
>have mentioned that the zoo was much closer.
Was that a sculpture like a Henry Moor megaturd? If so your toilet is
even closer.
mdeli
<ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
>>For instance in one of
>>Mani's essays he references a portrait by Picasso and compares it with a
>>very poor portrait by a talentless unknown who thinks women's arms are
>>fat lifeless sausages.
As to lifeles sausages, Picassos colored cement neoclassic
elephantisis nudes take the prize
Tamara is unknown to you because when it comes to art you are a
provincial Bozo.. Tamara even has a painting in the MOMA. She is well
known and often reproduced.
My advice to all here is to look at Tamara's paintings on the links I
suggest on my web page and compare them to Picasso and decide for
yourself.
> Mani fails to draw reference to the incredible
>>drawings of Picasso's that fill hundreds of sketchbooks dating back to
>>when he was a child - anyone who has visited the Picasso museum in
>>Barcelona will know the ones I talk of, though good reproductions are
>>readily available without much effort.
I' ve seen Picasso in the original ad nauseum. I own many Picasso
books and always look at the new ones. Picasso's drawing is mediocre.
At best hack academic at worst cartoon scrawl. However if you compare
that to the likes of Pollock and de Kooning you would thinik he was a
genius. If you compare it to any better 19th century drawing you sense
his outstanding lack of ability. Look at some of the drawings of
artists I mention on my web page under the heading of "artists I
like." Picasso couldn't draw anywhere near as well as Dali, Vargas,
or Hirshfield.
Marilyn
Can't remember myself what it was in response to, but I guess at the time
I thought it was relevant.
What you describe below is interesting.
We have a "Moss Street Paint-In" here. (That was the street I walked
when I began school, so I'm fond of it). Artists were invited by
Business Victoria, to allow the public to watch them paint (performance art?)
Now the Art Gallery of Victoria wants to have it curated, and to have
musicians and food. I think this is a good idea because it became rather a
bore, with self-promotion taking precedence. I know there will be
problems even with the curation but I'm sure it will be an improvement.
Wondering why artists don't just put out sandwich boards in front of
their studios, lawyers and accountants are doing it.
Anyway, there is a world of difference between the selling of art in
your country and mine. You are in an economic boom giving many people
disposible income, which is not true up here.
real life is calling me,
regards,
Marilyn
emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
>
> In article <372d8...@news.victoria.tc.ca>,
> wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
> > Shopping Mall Art:
> >
> > I guess you haven't heard of the mass produced
> > assembly-line pictures done in studios where
> > one person paints blue, another person paints the
> > yellow etc. Sure it's employment but aren't there
> > better ways to make a living?
> >
> > M.
> >
>
> Hi M, I couldn't tell what post you were referencing, but maybe it was mine.
> I posted a recollection a few weeks back about my working in such a place.
> But I wasn't refering to mass-produced art, rather the industry that has art
> shows in Malls, Parks, Fairs, Art Festivals etc. The argument that "Sunshine
> Artists" makes about this is that a couple of thousand percent more people
> will see exhibitors works in a weekend compared to if your work is hanging in
> a gallery for two months.
>
> I have a friend who used to invest a lot of time and effort getting water
> colors together for a yearly display at the Laguna Beach Art Festival. He
> did pretty well for about three years running. On the fourth year, since the
> 'selection committee' for the festival was composed of local business types,
> he was rejected. Here he had a years worth of paintings and no place to sell
> them. So he decided to got across the street to the arts and crafts "Sawdust
> Festival" and sell some prints he had in stock (he was a graphic designer,
> and had done some very nice promotional pieces for a printing company,
> showing off their embossing and foil stamping capabilities.) Form there he
> completely changed his tactics, and continued creating and marketing prints.
> He has been very succussful with this.
>
> Erik Mattila
>
Glenn Geist
>That so? SO what's the difference between you and da Vinci. Not that
>he might paint slightly better than you or Rothko.
>
And what's the difference between you and any other abject failure?
>These idiots imagine that anyone who doesn't like Modern Academic Art
>only craves "depiction of realism."
>
And since you've invented the Genre, why don't you describe what that
means?
>This is utter nonsense. Much islamic and oriental art is totally
>abstract. It is abstraction done with the skill and craft utterly
>missing from most of the modern crap hanging as masterpieces in
>museums. Classical and fine contemporary work is full of abstraction.
>
And the point is?
>My complaint is about minimalism, practically nothing-art and
>don't-laugh-art and the pseudo philosophical bullshit that accompanies
>it.
>
I gues that doesn't apply to the verbal minimalism, practically
nothing argument, don't laugh proclamations and pseudo-philisophical
glossolalia that constitutes your outpourings.
>Most artzy fartzies complain about realism of any sort because they
>haven't the fundamentals to draw a safety pin. Webber is a good
>example.
>
Again, the best defense is an attack General Maginot, isn't it. have
you no shame sir? Have you no argument other than name calling?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Cheaper the crook, the gaudier the patter
-Sam Spade-
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Glenn Geist
>
>There is a whole side of art carefully kept out of museums at present.
>There certainly is another side to the debate. That' s why we disagree
>
you say simply isn't true and there are more kinds of art than your
simplistic artbabble would imply. You'd be disqualified from a Junior
High School debating team for these juvenile attempts at rigging an
argument.
>> The Elvis on Black Velvet folks might hate the Elvis made
>>out of feathers set.
>
>You say this because your contemporary experience imagines that stuff
>that doesn't conform to Modern Academic taste lies in the realm of
>Velvet Elvis's.
self serving again - that was meant to inject humor and I keep
forgetting madmen have none.
What the hell is modern academic taste? You create these things just
to make it look like you have a target. For what it's worth I do have
an art collection - it's heavy with surrealism. I like ashcan school
prints, I like Ukiyo-e, I like South American and Carribean Surrealist
painters - I own Gourgue, Cuevas, Matta, Ernst, Breton, Sloan,
Soyer, Grosz, Appel, Alechinsky, Calder and many you won't
recognize. (yes, even Dali) I own old master drawings,
photoreallist works, a Flemish renaissance painting, antiquities, etc.
Keep catagorizing my taste to suit your leaky arguments, but what do
YOU put where *your mouth is? Time to put your cards on the table.
>Of course only pompous asses like you like ART. BTW I much prefer dogs
>playing poker to Webber's dogs. He couldn't paint a dog playing with
>himself to a degree of detail beyond fuzz. I even prefer that to most
>Picasso's.
Oh, touche' Mani - Oh sharper than a serpent's tooth!
And you twist it around to insult someone else too. This isn't about
Webber. If liking art makes me an ass, then adventavit asinus. I
don't need to defend against this trenchant assault.
This is delightful though, mani-man Not only am I NOT to look at art
in museums, or shows, or galleries, but I'm not to look at art at all
- save through the red and slit-like eyes of Manigod. Your insults
are better than the praise of the multitudes.
>Artzy fartzies prefer to divert any question in art away from asking
>whether a work has any merit or not. The worst of kitsch is far
>superior to any Modern Academic put-on. At best it's great art.
>
Got me again, oh quick witted one. Pierced to the roote, l am.
I'm sorry to keep diverting art discussions back to art and away from
your ego and your peremptory assesments of merit and your tantrums.
But perhaps you've given us a peek at your cards here. You're the one
that paints those kids with the big eyes, aren't you? Someone called
your daubings Kitsch and you're still mad at the world.
Pathetic
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw, alas
-T.S. Eliot-
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Marilyn
At a public speaking course, my daughter was told that
90% of communication was in the TONE. So here we are
trying to communicate with the other 10%.
Actually, I get a sense of 'tone' after a few posts.
You've never had the tone of a shovel, Duchampian or
otherwise.
M.
Ariane
=== Nice try, this would only serve to polarize the art-appreciating
public into two camps: the incurably stupid, and the incurably snotty.
They would fight amongst each other daily (like on r.a.f.) and bitterness
would inevitably result. Better to have a single arts scene where the
incurably stupid may actually learn a few things from the incurably snotty
who, themselves, may actually be brought down to earth somewhat. Plus, we
need a homogenous buying public to support the Independants, otherwise we
will only have academics and/or commercial artists in our society. Not a
promising cultural future.....
a la prochaine,
A.
On Sat, 1 May 1999, mdeli wrote:
> A Modest Proposal
>
> What can be done about musuems and critics?
>
> I do not advocate that museums cease exhibiting Modern Academic Art.
> However, I do suggest that in fairness to today's polarized extremes
> in taste, museums should have two different curators. One for each
> side of the art debate. They could then compete by means of the
> artwork they each choose to hang and engage in lively debates. People
> will then have an opportunity to see the work of both sides of the art
> debate and decide what they prefer for themselves. If this were to
> happen the censored approach of the last 60 years would end.
>
> Museums could then hang examples of the finest works which are
> popular with a large facet of the public, that which present critics
> dismiss as illustration, kitsch and commercial will then reappear in
> museums. Only then will our finest illustrators, nature and scientific
> artists, cartoonists, animators, comic book artists etc. have an
> opportunity to have their original work shown to that audience.
>
> I would also like art reviews to feature the opinions of two critics
> who are known to take opposite sides. This would certainly create more
> interest than the usual dose of ecstatic Artspeak praise reserved for
> any work exhibiting modern academic conformity.
Ariane
On Mon, 3 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> >By the way, if you really want to frost your ass, try listening to Wayne
> >Shorter play saxophone. A recording like "Night Dreamer", which is great
> >art, mate, is forty minutes of felt time. Great skill is involved in
> >playing the saxophone in such a "blistering" manner, but it will be too
> >modern for you, I am sure.
=== Not to mention Shorter's bassist in `Weather Report': Jaco Pastorius,
oh boy, that man can play!
> Have you heard Andy Sheppard in action Mark ? he would be way too modern
> for some of these old timers ! I still melt in front of that romantic
> David Sanborn though - in fact he was the reason I started playing sax
> in the first place.
>
> Alison
=== But where would Sanborn be without Marcus Miller and his infectious
grooves? What's Sanborn up to these days, do you know?
ciao,
A.
A.A. Raimes
, Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes
>=== But where would Sanborn be without Marcus Miller and his infectious
>grooves? What's Sanborn up to these days, do you know?
>
>ciao,
>
>A.
Last spotted in a seedy club in Manchester, England melting my heart !
Adios.
AA.
emat...@tomatoweb.com
Mark, I got your emails ok, but my response bounced back. These University
systems get awfully complicated -- too many techies worring about where to go
for vacation.
Erik
Glenn Geist
>On Mon, 03 May 1999 18:36:05 GMT, grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist)
>wrote:
>
>Gee sounds just like Rothko etc.
Possibly, maybe it sounds like your stuff too - who knows?
>
>Something most artzy fartzies don't have the skill to do.
Oh I have all kinds of skills - you want to tell me you know what they
are? You love that silly baby-talk phrase don't you. Is it supposed
to put me in my place? You're dying to find out for some reason.
I really can't tell you without resorting to the pathetic bragging
that's smelling up this place already. I used to be a boilermaker -
is that proletarian enough for you? I can make a case for any other
class you disign to fit you line too, but it doesn't matter. Stop
trying to reduce this to class warfare - you haven't the talent and
Marx is dead.
>Was that a sculpture like a Henry Moor megaturd? If so your toilet is
>even closer
I'm not a major fan of Moore, but you know - I can spell it.. But
Moores - cheap Moores sell for a half million. How can you think I'm
a proletarian bozo? You're just so anxious to find a pigeonhole for
me - I should be flattered, but please find another pigeon..
Moore will be remembered when you are dust and rubbish - sorry too
many provincial bozos out there.
What an incredibly childish person you are - turd jokes, penis jokes.
nothing but spite and bitterness - but oh no, you're the victim - pout
for the camera now.
Glenn Geist
>This guy is all American Intellectual.
>
And you know how we hate intellectuals. Insulting my intelligence
makes my case for me.
>RIght, all those who reject what you call art are "philistines."
>
Perhaps, or "Provincial Bozos" perhaps? Artzy Fartzies, perhaps?
All those who reject what you call art or dare to call anything else
art are? did you forget what you just said?
>In this phony's mind anyone not interested in art or laughs at what he
>likes is just " flotsam you allowd to drift to our shores." And this
>guy accuses me of liking Nixon and Agnew.
>
Accuses you of being as dishonest as they, old man. - being like
them, not liking them. Perhaps I should say "This Schmuck can't even
read?" but I would worry about making you pout.
Did you forget that you've been trashing people not interested in art
or who question what you like - "provincial Bozos?" Remember? It was
just a moment ago. So does that make you Artzy Fartzy all American
intellectual schmuck, like me? If you want to be a con man, you need
to have abetter memory.
You forgot to insult my mother - you're getting sloppy
>
>This schmuck can't even read. I proposed two curators not two museums
>and suggested that viewers should judge for themselves by being
>allowed to compare.
>
Two curators, two museums, what's the point. ? All you're doing is
complaining that you don't get into museums and dreaming up a weird
scenario under which it might happen. There are no end of places to
show art - your excuse doesn't hold water. Calling me a penis isn't
really to any point other than your eternal point - insulting
everybody who isn't a disciple. Go ahead - you just continue to make
my point for me. Who's the real phoney here, Oh prince of probity?
Am mindestens habe ich einen Schmuck - nur Maul hast du.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Wir sind gewohnt dass die Menchen verhonen wass sie nicht verstehen.
-Goethe
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Glenn Geist
>
>As to lifeles sausages, Picassos colored cement neoclassic
>elephantisis nudes take the prize
>
>Tamara is unknown to you because when it comes to art you are a
>provincial Bozo.. Tamara even has a painting in the MOMA. She is well
>known and often reproduced.
Jeez, wipe the foam off your mouth - I've got terrible news for you I
really like her work. What does that say about *you???
What kind of man calls people provincial bozos because they don't
match his personal preferences for drawing styles? Didn't you just
try to accuse me of doing that - doesn't that make you the "Artzy
Fartzy" you like to call people? Or maybe just a phoney?
>
> My advice to all here is to look at Tamara's paintings on the links I
>suggest on my web page and compare them to Picasso and decide for
>yourself.
>
What, do you have pictures of you pulling the wings off of flies?
They will remember Picasso when you are long forgotten - right or
wrong, you lose. Bozos rule
mark webber
>
> Mark, I got your emails ok, but my response bounced back. These University
> systems get awfully complicated -- too many techies worring about where to go
> for vacation.
Sorry Erik - yes I viewed your page the same afternoon I viewed Alison's
and emailed comments through the University server. The email address on
this post is accurate, though.
thanks again,
Mark
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> I don't think any post modernist would give me the time of day, but I
> think any activity, legal or illegal, can be artistic.
>
> Press charges, if you like, but remember that that wouldn't be sound art
> criticism.
You're right - it wouldn't. And I don't propose to judge art work itself by
whatever laws or customs we might have. I was wondering whether artists
themselves are exempt from it. I think its an interesting question - at first
glance it would seem logical to give an artist immunity from laws and
morality, so long as it is necessary to the integrity of the art work.
I will admit that my question did come from an ethical angle, and not an
artistic one, and I apologize for my lack of clarity.
> > You speak to me, Mark Webber, of religious fundamentalism. Hasn't it ever
> > struck you as odd that the contemporary art establishment does not decry the
> > "experiments" of artists who indulge in animal sacrifice as a form of
> > aesthetic expression?
>
> I speak to you that way, Iian, because you sound more like a television
> preacher than an art student. And no, that hasn't ever struck me as odd;
> if I don't like something another artist is doing, I just ignore it. There
> are plenty of great paintings to look at, plenty to learn from. I wouldn't
> waste the energy on something I found silly. I'm beginning to feel that
> cut-off switch figdeting even now.
You are right. Believe it or not, I agree with you.
> > > Isn't there a fundamentalist
> > > religious group that would be more supportive?
> >
> > Not for aetheists, no.
>
> Then what is the problem? Why the screeching?
A medievalist might attribute it to an excess of "bad humour" or bile.
> > ...and I have just as much right to praise or
> > criticize as you do.
>
> Of course you do and I look forward to reading your criticisms whan you
> have learned that there is something more important to art than depicting
> "macabre fantasies."
My tastes are not limited to "macabre fantasies" - indeed, many artists and
poets have admired the works of Edgar Allan Poe whilst still having an
admiration for Keats or Shelley. In fact, I find it hard to define what my
over-riding aesthetic impulse actually is. All I can say is that if I had
been born a century ago, I would have become a Symbolist, probably more in
the manner of G.F. Watts than Moreau, but nonetheless a Symbolist.
> You don't want to learn - that doesn't bother me. But don't pretend that
> you know anything about anything.
It is hard for me to admit this - but you are right in questioning my
knowledge of modern art. Irrespective of aesthetics itself, I am not yet
intimately familiar with the history of the art of this century, and my
arguments have in the past suffered from this lack of familiarity. At times I
thought I was attacking Post-Modernism when I was instead attacking its
progenitor. I have come to the conclusion that it is futile to rage against
this art until I have my facts straight - and in any case, I find rage a
stressful position to adopt. In short, I am taking the advice of Chris at
last.
> > I consider most Modernist art - and a fair amount of Post-Modernist work -
to
> > be devoid of skill and craftsmanship. To me these qualities are what
> > determines whether a work of art is of value. It often amuses me to reflect
> > that those critics who assert that skill and crafstmanship is irrelevant (in
> > some circumstances, I will grant you) feel no compunction at all against
> > wholeheartedly supporting musical competence. Apparently technique is more
> > important in music performance than it is in the visual arts. I am not sure
> > whether anyone has explained why this is so, satisfactorily.
> >
> > If you are truly interested in a dialogue, then perhaps you could answer
this
> > question for me?
>
> Would you like a list of the questions to which you owe me answers?
>
> One of the earliest has to do with the same topic of musical technique.
> You cited a pianist - I don't remember which one, as having "blistering
> technique",
Probably Vladimir Horowitz.
> and I pointed out that that simply made him a performer. The
> compositions he played, whether or not his own, are at least half of the
> art.
A valid point, and one which I also addressed. My answer was that a painter or
sculptor is both composer and performer, as he is the executor of his
compositions.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> >Music doesn't have to depict, Iian. Why does painting?
>
> These idiots imagine that anyone who doesn't like Modern Academic Art
> only craves "depiction of realism."
>
> This is utter nonsense. Much islamic and oriental art is totally
> abstract. It is abstraction done with the skill and craft utterly
> missing from most of the modern crap hanging as masterpieces in
> museums. Classical and fine contemporary work is full of abstraction.
Some time ago I scanned in a number of pictures of Islamic mosques, Byzantine
churches and Egyptian monuments, and these will soon be added to a new wing of
the "Renaissance Cafe".
To reflect the broadening scope of the Cafe (of which the Orient [*] is only
the start) I am seriously considering changing the name of the site, and
would welcome any suggestions.
Regards,
Iian Neill.
* The Orient: "The name given by the French to any country whose sun shines
hotter than theirs." -- Paraphrased from William Gaunt
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> > With all due respect, Mark, I think that you misunderstand me. I do agree
> > that there is "something other than representation" going on in great works
> > of art. I also agree that this "something" - whether you call it a symphonic
> > interplay, form, or whatever - is very important, and raises realistic art
> > above imitation. Where I disagree with you is that this "something" is just
> > as great in Modernist art as it is in, say, Poussin, Raphael, Rubens, etc.
>
> Not in all modern art. In great modern art. The only difference between a
> good Dekooning and a good Poussin is that the Dekooning is difficult for
> someone who doesn't appreciate as well as he thinks. The only diffenerence
> between Picasso and Raphael is that Raphael includes depiction.
On this matter I think will have to - at least for the time being - agree to
disagree. I haven't yet seen a composition by Picasso that impressed me as
much as one by Raphael.
> Music doesn't have to depict, Iian. Why does painting?
The curious thing about music is that the closer it imitated life, the more
vulgar it was pronounced by the great composers. Who today remembers those
works which *exclusively* imitated birds, cats, dogs and other fauna? In the
past these sort of effects were considered to be outside of the realms of
music, and consequently much of this kind of entertainment has been
forgotten. I am not speaking here of such works as "Flight of the Bumblebee"
by Rimsky-Korsakov, or "Aesope's Fables" by C.H. Alkan - these works used
natural sounds as colouring, but not as the prime motivation of the melody
and composition.
And painting doesn't *have* to depict anything to still be painting, but I
would hazard to suggest that an art that is out of touch with its roots (ie.,
the visible world) is one that is in danger of falling into academism. If you
look at the mediocre productions of the 19th century, besides problems in
composition you often find artists (Academic and Impressionist both) who
closed their eyes to Nature and hoped instead to be guided exclusively either
by formal rules or by instinct.
A constant dialogue (if you like) with the visual world is what keeps art
fresh, sincere and original - it has been said by others, and I am inclined
to agree, that the periods of rejuvination in art occured when painters
sloughed off the scales of academism and instead opened their eyes to Nature.
Perhaps all I can say is this: Art truly inspired by Nature is rarely
mannered or insincere, perhaps because an artist's prejudices and habits are
constantly being checked and corrected by the visual phemomena he is
attempting to record and infuse with life. The further an artist strays from
this road, the stronger his instincts need to be or else he falls into the
trap of academism, which is art by rote. [*]
Now, these ideas of mine are not fully formed, so I cannot really claim as I
have in the past that they are objective - as much as I wish I could!
Regards,
Iian Neill
* When I refer to 'academism' I am not specifically thinking of an Academy of
any particular century or country - indeed, there were Academic artists with a
great love of Nature, and who were as sensitive to light and colour as the
Impressionists. In this sense I intend the word 'academism' - in lower-case -
to refer to those artists of any period or school who fall "into bad habits".
mark webber
Just when I think I can dismiss you as an acolyte of the Idler, you
surprise me with what appears to be humility and grace - two qualities I
have to respect because I find them so difficult to summon.
On Wed, 5 May 1999, my mate Iian wrote:
(snip)
> > Press charges, if you like, but remember that that wouldn't be sound art
> > criticism.
>
> You're right - it wouldn't. And I don't propose to judge art work itself by
> whatever laws or customs we might have. I was wondering whether artists
> themselves are exempt from it. I think its an interesting question - at first
> glance it would seem logical to give an artist immunity from laws and
> morality, so long as it is necessary to the integrity of the art work.
>
> I will admit that my question did come from an ethical angle, and not an
> artistic one, and I apologize for my lack of clarity.
It isn't a lack of clarity; it simply seems like a rather unimportant
angle to me. It's hard enough to get a grasp of what makes a painting
good. Trying to determine if it is ethical seems silly to me.
> > I speak to you that way, Iian, because you sound more like a television
> > preacher than an art student. And no, that hasn't ever struck me as odd;
> > if I don't like something another artist is doing, I just ignore it. There
> > are plenty of great paintings to look at, plenty to learn from. I wouldn't
> > waste the energy on something I found silly. I'm beginning to feel that
> > cut-off switch figdeting even now.
>
> You are right. Believe it or not, I agree with you.
Now you sound less pious than me. Damn you.
> > > ...and I have just as much right to praise or
> > > criticize as you do.
> >
> > Of course you do and I look forward to reading your criticisms whan you
> > have learned that there is something more important to art than depicting
> > "macabre fantasies."
>
> My tastes are not limited to "macabre fantasies" - indeed, many artists and
> poets have admired the works of Edgar Allan Poe whilst still having an
> admiration for Keats or Shelley. In fact, I find it hard to define what my
> over-riding aesthetic impulse actually is. All I can say is that if I had
> been born a century ago, I would have become a Symbolist, probably more in
> the manner of G.F. Watts than Moreau, but nonetheless a Symbolist.
It still sounds rather content-oriented to me.
>
> > You don't want to learn - that doesn't bother me. But don't pretend that
> > you know anything about anything.
>
> It is hard for me to admit this - but you are right in questioning my
> knowledge of modern art. Irrespective of aesthetics itself, I am not yet
> intimately familiar with the history of the art of this century, and my
> arguments have in the past suffered from this lack of familiarity.
Ok, now I feel like a real lout. But you really ought nought go into a
public forum and deride what you don't know. You haven't been to the MoMA
- how can you dismiss it so energeticly? Do you think there is a single
artist you admire that rejected anything he didn't thoroughly understand?
> > One of the earliest has to do with the same topic of musical technique.
> > You cited a pianist - I don't remember which one, as having "blistering
> > technique",
>
> Probably Vladimir Horowitz.
>
> > and I pointed out that that simply made him a performer. The
> > compositions he played, whether or not his own, are at least half of the
> > art.
>
> A valid point, and one which I also addressed. My answer was that a painter or
> sculptor is both composer and performer, as he is the executor of his
> compositions.
Understanding that performance and composition are not always the same is
*not* adressing the issue. I already made that point.
What of the musical composer with less than brilliant technique at
performance? Not a worthy artist?
Webber
mark webber
>
>
> > >Music doesn't have to depict, Iian. Why does painting?
>
> Some time ago I scanned in a number of pictures of Islamic mosques, Byzantine
> churches and Egyptian monuments, and these will soon be added to a new wing of
> the "Renaissance Cafe".
>
> To reflect the broadening scope of the Cafe (of which the Orient [*] is only
> the start) I am seriously considering changing the name of the site, and
> would welcome any suggestions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill.
You haven't answered my question.
mark webber
> > The only difference
> > between Picasso and Raphael is that Raphael includes depiction.
>
> On this matter I think will have to - at least for the time being - agree to
> disagree. I haven't yet seen a composition by Picasso that impressed me as
> much as one by Raphael.
Get past the nasty little visable brushstrokes and some of their
compositions are remarkably similar. But one does need to look at the
compositions to see them. Have you actually done that? Really? Somewhere
in Australia there must at least be reproductions of the work from around
1910-1912. Have a look. Bring along a copy of Raphael's Madonna del
Granducca, from the Pitti, for example.
>
> > Music doesn't have to depict, Iian. Why does painting?
(snip)
>
> And painting doesn't *have* to depict anything to still be painting, but I
> would hazard to suggest that an art that is out of touch with its roots (ie.,
> the visible world) is one that is in danger of falling into academism. If you
> look at the mediocre productions of the 19th century, besides problems in
> composition you often find artists (Academic and Impressionist both) who
> closed their eyes to Nature and hoped instead to be guided exclusively either
> by formal rules or by instinct.
Here is where you are deceiving yourself. Now this is very crucial, mate.
The roots of art are *not* in the visual world. You may want to think they
are, but they aren't. The roots of what you like may be. But you are
choosing to overlook everything you don't like.
>
> A constant dialogue (if you like) with the visual world is what keeps art
> fresh, sincere and original - it has been said by others, and I am inclined
> to agree, that the periods of rejuvination in art occured when painters
> sloughed off the scales of academism and instead opened their eyes to Nature.
Again, selective art history. If you think Raphael, Titian, Ingres or
*any* of the artists whom you and I agree on, were looking exclusively at
nature you need to look more at nature. Nature doesn't provide putti,
clouds which complete compositions, gravity defying sunkings, wildly
distorted anatomy or one and two point perspective.
You need to have another look before you declare pure, unadulterated
invention to be taken from nature.
Raphael is every bit as much an inventor, a liar, as Picasso. The reason
raphael doesn't upset you is that Raphael gives you what you want.
Idealism. What you may come to see is that Picasso offers idealism as
well, he simply doesn't want to give it to people who require depiction.
>
> Perhaps all I can say is this: Art truly inspired by Nature is rarely
> mannered or insincere,
So you are talking about Michelangelo? You don't care for that mannered
pack of lies about human anatomy Michelangelo shmeared all over the
Sistene ceiling? Too bad. I love those lies.
> perhaps because an artist's prejudices and habits are
> constantly being checked and corrected by the visual phemomena he is
> attempting to record and infuse with life. The further an artist strays from
> this road, the stronger his instincts need to be or else he falls into the
> trap of academism, which is art by rote. [*]
Journalist record. Poets create, Iian. Art is not about recording. Your
pantheon (which includes many members of my pantheon) is not about
recording nature, and your hero, Bouguereau, may never have stepped
outdoors in his life.
>
> Now, these ideas of mine are not fully formed, so I cannot really claim as I
> have in the past that they are objective - as much as I wish I could!
>
Clearly. This is why we have these things called universities, museums
and books. They assist us in our need to not reinvent the wheel by way of
trapazoid. Your chariot rests on angular wheels and will take you very
slowly to a place you will need to leave in order to begin looking.
>
> * When I refer to 'academism' I am not specifically thinking of an Academy of
> any particular century or country - indeed, there were Academic artists with a
> great love of Nature, and who were as sensitive to light and colour as the
> Impressionists. In this sense I intend the word 'academism' - in lower-case -
> to refer to those artists of any period or school who fall "into bad habits".
This sort of self-made art history is only neccessary when the real thing
is too nasty to consume.
But thank you very much for being the earlier, pre-preacher Iian.
Webber
mdeli
snip
> I haven't yet seen a composition by Picasso that impressed me as
>much as one by Raphael.
I've seen some very nice frames on Picasso's.
>And painting doesn't *have* to depict anything to still be painting, but I
>would hazard to suggest that an art that is out of touch with its roots (ie.,
>the visible world) is one that is in danger of falling into academism.
What is "out of touch with its roots."
> If you
>look at the mediocre productions of the 19th century, besides problems in
>composition you often find artists (Academic and Impressionist both) who
>closed their eyes to Nature and hoped instead to be guided exclusively either
>by formal rules or by instinct.
Some people do fine work entirely from imagination. Piranesi, Dore',
Grandville. much oriental art and fine abstraction.
>
>A constant dialogue (if you like) with the visual world is what keeps art
>fresh, sincere and original - it has been said by others, and I am inclined
>to agree, that the periods of rejuvination in art occured when painters
>sloughed off the scales of academism and instead opened their eyes to Nature.
Why not just say, a reference to reality.
>
>Perhaps all I can say is this:Art truly inspired by Nature is rarely
>mannered or insincere, perhaps because an artist's prejudices and habits are
>constantly being checked and corrected by the visual phemomena he is
>attempting to record and infuse with life.
Most of the finest artwork is mannered. I have yet to know what
"insincere" really means in relation to art. Can you site an example?
>The further an artist strays from
>this road, the stronger his instincts need to be or else he falls into the
>trap of academism, which is art by rote. [*]
Art by rote? Can you give an example?
>Now, these ideas of mine are not fully formed, so I cannot really claim as I
>have in the past that they are objective - as much as I wish I could!
>
> Regards,
>
> Iian Neill
>
>* When I refer to 'academism' I am not specifically thinking of an Academy of
>any particular century or country - indeed, there were Academic artists with a
>great love of Nature, and who were as sensitive to light and colour as the
>Impressionists. In this sense I intend the word 'academism' - in lower-case -
>to refer to those artists of any period or school who fall "into bad habits".
>
I suspect that this boils down to poor technique (in the broadest
sense) while following the fashions.
IIan, although I agree with most of what you say after reading most
all you say I respectfully suggest you try to write more clearly and
to the point. I'll elaborate if you wish.
mdeli
>I realize that this sort of thinking is alarmist, and I critize myself for
>it. It's always a question of what degree of vigilance is reasonable, or
>excessive. But I think that the Nazis thought that art, or degenerate art,
>was responsible for the "decline of society," as opposed to seeing art as
>symptomatic. That's where I get uneasy, when something as benign as dislike
>for art gets framed in a political context as the cause of the imagined
>'decline of the west' (whatever that means). Such thinking strikes me as
>dangerous, and indeed ironic since freedom of choice is a much tauted virtue
>of democratic institutions.
>
>Erik Mattila
Well said. I certainly agree.
Glenn Geist
>I don't know - I don't see anything you are writing as baiting or pious -
>not in the least. But perhaps I should just stop reading Iian. He used to
>interest me, but he's decided that he knows all he needs to know.
>
>The energy he wastes on attacking what he doesn't get or doesn't want to
>like is pretty comic, though.
>
I think it's comic, but I'm beginning to wonder if it's worth it all.
Anyway it would be nice to be able to talk about art without being
called dirty names. I really have a great deal of tolerance for other
people's taste in art, and I don't see why that's so difficult.
I wouldn't even mind hearing his if I didn't have to be called a
schmuck for my troubles.
Glenn Geist
>
>=3D=3D=3D Nice try, this would only serve to polarize the art-appreciating
>public into two camps: the incurably stupid, and the incurably snotty.
>They would fight amongst each other daily (like on r.a.f.) and bitterness
>would inevitably result. Better to have a single arts scene where the
>incurably stupid may actually learn a few things from the incurably snotty
>who, themselves, may actually be brought down to earth somewhat. Plus, we
>need a homogenous buying public to support the Independants, otherwise we
>will only have academics and/or commercial artists in our society. Not a
>promising cultural future.....
>
>a la prochaine,
>
Nice. I wonder why I'm the only one who thinks there is already a
gigantic amount on the table for us to see and buy? Is there really a
category that's being suppressed? I'm going to be ar Art Chicago this
weekend and ther will be at least 200 galleries with everything from
fossilized monkey tures to old masters to photographs, to video art -
hard edge abstract, color field, renaissance revival photoreallist and
some I haven't discovered yet. I've been going to galleries and shows
for half a century and I've yet to see this academic mafia chasing
anyone away. Actually most of the academics I know don't have a clue
about what's for sale or what it costs.
I'm not an artist and I don't know as well as an artist dioes what
pressures there are, but I have and do represent artists and I just
don't see this dire scenario out there. I don't think there ever has
been anything like the currently available variety and quantity of
art.
es gruesst aus dem VS
Bis Morgen
Glenn
Glenn Geist
>At a public speaking course, my daughter was told that
>90% of communication was in the TONE. So here we are
>trying to communicate with the other 10%.
>Actually, I get a sense of 'tone' after a few posts.
>You've never had the tone of a shovel, Duchampian or
>otherwise.
>
Thank you - I hope that I don't get goaded into playing his game and
I'm afraid I've already come too close.
Glenn.
Glenn Geist
>Last spotted in a seedy club in Manchester, England melting my heart !
>
I hope the amplifiers were set lower than the last time I saw him - it
was about three years ago (outdoor concert) and my ears are still
ringing! Worth it though.
Glenn
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> >And painting doesn't *have* to depict anything to still be painting, but I
> >would hazard to suggest that an art that is out of touch with its roots (ie.,
> >the visible world) is one that is in danger of falling into academism.
>
> What is "out of touch with its roots."
I would say that someone was "out of touch with art's roots" if they
substituted direct observation of reality for a formula. Using formulae is
fine, in my view, but only so long as they are tempered by direct
observation.
I am not here talking about composition, the structure of a painting -
instead, I am referring to the *elements* of the composition, the figures,
landscapes, rocks, trees, etc.
> > If you
> >look at the mediocre productions of the 19th century, besides problems in
> >composition you often find artists (Academic and Impressionist both) who
> >closed their eyes to Nature and hoped instead to be guided exclusively either
> >by formal rules or by instinct.
>
> Some people do fine work entirely from imagination. Piranesi, Dore',
> Grandville. much oriental art and fine abstraction.
Absolutely. But could Gustave Doré have done such fine work if he had never
drawn from the live model? Doré had, in fact, being drawing since he was
about six years old, so even when he was drawing from imagination his
instincts must have been very strong.
(Incidentally, I scanned in a fair few Doré illustrations for "Rhime of the
Ancient Marinner" some months ago, and will eventually put them on the 'net.
Anyone who wants to see them before then, don't hesitate to email me.)
> >A constant dialogue (if you like) with the visual world is what keeps art
> >fresh, sincere and original - it has been said by others, and I am inclined
> >to agree, that the periods of rejuvination in art occured when painters
> >sloughed off the scales of academism and instead opened their eyes to > >Nature.
>
> Why not just say, a reference to reality.
Fair enough.
> >Perhaps all I can say is this:Art truly inspired by Nature is rarely
> >mannered or insincere, perhaps because an artist's prejudices and habits are
> >constantly being checked and corrected by the visual phemomena he is
> >attempting to record and infuse with life.
>
> Most of the finest artwork is mannered. I have yet to know what
> "insincere" really means in relation to art. Can you site an example?
I meant mannered in the derogatory sense - as opposed to mannered as meaning
stylized. The problem is defining, precisely, what "mannered" is. To me it
suggests an art that is out of touch with reality *and bereft of a strong
instinct for reality*. But then, it is a concept difficult to disentangle
from personal taste.
As for the use of the word "insincere", I was guilty here of artspeak.
> >The further an artist strays from
> >this road, the stronger his instincts need to be or else he falls into the
> >trap of academism, which is art by rote. [*]
>
> Art by rote? Can you give an example?
Sure. How about some of Overbeck's worst paintings? And some of Flaxman's
sculptures? (Or am I thinking of Thorvaldsen? - well, one of the prominent
second-rank 19th century classical sculptors, anyway ...)
Think of the many boneless, flaccid, vapid sculptures and paintings history
has produced. In my view the works are that way because the artist allowed
his good judgement to be over-ridden by dogma. Or maybe he never possessed
good judgement at all!
> >* When I refer to 'academism' I am not specifically thinking of an Academy of
> >any particular century or country - indeed, there were Academic artists with a
> >great love of Nature, and who were as sensitive to light and colour as the
> >Impressionists. In this sense I intend the word 'academism' - in lower-case -
> >to refer to those artists of any period or school who fall "into bad habits".
>
> I suspect that this boils down to poor technique (in the broadest
> sense) while following the fashions.
I'd agree with that.
> IIan, although I agree with most of what you say after reading most
> all you say I respectfully suggest you try to write more clearly and
> to the point. I'll elaborate if you wish.
I hope this response has made my views a little clearer. In any case, I would
very much like to read your own elaborations on the topic.
Cheers,
Iian.
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> > > The only difference
> > > between Picasso and Raphael is that Raphael includes depiction.
> >
> > On this matter I think will have to - at least for the time being - agree to
> > disagree. I haven't yet seen a composition by Picasso that impressed me as
> > much as one by Raphael.
>
> Get past the nasty little visable brushstrokes and some of their
> compositions are remarkably similar. But one does need to look at the
> compositions to see them. Have you actually done that? Really? Somewhere
> in Australia there must at least be reproductions of the work from around
> 1910-1912. Have a look. Bring along a copy of Raphael's Madonna del
> Granducca, from the Pitti, for example.
I'll do as you say and get back to you.
> > And painting doesn't *have* to depict anything to still be painting, but I
> > would hazard to suggest that an art that is out of touch with its roots (ie.,
> > the visible world) is one that is in danger of falling into academism. If you
> > look at the mediocre productions of the 19th century, besides problems in
> > composition you often find artists (Academic and Impressionist both) who
> > closed their eyes to Nature and hoped instead to be guided exclusively either
> > by formal rules or by instinct.
>
> Here is where you are deceiving yourself. Now this is very crucial, mate.
> The roots of art are *not* in the visual world. You may want to think they
> are, but they aren't. The roots of what you like may be. But you are
> choosing to overlook everything you don't like.
Okay, you have a different view. I am interested in hearing why you think
that the roots of art are not in the visual world.
> > A constant dialogue (if you like) with the visual world is what keeps art
> > fresh, sincere and original - it has been said by others, and I am inclined
> > to agree, that the periods of rejuvination in art occured when painters
> > sloughed off the scales of academism and instead opened their eyes to > > Nature.
>
> Again, selective art history. If you think Raphael, Titian, Ingres or
> *any* of the artists whom you and I agree on, were looking exclusively at
> nature you need to look more at nature. Nature doesn't provide putti,
> clouds which complete compositions, gravity defying sunkings, wildly
> distorted anatomy or one and two point perspective.
Sure, I have no problem accepting such stylistic "licence" with reality - the
style springs from the artist's personality after all (whether obvious or
obscure). Artists like Leonardo, Titian, etc., were all wary of the direct
representation of reality as being servile imitation - but realistic painting
is no less art than artistic photography is. I won't harp on this as we agree
on this much at least.
Fine art, per se, has rarely been about the direct imitation of reality, but
the selective combination of realistic elements in a harmonious order. Hence,
Titian, Raphael, etc., felt quite at home with putti, angels, demons and
Greek gods - or they felt it appropriate to distort anatomy or perspective as
it suited them. I have no problem with the anatomical licence that Ingres
takes in "Thetis Pleading with Jupiter", as it contributes to a greater
whole, and was not borne from an insensitivity to Nature.
> You need to have another look before you declare pure, unadulterated
> invention to be taken from nature.
I don't think that art cannot but help come from Nature - even abstract art.
Obviously abstract art does not set out to represent figures, apples, trees,
etc., but it draws from the vast stock of shapes, lines, colours and textures
in Nature. Hence, perhaps, the proliferation of organic forms in
architectural ornamentation. And even in such ornamentation there are levels
of stylization - compare the difference between the leaf-shapes in Greek
columns and the writhing forms in Art Nouveau.
The reason I tend to favour realism is not because of subject-matter - I am
as happy with the art of Whistler as with a Victorian Classicist. I admire
realism more because it seems to me to be more involved with the complexities
and harmonies of the phenomenal world than pure abstraction. To me the great
realist artist is as much the painter-architect as the Modernists claimed to
be - but he is also a poet, and a violinist of form. For him art does not end
either with painting-architecture or representationalism - instead, his art
encompasses both in a whole I find more satisfying and fruitful than
Modernism.
In all honesty, though, I do not think that this is a point I can
successfully defend against anyone who relentlessly questions the importance
of craftsmanship in fine art. This isn't to denigrate the point itself, but
my ability to adequately express it in logic.
> > Perhaps all I can say is this: Art truly inspired by Nature is rarely
> > mannered or insincere,
>
> So you are talking about Michelangelo? You don't care for that mannered
> pack of lies about human anatomy Michelangelo shmeared all over the
> Sistene ceiling? Too bad. I love those lies.
"Pack of lies" - from a strictly imitative point of view, certainly. But this
is not what I meant.
> > perhaps because an artist's prejudices and habits are
> > constantly being checked and corrected by the visual phemomena he is
> > attempting to record and infuse with life. The further an artist strays from
> > this road, the stronger his instincts need to be or else he falls into the
> > trap of academism, which is art by rote. [*]
>
> Journalist record. Poets create, Iian. Art is not about recording.
I don't think that we are that different, if this is what you actually
believe.
> > * When I refer to 'academism' I am not specifically thinking of an Academy of
> > any particular century or country - indeed, there were Academic artists with a
> > great love of Nature, and who were as sensitive to light and colour as the
> > Impressionists. In this sense I intend the word 'academism' - in lower-case -
> > to refer to those artists of any period or school who fall "into bad habits".
>
> This sort of self-made art history is only neccessary when the real thing
> is too nasty to consume.
Your arguments have yet to persuade me. Care to try again?
mark webber
(snip)
> Anyway it would be nice to be able to talk about art without being
> called dirty names. I really have a great deal of tolerance for other
> people's taste in art, and I don't see why that's so difficult.
Exactly. And it's no secret that there are people who are only in the
usenet to antagonize, bait and flame. If we were to stoop to their level
we would call them losers, but we won't do that, will we?
>
> I wouldn't even mind hearing his if I didn't have to be called a
> schmuck for my troubles.
Ok, now that you mention it, I want to tell you that you are wasting a
finely tuned perception on clowns like the Idler. Don't bother with
them. All they want is attention. It is obviously all they have.
Now. What looks good in Chicago these days? There are a couple of nice
relatively early Balthus paintings there. DeKooning's "Excavation". Some
good Greek stuff too, if I remember right. How about the galleries? And do
you paint, or what is your involvement?
We're going to lure you back out of the din of inequity, by gum.
Mark
mark webber
Gottschalk wrote:
> > > And painting doesn't *have* to depict anything to still be painting, but I
> > > would hazard to suggest that an art that is out of touch with its roots (ie.,
> > > the visible world) is one that is in danger of falling into academism. If you
> > > look at the mediocre productions of the 19th century, besides problems in
> > > composition you often find artists (Academic and Impressionist both) who
> > > closed their eyes to Nature and hoped instead to be guided exclusively either
> > > by formal rules or by instinct.
> >
> > Here is where you are deceiving yourself. Now this is very crucial, mate.
> > The roots of art are *not* in the visual world. You may want to think they
> > are, but they aren't. The roots of what you like may be. But you are
> > choosing to overlook everything you don't like.
>
> Okay, you have a different view. I am interested in hearing why you think
> that the roots of art are not in the visual world.
Here we risk the runaround. I believe you mean that art is best when it is
representing from nature - that is what is implied by your phrase "roots
in the visual world" isn't it? You are eschewing what you call mannerism
as well as abstraction in your most recent remarks. Am I mistaken?
So, I'm pointing out that art is not rooted in realistic representation.
If you listen to Michelangelo, he says art is rooted in design. "Disegno"
is the word he uses to say where art begins and ends. If you want to go
back further, art is rooted in icons and fetishes. These weren't meant as
naturalistic representations. They were highly stylized symbols. You can't
ask the mother goddess to pose for you.
As the Greeks move away from more stylized representations (Archaic
Kouros, for example) to what you probably perceive as realism, they are
actually idealizing human form. They aren't copying nature.
Art isn't rooted in copying nature. Is is rooted in expression, wether you
like it or not. Your campaign here in R.A.F. has been one of trying to
convince people that they are duped by something you haven't allowed
yourself to experience.
>
> > > A constant dialogue (if you like) with the visual world is what keeps art
> > > fresh, sincere and original - it has been said by others, and I am inclined
> > > to agree, that the periods of rejuvination in art occured when painters
> > > sloughed off the scales of academism and instead opened their eyes to > > Nature.
> >
> > Again, selective art history. If you think Raphael, Titian, Ingres or
> > *any* of the artists whom you and I agree on, were looking exclusively at
> > nature you need to look more at nature. Nature doesn't provide putti,
> > clouds which complete compositions, gravity defying sunkings, wildly
> > distorted anatomy or one and two point perspective.
>
> Sure, I have no problem accepting such stylistic "licence" with reality - the
> style springs from the artist's personality after all (whether obvious or
> obscure). Artists like Leonardo, Titian, etc., were all wary of the direct
> representation of reality as being servile imitation - but realistic painting
> is no less art than artistic photography is. I won't harp on this as we agree
> on this much at least.
No you still miss the point. Leonardo Davinci, Titian, Ingres - none of
the great artists in your pantheon were realists. They simply lie
exceedingly well. Which is exactly why your staement above about sincerity
is so painfully telling. Great art isn't sincere. It is deceptive.
>
> Fine art, per se, has rarely been about the direct imitation of reality, but
> the selective combination of realistic elements in a harmonious order. Hence,
> Titian, Raphael, etc., felt quite at home with putti, angels, demons and
> Greek gods - or they felt it appropriate to distort anatomy or perspective as
> it suited them. I have no problem with the anatomical licence that Ingres
> takes in "Thetis Pleading with Jupiter", as it contributes to a greater
> whole, and was not borne from an insensitivity to Nature.
This smacks of lip service. It isn't where you usually stand at all. You
invite contemporary painters to submit work to your web site if they are
realists. You wouldn't exhibit Courbet there. He isn't romantic or
idealized enough for you.
>
> > You need to have another look before you declare pure, unadulterated
> > invention to be taken from nature.
>
> I don't think that art cannot but help come from Nature - even abstract art.
> Obviously abstract art does not set out to represent figures, apples, trees,
> etc., but it draws from the vast stock of shapes, lines, colours and textures
> in Nature.
Now you are using the word nature in a different way. What doesn't come
from *this* nature?
>
> > > Perhaps all I can say is this: Art truly inspired by Nature is rarely
> > > mannered or insincere,
> >
> > So you are talking about Michelangelo? You don't care for that mannered
> > pack of lies about human anatomy Michelangelo shmeared all over the
> > Sistene ceiling? Too bad. I love those lies.
>
> "Pack of lies" - from a strictly imitative point of view, certainly. But this
> is not what I meant.
Michelangelo is the progenitor of Mannerism. What do you mean it's not
what you mean. Again, don't preach about art history until you've studied
it. There happen to be people out here who love it enough to have spent
time with it and respect it, rather than distort it so that it fits their
own little Dr. Who idea of esthetics.
> > Journalists record. Poets create, Iian. Art is not about recording.
>
> I don't think that we are that different, if this is what you actually
> believe.
The mind reels.
> Your arguments have yet to persuade me. Care to try again?
Nope. You need an education, but I can't give that to you through email.
Go to some museums with an open mind. Stop distrusting people with more
experience than you. Read some books. Christ, it's the same small-minded
crap over and over again. Now you've disappointed me again. Go away.
Webber
emat...@tomatoweb.com
grg...@earthlink.net (Glenn Geist) wrote:
> Nice. I wonder why I'm the only one who thinks there is already a
> gigantic amount on the table for us to see and buy? Is there really a
> category that's being suppressed? I'm going to be ar Art Chicago this
> weekend and ther will be at least 200 galleries with everything from
> fossilized monkey tures to old masters to photographs, to video art -
> hard edge abstract, color field, renaissance revival photoreallist and
> some I haven't discovered yet. I've been going to galleries and shows
> for half a century and I've yet to see this academic mafia chasing
> anyone away. Actually most of the academics I know don't have a clue
> about what's for sale or what it costs.
Add me to that list, Glenn. I'm amazed at how diverse the art market is
today. I think it may be historically unique, as a matter of fact. I'm
wondering if many are considering this. What historical period is
comparable? Now a Black Velvet Maestro, a Ten-minute masterpiece virtuoso, a
3 year masterpiece virtuoso, a comic art appropriator, etc etc etc can all
make a living doing art. I think that's wonderful, personally. In such a
venue, however, it seems that the dabate over relative virtue will get more
heated. So we can look forward to that.
Erik Mattila
John Haber
>otherwise.
In advance of a broken thread?
John
John Haber
>>Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>=3D=3D=3D Nice try, this would only serve to polarize the art-appreciating
>public into two camps: the incurably stupid, and the incurably snotty.
>They would fight amongst each other daily (like on r.a.f.) and bitterness
>would inevitably result. Better to have a single arts scene where the
>incurably stupid may actually learn a few things from the incurably snotty
>who, themselves, may actually be brought down to earth somewhat. Plus, we
>need a homogenous buying public to support the Independants, otherwise we
>will only have academics and/or commercial artists in our society. Not a
>promising cultural future.....
>
>a la prochaine,
>
Nice. I wonder why I'm the only one who thinks there is already a
gigantic amount on the table for us to see and buy? Is there really a
category that's being suppressed? I'm going to be ar Art Chicago this
weekend and ther will be at least 200 galleries with everything from
fossilized monkey tures to old masters to photographs, to video art -
hard edge abstract, color field, renaissance revival photoreallist and
some I haven't discovered yet. I've been going to galleries and shows
for half a century and I've yet to see this academic mafia chasing
anyone away. Actually most of the academics I know don't have a clue
about what's for sale or what it costs.
I'm not an artist and I don't know as well as an artist dioes what
John Haber
>If you listen to Michelangelo, he says art is rooted in design. "Disegno"
>is the word he uses to say where art begins and ends. If you want to go
>back further, art is rooted in icons and fetishes. These weren't meant as
>naturalistic representations. They were highly stylized symbols. You can't
>ask the mother goddess to pose for you.
>As the Greeks move away from more stylized representations (Archaic
>Kouros, for example) to what you probably perceive as realism, they are
>actually idealizing human form. They aren't copying nature.
>Art isn't rooted in copying nature. Is is rooted in expression, wether you
>like it or not.
That's an interesting post. It takes "expression" broadly, as
communication according to stylized symbols and puts it at the root of
art. It might actually be a profound statement of where art comes
from.
Of course, it also make me think. Now, it takes a word that's very,
very hard to define, a "symbol." I myself had written about the
puzzle of how well a linguistic model of the symbol pertains to art,
in these days in which many find it a useful, even fashionable
metaphor to conflate art, culture, and so on with "text." That
includes not just critics and philosophers influenced by
post-structuralism, but also interesting artists. Some incorporate
words or books into their work (e.g., Barbara Kruger or Anselm
Kiefer), recombine images in assemblage (e.g., Robert Rauschenberg),
or pursue the obsession to catalog something as a way of staging a
confrontation between the entire world and oneself (e.g., Jennifer
Bartlett or Hannah Hoch).
I mention that silly digression mostly to say how hard it is to say
what you mean by a symbol. (Derrida has a great critique of the idea
of language as images shorn of the "natural" like a coin with the
image on its face worn away.) Clearly art can't exactly be
conventional symbols, or one couldn't make a new picture.
So maybe I'll caution that in "a stylized symbol," the idea of
stylization has a way of surreptitiously bringing in all sorts of
things -- our ideals and, yes, our customary perception of what we
like to call nature. So no wonder there's a kind of kick when nature
and symbol collide in the great age of iconographic representation, as
in van Eyck!
John
Louis Moreau Gottschalk
> > > Here is where you are deceiving yourself. Now this is very crucial, mate.
> > > The roots of art are *not* in the visual world. You may want to think they
> > > are, but they aren't. The roots of what you like may be. But you are
> > > choosing to overlook everything you don't like.
> >
> > Okay, you have a different view. I am interested in hearing why you think
> > that the roots of art are not in the visual world.
>
> Here we risk the runaround. I believe you mean that art is best when it is
> representing from nature - that is what is implied by your phrase "roots
> in the visual world" isn't it? You are eschewing what you call mannerism
> as well as abstraction in your most recent remarks. Am I mistaken?
You're not far off the mark - but even so, I would like to dispell any
misconceptions that I dislike all abstract art. Pre-20th century
architecture, after all, is a form of abstract sculpture, and I do not deny
its importance or power. With this in mind, it should follow that I admire
abstract painting and sculpture as much as architecture - and, generally
speaking, I do. I admire *good* abstract painting and architecture for its
design and decorative qualities - examples are as follows: Islamic tiles, Art
Nouveau metal-work, Celtic knots, Grecian columns, etc. The logical question
is: "How can you admire such objets d'art and still be skeptical of Abstract
Expressionism?" Now, my answer to this perilously approaches ArtSpeak in its
appeal to mystical orders, mathematical harmonies and so on, but until I find
a better way of expressing myself, it will have to do. The simple fact is
that I can admire architecture and decoration above most contemporary fine
art because the craft involved in the creation of the former, and the good
taste evinced in it, is to my eyes superior. It is easy to create an enduring
work of ugliness, much harder to achieve enduring beauty, but the preference
for either may be purely personal.
Ergo: my criteria for quality abstract art rests on craftmanship and good
taste - but since the second of these is somewhat subjective, my arguments
will not convince those who disagree. Oh well!
> So, I'm pointing out that art is not rooted in realistic representation.
>
> If you listen to Michelangelo, he says art is rooted in design. "Disegno"
> is the word he uses to say where art begins and ends. If you want to go
> back further, art is rooted in icons and fetishes. These weren't meant as
> naturalistic representations. They were highly stylized symbols. You can't
> ask the mother goddess to pose for you.
I know what Michelangelo said, but it is worth asking yourself this question:
"Why did Michelangelo depict human bodies in his works? If he was exclusively
concerned with disegno, then why not paint abstract works, or works of crass
realism? Why study anatomy? Why go to such pains to select the healthiest, the
most beautiful human specimens, why labour over drawing the human form when it
is only design he is concerned with? Why, indeed, did he bother producing
anything other than Architecture?"
The thrust of the question is this: "Why did Michelangelo go to such trouble
to marry illusionism with disegno?" This question is valid even beyond the
context of the Italian Renaissance. Why did Egyptian artists represent human
beings in their works, no matter how stylized? Why did the Greeks try to
improve on the Egyptians in this representation, whilst idealizing the body?
> As the Greeks move away from more stylized representations (Archaic
> Kouros, for example) to what you probably perceive as realism, they are
> actually idealizing human form. They aren't copying nature.
Yes, that much is obvious. But why even bother to subtly improve the
illusionism of their sculptures? If design is the only common demoninator of
greatness, then why represent anything? Either representation is superfluous
- and therefore a bizarre extravagance on the part of pre-20th century
artists - or else it has its own qualities that make it worth pursuing.
> > Sure, I have no problem accepting such stylistic "licence" with reality -
the
> > style springs from the artist's personality after all (whether obvious or
> > obscure). Artists like Leonardo, Titian, etc., were all wary of the direct
> > representation of reality as being servile imitation - but realistic
painting
> > is no less art than artistic photography is. I won't harp on this as we
agree
> > on this much at least.
>
> No you still miss the point. Leonardo Davinci, Titian, Ingres - none of
> the great artists in your pantheon were realists. They simply lie
> exceedingly well.
Perhaps realists is a bad choice of term, then. Some would suggest, in its
stead, "illusionists". The word doesn't convey disegno ("illusionism" is just
as applicable to trompe d'oil as it is to Caravaggio), but it does suggest
the importance of representation to these artists.
> > Fine art, per se, has rarely been about the direct imitation of reality, but
> > the selective combination of realistic elements in a harmonious order.
Hence,
> > Titian, Raphael, etc., felt quite at home with putti, angels, demons and
> > Greek gods - or they felt it appropriate to distort anatomy or perspective
as
> > it suited them. I have no problem with the anatomical licence that Ingres
> > takes in "Thetis Pleading with Jupiter", as it contributes to a greater
> > whole, and was not borne from an insensitivity to Nature.
>
> This smacks of lip service. It isn't where you usually stand at all.
Ingres has long been a part of the Renaissance Cafe, and "Thetis Pleading with
Jupiter" is one of the works represented there. If this wasn't my 'usual
stance', so to speak, then I would not have installed that painting.
> You
> invite contemporary painters to submit work to your web site if they are
> realists. You wouldn't exhibit Courbet there. He isn't romantic or
> idealized enough for you.
Courbet isn't there, it's true. Neither is Poussin, Michelangelo, Bernini,
Leonardo or Raphael. However, I do have a rather busy schedule, and the
aformentioned artists are certainly planned to go up. On previous occassions I
have even posted to the group mentioning this.
> Michelangelo is the progenitor of Mannerism.
The sins of the son aren't the sins of the father.
> What do you mean it's not
> what you mean. Again, don't preach about art history until you've studied
> it. There happen to be people out here who love it enough to have spent
> time with it and respect it, rather than distort it so that it fits their
> own little Dr. Who idea of esthetics.
I would have expected something more sophisticated than ad hominem arguments.
> > I don't think that we are that different, if this is what you actually
> > believe.
>
> The mind reels.
Mine doesn't.
> > Your arguments have yet to persuade me. Care to try again?
>
> Nope. You need an education, but I can't give that to you through email.
> Go to some museums with an open mind. Stop distrusting people with more
> experience than you. Read some books. Christ, it's the same small-minded
> crap over and over again. Now you've disappointed me again. Go away.
High horses aren't the exclusively property of the Southern Hemisphere it
seems.
Cheers,
Iian
Marilyn
No one is complaining that any form of art is suppressed.
The bitter ones complain that it *isn't* being suppressed.
M.